1930-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 57, respecting the Confederation Life Association-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I beg to lay
on the table a copy of the protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada on 14th September, 1929; and also a copy of the protocol relating to the accession of the United States to the protocol of signature of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada on 14th September, 1929.



RADIO BROADCASTING


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That all matters connected with the radio broadcasting situation and problems, also the report of the royal commission on radio broadcasting be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Bell (St. John-Albert), Boulanger, Chevrier. Gershaw, Glen, Gray, Garland (Bow River), Heaps. Howard, Usley, Ladner, McKenzie, McMillan, MacDonald (South Cape Breton), Macdonald (Kings), Mercier (St. Henri), Simpson, Thorson and White (London).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this house adjourns on Friday, April 11, it stand adjourned until Monday, 28th April instant.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: May I ask the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to Friday of this week, if it is the intention to adjourn at six o'clock. I thought for the convenience of members it would be well to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What are the details of the payment "premium on guarantee bonds, $280," part M, page 5, Auditor General's Report, 1929, volume II?
2.	On what statutory authority was this payment made?
3.	How many officials of the annuities administration are bonded and in what amount in each case?
4.	Why has the return required by section 32 of chapter 164, revised statutes of Canada, not been made?
'5. If all officials are bonded why was it necessary to provide for the payment made under order in council, P.C. 21/436?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	In payment of yearly premiums on 13 bonds at $2,000 and 1 bond at $5,000-$280.
2.	Chapter 164 revised statutes of Canada and appropriation acts, 1928, chapters 1, 2 and 54.
3.	20 at $2,000 ; 4 at $1,000.
4.	Return was tabled on February 24, 1930.
5.	It was not the policy to bond annuity agents at that time.



RADIO BILL

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	When will the proposed radio bill be introduced in the house?
2.	What action will be taken regarding the radio licenses that expire March 31st next, as to renewal?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No legislation will be considered until the report is received from the committee

appointed to consider the radio commission report.
2.	They will require to be renewed as from April 1.



IMPORTATION OF GRADE SHEEP

Mr. ROWE:: 1.	Did the government during the calendar year 1929 pass an order in council permitting grade sheep to be imported from United States?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	How many sheep and lambs were imported duty free from United States during calendar year 1929?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1 and 2. An order in council was passed under date of July 20, 1929, authorizing the remission of duty on grade breeding ewes imported into Canada from the United States, between the dates August 1, 1929, and November 30, 1929, both dates inclusive.
A further order in council, dated October 2, 1929, rescinded the order in council of July 20, 1929, effective October 1, 1929.
3.	Sheep for exhibition purposes, 251; sheep for improvement of stock, 52; grade breeding ewes and Rambouillet rams, 13,541.



HISTORIC SITE-TORONTO

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the government own or has it leased
the property commonly known as the " Old Fort," an historic site at the foot of Bathurst street, Toronto?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to the dilapidated condition of this historic site?
3.	Will anything be done to clean the place up and to repair the emplacements and the guns now in poor state of preservation?
4.	Will the government undertake these repairs itself and assist the city, or with the city clean the place up and place this historic site in a state of repair, including the old fort and the soldiers' cemetery there?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Responsibility with the city of Toronto.
4.	Deed May 17, 1909, issued to the corporation of the city of Toronto, subject to the following trust and condition: that the site of the old fort situate upon the said lands shall as far as possible, be restored to its original condition, as shown on the attached copy of a plan of it, prepared by G. Nichols, government engineer, and dated Quebec, June 24, 1816, and that the same shall be preserved and maintained in such condition forever.

Questions



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	How many officials or employees are there in the department of the chief electoral officer:
(a)	permanent: (b) temporary?
2.	What are the names of each employee, permanent or temporary, with their official positions?
3.	What is the remuneration of each?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	There are at present in the office of the chief electoral officer:	(a) three permanent
employees, and (b) ten temporary employees.
2	and 3. The names of these employees, with the official position and remuneration of each, are as follows:
(a)	Permanent Employees (3)
N ame-Rank-Salary
Castonguay, Jules, Chief Electoral Officer, $6,000 per year; Collins, Kathryn B., Secretary to Chief Electoral Officer, $1,620 per year; Laperriere, M. R., Stenographer (grade 3), $1,500 per year.
(b)	Temporary Employees (10)
Beaudoin, R. M. J., Supervisor of distribution, $35 a week; Charlebois, A., Clerk, $25 a week; Collins, H. M., Clerk, $25 a week; Hache, D., Messenger, $100 a month; Mellon, Arnold, Clerk, $25 a week; Naubert, E., Clerk, $25 a week; O'Donnell, Gerald, Clerk, $25 a week; Reeves, E., Clerk, S30 a week; St. Germain, C. A., Clerk, $25 a week; Smith, Dorothy, Stenographer, $25 a week.



SHELBURNE, N.S.-RAILWAY WHARF

Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Has the railway wharf at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, been repaired during the calendar year 1929?
2.	If so, by whom were said repairs effected?
3.	Were said repairs made under contract let by public tender or otherwise?
4.	What was the total cost of said repairs?
5.	Were said repairs satisfactory and has the inspecting engineer pronounced or certified said wharf as fit for railway traffic?
6.	Are railway cars allowed on said wharf at the present time?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By the Department of Public Works.
3.	Work done by day labour.
4.	$10,455.71.
5.	Repairs completed and considered satisfactory. C.N.R. engineer has not yet inspected work from railway standpoint but expects to do so on April 21 or 22.
6.	No.



CIVIL SERVICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Were certain members of the civil service of Canada appointed last year to act as an advisory council on such subjects as superannuation, etc.?
2.	Did such appointees make a report, with recommendations, ou the subject of superannuation?
3.	In view of the importance of the subject and the thousands of officials affected, can the government hold out any hope of some action being taken on said report at the present session ?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A number of reports have been received from the committee by the treasury board.
3.	On matters of administration, committee's recommendations have been given effect to; where legislation is involved, the introduction of appropriate amendments is under consideration.



OSTREA II


Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries had built in the province of Nova Scotia a boat named Ostrea II intended for use as scallop dragger or dredge?
2.	If so, who designed said boat?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded to build said boat?
4.	Who actually constructed said boat?
5.	What motive power is used for said boat?
0.	Who supplied the engines and accessories?
7.	What was the total contract for said boat?
S.	What sum or sums, if any, were paid or
are payable for said boat or equipment: (a) to Stanley Mason of Tancook Island; (b) to the Lunenburg Foundry Company Limited; (c) to any other person or persons?
9.	Who is the master of said boat?
10.	Has the said boat undergone a trial trip or trips?
11.	Has any report been made by the master to the department respecting the seaworthiness of said boat?
12.	If so, to what effect?
13.	Has said boat been accepted by the department ?
14.	If so, what is the name of the person recommending said boat for acceptance?
15.	Are any expenses payable for said boat, and, if so, to whom and in what amount?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes-for oyster development work.
2.	Plans were prepared in the department, after examination of plans of a boat designed in light of experience for similar work by Atlantic coast oyster farmers.
3.	Lunenburg Foundry Co. Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S.
4.	Mr. Stanley G. Mason, Tancook, N.S.
5.	48 H.P. Gardner Semi-Diesel Marine Engine.

Questions

6.	Lunenburg Foundry Co. Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S., and Busfield McLeod Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
7.	$11,743.
8.	(a) Stanley Mason, nil; (b) Lunenburg Foundry Co. Ltd., $11,758.13; (c) Busfield McLeod Ltd., $1,443, Coulter and McKenzie Machine Co., $145.96; Pyrene Manufacturing Co. Ltd., $31.59.
9.	Not yet appointed.
10.	Yes.
11.	Answered by No. 9.
12.	Answered by No. 9.
13.	Yes.
14.	Boat accepted on report of board of steamship inspection.
15.	Answered by No. 8.



PICTOU ISLAND, N.S.-PUBLIC WHARF

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What is the present condition of the public wharf structure on the southwest side of Pictou island, Nova Scotia?
2.	What repairs have been made to said wharf during past ten years?
3	How much money was spent on said repairs?
4.	What was the character of the repairs?
5.	What repairs, if any, will be undertaken during the present summer?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	When last reported wharf was in reasonably good condition.
2,	3 and 4.
Year	Expenditure
1920- 21	 Nil
1921- 22	S 554 12
1922-23			 644 71
1923-24			 997 37
1924-25			 36 40
1925-26			 Nil
1926-27			 Nil
1927-28			 3,635 79
1928-29			 Nil
1929-30			 Nil
5.	Wharf will be examined to determine what, if any, repairs are needed.



PICTOU ISLAND, N.S.-CABLE COMMUNICATION

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	When was cable communication first established with Pictou island, Nova Scotia?
2.	What authority determined the place of landing of said cable on Pictou island?
3.	How often since first laid has said cable been out of commission, and between what dates?
4.	Has any recommendation been made by residents of Pictou island, or others as to the desirability of changing the location of the Pictou island shore end of the cable?
5.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to change the landing place of said cable to a point further eastward on the island?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	July 14, 1921.
2.	Determined by the general superintendent of telegraphs, Department of Public Works,
rMr. Cardin.]
Nature of repairs
Nil.
Renewing some planking on portion of wharf. Close-piling the southeast corner with native timber on both sides for a distance of 20 feet and filling with ballast.
Renewing some planking, stringers and sheathing and placing about 150 cubic yards of ballast.
Replacing some stringers, sheathing, crib logs, 10,000 feet B.M., of planking and 250 cubic yards of ballast.
Minor repairs.
Nil.
Nil.
Rebuilding outer portion of cribwork 64 feet long, 30 feet wide and 10 feet high, close fendered along 64 feet of face.
Nil.
Nil.
based on report as to the best location, submitted by Captain H. Peters, C.G.S. "Tyrian", Mr. A. B. McDonald, electrician, C.GB. "Tyrian" and Mr. Walter S. Grant, government telegraph agent, Charlottetown.
3.
Interrupted March 29, 1922 January 17, 1923 April 2, 1924 September 24, 1924 March 11, 1925 June 15, 1927 July 25, 1928 December 12, 1929 4 and 5. No.
Repaired June 16, 1922 September 23, 1923 May 26, 1924 November 19, 1924 April 23, 1925 June 17, 1927 August 24. 1928 March 29, 1930



DOCTOR J. V. GRAHAM

Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Has Dr. J. V. Graham been dismissed from the position of port physician at Halifax, Nova Scotia?

Questions
2.	If so, for what cause?
3.	Who has been appointed his successor and upon whose recommendation?
4.	Is he a practising physician and what are his qualifications?
5.	Is he in receipt of a pension?
6.	What is the salary of port physician at Halifax?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No appointment made.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.
6.	S3,540 to $4,080.



POSTMASTER-BUSBY, ALBERTA

Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Busby, Alberta?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Who was the postmaster prior to the appointment of the present incumbent?
4.	Was he dismissed from office?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	Were there any shortages in his accounts?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	O. W. Elliott.
2.	15th October, 1929.
3.	John Shoveller.
4.	Yes.
5.	Unsatisfactory service to patrons.
6.	No.



CANADIAN IMPORTS

Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	What was the value of imports into Canada in the years 1921 and 1929, of: (a) woollen goods; (b) agricultural implements;
(c)	saw-mill machinery; (d) mining machinery; (e) doors of wood; (f) flooring of wood; (g) furniture?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Canada's imports of (a) woollen goods, (b) agricultural implements, (c) saw-mill machinery, (d) mining machinery, (e) doors of wood, (f) flooring of wood, (g) furniture,
for the years ended March 31, 1921 were: 1921 $ (a) Woollen		and 1929, 1929 S
[DOT] goods	
(b) Agricultural	.. 45,134,873	33,774,620implements.. .. (c) Saw-mill	.. 11,758,491	40,292,899machinery.. .. (d) Mining	.. 321,969	133,585machinery.. .. (e) Doors of	.. 1,651,754	5,481,510wood	.. 230.257	586.595(f) Flooring of	No information	wood	
(g) FTirniture of	wood	.. 1,686,159	2,207,172
2419-89J



CHRISTMAS ISLAND-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. JOHNSTONE:: 1.	When does the mail contract between Christmas island and East bay, in the county of Cape Breton, expire?
2.	Was the contract given by tender?
3.	Who received the contract and for what amount?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	31st March, 1931.
2.	Contract originally obtained by tender and since renewed.
3.	N. J. McIntyre, $1,298 per annum.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS-TARIFF TRUCE

Mr. ADSHEAD:: *The latest Empire Parliamentary Report states, page 9, that at the recent Tariff Truce Conference the United States had a representative attending as an observer but that the dominions were unrepresented.
1.	Did Canada appoint a representative?
2.	If so, who was the representative?
3.	Why was the Canadian representative not in attendance?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No, none but European countries were members of the conference.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	What reductions have been made in tariff
since 1921, on:	(a) woollen goods; (b) agricultural implements?
2. What amount of Canadian wheat was handled in 1927, 1928 and 1929, through; (a) Buffalo: (b) Midland; (c) Port McNieoll?
3. What amount of Canadian grain was exported through United States ports in 1929?



GRANTS TO PROVINCES

Mr. MacLAREN:: With reference to sessional paper 144, showing amounts by years which have been paid for governmental purposes by the Dominion government to the province of Manitoba since 1870; Alberta since 1905; Saskatchewan since 1905; and New Brunswick since 1867:
1.	Do the provincial grants to the first three provinces named include the revenue derived from the sale of school lands?
2.	What did these revenues derived from the sale of school lands amount to respectively?
3.	What is the explanation of the increase in the Manitoba grant in 1912 and 1913?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, orders in council, telegrams, draft agreements, and all other
1404	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause
correspondence and documents between the government of Canada or any member thereof and the municipality of the city of Toronto and any official thereof, regarding the construction of a new bridge at Queen street, across the Humber river, and including an application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for a permit for such an erection, and the replies thereto of the government and the terms and conditions proposed by the government herein.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a return showing:
1.	The treaty, agreement or arrangement either between Japan and Canada or otherwise whereby Japanese immigration to Canada is controlled, defined, limited or restricted.
2.	The date the same came into effect.
3.	The number of male Japanese, the number of female Japanese, the occupation of each, admitted to Canada since date, showing each year separately.
4.	If the number of such entrants is limited, the number of each sex that may be admitted during the balance of the current year.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the declaration under article 36 of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 20th day of September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks the approval of parliament to the signature of His Majesty's government in Canada of the optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was signed on behalf of Canada at Geneva on September 20 of last year. I understand that the approval of the honourable the Senate has been given this signature, and that this optional clause also has been approved by His Majesty's government in Great Britain and has been signed by all the other dominions of the British Empire. As a charter member of the League of Nations Canada accepted the obligation set forth in article 13 of the covenant as follows:
The members of the league agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement, and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject matter to arbitration or judicial settlement.
Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international law, as to the existence of any fact which if established

would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made for any such breach are declared to be among those which are generally suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement. For the consideration of any such dispute, the court to which the case is referred shall be the Permanent Court of International Justice, established in accordance with article 14. or any tribunal agreed on by the parties to the dispute or stipulated in any convention existing between them. The members of the league agree that they will carry out in full faith any award or decision that may be rendered, and that they will not resort to war against a member of the league which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out such an award or decision, the council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto.
This article provides a description of classes of international disputes which are to be regarded as justiciable, that is to say, suitable for decision by a court applying rules of law. But it does not impose upon the members of the league any actual obligation to have such disputes settled in this manner. The original draft of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice contained a provision giving the court compulsory jurisdiction in the classes of cases set out in article 13 of the covenant. In the statute as adopted by the first assembly this was replaced by a provision which appears in article 36 of the statute. It is as follows:
The members of the League of Nations and the states mentioned in the annex to the covenant may, either when signing or ratifying the protocol to which the present statute is adjoined, or at a later moment, declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other member or state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the court in all or any of the clauses of legal disputes concerning:-
(a)	the interpretation of a treaty;
(b)	any question of international law;
(c)	the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
(d)	the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
The declaration referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain members or states, or for a certain time.
The terms of article 36 have been regarded as admitting the making of a reserve or exception of any kind when accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, because the jurisdiction of the court may be accepted "in all or any" of the classes of legal disputes enumerated.
It will be recalled that article 2 of the treaty for the renunciation of war as an

Permanent Court-Optional Clausa
instrument of national policy, to which Canada is a party, provides that:
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be solved except by pacific means.
This treaty, however, does not provide any machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes. As regards disputes of a justiciable character, therefore, it is possible to consider signature of the optional clause as the logical consequence of the acceptance. Acceptance of the optional clause means that disputes falling within its terms will receive from the Permanent Court of International Justice a definite solution which the parties to the disputes are bound, under article 13 of the covenant, to "carry out in full good faith." If the pact of Paris is to be made fully effective, it seems necessary that the legal renunciation of war should be accompanied by definite acts providing machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
His Majesty's government in Canada has given its careful consideration to this matter for some years past. The Canadian government notified the secretary general of the league in 1925, that it was ready to consider the acceptance of the optional clause.
It will be remembered that at the Imperial conference of 1926, the following agreement was reached by His Majesty's governments there represented:
A general understanding was reached that none of the governments represented at the Imperial conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the permanent court without bringing up the matter for further discussion.
Such "further discussion" was begun on the initiative of the Canadian government in February, 1929. It was actively continued during the months preceding the tenth assembly of the League of Nations, and reached its conclusion at Geneva when Great Britain, the dominions, and India decided to sign the clause forthwith.
I think this outlines the material points with respect to this matter.


Mr. GEARY:: Has that been accepted
subject to the same reservations made by Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the same reservations.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What are the reservations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On September 20, 1929, five days after the Irish Free State had signed without reservations, representatives of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India signed the optional clause subject, mutatis mutandis, to the reservations set out in the following declaration:
On behalf of His Majesty's government in Canada, and subject to ratification, I accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the court in conformity with article 36, paragraph 2, of the statute, for a period of ten years, and thereafter until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after the ratification of the present declaration with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the said ratification, other than:-
"Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement, and
"Disputes with the government of any other member of the league which is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree, and
"Disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada,
"And subject to the condition that His Majesty's government in Canada reserve the right to require that proceedings in the court shall be suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to and is under consideration by the council of the League of Nations, provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has been submitted to the council and is given within ten days of the notification of the initiation of the proceedings in the court, and provided also that such suspension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or such longer periods as may be agreed by the parties to the dispute or determined by a decision of all the members of the council other than the parties to the dispute."
As to the effect of the reservations contained in the declaration of signature:
The declaration follows the usual practice in being subject to reciprocity and including a time limit. This is fixed at ten years, but the acceptance continues in force after the expiration of the period, unless notice is given to terminate it.
The signature is also subject to ratification which will enable the question to be raised in parliament before the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction comes into operation.
The declaration covers only disputes which may arise in the future. Past disputes and disputes relating to past events may be submitted to the court under a special agreement concluded in each case.
1406	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause
Three cases of disputes are excluded from the operation of the declaration of acceptance. As these have been given already, I will not repeat them.
This statement, I think, covers the matters asked for by my hon. friend and gives to the House the information it will wish to have before it at this time.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself, I
do not think that this house should hesitate in passing unanimously this motion for the ratification of the revised protocol relating to the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and also speaking for myself I agree with the statement as to conditions and reservation on behalf of the Dominion of Canada which has been read to the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
As I understand the reservations, they embrace three classes of cases. The first class in simple language, covers disputes between Canada and any other country, which countries may agree to settle such disputes in some other way than by an appeal to the permanent court of international justice. The second class covers questions or disputes between this Dominion and the motherland, or any other self-governing dominion of this empire. The third class covers disputes which may arise between this country and any other country upon matters within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts and which are being settled in the ordinary courts of Canada or of the other country involved. Unless the proceedings in such courts are suspended, in cases falling within these three classes there shall not be an appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice. I consider these reservations reasonable and proper, and subject to them we are prepared to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of this court.
I think we all understand that the permanent court of international justice is an outcome of the Treaty of Versailles. It was constituted in the year 1920 with the formal approval of this government as well as the formal authority of some fifty other self-governing countries of the world. We have had almost ten years experience of this tribunal and as is the case with all human structures, from time to time some defects have been discovered which were not perhaps anticipated when the structure was originally set up. According to the belief of most people, the greatest weakness in this court has been the fact that until very recently one great country of the world had never given its adherence to such a tribunal, that country being the United States of America. One de-
[Mr. Mackenzie King.)
feet if I may so call it, has always existed in the League of Nations itself. It has been the fact that the United States never became a party to that league. Another weakness is the fact that another great power of the western world, Brazil, although originally a member of the league has subsequently withdrawn. In Canada we find ourselves in I he position that while we are members of the league and have taken a very active part in its transactions, two other great powers of the western hemisphere, although signatories of the Treaty of Versailles are not now members of the League of Nations. That is undoubtedly a defect and a weakness in the League of	Nations but	in its wisdom	theLeague of Nations has decreed that although certain nations have not become formal members of the league, it was still open to them to participate in the Permanent Court of International Justice. Until recently the Lnited States had not become a member of this	tribunal, but I	think it was	inthe	year	1923 that	the President	ofthe	United	States sent	a message to	the
Senate recommending that that country become a party to the permanent court. After a year or two of consideration by the Senate of the United States, it was resolved by that body that, subject to certain reservations, the United States should give its adherence to the International Court of Justice. I think it was in the year 1925 that notice of that resolution was communicated to the League of Nations and the league very promptly took the matter into its most serious consideration. It is true that one of the reservations demanded by the United States was a matter of great importance and I have no doubt the consideration of that reservation gave a good deal of difficulty to the League of Nations at the time. But after the fullest consideration of the question by a body of men who might be called experts in the matter of international and constitutional law it was decided unanimously by the league that the main reservation insisted upon by the United States might very well be admitted, and the international court supported and maintained in every important respect, subject to a revision of certain matters pertaining to that court, chiefly matters concerning administration, procedure and the appointments of the members of that august tribunal. But the outstanding question was the question of reservations of the United States, and that question was satisfactorily adjusted.
There is, in the international court as at present constituted, power to give what are

Permanent Court-Optional Clause
known as advisory opinions in regard to certain international difficulties and complications. The court is not asked in every instance to pronounce a final judgment or decree which can be enforced by the League of Nations. It may be asked by the council of the league for what is called an advisory opinion. The United States took the ground and made it one of its express reservations, that where there was asked of the international court any advisory opinion which affected any rights of the United States or which in the opinion of that country affected any of its rights, the United States would not in such case be bound, but might withdraw its adherence from the court altogether. That question seems to have caused considerable difficulty, but a report of a committee of experts was made to the League of Nations, and the report which I read some time ago made by Sir Cecil Hurst seems, in my judgment at all events, to have overcome effectively any objection (there might be to their particular reservation. It has now 'been decreed that the United States Shall have the right to withdraw if it considers that its rights or interests are adversely affected in regard to any matter that is submitted to the international court for advisory opinion and that withdrawal by the United States shall not be considered an act of unwillingness or unfriendliness to any nation which has become a party to the international court.
We are all glad to know that in December last under these reservations the United States accepted the situation and ratified this protocol. It has been ratified by Great Britain. The final signature for which ratification is now asked by this parliament, was given by Canada at Geneva in September last. I believe all right-thinking people, not only in Canada but in all other civilized countries of the world, will agree that this is a step in the right direction and a tremendous advance in regard to the settlement of international disputes over anything -which we have had so far in the history of the world. We all realize that this international tribunal has been set up as the creature of the League of Nations. It is a necessary adjunct, accessory to the League of Nations, a tribunal formed to settle peaceably international disputes and difficulties which might otherwise result in armed conflict.
I know it is the habit in some quarters in this country and in many other countries to criticize rather severely the action and functions of the League of Nations, to disparage its work and influence and to minimize the result of its efforts. I am glad to say for the parliament of Canada that since the inception
of the League of Nations we have supported it most steadfastly and most loyally, and I trust, we may long continue so to do. As I said, in my judgment the League of Nations and the permanent court constitute a tremendous advance over anything which civilization has heretofore enjoyed.
I have had personally little actual experience or contact with that august body, although shortly after the war I had the honour of representing Canada at one of the conferences called under the auspices of the League of Nations in regard to financial matters. I remember attending their meetings and the great interest which I took in the meetings. That conference was held in 1920 at the city of Brussels and we had there representatives from thirty-seven countries. This conference followed almost immediately after the Great war, and what impressed one most at that conference was the ardour and enthusiasm with which the delegates undertook their work. We were in the midst of tremendous wreckage, tremendous financial wreckage. It was said at that time that Europe would never recover financially from the results of the war. This was one of the first conferences held after the war and there was about it a tenseness, an interest, that I have never seen in any other gathering which it has been my privilege to attend. You could see by looking into the faces of the delegates, their earnestness and their desire for the success of what was then more or less an experiment in regard to the League of Nations. The league has now had ten years' operation and while it may not have fulfilled all the desires of all peoples, it has performed an exceedingly useful work in this world during that ten-year period of reconstruction. It may not fulfil all our ideas; it may not fulfil all its own objects; but if it shall succeed in driving from the minds of men the fear of war and removing the burdens of war from the backs of weary multitudes, it will have accomplished for mankind the greatest thing that has been done in this world since Christ was born in Bethlehem.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved
by the Prime Minister is one which appeals to me very strongly, chiefly because of the form in which the declaration, signed by Hon. Senator Dandurand at Geneva on September 20, 1929, is expressed. I refer particularly to the reservations therein made, without which it seems to me that it would have been inexpedient indeed that Canada, as a member of the British commonwealth, should have given adherence to the declaration. I remember some years ago reading a declaration which
1408	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause
was made by the British Foreign Office on November 27, 1924, to the secretary general of the League of Nations and which seemed to me at the time most commendable in view of the attitude taken by one of the recently formed dominions, the Free State of Ireland. That declaration was:
His Majesty's government has consistently taken the view that neither the covenant of the League of Nations nor any conventions concluded under the auspices of the league are intended to govern the relations inter se of various parts of the British Commonwealth.
In accordance with the spirit of that declaration, which has been accepted by the government of Canada, and will undoubtedly be accepted by parliament in the resolution which is now before the house, Canada has declined to submit to the League of Nations disputes between the government of Canada and the government of any other member of the league which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall hereafter be settled in such a manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree. That reservation meets with my most hearty commendation. I do not know whether the reservation would have been made if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had been representing Canada on that occasion, in view of his predilections in favour of sovereignty and independence, but nevertheless it is a reservation which when announced met, I think, with general approval throughout Canada. Only one dominion, the Irish Free State, declined to accept this reservation, and declared that the eompulsoiy jurisdiction of this court, which is external to the British commonwealth, shall be invoked in all disputes between it and any other dominion with which it may have occasion to dispute. I am very-glad to say that every other dominion has declined to follow the lead of the Irish Free State. Even South Africa, although declaring at the time that they rather favoured the attitude of the Irish Free State, declined to follow their example in the express terms of the declaration made on behalf of South Africa on that occasion. I am sure that the people of Canada as a whole are not disposed to agree that a foreign court, even the Permanent Court of International Justice, should have compulsory jurisdiction to decide disputes arising between the dominions inter se.
There is another reservation that I personally commend most heartily, and that is the reservation with respect to disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. If I understand that language, and I trust it is broad enough, it
rMr. Cahan.]
is a reservation excluding from the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice all disputes between the government of Canada and the government of any other country arising out of domestic matters which are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, such as tariff, customs and immigration matters. I trust that the language of that reservation is extensive enough to cover all of those matters.
I notice that at the tenth assembly- of the league, at which this document was signed by the Hon. Mr. Dandurand on behalf of the government of Canada, a question was raised by a resolution submitted to the second committee of the league assembly as to whether members of the league were to retain exclusive jurisdiction with respect to immigration into their respective countries. A resolution was presented by a committee of German, Austrian and Italian delegates, and I notice that Mr. Suvich, the Italian delegate, remarked:
The question of circulation of individuals is closely allied to the circulation of commodities, and the two should be treated together. Further, if the Question is only concerned with the circulation of individuals in an economic sphere, the point should be clearly defined in drafting the proposal for reference to the economic committee.
I notice that in commenting upon that a leading British labour member in the Daily Herald of London remarks that common sense demands that all cramped nations shall have room for expansion, and then in a forecast of a world parliament which shall decide these matters emanating from the League of Nations he says:
The incongruity of Australia with a population less than that of London will disappear when these international reforms are fully effected.
He adds:
Then Canada, Siberia, South America and Africa will also accommodate untold millions.
So it was indeed satisfactory I think that this reservation was made by Canada in the fa/ce of a strong and persistent agitation at Geneva to the effect that the League of Nations, through its committees, should have jurisdiction over the economic life of the several members of the league, and should have the right to interfere in such domestic matters as the tariff and immigration. Therefore, when I read the reservations that had been made, I felt in entire agreement with the policy of this government, which I so seldom am able to support.
The attitude of the United States on this question is one of great, almost vital interest to Canada. Our external relations are largely concerned with disputes and differences aris-

Permanent Court-Optional Clause
mg between the two countries. If the United States fails to adopt the optional clause and the compulsory Jurisdiction of the international court, there will be very few questions indeed to which Canada will be a party coming from time to time before that court for decision. The United States acceptance of the international court even under the reservation they have made in case they do not agree with any request for an advisory opinion, simply means that they retain the right to appoint a judge upon the court representing the United States, they retain the right to withdraw at any time if an advisory opinion is asked which they claim affects the rights and interests of the United States, and they also retain the right not to submit any question or dispute or difference which may hereafter arise to that court on which they will appoint a representative. From the discussions which from time to time arise in the Senate and press of the United States it seems to me doubtful indeed whether in any event the Senate of the United States will accept this optional clause conferring compulsory jurisdiction upon the court in disputes to which the United States is a party.
Mr. Elihu Root, who took such an active part in framing the amendments to the constitution of the court in order to secure the adhesion of the United States thereto, has suggested that the acceptance of this compulsory jurisdiction is necessary to put teeth into the court-those are his words, "to put teeth into the court;" while I notice that David Jayne Hill, formerly United States ambassador to Switzerland and subsequently United States ambassador to Germany, I think, who has taken an active interest in this discussion, suggests that the adhesion of the United States to the court without acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction seems to him to be typical of the gentle art of learning to swim without going near the water, and in one of his erudite discussions of the matter, having so expressed himself, in order that his readers might have no misconception as to what he meant, he quotes the doggerel:
Mother may I go out to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter,
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb
And don't go near the water.
That seems to me to express fully the attitude of the United States with regard to the compulsory jurisdiction of that court, and unless they do accept the optional clause conferring compulsory jurisdiction on the court in matters to which the United States is a party, it will not prove, it seems to me, a very great advantage to us in view of our relations with the United States and of the
difficulties and differences arising between us, which from year to year become more numerous.
So I say that Canada is keenly interested in the final decision of the United States with respect to its acceptance of this compulsory jurisdiction of the court, because, as I stated a moment ago, our international disputes and differences chiefly arise out of our political relations with the United States. Canada is a small nation of nine million people, and we are as keenly conscious of our political rights as any other of the small nations of the world. But we are neighbours to a nation of 120,000,000 people who are proudly conscious at the present time of thedr overwhelming financial and political power, and of their increasing military and naval power. I notice that the United States budget for naval expenditures for-the past year exceeded the naval budgets of England, France and Italy combined, and that the annual expenditure of the United States for naval and military purposes is nearly two-thirds, if I remember correctly, of such expenditures by France, England and Italy combined. Her naval and military expenditures are larger than those of any of these great European nations. Therefore it is a matter of very considerable concern to us as to whether the United States having become a party to the Kellogg pact is now willing, so far as we are concerned, to adjust all disputes arising with us by referring them to the international court.
I have before me a quotation from a recent article written by the ex-president of the United States, who now doubtless feels at liberty to speak more frankly than when he was the executive head of that great republic. In a formal contribution to a Philadelphia journal for April he says:
No sure way has ever been found to prevent war. Opinions may differ as to whether nations with adequate military forces are more likely to enjoy peace than those which neglect their defences. In the last analysis, this is a question of dealing with human nature. Every one knows that if there were no police our cities would be ransacked within twenty-four hours.
Then he adds:
I very strongly suspect that if there were but one nation in the world supplied with an army and a navy, and to make the supposition as strong as possible, if that nation were our own, it would not be long before the other nations had been overrun.
He evidently understands and appreciates public opinion in the country- over which he presided during two terms. He continues:
It seems to me that it is almost a moral certainty that we should find some excuse for taking that action.
1410	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause


Mr. BOURASSA:: My friend forgot to give the name.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Ex-President Coolidge. He proceeds:
But when we know that other countries have a considerable ability to defend themselves it is human nature for us to regard them with a more wholesome respect and be more careful about violating their rights. If we reverse this picture we can likew'ise conclude that if others know we are prepared to defend ourselves they will be less likely to commit offenses against us.
We are in the unfortunate position that we are absolutely unable either by military or naval forces to resist any aggression on the part of the United States. We have to live under that disability. I had hoped 50 years ago that by this time we might have acquired some twelve or fifteen million population, because I felt sure that twelve or fifteen million people of a northern race, born and bred in a climate such as ours, would be fairly able, especially during our winter season, to resist any aggressive action on the part .of the United States.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the hon. gentleman apprehend offensive action by the United States?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am repeating what the former executive head of the United States said with regard to the disposition of the people over whom he presided. On the other hand, our great safety lies in accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of this court. It would be very satisfactory to us at this time if our great neighbour should accept in like manner that compulsory jurisdiction in all matters of dispute or difference which might hereafter arise between these two countries. It is certain that if the United States would now accept this compulsory jurisdiction we would have greater confidence in the permanent continuance of peaceable relations between this country and our southern neighbours.
As to the second reservation I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will assure us that it is the intention of his government to exclude from the jurisdiction of the court all disputes and differences which may arise between us and other nations with regard to tariff and immigration matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my understanding of it, yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because whatever our differences of opinion may be with regard to the future fiscal and tariff policy of this country-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have enough trouble within our own borders over tariff matti :rs [Mi. Crhan.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. I think that this country is not prepared at the present time to surrender to the dictation or decision of a foreign court the fiscal independence of the country which we obtained after great strife from Great Britain in 1859.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he has in mind any other questions which come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Canada besides those of immigration and tariff?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Those were the ones that
impressed me particularly. I have no doubt that there are other questions arising out of labour conditions which are sometimes deemed international in their character, and as they come to the front this country will assert that it has independent and complete jurisdiction with regard to these labour matters. I refer to the hours of labour, terms and conditions of employment and matters of that nature. I have no doubt they all come within the same purview. I have noticed with alarm the recent efforts of the economic committee of the League of Nations to attempt to frame a common economic policy for all members of the league; I do not believe that those efforts will meet with general approval throughout Canada. Countries which have for more than a century been developing their own industrial institutions and whose increasing .prosperity depends not upon the development of their own internal resources, as We do in this country, but upon the extension of their foreign markets for their manufactured products, are prone to regard less highly industrialized countries such as Canada as being chiefly destined by Providence to produce raw materials for the maintenance of foreign industries, and to receive in compensation therefor foreign manufactured products for domestic consumption in Canada. I noticed at the economic conference, and in the discussions which have taken place from time to time at Geneva in respect thereto, that this doctrine as expressed at the economic conference has become more prevalent in certain countries of Europe which need an outlet for their manufactured products in such countries as Canada. I think it is well that this government has taken this action and I wish to commend it for preserving by this reservation the independent direction and control of our own economic life, and the independent control of our own fiscal autonomy which we obtained so long ago and which we could not afford under present conditions to surrender to the League of Nations or to any committee of the League of Nations. Therefore I can only say that I heartily commend this declaration,

Permanent Court-Optional Clause
and even more heartily than the declaration itself I commend the reservations therein contained which are absolutely necessary to maintain our undisputed control over inter-imperial relations inter se and our economic and fiscal independence.
On the other hand I fail to see how we in Canada, living alongside the United States, can have complete confidence in the efficacy of the Kellogg peace pact which has been accepted by the society of nations, unless on mature reflection they are prepared to renounce war as an instrument for the promotion of national policy, and to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of this international court upon which they will be represented, whether or not they submit any disputes to its jurisdiction.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that
I am pleased that for once my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is satisfied with the action of the present government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does it not cause the hon. gentleman to doubt the soundness of the action?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is because I am
so sure that the action is sound that I am still supporting it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid.


Ernest Lapointe: I can understand why my hon. friend should be afraid. I shall state a slight qualification as to my own approval of the reservations as they are, and I shall refer to that in a moment or two. This addition by Canada to the optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice is I submit the necessary and logical sequence of having taken part in the pact of Paris in 1928. In that pact all the signing nations declared that war would be outlawed, and they would shape their national policies accordingly. That was signed in 1928. When I referred to that pact during the following session of parliament I said that its chief value would consist more particularly in the steps that would follow. If war is to be discarded as a means of solving international difficulties there must be something to take its place, and arbitration, the submission to a world court of conflicts and difficulties between nations, is the necessary and logical method which should replace that of war. It is the organization of peace. War always has been organized; the world is now trying to organize peace, and this must be done not only by words and speeches, but by deeds. This declaration, binding ourselves to the
decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice in any difficulties which we may have with other nations which are also members of the league or which have adhered to the international court of justice, is the logical step which Should follow. Justice does not mean that nations should be judges in their own cases. They cannot be impartial; there must be a higher court, a more impartial tribunal, and nations as well as individuals must be willing to accept the decisions of that higher tribunal whether or not those conditions are favourable to them. It is sometimes said that a court of this kind may make mistakes, that its decisions may not be always on the side of light. Possibly that may be so, but surely it will be admitted that nations stand a better chance of having right prevail if a tribunal of this kind undertakes the question rather than if a resort is had to arms. Surely bullets and machine guns are poor judges in matters of international law and international difficulties.
I am pleased to say that in this instance Canada has assumed leadership. In 1925, when the Prime Minister, speaking for the government, notified the other nations of the commonwealth, as well as the League of Nations, that we did not consider that we should accept the protocol which had been accepted by the League of Nations at the previous session, he stated at the same time that he was in favour of the arbitration of international difficulties. This stand has been consistently taken by the government of Canada ever since, and at the Imperial conference of 1926, when the question of adhesion by the various parts of the British commonwealth of nations to that optional clause and the international court of justice was being considered, the Canadian delegates stated very clearly that they were in favour of immediate adherence to that optional clause. It is true that at the same time we agreed to postpone our adhesion until the other nations of the commonwealth could further consider the matter and reach a decision, but in a British official white paper issued in December last, the agreement which was inserted in the report of the Imperial conference in 1926 is given as follows:
A general understanding was reached that none of the governments represented at the Imperial conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the permanent court without bringing up the matter for further discussion.
Further, the white paper adds:
Such "further discussion" was begun on the initiative of His Majesty's government in Canada in February, 1929.
1412	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clausa
We are pleased that all the other nations of the empire have accepted the Canadian viewpoint in this matter, and the fact that the British Empire has signed this optional clause has had a great effect upon the other nations of the world. As a matter of fact, up to July of 1929 this optional clause had been signed by about twelve or fifteen members of the League of Nations. The example of the British commonwealth of nations led many other countries, even while the assembly of the league was meeting, also to accept the optional clause; such important nations as France, Italy, Czechoslovakia and many others have accepted this method of arbitration.
Now I should like to say a word with regard to the reservations which have been made. They are mainly of three classes, as has been stated. The first reservation is when we have agreed to some other method; there are treaties in which there is a clause which mentions how the difficulties in the interpretation of the treaty or the carrying out its provisions will be submitted to arbitration. The second reservation is that it should not apply to the relations of the nations of the British commonwealth, but before speaking further on this reservation I should like to refer to the next one, which excepts all matters of a domestic nature. There can be no difficulty in understanding that any matter which is purely domestic cannot be submitted to the international court of justice by another country.
With reference to the difficulties which may arise between the nations of the commonwealth, my hon. friend said-in a jocular way, I know-he was agreeably surprised that with my well-known ideas about sovereignty and independence, I should accept this reservation. I certainly do accept it. My friend is not using appropriate adjectives when he qualifies my stand in these interdmperial and international matters. Let him stick to the good words " equality of status." That is my position, equality with all the other nations of the empire; that is what I desire to uphold; that is what I stand by, and that is what I am willing to stand by in my public life in Canada. But it is equality.


Edward Joseph Garland: How can
there be equality within an empire?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is
playing with the words "within an empire."


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I am
sincere in putting that question.


Ernest Lapointe: I am using the words
as meaning a commonwealth of nations. The present British Empire is not to be associated

with the primary meaning of that phrase. If we take the real meaning of the w'ord "empire" it would apply only to those colonies of the motherland over which the United Kingdom exercises an imperial control. There is no such control exercised under the commonwealth. I am not sensitive about words, and I am quite willing to use "the British Empire" without any scruples because we all know the actual meaning.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The imperial teeth have been taken out.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not know that I
had been making any assertion-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I mean, collectively
speaking.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like any
hon. member to think that Canada agreed to the wording or the drafting of the acceptance by the United Kingdom or any other country in the commonwealth. This declaration of acceptance has been signed by all the nations of the empire, except the Irish Free State.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The cooperation and counderstanding is quite apparent.


Ernest Lapointe: Certain w'ords and sentences were eliminated at the request of the Dominion of Canada, and Canada agreed to the elimination of certain words and sentences at the request of other countries of the commonwealth, and the result was a document which could be accepted by the British commonwealth as a whole. All this took some time, and our Irish friends who are usually impatient and anxious for speedy action, were in favour of accepting without any reservation, and they did so prior to an understanding being reached by the other countries. No hon. member should think that the Irish state, by doing that, has done anything -which might be branded as disloyal; not at all.
I have had the privilege of sitting at different conferences with members of the Irish Free State, and there is no delegate more anxious to find a common ground which is both honourable and acceptable than is the delegate from the Irish Free State. I remember one conference where a delegate, during a prolonged discussion, made a certain reference to the keenness of the Irish Free State, and expressed some fear as to their motive. One of the Irish delegates replied, "Gentlemen, we are members of the only government in the empire which has actually fought and taken up arms to remain under the British crown."

Permanent Court-Optional Clause


Mr. KAISER:: To what incident had that reference?


Ernest Lapointe: They have had a real
civil war in Ireland. Surely the hon. member knows that, and surely there are people in that country who have fought to remain under the British crown. Those people are the leaders in Ireland to-day, and they are directing the destinies of that state. The Irish Free State is one of the jewels of the British commonwealth of nations, and I am always pleased and proud to sit in any conference with delegates from that state.
If those conflicts or difficulties which may arise between the nations of the commonwealth are excluded from settlement by the Permanent Court of International Justice, there must be something to take the place of that court, and this necessity is receiving the attention of public men in Great Britain and other countries of the commonwealth. This matter was raised at the conference which I attended a few months ago, and will be discussed at the next Imperial conference. If difficulties between Australia and Canada should arise, and such may be the case; if difficulties between Canada and the mother country should arise, or between the mother country and Australia, or between Australia and New Zealand, and they cannot be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice-we are all parts of a commonwealth, united by a special bond and under one crown and king-then there must be some body or tribunal, whatever it may be called, to which those difficulties should be and must be submitted. I hope no one will be scandalized when I say that the Privy Council as at present constituted could not fill this need; it is not such a tribunal as is the court of international justice. All the member countries of the League of Nations elect representatives to that court, and it is generally recognized that there should be some tribunal to which difficulties between the nations of the commonwealth could be submitted. That body could be of a permanent nature with judges selected by the various nations of the commonwealth, ready to sit at any time when the necessity arose. It has been suggested that it be merely an institution which would be available when the need arose, every nation in advance having submitted a list of names forming a panel out of which a certain number should be selected for every special case that might come up. This is a very important subject which ought to receive consideration everywhere, and I am sure that on this subject, as
on all other matters, the common sense of the various nations of the commonwealth will see to it that a proper solution is found. I apologize for having spoken as long as I have as it was not my intention to do so.
Let me repeat in conclusion that I am pleased with the work done by Canada in those international matters in the League of Nations, the Peace pact and the international court of justice. My hon. friend regretted that the United States of America has not yet accepted the optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. We must be pleased indeed that so much progress has been made that they have joined the international court of justice. The mere acceptance by the United State of this tribunal, which is really the creation of the League of Nations, is indeed a great achievement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the United States have not agreed to submit anything to this court which they have agreed to constitute.


Ernest Lapointe: It is agreed that they
accept the court. The rest will, I hope, come. From the beginning we have not waited for the United States; we were there before they were there. We have been among the first members of the League of Nations. We have cooperated in every move that has been made. We have been parties to every step that has been taken and it is a testimony to us that our great neighbour to the south has already accepted some of the things which we were among the pioneers in creating. This acceptance of the optional clause of the international court of justice statute is, I repeat, a great achievement, I think it will be considered as such and it will certainly be an important step in the progress of the world and the history of mankind.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I think the hon, member
confused me somewhat in regard to the incident about which he spoke. Did I understand him to say that the Irish people said that they were the only ones who took up arms to retain their position within the British Empire


Ernest Lapointe: I was speaking of certain members of the present government of the Irish Free State.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I understood the hon. member to say they stated that Ireland was the only state which took up arms to maintain itself within the British Empire.


Ernest Lapointe: No.
1414	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Then I apologize. But what about Arnold and Montgomery who many years ago tried to take Quebec and upon whom the French Canadians poured forth their volleys of pepper?


Ernest Lapointe: I was not speaking about 150 years ago. I was speaking of what has happened in recent years.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I heartily approve the steps taken by the government in this regard. It is in conformity, first, with the declarations of their own members and, more broadly, I think it is in conformity with the tendencies of the Canadian people for many years past. In several past instances, which I am not going to discuss because it would take too much time, Canada has indicated that she relies upon the principle of arbitration to settle most of her difficulties with the United States, to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has alluded especially. I am glad the hon. member brought that point up, because undoubtedly, as he says-
' and this should be stated oftener-practically the whole of our international situation is governed by our neighbourhood to the United States. It is preposterous to imagine that Canada could, in international affairs, assume an attitude in violent contradistinction to that taken by her only neighbour on the continent of North America. It is mere delusion to imagine that we could stand up against the United States on any international issue, either as an isolated nation or even counting upon the theoretical support of the British Empire.
My eyes were first opened with respect to this situation by a man whose authority, or at least whose devotion to British institutions, will not be questioned in the house. I refer to the late Sir Charles Tupper. When leading the opposition in parliament from 1896 to 1900, he stated, with regard to the Alaskan boundary affair, that the result of his many years' experience in dealing, either in his capacity as High Commissioner for Canada in London or as a member of the Canadian government, with affairs in which Canada on the one hand and the United States on the other were interested, the unfailing attitude of the British government was to side with the United States and against Canada. This he explained, and history explains it still more fully, without the necessity of resorting to such denunciations of British policy as at times have been resorted to, even by Toronto judges writing books to denounce British diplomacy from beginning to end. In our state of colonial infancy, with that disposition of mind of the spoiled child,

always expecting that his father will stand by him in all his impertinences, we imagined that every time we had matters at issue with the United States, the power of England would be available if necessary to sustain a war in our defence. But the British statesmen who are responsible for the affairs, the safety, the trade and commerce, and the foreign relations of the United Kingdom and of the hundreds of lands which come under the jurisdiction of the British government and involve its national and international responsibility-British statesmen cannot take that one-sided view. Soon after the secession of the American colonies to the south of us, they realized that under any circumstances war between the United States and Great Britain was preposterous; they felt that, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said generally,-but more especially is it applicable to this case-a war between the United States and Great Britain could not settle anything, and still less as regards Canada. Therefore, I have always held the view, and stated it in public, that even in those instances where we felt rather irritated at the attitude of the British government, the best service which the British could render us was precisely to avoid war with the United States.
Putting the question on more general ground, it is a significant feature of this movement in favour of arbitration that in Europe it has first been taken up and propounded-[DOT] it is now on the point of becoming slowly but surely the basis of international relations -by small nations; and it has been first taken up on the continent of North America by the weaker of the two nations which practically divide between themselves that continent. The acceptance of the principle of arbitration is the only safeguard of small nations as against the ambitions, the greediness, or simply the instinctive power of domination of large nations. Therefore, in agreeing to this further measure of arbitration, the government has rendered a service not only to Canada but to all small nations within or without the British association of nations -yes, a service to all, and the most effective service that they can render to international justice and international peace.
Of course, there is still plenty of scepticism. People say: It is all very well to declare in favour of arbitration, to pass resolutions, to have protocols voted at Geneva, and to have the adhesions of parliaments; but what will that amount to when a great nation declares war? They quote as instances the attitude of Italy towards Greece, or of Poland towards Lithuania, and the failure of the League of Nations to prevent those acts of international brigandage. Well, of course, things of

Permanent Court-Optional Clause
that kind will happen, as they have happened in the past. Before tribunals of justice were established in the various countries, before savages, in the formation of nations, agreed to resort to some form of adjudication to settle individual quarrels, it took some time. For quite a while blood was still shed and heads were knocked off before the principle of justice as applied to individuals prevailed over the practices of barbarism; and it will undoubtedly take some time before the so-called Christian but largely dechristianized nations accept and adopt the principle of arbitration, instead of resorting to war if they feel that they are powerful enough to overcome their opponent. Of course, it will take time; butt is that a reason why the principle should not be propounded? Is that a reason why small nations especially, that are not in a position to rely upon force of arms, and who should not, if their pretensions to higher civilization are true, rely on the force of arms even if they had the power in their hands- is that a reason, because it takes time, or because you may still quote this act or that act of this or that government against the acceptance of the principle, that we should not preach it?
Therefore I think it is in conformity with the better spirit of the age and with the true interests of Canada thait we should uphold by all means that principle. It is especially true having regard to our relations with the United States. I remember one day at a meeting somewhere in the state of New York where representatives of various European and American nations had gathered together to discuss international affairs, an American gentleman-I think he was a member of the Department of State, but it does not matter -a highly cultured man, quoted as an instance of the possibility of gradually bringing the American nation to take a broader and more generous view of international affairs, the difference between the United States of America and the republic of Colombia with regard to the Panama canal. Of course, all fair-minded Americans admit now that that was an act of high-handed piracy, if I may use the word, on the part of the United States government. The delegates of that small republic, Colombia, went to Europe, or to the other South American countries and endeavoured to raise a feeling of animosity against the United States. Naturally it did not materialize. Then, one or [DOT] two or a few of them got the idea that if they came right straight to the United States and appealed to their sense of justice and generosity, they might obtain a different result, and they did obtain a different result; for after a few years
the congress of the United States passed legislation to compensate the Republic of Colombia for the dispossession to which they had been subjected by the government of the United States in that matter. In his discussion of that situation, the speaker concluded with this thought, that the spirit of justice is inherent in the mind of the average American just as it is in the mind of all normal human beings; but in international matters they had been so long accustomed to consider themselves as being so completely masters of the continent in which they live that they had never realized that there was such a thing as equality of rights between them and other nations. But now, and since the war especially,-perhaps this is one of the redeeming features of that horrible slaughter, that fit of human craziness which lasted four years- the Americans, and the British, and the French, and the Germans, all peoples that have made great sacrifices in the war, realize that no one nation in the long run is capable of ruling the world, and that therefore as between all nations, weak and strong, populous or less numerous, there must be found some means of deciding issues according to justice, according to equity, according to the facts as presented before an impartial body. That feeling, I sincerely believe, is growing in the United States, and we should do everything we can to encourage it because we are more interested than any other nation on earth in going, so to speak, in advance of that evolution of thought in the United States.
Now, let us consider the case of the nations composing what the Minister of Justice, after others, calls the commonwealth of nations. Of course, I believe, with others also, that the word "commonwealth" is a misnomer, just as the word empire was a misnomer; and in this case it is not my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) who suggests to me the idea; it was expressed some twenty years ago by such a pillar of the British Empire as Lord Milner. The word "commonwealth", as applied to the aggregation of the various nations associated under the British crown, is a greater absurdity even than the word "empire". Nevertheless, words are not much. The fact remains that at present there are several nations that acknowledge as their sovereign the sovereign who presides nominally over the affairs of England. It is a new form of personal union such as existed before the act of 1707 between Scotland and England, and which, in later years, existed between England and Hanover when the elector of Hanover was at the same time king of Great Britain. It is a new form of personal union under which -not altogether in fact yet, but in principle,
1416	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Optional Clause
as proposed by the Imperial conference of 1926, and as admitted even now by such upholders of the old imperial system as Professor Keith, for example-the advisers of the crown in Canada are absolutely independent of the advisers of the crown in Great Britain, and the king or his representative in Canada, or Australia, or South Africa, has to govern by the sole advice of his ministers in each country.
Well, if this is true-and it ought to be made truer and truer every day-then surely there must also be found some means of arbitrating between those nations, equal in right, equal in international status, as has been found necessary between the whole of those associated British nations and foreign countries. In that respect I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice state that at the next Imperial conference this idea of arbitration as between the various British self-governing nations will be advanced a step further. In this also the present or any other government will have the full support of all true Canadians; because even should there be a change of government-


Hugh Guthrie: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -should there be this
year or twenty years hence a change-


Hugh Guthrie: No, this year.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -there is one thing
sure, and it is this, that no government of the future, whether it is called Tory, Progressive or by any other name, will be powerful enough to stem the tide of self dignity and self conscience of the growing Canadian nation.
How illuminating are the reflections that were made last year at the Imperial conference, or later by commentators on the work of that conference, about the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It is considered now as the last outstanding obstacle against the true operation of self-government in the various dominions. When that piece of legislation was passed, only sixty-five years ago, it was not only considered, but was in fact a long step in advance of the principle of self-government as then understood; and to-day the sentiment, and the facts, are just as much in advance of what sixty-five years ago was an advance on what had happened previously. Which shows once more, sir, that under all forms of government the true grandeur of British institutions is that there is no finality in their growth and their development.
That is the one feature which holds together peoples of different racial origin, peoples who in periods of their history have suffered at

the hands of British representatives, who have been forced to resist for years and for centuries the spirit of arrogant domination as displayed by some representatives of the British crown and of the British race. It is the one feature which, in spite of all those past difficulties and straggles, binds us to British institutions, because we find in them a perpetual spirit of growth, of progress, of expansion, which makes them bigger than the British races, bigger than the little islands of northern Europe, which make them big enough for all right-thinking nations who want to exercise their rights as British citizens, as well as discharge their duties as such, to live under those institutions with respect for themselves and for others. That perhaps explains the fact that the Minister of Justice endeavoured to make my good friend from Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) understand as regards Ireland.
As the most ancient and genuine representative of Sinn Fein Ireland in this house, I am bound to take some exception to what the Minister of Justice said. The very able gentlemen who rule the Free State of Ireland to-day did not fight to maintain the authority of the British king in Ireland. No. You could not expect them to do that. The Minister of Justice has spoken of the impatience of the Irish. Well, they had to wait six centuries before they could hold their own. It is not for the British king that they have fought, but for maintenance of the treaty with Great Britain. As the representatives of a nation impoverished, ruined, cut in half by starvation, persecution and all forms of foreign domination for centuries, they decided to enter into a treaty with the nation that dominated them, that persecuted them for centuries, but a nation which at last opened its eyes, a nation whose slow-growing process of respect for others has brought it at last to forget its ambitions of the past. The Irish responded generously and loyally to the offer of truce, to the offer of peace, to the offer of alliance on the part of the British government. They accepted the offer, and now look upon the king of England, not as their king because he is king in England, but as their king as he is the king of Canada, the king of Australia, the king of South Africa,- a country also composed of a brave race which fought for many years against British domination, but which is as proud as the Irish and the French-Canadians to be in the fraternity of British nations, not, however, in any subservient state and not looking upon the king as the emblem of foreign domination, but on the contrary, as the head of their own institutions. It is not on account of loyalty to the

St. Lawrence Waterway
king of England-there is no reason for Ireland to be loyal to the king of England-but it is on account of loyalty to Ireland, to their own plighted word, that the Irish government through a cruel civil war have struggled to make their word good, and fought to make the principle of equality acknowledged by their own people as they have succeeded after six centuries of resistance to arrogant domination in having the dominating partner acknowledge also that spirit of equality. And it is no wonder, sir, if the representatives of the Irish Free State have also been pioneers in advocating the principle of arbitration, and if they are a little more concerned than we are in making it clear that they are not under even the most indirect obligation to England or any other part of the empire.
There, sir, is another example of the true spirit of conciliation. There is another example of what the true spirit of partnership and arbitration can accomplish. Who would have thought twenty years ago that the people of England and the people of Ireland could have come to such terms as those upon which the two nations live together at the present time? I will not say they live in amity, we cannot expect that so soon; but they live in loyal partnership. They are loyal first to themselves; they are loyal to the people with whom they have formed those terms of partnership and they have formulated a principle and a practice of arbitration which stands as an object lesson given to the various associated nations of the so-called British commonwealth and to the rest of the world.
I hope to live long enough to see this government or any other government representing the people of Canada, when differences arise between us and any other nation of the world, whether they be black, yellow or white, or with our relatives who call themselves British, stand by the principle of arbitration and conciliation, and not by the brutal practice of war and bloodshed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I have a question which I wish to ask the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he will be in a position to answer it to-day or not. The question is:
1.	Is the government yet in a position to announce the progress of negotiations for the St. Lawrence waterway:	(a) with the United
States as to a treaty; (b) with the governments of Ontario and Quebec re distribution of power?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to an American project for the Oswego and Erie barge canal to take the place of the St. Lawrence waterway as an all American route, which project has passed the harbour and rivers committee of the House of Representatives at Washington?
3.	What steps will be taken by the government to protect Canadian interests and to insure the carrying out of the St. Lawrence waterway and its improvement from a navigation standpoint?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the hon. member is
no doubt aware, there have been conferences between the premiers of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and representatives of the Dominion government with respect to power on navigable waters, with a view to coming to agreement, if possible, between the provinces and the Dominion on phases of the question which it has not been found possible to settle satisfactorily by reference to the courts. The purpose of the conferences amongst other things rvas to eliminate from the region of uncertainty one factor of importance which must be taken into account in any subsequent negotiations with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. Up to the present I have not had the opportunity to make any announcement as to the outcome of the negotiations, but I hope that after the Easter recess it will be possible, with the consent of the provinces, to make known what I imagine will be the final arrangement between us. I trust it will go to the length of removing what has hitherto been one difficulty, and that progress will thereby be indicated in the matter to which my hon. friend has referred.
As to the bill before congress to which reference has been made, I understand it relates to the taking over by the United States government of canals that are at the present time in the possession of the state of New York. We are fully informed as to what is proposed in that regard. We have viewed the matter as one of domestic concern so far as the United States is concerned.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: May I ask the government when we
may expect the annual report of the Canadian National Steamships. The railways report was tabled yesterday but the report of the merchant marine has not been brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall bring the question
of my hon. friend to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar).



Privilege-Mr. Campbell



PRIVILEGE-MR. CAMPBELL

Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
wish to refer to an editorial which appeared in this morning's edition of the Citizen. It deals with the now historic dictum of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that no unemployment relief will be given to a Tory government; and then it makes the following reference to myself:
One of the Saskatchewan members on the opposition side, Milton N. Campbell, commented in rather an illuminating manner on the Prime Minister's statement. He assumed that under such circumstances, no federal relief would be given to the province of Saskatchewan. The present government in Saskatchewan is Conservative, but it is endeavouring to hold the United Farmer and Independent support in the legislature by describing itself as cooperative.
Mr. Campbell classed it with the Tory governments when he said last Friday that Mr. Mackenzie King's position would mean the depriving of Saskatchewan of any relief. Mr. Mackenzie King would describe Premier Anderson ^ as a Tory. Mr. Campbell refrained from similarly identifying him but apparently admitted that he is in the Tory class without saying it in so many words.
In this article we have an editor uttering a deliberate half truth in order to make political capital. The reason I protested against the Prime Minister's statement was not because I considered the government of Saskatchewan a Tory government, but because the Prime Minister specifically classified it as one of the governments from which he would withhold unemployment relief. May I quote the statement of the Prime Minister as it appears at page 1227 of Hansard:
But hon. gentlemen opposite say to us: Now that you have got the country into this favourable position, we ask you to take part of the moneys that you may raise in taxes from the people of this Dominion as a whole, and give it to other administrations to spend, and to whom, if you please? To a Tory government m the province of British Columbia; to a Progressive government in the province of Alberta; to a Tory government in the province or Saskatchewan; to a Progressive government m the province of Manitoba.
It was this statement to which I referred when I protested against such treatment being meted out to my province. The specious argument of the Citizen ignores altogether this part of the Prime Minister's statement.



VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON DOMINION PROPERTY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to provide for the regulation of vehicular traffic on Dominion property.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1-Power to make regulations.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: As some of the hon. members wish to know the object of this bill, may I say that section 1 authorizes the governor in council to make regulations governing the traffic on parks, boulevards and roads owned by the federal government, over which there exists no public right of way.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But you do not say "federal government." You do not limit it to that.


John Campbell Elliott: We say "which are situate on the property of His Majesty."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Can you not limit it to
His Majesty's property in the right of the Dominion government?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the intention, I
may say. The bill says "situate on the property of His Majesty."


Hugh Guthrie: I think in this case that would be implied to mean on land over which the federal government have jurisdiction.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon. friend, as has been suggested by the hon. member for South Wellington, that this government would not be able to legislate with regard to property of His Majesty which is not owned in the right of the Dominion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I dislike these implications; when you want to say a thing, say it. The English language is plain enough to say anything which you intend.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it covers what is intended and I may say to my hon. friend that the Department of Justice is of the opinion that that is the case. This act was submitted to the Department of Justice and I am advised by the officers of that department that that is what it covers, and nothing else.


Hugh Guthrie: While the minister is on this section may I ask whether this government has any jurisdiction at all with regard to Wellington street, as it adjoins the parliament buildings. There are traffic regulations in force there under the control of the city of Ottawa; have we any authority or control over that traffic? Day after day I cross that street, and I notice that those lights are disregarded almost entirely. Our Dominion officers are standing at the gates, and they could easily take the numbers of these machines which violate the law. Have we any right to enforce the traffic laws on Wellington street?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that that is under the jurisdiction of the police officers of the city of Ottawa.

Insurance Act


Hugh Guthrie: Could we make an arrangement with the city whereby the Dominion officers could lay these complaints? There are no police officers of the city of Ottawa on this street. Once or twice I would have made complaints had there been any officers near; I could have taken the numbers of the cars, but there were no officers in sight. Our own Dominion officials are at the gates, so I should think an arrangement might be arrived at whereby the Dominion officers could lay the complaints.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say, speaking offhand, that anyone who sees a violation of any act may lay a complaint, and I see no reason why a Dominion officer who sees a violation of an act in front of Dominion government property which he is appointed to protect and the rights of whose occupants he must also protect, should not have the right to lay the information.


Hugh Guthrie: I mentioned the matter last year and from my observation, in front of the main entrance and the east entrance to these buildings there is almost an utter disregard of the traffic regulations, and I have been told that the city council have not adopted these lights or regulations on Wellington street. I inquired of one of the Dominion police, and he said he had no right to interfere. I was wondering if some arrangement could not be made whereby Dominion police might take the numbers of these automobiles and lay the informations, because it looks more like a speedway for the automobile drivers than a protected highway.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that negotiations are pending now with the city for the renewal of the agreement between the Dominion government and the city, and I think it would be an opportune time perhaps to take up with them the question which my hon. friend has mentioned. Apart altogether from that, I would say that the Dominion officers might very well be instructed, as part of their duties, to take the numbers of these automobiles and lay informations. I would say to my hon. friend that that will have the best consideration which we can give to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply wish again to
register a protest against what I regard as a paragraph which is not clear. We are dealing with the property of His Majesty under the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament, and I protest that we do not say so. I do not know from whom the statutes emanate which come before parliament, but I do know that
2419-90J
any well-regulated law office would dismiss such incompetent help if they were unable to express themselves in clearer and more definite language than is used in many of the public bills which come before us.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 35, to amend the Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Release of securities to liquidator.
Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister explain the general provisions of the bill? I have not had time to read it.


Mr. DUNNING:: I explained it briefly on
the second reading, and since then the banking and commerce committee have had a chance to survey the provisions of the bill, which has been returned here without amendment. The first provision is for the release of securities on the order of the liquidator, under circumstances where no such authority now exists.


Hugh Guthrie: Does this provision apply to all insurance companies or merely to life insurance companies?


Charles Avery Dunning: This provision applies to all insurance companies.


Mr. COOTE:: Might I take this opportunity of suggesting to the government that members be furnished, through the post office, with copies of all bills as they are printed. This is done with regard to the orders of the day and the votes and proceedings, but if members wish to make any study of the bills in their own rooms they either must send to the house for the bill file or to the distribution office for the particular bill, and really I think it is more necessary that we have copies of the bills sent to our rooms than that we have copies of the orders of the day or the votes and proceedings. I just wish to take this opportunity of suggesting to the government that this would be a great help to the members.


Charles Avery Dunning: While I sympathize with my hon. friend, he will at once realize that it
Insurance Act

is not a matter for the government; it is a matter for the internal management of the house itself, and representations might very well be made either to the debates committee or to Mr. Speaker in this regard. The government has not authority over distribution in the house.


George Gibson Coote: I thought perhaps the internal economy commission really had control.
Mr. DUNNING. I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Appropriation of profits for surplus.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Have the fire insurance
companies been made aware of the proposed legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The life insurance companies, and the insurance companies generally, have considered the sections which relate to them, and both classes of company are favourable to the amendment here proposed.


George Reginald Geary: Did this matter come before the banking and commerce committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: To what class of company does this section apply?


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 2 applies to fire insurance companies only.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Decrease of par value, and increase of number of unissued shares by Canadian fire insurance company.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, last session I raised the question of a general revision of the Insurance Act, and I desire again to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. We have a revision of the Bank Act every 10 years and the Insurance Act should be brought up to date. Protection should be afforded to those who hold securities, to the stockholders, to the lapsed policyholders, and with regard to securities invested outside of Canada. We do not often hear of an insurance company failing, although five or six years ago one company was asked to put up additional security. Instead of bringing forward every year five or six amendments to the act, there should be a general revision of the insurance laws of this country. Are we to wait until we have a sort of Home bank affair with the insurance companies? Such companies as the Sun Life are making tremendous profits, as is shown by the report of the superintendent of insurance.

I raised another point last session with regard to the matter of rates. The rates which apply on our railroads are regulated; bank interest is regulated, and in my opinion there should be some check of these insurance companies. We have not gone as far in this respect as have England and the United States. I received a letter from a gentleman complaining that a company in central Ontario has raised his insurance rates and he is now askea to pay something which he is unable to pay. Some of these poorer people are out of work and cannot keep up the payments on their policies. The minister should state a future policy to be followed regarding these insurance companies. There should be a general consolidation of the act, and the same procedure should be followed as is followed in the case of banks. We have very little control over these companies, and the superintendent of insurance should be empowered to put an auditor or an actuary into the offices of the different companies to see that they are fulfilling the terms of the Insurance Act. At the present time the oompany simply files a schedule containing information which may be right or wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: Were these amendments proposed at the instance of the superintendent, or did the companies ask for them?


Charles Avery Dunning: The companies asked for the amendments, but the superintendent recommends their adoption. That applies to the section under discussion.
Regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), I think it is generally recognized in the financial world that the position of Canadian fire and fife companies is eminently sound, and that the control exercised by the superintendent of insurance and his department is as effective as that existing in any other country. Such complaints as we receive are generally of an opposite character to that made by my hon. friend. It has been represented to me that the superintendent is inclined to be too rigid, and my answer always is that great rigidity is required of a government official occupying such a position. I have heard no complaints of laxity of control.


George Reginald Geary: I understand the Companies Act is being amended as to the distribution of stock?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: The idea being to have such distribution widely spread.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is correct. When this bill was before the banking and

Insurance Act
commerce committee, the superintendent had available there the requests of the companies for this amendment. I did not bring them with me because I did not anticipate that there would be a repetition of the discussion. There has been no opposition offered from any quarter to any of these amendments.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
the question I wish to raise is not properly before this committee, but if any concession is to be made to the fire insurance companies,
I think the matter to which I am about to refer should be brought to the attention of the minister. Instances have occurred where fire insurance companies have issued policies providing insurance coverage on a building designated in the policy, and the people concerned have subsequently discovered that they have been paying a premium upon a building which is non-existent. We have had a sad occurrence in my section of the country, where many of the people suffered to the extent of an aggregate of over half a million dollars through the fraudulent undertakings of a trusted lawyer. This lawyer agreed to obtain mortgages on houses in the vicinity of Toronto, and the people trusted in his knowledge that these buildings existed. The mortgages came along with fire and wind insurance policies attached thereto. In the case of my own family, out of sixteen such mortgages with sixteen fire insurance policies attached to cover sixteen houses, there were only six buildings of any kind actually existent. I contend that the fire insurance companies were a party to the fraud. Each of the mortgages we received had a fire insurance policy attached, signed by a reputable fire insurance company, which stated that they were insuring a house of a certain kind, on a certain lot, built in a certain manner, when in fact there was no house at all. This fraud took place in the Listowel and Stratford section, and was extended into my constituency. Let me emphasize the fact that the fire insurance companies placed policies upon buildings which did not exist, although they described in the policy as the nature and construction of the buildings alleged to be insured; thus they have been assisting in the carrying out of fraudulent transactions which have resulted in the people in my district being robbed of nearly three-quarters of a million dollars. I would like to see the act amended to provide that when a fire insurance company issues a policy which is a contract of insurance upon a building they shall inspect the property or otherwise make sure that the building in respect of which the policy is written really exists. Fire insurance companies are collecting hundreds of dollars of insurance premiums on buildings that do not exist-merely on vacant lots. It would be much cheaper to buy an asbestos blanket. I do not know whether this is the proper time to make the suggestion, but if fire insurance companies are coming to parliament for additional assistance I would ask the minister to see to it that the people are protected from being swindled by fire insurance companies through the issuing of fire insurance policies upon buildings which do not exist.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say offhand
whether or not the law as it now exists would provide a means of dealing with cases such as that to which my hon. friend refers.
I hope I did not gather from him what at one stage I thought I did, namely, that this form of fire insurance fraud had amounted to three-quarters of a million dollars.


George Spotton: In operation through
Listowel alone it is about half a million dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: On buildings that do not exist?


George Reginald Geary: Insurance on fictitious
mortgages.


George Spotton: But in each case a fire
insurance policy was given and the people took it. The insurance company said they were insuring a building which naturally would be presumed to exist, but the building was not there; it was merely a vacant lot.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of the superintendent of insurance with a view to having the state of the law in that regard looked into and the superintendent of insurance may be able to take some action to deal with that sort of thing. I hesitate to suggest to my hon. friend1 that a man who takes a mortgage on property ought to determine for himself whether or not the property exists. A little responsibility rests upon him.


George Spotton: I grant that, but when
you receive a fire insurance policy stating that in consideration of a certain premium the company is insuring a building which is described in the policy, there is in that, one would think, some measure of security.


Mr. POULIOT:: I think the situation is
worse than the hon. member for North Huron has just indicated, because I believe that in respect to each section of the country the underwriters have plans on which each building within that territory is shown. If an insurance company had such plans covering the
Insurance Act

section of the country in which my hon. friend lives, the situation is much worse, because if no buildings were shown on the plan I do not see how the company could issue insurance on buildings that do not exist.


Mr. BOYS:: That is the case, only in towns and cities. While I realize that this matter is not really apropos of the subject under discussion, if the minister is going to bring it to the attention of the superintendent of insurance it might be well for me to bring to his notice another feature which I have in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend
continues, will he permit me to say I cannot guarantee that the companies in question are Dominion companies? As my hon. friend doubtless knows, companies incorporated by the provinces do not come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion. I shall, however, be glad to bring the incident to the attention of the superintendent of insurance in order that inquiry may be made with a view to protecting the public so far as it is reasonably possible to do so.


William Alves Boys: What I shall refer to will be
under the jurisdiction of the Dominion. It is a common thing for a company to place insurance on buildings valued at $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000, the premium being paid for a number of years, and then when there is a loss the value is disputed. Something should be done in that regard. I have at the present time a case pending in that category. The insurance companies have agents; the agents inspect the risks, and I cannot see that it is in order for an insurance company which accepts a certain premium after the inspection of the property by one of its own agents, to be permitted to dispute the loss in the case of total destruction of the property so insured. That sort of thing is done right along, and I suggest to the minister that it is a matter well worthy of consideration. I know how these things very often happen. Perhaps you go into a local agent to place a policy; you are in a hurry to get it; the application is taken, and the agent perhaps does not know the property at the time, but he has an opportunity of seeing it shortly afterwards. He should see it andi if he thinks the value placed on it is too high he should either insist upon the amount of the policy being reduced to a fair value or decline to take the risk. I ask the minister to request the superintendent of insurance to consider that feature seriously.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have it looked
nto.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister another matter that arises out of a recent decision in the courts of Ontario under circumstances somewhat as follows: a farmer goes to an insurance agent and asks him to fill out the application form for him. The insurance agent, with full knowledge of the conditions, makes an inaccurate or perhaps an absolutely untrue statement as an answer to one of the questions in the application. The insurance goes through on the basis of that application.


Charles Avery Dunning: I presume that untrue
statement is signed by the applicant.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Signed by the applicant, sometimes by the insurance agent signing the applicant's name, with his authority; but the application is filled out by the insurance agent, although, of course, as the minister says, for practical purposes it bears the signature of the applicant. Nevertheless the fact is that the misstatement made by the agent of the company in full knowledge of the facts, and the decision of the court is that that is held to be the statement of the applicant. The insurance company assumes no responsibility and escapes all liability arising from the wrongful act of its own agent, because he is technically held to be the agent of the applicant. These are matters that are causing injustice and working very grave hardship, especially in the particular case I have in mind. It seems to me that this parliament, so far as lies within its power, should insert in the Insurance Act a provision that when an agent of the company acts in the manner I have indicated, the company should be estopped from denying responsibility for the act of the man who is really its own agent for that purpose.


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

William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the intention to proceed to-day with the Natural Resources bills, but I learned that the hon. leader of the opposition wishes to be here when we take up those measures. I would like to know if there would be any objection to introducing the resolution with regard to Saskatchewan, just to advance it a stage.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any objection to advancing it a stage and having the bill introduced.

Natural Resources-Saskatchewan



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Saskatchewan dated 20th March, 1930, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that some days ago he laid on the table of the house correspondence between this government and the government of Saskatchewan dealing with the transfer of the natural resources. Copies were ordered printed but up until one o'clock to-day it was impossible to obtain a copy of that printed document.
I had expected that we would have the printed copies available before it became necessary to discuss either the principle or the details of such a measure as that embodied in this resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry to learn that the correspondence has not been printed. If my hon. friend would prefer that we should not proceed on that account, I am quite agreeable.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no objection to advancing the legislation, but it must be understood that when we come to the second reading of the measure and in committee, we shall be allowed pretty broad scope for a discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh certainly.


George Gibson Coote: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to explain to the committee in general terms what the agreement provides, and particularly as to how it differs, if at all, from the agreements that have been made with the other two prairie provinces?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There is only one clause that differs from the agreement with Alberta, and that is the clause which provides for certain questions being referred to the courts. Has my hon. friend not got a copy of the agreement?


George Gibson Coote: No.


Charles A. Stewart: They have
been available in the distribution office for some weeks. After all, the agreement is the bill itself. The only difference is that provision is here made to submit for the consideration of the Supreme Court of Canada questions agreed upon between the parties to the agreement as being appropriate upon which to obtain the judgment of the said court, subject to an appeal to His Majesty.


Mr. LUCAS:: Did the minister say that copies were available in the distribution office?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: I sent down there to-day
but could not get a copy.


Charles A. Stewart: I am surprised. They wore ordered printed and I asked my secretary to see that they were available for distribution:	I will see that
copies are made available.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Is it the intention
of the government to turn over to the province the natural resources prior to the decision to be given by the supreme court or the privy council on the questions that are to be submitted?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. It is
the intention to turn over these resources on the date as provided in the agreement, once assent has been given to the bill. The question whether or not the courts might decide that additional consideration be given for the alienated resources would come up later. It was never intended to withhold the resources until the decision of the court had been given.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Section 28 says
that the agreement shall come into force after being ratified by the imperial parliament, and that apparently will not be done until after the court has given its decision on these questions.


Charles A. Stewart: No.	The
agreement for the reference to the court is a separate agreement. The agreement with Alberta is for a commission to take into consideration whether or not there are reasons why the province should receive additional consideration to that provided in the agreement for the resources alienated between 1905 and the present day, but that does not mean that the resources will be held until a decision has been given by that commission; nor does it apply in the case of Saskatchewan.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Take for instance
section 6, relating to the school lands funds and school lands. It says that upon the coming into force of this agreement such and such will be done, and section 28 tells us when the agreement will come into force. It

Natural Resources-Saskatchewan
looks from a reading of the agreement as though the lands will be turned over only when the agreement comes into force.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Archibald M. Carmichael: And the agreement comes into force only when the imperial parliament gives its assent?


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right, but the decision of the court on the questions submitted may not have been given then, and it may be possible that the commission dealing with Alberta may not have reported at that date.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Does the minister
anticipate that the imperial parliament will give its consent to this agreement before the decision of the court?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Saskatchewan agreement contains terms which differ very materially from the terms of the Alberta agreement, which forms a schedule to one of the bills. I notice in the press within the last two or three days that apparently since the bill with respect to the Alberta resources was introduced into this house, with a certain schedule attached, an amended agreement has been made with the government of Alberta incorporating new terms, or other terms such as we now find in the Saskatchewan agreement, and I was wondering whether it was the intention of the government to introduce a new bill with regard to Alberta or to amend the agreement.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing to amend in the agreement. We are simply extending to Alberta, if they so desire, the same privilege that we are extending to Saskatchewan, to submit for the consideration of the courts similar or the same questions that may be agreed upon in the case of Saskatchewan.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will there be a clause in
die Alberta agreement to that effect?


Charles A. Stewart: In the bill, yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It will be a second bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So you intend to amend
the bill, but not amend the schedule?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
i Mr. Uarnii chad. ]
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 58 respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MAPLE SUGAR INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the better organization and development of the maple sugar industry, to prevent adulteration, to authorize regulations, and to provide for the payment of fees for registration, analysis and licenses.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, as it is now
approaching six o'clock, I suppose we might pass this resolution on the same understanding as we reached in regard to the preceding resolution, that we have ample opportunity to discuss it when it comes before the house on second reading.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister give a short outline of the proposed legislation?


Charles A. Stewart: Briefly, the bill provides for regulation of the maple sugar industry by way of registration of the factories where maple products are produced, and of the principal producing woods, and for inspection to prevent adulteration, giving fairly wide powers to the inspectors, and providing penalties for infractions of the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a very important
measure in my province.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; and it is brought in on the suggestion and at the request of a considerable number of members from the province of Quebec.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would it apply to the individual farmer making maple sugar in his bush?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, if
adulteration was taking place, that is, providing he was putting his product on the market.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59 respecting the maple sugar industry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Permanent Court-Optional Clause
INTERNATIONAL PEACE	PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE



PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, OPTIONAL CLAUSE

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has adopted the following resolutions:
That it be resolved:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that the Senate do approve of the same.
That it be resolved:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the declaration under article 36 of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 20th day of September, 1929, and that the Senate do approve of the same.
That it be resolved:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol relating to the accession of the United States of America to the protocol of signature of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that the Senate do approve of the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with the
permission of the house I beg to move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that house that the House of Commons has adopted the following resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the declaration under article 36 of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 20th day of September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 10, 1930

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Sir:	Ottawa, April 10, 1930.
I have the honour to inform you that 'Right Hon. F. A. Anglin. Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.^
I have to honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
First report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Parent.



RADIO BROADCASTING


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the special committee appointed on the 9th of April instant to consider all matters connected with the radio broadcasting situation problems, together with the report of the royal commission on radio broadcasting, have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, to report from time to time, and that the provisions of section 1 of standing order 65 respecting the number of members of select special committees be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house.
Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Bell (St. Antoine), Cantley, Chaplin, Crerar, Duff, Fansher (Last Mountain), Fiset, Geary, Gray, Hanson, Jenkins, MeLeaD (Melfort), Milne, Power and Stevens.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Speaker, there is a slight error in the list of members of the committee. It should be Mr. Fansher of Lambton East instead of Last Mountain.


Hewitt Bostock: With that correction, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	What provisions are available for the adjustment of the war reparations claims which were not completed or which were not dealt with iu the report of Commissioner Friel?
142G
Questions

2.	If no authority now exists to deal further with these claims, will the government take steps to set up such authority, and if so, when will it be done?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Parliament made no provisions in the Reparations Payment Act of 1929 to meet such claims.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY LIMITS
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	How many square miles were photographed on the International Paper Company's limits, along the Gatineau river, last summer?
2.	What was the cost per mile?
3.	What will be the total cost of this map when published?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	885 square miles, photographed in Gatineau valley.
2.	Segregated costs for this particular area not available.
3.	Estimated cost of full map sheet, exclusive of photography, $10,925.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What Canadian National steamers are
employed between:	(a) Canada and New
Zealand; (b) Canada and Australia; (c) Canada and South Africa?
2.	What ports in Canada do these steamers sail from?
3.	At what ports do these steamers first call on the return voyages?
4.	What subsidy is paid by Canada to each of the said boats operating on these routes?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	(a) Canadian Explorer, Canadian Transporter, Canadian Conqueror, Canadian Constructor; (b) Canadian Cruiser, Canadian Leader, Canadian Commander, Canadian Scottish and Canadian Victor; (c) None.
2.	Montreal during the St. Lawrence season if navigation and Halifax during the winter nonths.
3.	The first port of call on the return voyage depends upon what cargoes Can be secured northbound. The terminal ports, however, are Montreal in summer and Halifax in winter.
4.	None.


ONTARIO CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL TREASURY
Mr. EMBURY:: 1.	What contributions to the federal treasury were made by the province of Ontario during the calendar year 1929, from: (a) income tax;
(b)	excise duties; (c) customs import duties; (d) sales tax; (e) business profits tax?


Mr. EULER:: (a) Income tax, S33,524,634.77; (b) Excise duties, $17,205,723.97;	(c) Customs import
duties, $105,521,206.65; (d) Sales tax, $22,660,766.22; (e) Business profits tax, $122,690.30.
(Mr. J. F. White.]
Income tax for the counties of Labelle, Pontiac, Hull, Abitibi and Papineau, in the province of Quebec, are included, as these counties are in the Ottawa taxation district.


NATIONAL LIVESTOCK RECORDS OFFICE
Mr. NEILL:: h is the national live stock records office, listed in the Dominion Government Telephone Directory under the Department of Agriculture, a branch of that department?
2- Are the salaries of the officials in the said office paid by the Dominion government?
3.	If not, does that office receive support by way of grant or otherwise from the Dominion government, and if it does receive such support, to what extent?
4.	Has the Department of Agriculture no control over the office activities of this branch, and no supervision at all over its work?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. (a) grant $20,000 (fiscal year 1929-
30); (b) Printing and Stationery and office supplies, $6,472.13 (expenditure 1929);	(c)
Rent, heat, repairs to building at 66 Queen street, Ottawa, occupied as offices by the Canadian national live stock records.
4.	None, except as provided for under the Live Stock Pedigree Act, which, while giving the minister no administrative responsibility for the conduct of record work, empowers him to provide certain supervisory oversight with respect to the clerical accuracy of the pedigrees issued and also to approve the association constitutions, and amendments thereto.


CAMBRIDGE WHARF, QUEENS COUNTY, N. B.
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What was the total cost of Cambridge wharf, Queens county, New Brunswick, since September, 1926?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of the said wharf?
3.	Who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	If work was done by day labour, who was superintendent, how much time did he work and what rate of pay did he receive?
6.	How many labourers were engaged on the work, what are their names and what amount did each receive?
7.	What material was used, who supplied same, and what was the cost?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1. $5,031.70, to federal government.
2 to 7. No information. Wharf built by provincial government of New Brunswick and transferred to federal government in October, 1923.

Fair Wages and Hours



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	Is it a fact that several cargoes of anthracite coal have been exported from Russia to Canadian ports?
2.	If so. has the government information as to what territory in Russia this coal comes from?
3.	Will the government make inquiry to verify these statements?
4.	Is the government aware of the labour conditions under which the coal is produced?
5.	Has the government been informed that
the labour employed is either prison or enforced labour for which very low remuneration is allowed?	.
6.	Is the government aware or will they ascertain by what steamship company the ocean transportation was effected?
7.	Will the government ascertain at what rate this ocean transportation was figured; also, if this rate was the commercial ra*" offered by other steamship companies at that date?
8.	Is it a fact that cargoes of wood from
Russia for the manufacture of pulp were transhipped at Three Rivers and forwarded from there by inland transportation to ports in the United States?	#
9.	If so, will the government ascertain under what labour conditions this wood pulp was produced; also what rates the shipping company charged; and was this rate what would be known as the ordinary commercial rate?
10.	Has the government had any protest from the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario in connection with these shipments?
11.	Did not the government announce as a policy the discontinuance of all trade relations with Soviet Russia?
12.	Does the government, under these conditions. consider itself bound to facilitate shipments from Russia to the United States through Canadian channels?


AEROPLANES OWNED BT CANADA
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many aeroplanes were owned by Canada at the close of the war?
2.	In each year since the war, what was the number and value of planes of all styles purchased by the government?
3.	How many planes have been sold in each year, and what was the net amount received?
4.	How many planes have been scrapped in each year?
5.	How many planes are now owned, and how many are in proper condition for use?


CLAIMS FOR REPARATION
Mr. DUFF:: 1. What claims for reparation, with the names of claimants, the amounts claimed and address of claimants, have been filed with the Department of the Secretary of State subsequent to the completion of the Friel report?
2. What claims for reparations, with the names of claimants, the amounts claimed, and address of claimants, were not disposed of under
the Friel report by way of assessment by reason of the non-appearance of the claimant or lack of documents?
3.	Was there any time limit set for the filing of claims with the Department of the Secretary of State?
4.	Will any provision be made to take care of the claimants referred to in questions 1 and 2?



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) inquired yesterday when the annual report of the Canadian National Steamships would be tabled. I was out of the house when this question was asked, but I would inform my hon. friend that it is expected that the report will be tabled shortly after the recess.



FAIR WAGES AND HOURS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 49, respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced, some hon. members asked that an explanation be given, and I promised to give it when the bill was next before the house. A reference to the bill will disclose that it is to apply to contractors and subcontractors on Dominion government work, subh as construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work. It also applies to the workmen employed by the government on similar undertakings, to those workmen generally known as day labourers. The bill provides for the payment of wages which are current in the district, but there is an added provision which differs from our present fair wage policy, that in all cases the wages must be fair and reasonable. An eight hour day is provided for on all work, except special cases or emergencies. A few weeks ago I had the honour of tabling an order in council which provided for an eight hour day for all employees of the Dominion government, and with the addition of this bill the principle of the eight hour day will be applicable to the entire Dominion public service. Representations have been made that the provisions of this bill would apply to manufacturers, but I desire to make it clear that this bill is not intended to be applied to that class. When the bill is in committee I propose to move an amendment to add a subsection which will make it perfectly clear that manufacturers are not to be included.
142S
Fair Wages and Hours
Mr. HANSON:: Would the minister read that amendment now?


Mr. HEENAN:: No, I cannot. In order to administer a bill of this character, it will be necessary to hare rules and regulations, and this bill gives the governor in council authority in that regard. Regulations may be made for the following:
(a)	The method of determining what are current or fair and reasonable wages and the preparation and use of schedules of rates relating thereto,
(b)	rates of wages for overtime,
(c)	classifications of employment or work,
(d)	the publication and posting of wage schedules.
(e)	payment of wages to employees in case of default by the contractor or other party charged with such payment and recovery thereof from such contractor or other party,
(f)	the keeping of proper books and records and the examination of the same by government officers,
(g)	persons who may be employed on works referred to in this act,
(h)	the subletting of contracts,
(i)	the penalties to be imposed for breaches of the provisions of this act or regulations made hereunder,
(j)	generally for the due enforcement of the provisions of the act and regulations.
Under our present fair wage policy, regulations have to be made from time to time in order to cope with the different problems which may arise. It has been said that this bill is limited in its scope because of the fact that it is confined to building and construction, but otherwise I would point out that it in no way replaces the present fair wage regulations as provided by order in council. It is a distinct step forward in our fair wage policy, and so far as I can learn this is the first bill of its kind in the history of Canada. The question has been asked, why the fair wage policy as applied to water power development and railroads is not embodied in this bill. I would point out that the policy regarding the development of water powers is contained in regulations under another act. Matters pertaining to railways are covered under section 244 of the Railway Act. The manufacture of supplies, material, equipment and so on, is now taken care of under our present order in council. I am mentioning this to the house so that it will not be thought that railroads, manufacturers and enterprises of that sort are neglected. The bill applies to the construction, demolition, repair and so on of public buildings and the government thinks it a good thing to start its fair wage legislation in a not too advanced manner. This is all the information that I have at the present time, but I may have to reply to some comment later on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the government is to be congratulated upon having brought in a bill of this character. It might be very easy, if somewhat ungracious, for us to say that it is long overdue. The government has been committed to the eight-hour day ever since the signing of the Peace treaty, and though to a considerable extent the eight-hour day on government works has been provided for by orders in council or in other ways, there seems to be no reason why it should not have been made statutory. I am glad, indeed, that definite legislation of this character has been introduced. The minister said that this was a distinct step in advance. That is true. The only criticism that we in this corner can offer is that, as the minister has recognized, it is somewhat limited in scope. I am not sure that work on harbours, for example, is provided for at the present time. We have a number of harbour boards that are more or less public in character. Certainly they are subsidized, or are given large loans by the Dominion government, in some instances the interest not being paid very promptly, so that I think they may be regarded as being in reality federal works. I would like to have seen harbour boards included in a matter of this kind.
Although it may be true that the railways and water-powers are provided for by the orders in council, it is not very clear, since we are departing from the order in council arrangement and substituting therefor statutory regulations, why the latter ought not to apply to the Canadian National Railways or to other contracts.
The most serious deficiency, however, in this legislation seems to me to be the continued use of the word "current" in relation to wages. I mentioned that when the bill was first introduced. I should much prefer to have seen some such phrase as "standard wage" or "minimum standard wage." In the draft bill which was presented by the executive council of the Trades and Labour Congress to the government, I notice that there is a definition of "standard" which I would commend to the attention of the minister:
"Standard," when used with respect to hours of work on any undertaking, means a number of hours in each period of twenty-four hours not greater than the number of hours commonly worked by persons in like occupations in the locality in which such undertaking is carried out, and when used with respect to rates of pay for work on any undertaking, means rates of pay for ordinary and overtime work at least equal either to those which are recognized as payable to persons in like occupations by both employers and trade unions in the locality aforesaid, or if no such rates of pay are so

Fair TTcijes and Hours
recognized, then to those paid to persons in like occupations by the majority of substantial and established employers of persons in like occupations in such locality, provided that, if in such locality the conditions are such that the comparisons aforesaid cannot be made, then the bases for comparison shall be the hours of labour and rates of pay recognized or commonly worked or paid as aforesaid by or to persons in like occupations at the places from which the workmen employed on such undertaking are drawn; and provided also that rates of pay shall in all eases be such as are fair and reasonable.
There are special cases which I might cite as illustrating the need of some definition of this character. In connection with some of the hydro developments just outside of my own city we had an example of this where the rates of pay in the locality did not mean anything. The construction work was practically in the wilderness. The men themselves had mostly to be drawn from Winnipeg and there was no provision for the payment of wages such as were prevalent in that city. It would seem to me that if the minister could be induced to incorporate some such phrase as this with some such definition as this, he would make the bill a great deal more satisfactory. Of course I have very little doubt that the minister himself will interpret the act as generously as possible, but since we are getting away from mere orders in council and since I do not think that matters of this kind should be left to the discretion even of the most sympathetic minister, I should like to have seen this interpretation incorporated in the legislation itself.


Mr. THORSON:: Does the hon. member
not think that is sufficiently provided for in subsection (a) of section three where it is provided:
Provided that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is left, as I
am suggesting, to the discretion of the minister. The phrase "fair and reasonable" is a fair and reasonable sort of phrase, but I should like to have something a little more definite than that. There is a weakness in regard to definiteness.
Mr. CHAPLI'N:	How would a contractor
view that phrase?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is the difficulty.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Of course there is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The contractor
thinks in terms of his profits as to what is fair and reasonable, and what can be paid by other contractors in other parts of the country. The wage earner sees the matter
in a very different light. The Minister of Labour might have difficulty sometimes in finding a way of harmonizing the two ideas, that of the contractor and that of the wage earner.


James Dew Chaplin: If the hon. member would not like to leave that matter in the hands of the minister, would a contractor likely want it left there?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I recognize the difficulty and that is why I suggest that it would be better if we had something definite. Undoubtedly, however, this is a move in the right direction. The minister, if I heard him correctly, took the ground that he did not wish to be too much in advance. Perhaps that is a safe policy to pursue, but I think the government should be at least a model employer and should be just a little in advance of the ordinary ideals and practices that may exist in the community round about. So I think there is not much danger in going a few steps ahead of the ordinary practice round about us when the government is so definitely committed by treaty to the underlying principle. However, I shall heartily support the legislation, hoping that the minister may be able to see his way to modify the bill a little along the lines that I have suggested.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: May I ask if the minister will reconsider the decision that he gave a moment ago not to put the house into possession of information as to the details of the amendment that he says he will introduce in committee? It might be of the very greatest importance. I think we ought to have it before us. It has evidently been definitely decided upon, and I think it is only right that the house should know the details of the proposed amendment before the vote on the second reading is taken.


Mr. BENNETT:: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) is entirely right in making that request. The question may arise whether the amendment is in order if it conflicts with the general principle of the bill. I think the amendment should be given to the house before the hon. minister moves the second reading of the bill.


Peter Heenan: The reason I did not give it is that in my innocence I did not think that this was the proper place to discuss the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it affects the principle of the bill we have a right to know it.


Peter Heenan: It was handed to me only a few moments ago, so perhaps my hon. friends will not be too critical as to the precise wording. What I intended to do was to make it
Fair Wages and Hours

perfectly clear that the bill should not apply to industries where the manufacturer was making supplies or equipment for use in the work contemplated. The substance of the amendment is this:
The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in the fabrication or the manufacture of materials, supplies or equipment for use in the "work contemplated where such fabrication or manufacture is carried on in any established plant of factory other than a plant or factory established for the purpose of the work contemplated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the present order in council covers the workmen in such factories?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am very strongly in favour of the principle underlying this bill. I have previously urged in this house that the Dominion government should set itself up as a model employer of labour in so far as it is possible for it to do so. I am very glad indeed to see the government implement its obligations in the matter of a fair wage and the eight-hour day in so far as it lies within the power of this parliament to enact such a measure. It seems to me that the rights of the workmen are amply safeguarded by subsection (a) of section 3 of the bill, which provides that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable. I agree, of course, that the words "fair and reasonable" are not definite. They cannot in the nature of things be absolutely definite. But the words "fair and reasonable" have a well-known meaning in law. The question is one of fact in all cases, depending on all the circumstances of the case. The subsection will, I think, accomplish the purpose that it is desired to serve. I for one would like to take this opportunity of commending the Minister of Labour for his support of this measure. The bill is approved in principle' by organized labour throughout this country, and I believe that it will serve a very useful purpose. I am thoroughly in ac-:ord with the underlying principle of the bill.


Mr. MALONEY:: Will the terms of this bill apply to existing contracts?


Peter Heenan: No, to future contracts.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I
must at the outset congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) upon bringing down this bill, not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, from whose president I have received a letter in which he urges support of this bill and that congratulations be extended to the government for bringing it down.

A year or so ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was asked about the enforcement of the eight-hour day, and he replied that it was purely a provincial matter. We are glad to note that so far as this government and its employees are concerned, the government are showing their sincerity by putting into effect the recommendations of the League of Nations and of the conference held at Washington some years ago.
A few days ago my friends to my right, from Nova Scotia, were berating the Minister of Labour because of the low wages paid to some of the government employees in that province, and they made the statement, if I remember aright, that this government should lead the way and show how things should be done, be a little in advance of other employers. I hope, therefore, now that this measure has been brought down, that our friends from Nova Scotia will heartily support it because it is a distinct advance so far as labour is concerned. It gives labour the eight-hour day and seeks to provide a fair wage clause. Where the words "prevailing rate" were used in the old regulation, the words used in this bill are "fair and reasonable," and what is fair and reasonable is to be determined by the Minister of Labour, and not by any twenty-five cents an hour rate, which has been so much complained' of by our friends from Nova Scotia. I congratulate the minister upon that. Personally I would like to have seen the bill go a little further, but because of the objections that have been raised by contractors and others the minister is perhaps a little timid about going too far. I think, however, we could safely make statutory enactments covering specific works. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was rather afraid that the employees of the harbour commissions to which loans are made by this government would not be included in this bill. They may or may not be. I remember, however, that last year when the harbour commissions were under consideration and their estimates being voted, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) assured me that a fair wage clause such as is provided in this bill would be put in all the contracts for the construction of harbour works, under the loans of this government. I have a copy of the message that he sent to me. He said: The contractor pledges himself to adhere to the government fair wage schedule in force in Montreal during the different periods of construct ion.
The minister sent to me personally a copy of the fair wage clause that is used in contracts for harbour commission work that is being done under government loan. I do not

Fair Wages and Hours
think it would hurt this bill at all if it included a statutory enactment covering the harbour commissions and other works that are being done under government loan. The fair wage clause should be made applicable to all such works.
As regards hydro-electric, undertakings it is quite true that the minister by order in council may insist on the fair wage clause in connection with the issue of the license. I hope the house will observe the principle that has been laid down. For instance, in the hydro-electric licence to the Calgary company, the fair wage clause was inserted. The federal government has not a dollar invested in that enterprise; it has simply granted a licence to a company to do certain work; thereby, in my opinion, the principle has been laid down that in such licences the fair wage clause may be incorporated. In view of this, I would suggest that in the near future this precedent should be followed with respect to all licences granted by the government. Again I congratulate the minister on the bill and I will support it.


Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and the government must be congratulated for having introduced in the house a measure of such far reaching importance. This bill aims at establishing, in connection with government contracts, an eight hour day, with fair and equitable wages for the labourer. The government is equally entitled to our congratulations for endeavouring to put through this measure because it gives an example to the people of this country which should be followed by all those who employ workers in their manufactures or commercial pursuit. The workman is the most important factor in industry. By his work, he contributes the most to production, and consequently gives to the manufacturer the greatest possible returns. This factor must not be overlooked, and special considerations must be given to it when the times comes to remunerate the worker for his labours.
As the representative of a riding the major part being artisans, I am in favour of this bill and I again congratulate the government for having had the courage of introducing, so worthy a measure as the one actually under consideration. I think the working classes will be pleased and happy to find in this house friends ready to acknowledge that human capital must receive a just and equitable treatment, which will give to the workers, not only the opportunity of providing for the needs of their family, but also of saving a little money for their old age.
Such a measure should receive the unanimous support of the house, and I have every reason to believe that the people of this country will unanimously support the government in order to prove their appreciation for this piece of legislation.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Heretofore
when tenders were called for public works it was quite possible for the contracting firms to estimate the wages that would be paid because they were the wages current in the locality at the time. Now we have a different method, it being provided by section 5, subsection (a) that the governor in council may make regulations with regard to:
(a) the method of determining what are current or fair and reasonable wages and the preparation and use of schedules of rates relating thereto.
This being the case, is it the intention of the minister when tenders are being called for to furnish the prospective contractors with a schedule of the rates of wages that will apply on the work so that those tendering will be able to make an intelligent estimate?


Peter Heenan: That is the intention, to
provide a schedule of wages with the specifications.


John Franklin White: And all the conditions with regard to extras, and so on?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: I
observe that section 3, subsection (a) provides for the payment of such wages "as are generally accepted as current from time to time." Does this mean that the wages may be changed during the progress of the work?


Peter Heenan: That is the system at the present time. If the current wages in the locality are changed, we have a right to increase in proportion the wages to be paid by the contractor.


George Reginald Geary: Clause (h) of section 5 provides that the governor in council may make regulations with regard to the subletting of contracts. How will that work out? I would point out that some question has been raised by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with regard to a definite standard of wages being set. In the opinion of the Trades and Labour Congress the words:
provided that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable.
do not give the minister sufficient control over the rates of wages which may be paid. I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre when he says that
Fair Wages and Hours

the door is left wide open for some interpretation that may not suit the working men to say the least. Again, if there is such a standard or current rate of wages as was said the other day to prevail in Nova Scotia, is it proposed under this proviso that the department may increase that current rate to something that it thinks is fair and reasonable?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Surely that is contemplated as possible.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend will allow
the minister to answer I hope I shall get the information that I desire. The next question I should like to put to the minister is as to whether this section will be inserted in each contract. I see some difficulties in prospect if it is just left as a statutory enactment. I know the minister wants to make the legislation effective, and I think he should consider the advisability of inserting this provision as a term of each contract. I thoroughly approve of the principle of this bill, but like my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, I regret it has been so long delayed. It is welcome legislation in regard to hours of labour and rates of wages.
I can hope only that the government will do what we on this side of the house have been urging it to do for some time. Irrespective of parties, we have been urging the government to consider the fact that within the scope of its own jurisdiction, and in regard to its own employees, the government is paying far from a living wage to great numbers of workers. There are men who are receiving SSO a month and upwards; some of those men have families and are trying to exist on that wage. It seems to me that the Dominion government should take into consideration this session, as it has been urged to do in previous sessions, the question whether it should continue to pay a wage as low as $80 a month to men who are capable of doing the work to which they are assigned. We will later have the opportunity to deal with this question. I will be pleased if the minister will answer my questions, so that the matter may be clarified in my mind. I approve of the general principle of the bill and I welcome it.


Peter Heenan: If my hon. friend does
not mind I would prefer to wait until we reach the committee stage; at that time I will be pleased to answer his questions clause by clause.


George Reginald Geary: That is a fair answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before second reading is given
to this bill I wish to join issue with those
(Mr. Geary.]
who have so heartily congratulated the government upon taking action in this matter. My colleague from East Calgary (Mr. Ads-head) seems to think that the fact the government is now taking action is a cause for great jubilation and congratulation. As I read the records of international gatherings this measure is about ten years past due; that is all. At a great international conference at which employers and employees were represented steps were taken to give effect to the provisions of the treaty of Versailles. To put it shortly, that treaty made provision for an eight-hour day, and the Dominion of Canada became a party to it. The constitutional jurisdiction of the Dominion to give effect to such hours of employment was questioned, and it was contended that the provinces alone could deal with the question of an eight-hour day. It will no doubt be within the memory of this house that when the Dominion of Canada agreed to a treaty which was made between Great Britain and Japan, it was held that it had thereby divested the province of British Columbia of legislative power to restrict the character and the type of persons who might be employed upon government lands or mines. To that extent the legislature of the province of British Columbia was deprived of its legislative power because of the provisions of a treaty to which this country had given its approval. In my own mind I have never been satisfied as to how far the parliament of the Dominion of Canada had jurisdiction to deal with these problems, in view of the fact that we became a party to the treaty of Versailles and thereby, to that extent at least, interfered with the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces to whatever extent might be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the treaty. Whether or not the decision in the British Columbia case is of such far-reaching significance I am not at the moment prepared to say. In this regard I cannot but think what governments do just before an election and the alacrity with which their supporters will stand in their places and confer benedictions for their action is amazing when, as a matter of fact, as in this case this country was committed in the most solemn manner known to the law-by treaty-to do so many, many years ago what, we are now doing.
It was not the present government which made this treaty or which committed itself to these obligations; it was a government that was not led by a Liberal prime minister which made these commitments. At the international conference to which I have referred, employers and employees were represented,

Fair Wages and Hours
and I took the trouble the other day to search in the library, and I found there the record of the meeting of the first League of Nations international labour conference. I have in my hand the minutes of the first annual meeting held from October 29 to November 29, 1919. Looking at the record which indicates those who were present, I find that Canada was represented by the Hon. Gideon D. Robertson, Senator and Minister of Labour of Canada, the Hon. Newton W. Rowell, K.C., M.P., President of the Privy Council of Canada and Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the list of advisers I find the names of the following:
Mr. F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour of Canada.
Mr. Loring C. Christie, legal adviser to the Department of External Affairs of Canada.
Mr. Daniel A. Cameron, member of the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia.
The Hon. C. W. Robinson, minister without portfolio of the government of the province of New Brunswick,-
who is now a senator,
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., M.P., former Minister of Labour of Canada.
Mr. Louis Guyon, Deputy Minister of Labour for the province of Quebec.
Dr. Walter A. Riddell, Deputy Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario.
The Hon. Thomas H. Johnson. Attorney General for the province of Manitoba.
Sir. T. M. Molloy, secretary of the Bureau of Labour for the province of Saskatchewan.
The Hon. C. R. Mitchell, provincial treasurer of the province of Alberta.
Mr. J. D. McNiven, Deputy Minister of Labour for the province of British Columbia.
Mr. Gerald H. Brown, secretary of the Reconstruction Committee of the government of Canada.
The employers' delegate was Mr. S. R. Parsons, president of the British American Oil Company, Limited. The advisers are given as follows:
Mr. .T. E. Walsh, general manager, Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr. J. T. Stirrett, general secretary, Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr. E. Blake Robertson, Ottawa representative, Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr. J. B. Hugg, Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr. J. G. Merrick, secretary, Canadian Employers' Association.
The workers' delegate was Mr. P. M. Draper, secretary-treasurer, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and president of the Ottawa Typographical Union. The advisers are given as follows:
Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
Mr. Arthur Martel, vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
Mr. Robert Baxter, vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
Mr. David Rees, vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
Mrs. Kathleen Derry, member of the Boot and Shoe Workers' Union.
About fifty nations of the world were represented at that conference, and by looking at the index one may observe the long discussion which took place in connection with the eight hour day. I think it is only fair to say that at that conference which took place ten years ago last fall the universal opinion was expressed-probably I should not put it so strongly-the general opinion was expressed by resolution that the forty-eight hour week should be the prevailing period of work for those who toil. The question of terms of contract partly dealt with in the legislation now before the house is something which has been dealt with by order in council since and to some extent before that time.
There are two or three matters with which this bill does not in my opinion sufficiently deal. It is idle to say that you do not desire to be unfair to those who make contracts with the state; no nation desires to be unfair with those who undertake to work for it. There used to be an old saying with which those of you who have read law and those who have read a great deal of general literature will be familiar: " the infallible justice of the crown"-that the crown will never do an unjust act. I referred to such an incident the other day, where a well known firm of contractors alleged that they had suffered almost bankruptcy because of changes imposed by the Minister of Labour in the compensation paid to their workmen, and that indicates the possibilities of injustice being done. I express no opinion as to the correctness of their claim; I merely mention it. This bill as it now stands makes it possible for an injustice to be done, and I trust that before the minister finally settles his bill he will afford an opportunity to those who are greatly interested in matters of this kind to present their point of view to this house. I have had a large number of telegrams from employers and employees; from workmen and from the employers of workmen. Some of them, not understanding the terms of the bill, thought it was going to work a very great hardship at a point where clearly none was possible; others were very anxious that the bill should be enacted because they felt that it would afford them a measure of relief which clearly, under its terms, it does not afford.
As I i^ad the bill, it does not attempt to deal with the conflict in legislative power between the legislatures of the provinces on the one hand and the parliament of Canada on the other. Admitting that the principle

Fair Wages and Hours

of the bill is agreed to-and for my part I find it difficult to think that in this year 1930 any member of parliament should quarrel with the principle when repeatedly since 1920 this parliament has approved, in the most formal way at times and in informal ways at other times, of the principle of the measure-it becomes important to endeavour to work out the details in order to do no injustice either to the employer or to the employee. The first ipriniciple is the eight-hour day, and the second principle is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The one involves merely the measurement of time, which is not difficult; it is done with a clock or a watch. The other, the determination of the measure or the quantum of wages that shall be paid at given points is, of course, very difficult, and the minister has been very frank about that. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated, he uses the word "current", which is a word susceptible to almost any meaning it may 'be desired to give to it.
In my judgment there should be something more specific than that when you come to deal with the question of tenders and contracts. For instance, if a tender is called for the construction of a post office in Nova Scotia and on the same day a tender is called for the construction of a post office in British Columbia and there is in each tender a provision stating that the contractor will be expected to comply with the provisions of the Fair Wage Act, he could not employ his workmen for more than eight hours per day. However, it might well be that the wages paid in Nova Scotia would not be at all the same as those paid in British Columbia. I think the minister has made that abundantly clear. I am not asserting for a single moment that you can have a uniform standard of wages throughout Canada, without taking notice of local conditions and the circumstances under which the work is performed. I do suggest, however, that in all such matters as these1, where tenders are called for public works, there should be at least some exactitude, for as I gathered from what the minister said this afternoon, if a change were to take place in current wages at a given point, then the contractor probably would have a good claim for extras by reason of the minister having exercised the powers mentioned.
I submit that should not be so, having regard to the maxim to which I referred, "the infallible justice of the crown", f^pd having regard to what was said by the privy council in the very early days of this confederation in a case which came from this Dominion. There the question was whether or not prop-

erty that had been taken should be compensated for, and the law lords pointed out that it must be presumed at all times that where benefits accrue to the crown, the crown is to pay for them. If a contractor, having in mind the terms of such a contract as I have mentioned, tenders and is successful; if the contract is signed containing the terms I have indicated, the minister, in the exercise of the powers now contemplated by this measure, may impose upon that contractor a burden which might amount to thousands of dollars more than he contemplated when he made his tender. Surely then he would be entitled to a claim for extras. I would say that would be reasonably clear at any rate, and certainly in my younger days, when I was engaged with corporations which had to deal with conditions of this kind, under similar circumstances they regarded the claim for extras as being well founded. I remember one case in particular in connection with the digging of the irrigation ditch near Calgary, in which such a claim was accepted at once by the railway company because it was felt that conditions had changed, through no fault of the contractor, and had imposed upon him an added burden. The benefit of the extra work having accrued to the railway company they were willing to pay, and in fact did pay.
The next principle in this measure is one which I suggest should be carefully considered by this house. If hon. gentlemen present will take the trouble to look at the last section of the measure, which is section 5, they will observe that very great powers are conferred upon the minister, to the exercise of which there is no limit. When I say "limit" I mean there is no reasonable limit as to the extent to which they may be exercised. Now, whatever may be said of human progress, I think at least it can be truthfully observed that today there is a tendency to limit the exercise of power by the executive and to rely more and more upon the exercise of power by the legislation branch of government. When one observes the provisions of section 5 it is seen that upon the representation and recommendation of the minister, resulting in an order in council, there is conferred upon the government of this country a power which might be tyrannical and which certainly would be autocratic. It is a power to make regulations dealing with almost every factor that might arise in the enforcement of the provisions of the statute itself, and if my hon. friend the Minister of Labour will be good enough to look at the last subsection, namely subsection (j), he will observe these words:
generally for the due enforcement of the provisions of the act and the regulations.

Fair Waj/es and Hours
In other words, this parliament is being asked to give to the minister a letter of credit which will enable him not only to pass regulations dealing with the various defined subjects in the statute but also to enforce the provisions of the statute itself as well as those of the regulations. Not only is he given the power to enforce, but he is given power to make regulations beyond enforcement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And penalties
also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that involves, my
hon. friend has said, the question of penalties as well. Now, I ask my hon. friend the Prime Minister if it is sound legislation to ask parliament to confer these powers upon any minister, regardless of his politics. I leave out that question for the moment, because I am treating the Minister of Labour as an office and not as an individual at all. In this day is it sound legislation to confer powers upon one man, with the aid of a government passing an order in council, such as this section contemplates?
That is the third principle in this legislation. I am powerless, of course, to prevent such a section being enacted; I am entirely powerless to prevent it from becoming the law of Canada, but I am not powerless to present my protest against such arbitrary powers being conferred upon the holder of any office. Twice during this session of parliament I have had occasion to refer to what Lord Chief Justice Hewart terms his essay, but which in fact is a volume of considerable size. I refer again to The New Despotism, and in discussing the matter Lord Hewart refers to a number of cases decided by the courts in England in which they strongly criticize the exercise of this power by the executive branch of government. It is fatal to the development of our institutions; certainly it is fatal to democracy that any parliament should confer upon any office-and I am not now dealing with the hon. gentleman who holds the office-such an arbitrary power clothed with the possibilities of the tyrannical exercise of that power. I do not contemplate that that will be the case, but he is clothed with the possibility of exercising such tyrannical power, and I say it is subversive of the very freedom and liberty this parliament should possess, and is inimical to the interests of the people themselves.
The work of Lord Hewart deals with this matter in detail. By an odd circumstance, before the book had actually left the hands of the printers, although advance copies had been circulated, when a review had appeared, 2419-91J
the Lord Chancellor was so impressed that he appointed a committee to investigate all the recent statutes passed in England, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which parliament had divested itself of authority and conferred upon officials such enormous powers as the powers indicated by section 5 of this bill. I trust the minister will pause before he asks this parliament to give him powers so great. I am not for one moment objecting to those powers being exercised by this minister, but I have objected consistently to such powers being exercised by any minister. I consider the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) a fair minded minister, but I do not .think that it is in the interests of Canada that powers so great should be conferred upon any one individual under the modem democratic form of government where the temptations for abuse are as great as the powers here conferred.
The introduction of this bill at this time indicates what pressure will do in a democracy. Ten years had passed and this bill had not been introduced; it was not introduced by the predecessors of the hon. minister. It is perfectly true that the session after August, 1919, was more of a tentative nature than other sessions; it is perfectly true that the government of that day was defeated; the government of Sir Robert Borden disappeared and Mr. Meighen assumed office, and in 1921 he was defeated. There has been no opportunity since 1922 for any government other than a Liberal government to enact legislation of this nature, and the very fact that it has not been enacted up to this date indicates two things. The first is the confusion-using that word in no offensive sense-as between the relative legislative powers of the legislatures of the provinces and the parliament of the Dominion, and the other is the hesitancy to approach the solution of a problem under the terms and regulations of a treaty and of subsequent international conferences, because there are varying conditions in this country from east to west and there are varying ideas as to whether or not the terms of the treaty correctly interpret the opinion of the people of Canada.
I have said before, and I say it here again, that criticisms may be urged in some localities against this measure, and criticisms may be urged by some occupations. The farmer very probably may say that he has no eight hour day; the right hon. the Prime Minister very probably may say that he has no eight hour day, and the professional men may say the same thing. We have various classes which will contend that a statutory enact-
Fair Wages and Hours

msnt which imposes an eight hour day as the period during which labour shall be carried on by men engaged in certain activities, does violence to the known conditions under which men of other classes have to toil for hours varying from eight to eighteen.
There are many matters in connection with the passing of this legislation which in themselves are good reasons why the principle enunciated in section 5 should not be adopted, such as, pressure of circumstances, pressure of political friends, the pressure which arises from the contemplation of an early election and the desirability of securing the support of known classes in communities-all these things are known to us. Why endeavour to deceive ourselves? We kaow perfectly well that in many instances the government is influenced by circumstances, and human nature being as it is, that always will be so. The government must consider the necessity of securing support at the polls for their candidates at the approaching elections.
I would venture to suggest again to the hon. gentleman the desirability, nay the necessity, of this parliament considering carefully before it forces upon any officer, however eminent he may be or however fair-minded he may be, powers so great, so fraught with opportunities for tyranny, the exercise of which is repugnant to the very idea of our institutions, of the conventions and of the treaty itself which brought about the possibility of an international declaration for a forty-eight-hour week and an eight-hour day at fair wages.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In connection with the extras allowed to contractors, is it not a fact that the rates of wages are made known to the contractor before he signs the contract? I simply mention that because in the case of the Calgary post office the rates of wages were set and were known to the contractor before he signed the contract so that he would have no claim for extras in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am certainly very grateful to my hon. friend for bringing that to my attention, because it was in view of the terms of this statute which we are now considering that I was directing attention to the danger. Subsection (a) of section 3 reads:
All persv ntt in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged; provided that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable.
[Mr. Dennett.)
On reference to the section conferring upon the minister the powers to which I have referred, it will be observed that the minister has power to regulate the method of determining what are current or fair and reasonable wages and the preparation and use of schedules of rates relating thereto; rates of wages for overtime; classifications of employment or work; the publication and posting of wage schedules. It will be observed that the power conferred upon the minister by the bill and the regulations authorize him to make a variation from time to time in the rate of wages, and it is because of that difficulty-it is a real one and not an imaginary one-that I point out the desirability of having something in the form of a schedule, either definite as the hon. gentleman has suggested, or at least providing in definite terms for the rates of wages, so that a claim for extras would not be a matter of grace or favour, but a matter of right to the contractor who has imposed upon him a higher wage rate than that which he had in mind and which appeared in the schedule upon which he prepared his tender and upon which the contract was awarded. The contractor would have a just claim for extras which the government should pay for the services rendered.
I am quite sure that when the right hon. the Prime Minister considers this section and recalls the observations he made as to the desirability of restricting rather than extending the powers of the executive branch of government-even in times of war complaint was made that those powers were too extensive -he will find that in times of peace the exercise of this power is fraught with the gravest danger.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the second reading of this bill, but I think it is perhaps only fair to the minister himself, in view of what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just said as to arbitrary powers being given by this legislation to the minister, to point out that the purpose of the section to which my hon. friend has referred is diametrically the opposite to that of conferring any arbitrary power. The section might have been worded:
That the Minister of Labour may make regulations with regard to wages and hours herein provided for and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may provide by regulation for,-
If that had been the wording of the section the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would have been most apposite,

Fair Wages and Hours
but it does not say anything of the kind; it specifically restricts the power for the making of these regulations to the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Upon the recommendation of the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly, upon the recommendation of the minister; every order in council is made upon the recommendation of some minister. The appropriate minister to make a recommendation with respect to any act is the minister by whose department the act is being administered. But my hon. friend will, I am sure, agree that because a minister brings in a recommendation to council, it does not necessarily follow that council automatically accepts and passes the recommendation. If that is the method in which orders in council have been passed in any government with which my hon. friend has been associated, I can assure him that it is not the method followed by the present administration. Ministers frequently have the greatest difficulty in getting their recommendations adopted by their colleagues and not infrequently fail entirely so to do. That is the distinct merit of our system of government in which the cabinet plays the important part it does. It prevents the will or wish of any individual who may happen to have a special interest which he desires to have promoted, prevailing at the expense of those who entertain opposite points of view or who are trying to protect other interests unless the object is obviously one wholly in the public interest.	,
What happens when a minister brings his recommendation to council is that the recommendation is very carefully scrutinized by all his colleagues. The Minister of Finance looks at the recommendation from the point of view of what it involves in the way of expenditure. The Minister of Railways looks at it from the point of view of how it is going to affect employees on government railroads or those which may be in competition with government roads. The Minister of Agriculture has his thought immediately directed to the conditions in the agricultural industry and he compares the effect of any suggested regulation with what is likely as a consequence to arise in that particular industry. So one might continue to mention all of the various points of view that are represented around a council table. The fact that authority is given to the governor in council and not to the minister is for the very purpose of avoiding the thing to which
my hon. friend is taking exception, namely, giving to any single minister arbitrary power.
May I point out that with respect to any legislation there are usually all-important details with regard to which parliament is not as well qualified to deal as a department of the government or the governor in council. Take, for example, the various matters mentioned in this bill as matters which must be considered by the governor in council:
The method of determining what are current or fair and reasonable wages and the preparation and use of schedules of rates relating thereto.
Parliament might spend weeks in discussing what it is best to do in that regard and yet not find a solution that would really suit the circumstances of each case, for the simple reason that the law will apply to all parts of the Dominion, at all seasons of the year, under all circumstances and it would be almost impossible for parliament to anticipate some of the situations which will arise, but which, nevertheless, will have to be regulated in accordance with some general principle or rule. Take another item:
The publication and posting of wage schedules.
This is a question with which parliament surely would not wish to concern itself, for example, as to whether wage schedules were to be published in the Labour Gazette or the Canada Gazette, whether they were to be published in the form of bulletins to be posted on the works themselves or exhibited in some other way. Those are details with which the department itself can deal satisfactorily, but as regards which parliament would be only wasting its time if it sought to express any opinion beyond that of indicating in the legislation itself its desire to see that that particular feature is given attention.
The keeping of proper books and records and the examination of the same by government officers.
The fact that parliament mentions that the keeping of proper records is a subject with which the governor in council deals means, not that parliament is parting with any legislative power or control, but rather that parliament wishes to indicate that this particular feature (should receive attention and the working out of it be left to a proper government department. It would be only occupying the time of the house unnecessarily to run through the other regulations as they are all much of the same nature.
To return to what I said at the outset: far from giving the minister autocratic powers, the purpose of the section in giving authority to the governor in council is so to circum-
143S
Fair Wages and Hours

scribe the minister that no single individual in the government, however worthy he may be or however worthy may be the cause that he represents, will have the opportunity of arbitrarily fixing rules and regulations, but will have to submit whatever he suggests to a jury, if I may term it as such, representative of all bodies of opinion in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the executive branch and not the legislative branch of government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; but when a minister is submitting his regulations to his colleagues in council, to all intents and purposes he is appearing before his peers and making out a case if he is able so to do.
My hon. friend speaks about government by order in council. I am entirely of his point of view that government by order in council should be restricted; that the supremacy of parliament is all-important. But there is a great difference between having general legislative power given in a statute to deal with any and all subjects by order in council and having power given under a particular statute to pass orders in council for the purpose of carrying out the objects of a particular statute. When I was seated in opposition where my hon. friend is at the present time and took such strong exception to government by order in council, it was because the government of that day had, because of war conditions, received from parliament under a War Measures Act power to deal by order in council with almost any subject; and were continuing in peace time to proceed under that measure: they had not repealed the statute which gave them power to legislate generally by order in council as I think it should have been repealed immediately the war was over, if indeed, it should ever have been introduced or applied as extensively as it was. That was the reason exception was taken, but that is a very different matter from taking exception to parliament enacting a measure for any specific purpose and in the measure itself giving to a minister of the crown or to the governor in council power to pass the necessary orders to see that the specific piece of legislation itself is carried out. So far as this act is concerned, parliament is doing something that is very clear and direct, something which it would appear is generally approved, namely, establishing an eight hour day so far as most of the construction under government contracts and the government's own employees are concerned, and directing that the wages paid to the government's own employees on works of construction and the

like connected with our public works, shall be wages that are fair and reasonable. That is the principle and purpose of the measure. In passing the second reading, in adopting that principle, parliament has gone about as far as it is possible to go by way of necessary legislation, beyond giving to some authority what may be necessary by way of making the essential proper regulations to achieve these ends. I submit, so far as the regulations are concerned, that the clauses drafted circumscribe pretty effectively the action of any minister who may seek to be autocratic.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, while I can agree in general with the principle of the bill, there are one or two points in connection therewith which I desire to discuss. No hon. member will contend for a moment that the time is not long past due for the introduction of a measure of this character. I think the first time that labour representations to this effect were made to this government was as far back as 1925. There had been representations even before that time, but for considerably more than ten years, as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, this government or the preceding one has had before it proposals of this character. The eight hour day is on the one hand, just a small attempt to meet the increasing problem of the displacement of men by machinery, and on the other it is an effort on the part of those who advocate it to lessen the innumerable accidents which are becoming so great a burden on industry and the state. According to both medical authorities and other scientific investigators, long hours of labour have not only the effect of lessening the vigour and vitality of those so engaged, but towards the closing hour the percentage of accidents among men working long hours so strikingly increases that one can no longer doubt that the excessively long working day has been and is a major factor in industrial accidents. It has also been responsible for the high cost of accident insurance. The state as a whole, in my opinion, will gain by the introduction of this measure. Every industry in Canada would be well advised to follow the example set by this legislation by introducing at least the eight hour work day.
We have had in recent years the illustration of the burnt-out soldier, but few of us have discussed the existence of the bumt-out industrial worker. Yet as the result of high pressure work and long hours of labour men become so mentally and physically devitalized that after the age of forty many of them are no longer desired by industrial employers.

There is no doubt whatever that that has been one of the principal factors in our present unemployment problem. A study of the ages of those employed in industry in the province of Ontario will indicate that the average ranges from twenty-eight to thirty-five years of age. It is a fact that industry is increasingly requiring the services of young men who are capable of making quick adjustments of machinery rather than those who through long study have become experts in some branch of technical work. The long working day has also unquestionably been a factor in increasing the percentage' of men who drink after they leave work exhausted and devitalized. No condition of the human body has so great a tendency to cause a man to thirst for an artificial stimulant of some kind as the exhaustion experienced after a long day's work, and on that ground the government is well advised in introducing this legislation. I notice that the Prime Minister smiles; I am quite certain he is not smiling at the underlying fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was smiling at my hon. friend's thought of the need for stimulants after a long day.


Edward Joseph Garland: Industrial scientists in Great Britain, after making an exhaustive inquiry into and prolonged experimentation bearing upon the question of the maximum physical efficiency of the worker in relation to hours of work came to the conclusion that efficiency can best be reached by working a week of forty hours or less, and that once the forty hour week is exceeded, efficiency begins to decrease with every additional hour. Statistics in other countries show, as I have already mentioned, that the number of industrial accidents tends to increase after a certain number of hours of labour and that by far the highest percentage of accidents occurs in what is called the penultimate hour of the day's work. This, of course, is undoubtedly due to the lack of muscular control of the individual exhausted by excessive hours of labour.
One other reason in my opinion why this bill should pass the house unanimously is that it is but a long-deferred redeeming of our definite pledges in this matter. The national honour is at stake. That may seem almost a theatrical statement, but I feel sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the national honour has been questioned for some time because of our apparent indifference to the promises we made over our signature in connection with these labour conventions.
Fair Wages and Hours
I now come specifically to the bill itself, and I refer the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour to section 3, which reads:
Every contract with the government of Canada for construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work shall be subject to the following conditions respecting wages and hours:
That is all that is provided in the bill with regard to hours of labour. It is narrowed down to contracts. What about the penitentiary employees, men who to-day are working a shift of nine hours? Are they not to be included in this measure? What about the hospital orderlies in our own institutions who now work an eleven-hour day and a thirteen-hour night in alternate shifts? What about mechanics, machinists, electricians and many others? What about the employees of the Canadian National railway system, some of whom are working over eight hours a day? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if I have any criticism of the measure it is that it does not go nearly far enough. I at hand have other illustrations with respect to employees of the government on the St. Lawrence waterway development, I find that many are working twelve hours a day. I grant you that there may be extenuating circumstances in the case of lockmasters. There are some lockmasters, however, whose hours of work should not be more than eight per day because of the character of the work which they have to do in that eight hours Of course, there are others who one day will have nothing to do and the next day may have to lock only a few boats through, but these are not the usual run of cases.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the first place, that because health is one of the foundations of the state, and because health is in a measure affected by excessive hours of work, this bill will tend to improve conditions and will therefore receive my support. Further, I am in favour of it because the loss of human life increases with longer hours of labour; because long hours of labour have a tendency to degrade by devitalizing human beings; because the state should be the first to recognize the value of the health and happiness of the worker, and because the mechanization of industry has created a real additional reason why the hours of labour should be reduced. But I would ask the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister to take into consideration the point that I have raised with regard to the appearance of limitation in section 3 of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has already been done by order in council. I think it covers the other classes.
Fair Wages and Hours


Edward Joseph Garland: It covers
all classes on federal work?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am delighted to know it. I remember now that the minister did bring in some measure purporting to have that effect, but I had overlooked it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Am I to conclude from
the remarks of the hon. member that he would like the eight hour day applied to railway employees?


Edward Joseph Garland: I know it is applied to the greater part of the railway employees' work. What particular point does my hon. friend desire to make?


Jean-François Pouliot: They are paid overtime after eight hours.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend apparently was tiying to trip me up. I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a particular type of employment to which consideration should be given. I will take a point like Drumheller in Alberta. The postmaster is engaged and paid by the Post Office Department. I take it that the postmaster engages his own help, at least if not in every case in most cases. I find that the workers employed by the postmaster are frequently compelled to work long hours and under most unfair conditions. I made some inquiries recently into the situation at Drumheller, which is in my constituency, and I find that work in the post office commences between 7.00 and 7.80 a.m. and concludes with the finish of the working day at 7.00 p.m.; that is a period of approximately twelve hours. One hour is permitted for lunch and an average of twenty-five minutes only for the evening meal.


Mr. VENIOT:: That is not under regulations of the department.


Edward Joseph Garland: I realize
that. That is why I am raising the question.
I think some provision should be made to take care of cases of this kind. Not only are the people working in an exceedingly ill-fitted, badly ventilated and wholly unsuitable building-may I now congratulate the government on having recognized that and decided to remedy the condition-but the sanitary arrangements are utterly insufficient, and the result has been that some of the female helpers have had to undergo medical treatment. Here is a statement in regard to that: Due to the latter hazard, periodical lay-offs by the employees are frequent, and medical 
advice is to the effect that the conditions of employment are responsible for these lay-offs. One girl tells me that the doctor advised more fresh air and shorter hours of labour, and this appears to be the usual prescription.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, may I ask the Minister of Labour to take into consideration some measure which would look after the indirect employees of departments like the Post Office Department of whom advantage is taken by the direct employees of the government? I may say that the principle of the bill is satisfactory to me, and I only wish it went further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have, I suppose in common with many other members of the house, received telegrams suggesting that an opportunity should be afforded to those who are vitally affected to present their views. As the bill proceeds in committee, before it finally is disposed of it did occur to me that possibly the minister might allow the bill to go to one of the standing committees to have representations made by those who feel an injustice is being done to them with respect to some of the sections dealing with contracts and the right of the minister to increase wages from time to time-the very point mentioned by my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) In view of those representations it strikes me it might be desirable to afford that opportunity to those who are under this misapprehension.


Peter Heenan: Yesterday'' at noon there
assembled in this city a large delegation representing the manufacturers' association and contractors. It appeared to me they had a wrong conception of the purpose of the bill, and after we had discussed the bill for an hour and a half it was made quite clear to them that the bill was not intended to apply to factories. When I assured them that if there was any doubt about this a subsection would be introduced to make it perfectly clear, they went away fairly satisfied-of course, I would not say one hundred per cent satisfied, because my hon. friend will realize that the average employer of labour does not care for legislation such as this. As for the changing of the rate of wages after the contract has been signed, it has been the policy of the government of Canada for the past thirty years.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: To change wages from
time to time?

Fair Wages and Hours


Peter Heenan: Yes. Except in probably
a couple of cases, one of which my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, mentioned this afternoon, it does not appear that this has resulted in any great hardship or injustice being done to employers. I am satisfied, as my hon. friend well said, that the government of Canada, no matter what party might be in power, would deal justly with both employers and employees. As I said, there have been two instances where the rate of wages has been changed after the contract had been signed. I recall that in 1913 or 1914 circumstances arose in connection with a contract which required the contractor to pay higher wages than were provided for, and my hon. friends themselves before going out of office in 1921 compensated the contractor for the extra cost, although they need not necessarily have done so under the terms of the contract, but I presume they felt it was fair and right that compensation should be granted. At the present time, as my hon. friend has stated, there is a claim against the government under a contract because of the rate of wages having been increased, notwithstanding the fact that the present fair wage regulations make the minister's decision final in the matter. I am satisfied that the minister of labour in any government would be perfectly within his rights in recommending to his colleagues whatever might seem to him just in relation to either contractor or employees. With respect to the Welland canal contract which I believe the hon. member had in mind, the decision of the Minister of Labour has been submitted to a commission for consideration. The present minister has no hesitation in taking such a course.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition seems to think that clause 5 gives too much arbitrary power to the minister. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it extends only so far as the cabinet by order in council may specify what powers the Minister of Labour may have in the matter; and inasmuch as this practice has prevailed for almost thirty years, and very little injustice has been done to any contractors, I think my hon. friend will agree that no injustice will be done while the present Minister of Labour is in office-which will be so long as he or I remain in public life during the next forty years.
My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) admitted, I think, that he had forgotten that this bill was only a part of the program of the government as to the eight hour principle, because he spoke with respect to employees directly engaged by the government and not working for contractors. I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to the order in council that was passed on March 27, 1930.


Edward Joseph Garland: What day was it tabled in the house?


Peter Heenan: I am not so sure about that; it was a couple of days after.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was the same or next day.


Peter Heenan: It was within a couple of days anyway. I wish to put on Hansard a certified copy of a minute of the meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on March 27, 1930.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 19th March, 1930, from the Minister of Labour, submitting as follows:-
1.	That it was recognized in the labour part of the treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace, that the well-being-physical, moral and intellectual-of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, and that although differences of climate, habits and customs, economic principles and industrial traditions, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment, there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
2.	That approval was expressed in the peace treaties of the principle of the eight hour working day.
3.	That a draft convention was adopted at the first session of the conference of the international labour organization (League of Nations) in 1919 to limit hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight hours per day.
4.	That the draft convention above mentioned was referred in 1924 to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons of Canada for examination and report.
5.	That on the recommendation of the committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons, approved by the House of Commons, the draft convention on hours of work in industrial undertakings was referred by order in council to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to determining the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities, respectively, on this subject.
6.	That the judgment of the Supreme Court, of Canada contained the following declaration. "The subject matter is generally within^ the competence of the legislatures of the provinces but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the Dominion government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province."
7.	That a report from the Civil Service Commission which was submitted to Your Excellency in Council under date of February 16, 1925.
Fair Wages and Hours

showed that the standard daily hours of work of monthly rate employees in the government departments are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval for luncheon and a half holiday on Saturday, and that the standard hours of prevailing rate employees, numbering 1,576 in Ottawa and 18,264 outside Ottawa (of whom 12,247 were postmasters paid on percentage basis), are 44 hours per week, based on an eight hour day for five days, and 4 hours, or a half day, on Saturday.
Certain exceptions to these standard hours of work were also noted in the report of the Civil Service Commission.
8.	That request has been made to the government for the granting of the eight hour day to its own employees.
9.	That it is desirable that the principle of the eight hour day should be applied to any branches of the public service of Canada in which it is not now observed.
The minister accordingly recommends that, except in cases where the work of employees is intermittent in character, or the application of this rule is not deemed to be practicable or in the public interest, the hours of work of any employees of the Dominion government who are still required to work more than eight hours daily be reduced to eight hours daily, with a half holiday on Saturday.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
Following that there was an order in council by the Customs department granting the eight hour day to all employees in that particular department. I do not know whether it is necessary to read this order in council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: While we do not
need this detail, do I understand that this is merely a recommendation, and that each department has still to pass a special order in council before it becomes effective?


Peter Heenan: Yes. I do not like to
give away cabinet secrets but I might say that within a few minutes after that order in council was passed the Minister of National Revenue introduced an order in council which was passed; the effect of that action was that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,500 and 3,000 employees were placed on the eight hour day basis. I wish to say for the information of my hon. friend that while there are in the neighbourhood of 50,000 employees of the Dominion government, they all are working eight hours or less each day, with the exception of about 6,000 employees at outside points. So that half of those who were working more than eight hours have been already placed on the eight hour day basis. I have not had time to see what the other departments are doing, but I know that they are all going to adopt this measure, with the exception, as stated, of cases where it is not in the public interest to do so.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); In other words I take it that my objection stands, and that no provision has been made for the application of the eight hour day to penitentiary guards, hospital orderlies, and certain mechanics, machinists and electricians employed by the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Andi employees of
the House of Commons.


Peter Heenan: Any more than the general policy which has been adopted within the last few days. I think hon. members can leave it to the departments to see that they are provided for.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
think we can do that. It seems to me the minister is "passing the buck"-I believe that is the expression he used when he was talking to the legislative assembly of Ontario some years ago on the unemployment problem. I think he is passing the buck to the department now. This provision should be included in the bill and made statutory.


Peter Heenan: At any rate the public
servants of Canada seem to be pretty well satisfied that they are going to be well treated, and I think a fair start has been made since half of those employees working more than eight hours a day had their working time cut down to eight hours within a very few moments after the general policy of the government was decided upon.
I never have been one of those who thought that matters were progresing just as fast as they should progress in advanced legislation of this nature, but I think perhaps it would be well to review briefly the history of fair wage legislation in this country so far as it applies to Dominion undertakings. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition went on to say that this matter was ten years overdue, and I think he left the inference that if his party had had the opportunity this eight-hour day legislation would have been enacted long ago. If we go back, we will find that fair wage legislation with regard to Dominion works had its inception in 1897, when Sir William Mulock, now the esteemed Chief Justice of Ontario, appointed a young gentleman then in his early twenties to survey and investigate the conditions under which supplies for the Dominion government were manufactured. I should like to read the conclusion of that report, which summarizes the report itself. It says:
The conclusions of the investigation may be briefly summarized as follows:
1.	Practically all of the clothing manufactured for the government of Canada, under the contract system of the past ten years, has been

Fair Wages and Hours
manufactured, for the most part, on premises other than those of the government contractors, and according to one of the three modes of subcontracting already described. As a result of this the government contractors have had no immediate supervision of the contract work, and have, in fact, only assumed a partial responsibility for the methods and conditions under which it was performed. In other words, the contractors, while reaping the benefits of the contract in question, have failed to discharge adequately the duties and responsibilities which may not unfairly be regarded as appertaining to the proper carrying out of their obligations.
2.	Most of the work on government clothing has really been executed by women and girls. Where these have been employed in shops their wages have been, on the whole, exceedingly low; and where the work was performed in homes the prices paid were often such as to necessitate long hours of labour for a very meagre return. In the case of those employed by subcontractors the general rule has been to require a maximum amount of work for a minimum amount of pav. Exceptionally long hours and other objectionable features have marked the course of the employment of the workers in the homes and of not a few in the shops.
3.	The introduction of a subcontractor, who lesorts to hired help, has involved the necessity of realizing a double profit out of the work of the hands and, as a consequence of this and the competition of subcontractors, the wages of the large majority of those engaged in government work have suffered a considerable depression. The -wages received will not bear comparison other than unfavourable with those paid as a fair return for labour in other trades or occupations.
4.	The conditions under which much of the government work has been executed have been such as to prove injurious to the health and well-being of those engaged in it. There has been no proper or adequate inspection of the methods or the work itself, and. as a consequence, individuals and the public alike have been exposed to continuous risk from the spread of contagion as well as to harm in other ways.
I need scarcely add that the existence of such conditions, apart from any other attendant evils of the sweating system, constitute emphatically, in the words of your communication. "sufficient grounds for government interference in order that future contracts may be performed in a manner free from all such objectionable features." The step in this direction which has already been taken by your department cannot fail to bring about a much needed reform, and be productive of great and lasting good to the industrial classes of this country.
I have the honour to be
Your obedient servant,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
That is dated Toronto, January 5, 1898, So it will be quite evident that the question of fair wages on public contracts was first conceived by the Liberal party at that time, and as a consequence, in 1900, Sir William Mulock introduced the following resolution:
That it be resolved, that all government contracts should contain such conditions as will prevent abuses, which may arise from the subletting of such contracts, and that every effort
should be made to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out, and that this house cordially concurs in such policy, and deems it the duty of the government to take immediate steps to give effect thereto. It is hereby declared that the work to which the foregoing policy shall apply includes not only work undertaken by the government itself, but also all works aided by grant of Dominion public funds.
That resolution was adopted in 1900.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the date of
the report?


Peter Heenan: It was early in 1898. In
conformity with that resolution there has been inserted in government contracts ever since a clause requiring the observance of the current rate of wages and working hours in the districts where the work is being done, and it has been provided also that in the event of any dispute arising as to what were current wages or hours, the dispute should be settled by the Minister of Labour. In most cases the fair or reasonable wages have been embodied in the schedules, and in other cases this has been done by way of a general fair wage clause. For the information of the house I might say that where a contract can be carried out within a reasonable time, say a year, the schedule of wages has been embodied in the contract, but where it is to be expected that the work will take three or four years, as was the case with the Welland canal, a general fair wage clause is inserted to the effect that wages will be based on the conditions prevailing from time to time. That is what is known as the general wage contract.
In 1907, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, then Minister of Labour, recommended to the governor in council that the schedule of wages to be paid to the workmen should be posted in a conspicuous place, so that the men could observe what they were entitled to. He recommended also that the books of the employers should be open for inspection, and fair wage officers were employed by the government to go around to see that the fair wage clause was being carried out.
We come down to 1922, because between 1911 and 1921 no amendments or added provisions of any description with respect to this matter were put into effect. In 1922 the Hon. James Murdock, in order to provide for more uniformity in the departments, put through an order in council to take care of every eventuality which could be conceived, and the matter has been handled in that way ever since. For the information of my hon. friends I would state that we have a number of
Fair Wages and Hours

fair wage officers who travel around and make inspections and reports. Very often they find a contractor who is not paying the schedule of wages, and in every case I know of we have collected the back wages due to the men.
I would point out that the contracts for manufacturing of supplies are provided for by the order in council of 1922. The bill now before the committee is not supplanting that order in council; as I said before, it is a distinct step in the right direction, and I am very glad to have the honour as Minister of Labour under the leadership of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, who made the first recommendation in connection with fair wages, of presenting this bill to the house.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, this bill refers particularly to contracts, and I would like to know how the minister proposes to take care of such cases as were illustrated a few days ago by two or three members from Nova Scotia. The minister tells us that he is responsible for good wages being paid, and I would like him to inform this committee if he is looking after the interests of those men who perform day labour for the government.


Peter Heenan: I am glad that the hon. member has raised that question. While the hon. members for Nova Scotia were discussing this matter, they were directing their inquiries to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) and I did not take much part in the discussion. Those hon. members mentioned cases where 25 cents per hour was being paid on certain work. I would point out that the policy of the government has been to pay the prevailing rate obtaining in the particular district, and if the prevailing rate was 25 cents per hour that would be the rate paid by the Minister of Public Works. In many outlying points in Nova Scotia the prevailing rate of wages paid by the provincial government for road work and other construction was previously 25 cents per hour for common labour. About a year ago I sent officers of the Labour department to Nova Scotia to consult the provincial Minister of Public Works, when it was pointed out how difficult it was for our department to set a decent wage while the provincial government was paying only 25 cents per hour. The provincial minister pointed out that if 35 cents per hour were paid it would cost them over $1,000,000 to complete the work they had on hand, but he agreed to pay 30 cents per hour. It was through the instrumentality and the activity of this Department of Labour that workmen upon highways in Nova Scotia are now receiving 30 cents per hour. I think it was the hon.

member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) who brought up one particular case, and I pointed out that in his own locality the employers of labour established the prevailing rate, and I admitted to 'him that the rate established was very low. With this bill we are taking a decided step forward.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to associate myself with the request made by my hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) that this bill be considered by one of the standing committees of the house. I have no doubt that many members have had the same experience I have had during the last week or ten days, namely, that of receiving many communications from organizations and individuals who desire to be heard in connection with this bill. Although the minister received a delegation last night, I have no doubt that there are many more who expected and desired an opportunity to be allowed to make their representations. I know of at least ten or twelve important manufacturing firms who would like to be given an opportunity of making representations, and of equal consequence to them, there are to my knowledge at least eight or ten important labour organizations who would like to be heard. For that reason, sir, I trust that the minister will now make it possible to send the bill for consideration to one of the committees, where all those who are interested in such a vital matter as this may have a fair opportunity of being heard.


Peter Heenan: I hope my hon. friends will not persist in that attitude because the bill is of a very simple nature. It has been discussed with representatives of the manufacturers, the contractors, and I understand the representatives of labour are generally in accord with the bill.


Leslie Gordon Bell: They want a great deal more.


Peter Heenan: I hold in my hand the following letter, dated at Ottawa, April 8, 1930, and addressed to the Minister of Labour:
I enclose copy of the press statement -which was issued from this office a few days ago regarding the Fair Wages Bill introduced by you as a government measure.
In this, reference is made to our disappointment that Bill 49 did not go so far as the draft bill which we submitted to the government prior to the opening of the session. This must not be taken, however, as meaning that we are any less appreciative of the action taken in submitting legislation providing for the payment of fair wages and the enforcement of the eight hours day on government contracts and jobs done by the government by day labour.
We recognize that this measure complies with three major requests contained in our

Fair Wages and Hours
draft bill, namely the fixing for the first time of statutory authority for the enforcement of fair wages on government works whether such are provided for or not in the individual contract; the application of fair wages and hours conditions on jobs done by the government by day labour, and the compliance with the provisions of the Washington (1919) eight hour day convention so far as the jobs covered by the bill are concerned.
For these reasons the organized labour movement, as represented by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, sincerely trusts that your government will make every effort to have this bill placed on the statute books.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Moore,
President,
Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
I know, as my hon. friend stated, that the labour men of Canada would like to make other provisions in the bill, buf I believe they recognize it is a step in the right direction and they are quite willing that with respect to legislation of this character we should proceed step by step. Let me repeat that representatives of the manufacturers' association and representatives of construction companies, now that they are acquainted with the provisions of the bill, are not adverse to it so long as it is made quite clear that it does not apply to industries nor to the manufacture or fabrication of materials. I pointed out to the manufacturers, and I think every hon. member will realize, that no contractor who treats his men fairly and respects the provisions of his contracts need have any fear in connection with this particular bill. The only people who need have any fear of it are those who undercut, who take a contract at too low a figure and later try to obtain profits by sweated labour. I hope my hon. friend does not insist that the bill go to a special committee, because the legislation is so simple that I cannot see any object that can be served by sending it to a special committee.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago I told the minister that this bill referred only to contracts. He has just read us a letter from the Trades and Labour Congress asking about jobs done by the government not under contract.
Mr. HEENAN; That is in the bill. I did not quite get my hon. friend's question.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister show me where it is in the bill?


Peter Heenan: Clause 4 says:
The wages and hours of all workmen employed by the government of Canada on such works as are described in section 3.
That is, works done by the government itself.


James Dew Chaplin: Under contract. It does
not apply to jobs done outside of contract.


Peter Heenan: Clause 3 provides for
contracts and subcontracts. Clause 4 provides for wages and hours of all workmen employed by the government of Canada on works similar to those described in clause 3 namely, contraction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work.


James Dew Chaplin: Clause 4, as I read it,
applies only to clause 3, and clause 3 applies only to contracts and not to jobs not done under contract. If the minister can show me where jobs done by the government by day labour are included in the bill, I have nothing more to say.


Peter Heenan: It may be that the bill
is not quite clear.
Mr. CHAPLIN; The minister ought to know his own bill and be able to explain its provisions.
Mr. HEENAN; Sometimes it is difficult to explain to my hon. friends the meaning of anything.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister had better
take out another insurance policy such as he spoke of a little while ago.


Peter Heenan: Clause 3 provides for
contracts and subcontracts.


James Dew Chaplin: Where are the subcontracts?


Peter Heenan: I will read:
All persons in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be paid ....
So-and-so.


James Dew Chaplin: That all applies to contracts and subcontracts. It has nothing to do with work done by day labour.


Peter Heenan: We will come to clause
4, which reads:
The wages and hours of all workmen employed by the government of Canada on such-
Or similar works.


James Dew Chaplin: As are described in section 3.


Peter Heenan: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: That is under contract.


Peter Heenan: Clause 3 is the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work.
Fair Wages and Hours


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I am also rather
in doubt in regard to this point and I would like the minister to make it clear. I have been talking to two or three who are as much interested in this as I am and I am in doubt whether it covers the ordinary day work done through the government, the Department of Public Works, the Department of National Defence. I can give instances where men have been cut down five or ten cents an hour on these jobs. I have been trying to study the two clauses and there is reason for doubt whether the minister is covering this class of work, I would like him to make sure that it is covered. As regards contracts, I have not seen much difficulty in my constituency, but I have seen a good deal of difficulty under the day labour work by the government, little jobs where the workmen were cut down five or ten cents an hour. The minister would be well advised to have it fairly provided that such men are protected.


James Dew Chaplin: Two or three words
would cover the point, but the minister will not insert them.


Peter Heenan: I did not say that I would not insert them.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister
told the house a few minutes ago it was the duty of one of the inspectors employed by the government to visit various works and see whether or not there was undercutting of wages. I should like to know whether the minister was in the house when it was specifically charged by the hon. member for Pictou that there were many cases in which the inspectors of the department had visited contractors and got them to reduce the rates of wages which they were paying. If so, has the minister inquired into that allegedly very grave condition, and what has he to tell us about it now?


Peter Heenan: The minister was in the
house, but he did not understand the hon. member for Pictou to make such a statement. What I understood him to say in connection with day labour was that he knew of engineers to come along and get the engineer in charge of the work to cut down the wages because they were higher than the prevailing rate of wages in the district. That is my understanding of his remarks. As I have tried to point out, we are providing in this bill for those men who have not been under the Department of Labour before but have been employed as day labourers by other departments.


James Dew Chaplin: Where is the clause that covers that?


Peter Heenan: Clause 4.


Leslie Gordon Bell: As I do not wish to delay the committee I will defer the matter for the present but will bring it up later and ask the minister to be good enough to explain.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Government contracts subject to certain conditions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Subsection (a)
says:
All persons in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract.
And so on. I should like to know just how far that clause goes. Increasingly in building operations, for example, a great part of the work is not done on the spot, but outside, sometimes by others. In the old days almost all the stationary' fixtures were made by workmen employed on the spot, but nowadays nearly all these fixtures and other furnishings are brought in from the outside. All hardware supplies, for instance, are brought in from the outside. Even the woodwork today is verjr largely manufactured in some factory outside and is simply brought in and set up in the building. The stonework is in some cases at least partly dressed outside, and is then brought in and set up in place. Are those who are engaged in this outside work at all protected under this clause?


Peter Heenan: That brings up the point
that I wanted to discuss. It is not contemplated under this act to go into the factories where they are making furnishings, for example, and supplies for public buildings. Those things, as I have already said, have been covered by order in council for a number of years, and we intend to exercise the same supervision over them as we do now prior to the passing of this legislation. I think my hon. friend will readily see that if a contractor sublets a contract for furnishings, for instance, to some factory, we would be going a long way if we were to follow that into the factory and see that the employees engaged on that particular job worked only eight hours a day even if the rest of the factory were not working on the eight-hour day. We would be getting pretty close to entrenching on the provincial jurisdiction. This is what might be called experimental legislation. In other words, it is a first step, and if in the working

The Royal Assent
out of the act we find any hardship or injustice or if the act does not work out properly in any other way, the government contemplates amending the legislation as the occasion arises. Replying specifically to my hon. friend's question, if a subcontract is let to a factory, the workers in that factory would not be covered by this particular clause. But I propose to amend section 3 by adding this: The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in the fabrication or the manufacture of materials, supplies or equipment for use in the work contemplated where such fabrication or manufacture is carried on in any established plant or factory other than a plant or factory established for the purpose of the work contemplated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It semes to me
that such an amendment as that proposed would violate the very principle that we have just now adopted by the second reading of this bill. The underlying principle is that so far as this parliament is concerned, the workers who are employed shall be treated fairly as regards both wages and hours of labour. The bill apparently does not cover all classes of workers. Let me give a particular instance. In the old days stone buildings were constructed almost entirely of stone, and under conditions then existing but which no longer prevail it would be possible 'by such legislation as this to protect the worker by insisting that everyone who worked on that job should receive the fair wage, and work for only so many hours a day. To-day, as we all know, even stone buildings are composed in part of structural steel, and a very considerable proportion of the work is done entirely outside of the local job, in factories located perhaps hundreds of miles away. The minister is taking the ground that there is no way of safeguarding the interests of the workers who are located off the local job. In the Algoma Steel works at Sault Ste. Marie, and also in the Besco plant at Sydney, certain classes of steel workers are working eleven and thirteen hour shifts and seven days in the week; at least, they get a holiday one day in the week but they have to make it up the next week by working twenty-four hours on end. I think that is a disgraceful state of affairs; it ought not to exist in a civilized country. We pledged our solemn word in the Versailles treaty that we would stand by the principle of the eight hour day. We are expecting the other nations to stand by their obligations, and yet we have not been able to carry out our own solemn obligation. I know that the excuse is made-I consider that it is very largely an excuse-that the federal government is clear when it passes this responsibility on to the competent legislative authority. I cannot think it is in keeping with the spirit of the Versailles treaty for us to claim that we have done our whole duty when we pass these obligations on to some other body without impressing upon them the necessity of living up to them. Surely we cannot have divided sovereignty of that kind. If we are given the authority to make a treaty I should say, although I do not happen to be an international lawyer, that we have a certain responsibility for carrying out the terms of that treaty. Even supposing it were true that this was entirely a provincial matter, I should say that when it comes to work carried on for our own Dominion government we have every right, if we would live up to the principle of the eight hour day, to insist that work should be done under fair conditions, whether it be on Dominion government property or elsewhere. It would seem to me that it is the fair thing to insist that the steel wmrkers at Sault Ste. Marie and Sydney should have the eight hour day and fair wages, and that it would be quite competent for this government to stipulate that they will not take steel from those works except under these conditions.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Timber Marking Act.
An Act to amend the Patent Act.
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An	Act	respecting	the	Canadian	Pacific
Railway Company (division of capital stock).
An	Act	respecting	the	Canadian	Pacific
Railway Company (branch lines).
An Act to provide for the extension of the boundary of the province of Manitoba in the northwest angle inlet of lake of the Woods.
An Act to amend the Indian Act.
An Act respecting The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and to subdivide the unissued capital stock.
An	Act	respecting	The	Eastern	Canada
Savings and Loan Company.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Fair Wages and Hours
[Stage Direction]
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 49, respecting fair wages and an eight-hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada- Mr. Heenan-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 3-government contracts subject to certain conditions.
James Shaver Woodsworth: When I was interrupted by the knocks of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod I was trying to direct the attention of the minister and the members of the committee to the number of workers who apparently are not protected by this section. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the proposed legislation which covers the government's own employees. Section 3 deals with contracts for construction and so on. It does seem to me that when any legislation enacted to provide for fair wages and the eight-hour day should apply to the employees of the government whether on construction work or in departments such as the Post Office Department, the employees of which are notably underpaid. I should like to have an explanation on that point from the minister, and I should like to ask what he can do in the matter. Further, the bill does not seem to me to apply to those who are directly employed by the government of Canada, such as day labourers. I am inclined to think that objection on this ground is well taken, since section 4 refers only to those classes enumerated in section 3, and in my judgment section 3 would not protect those who are directly employed by the government, as day labourers are frequently employed on public buildings. The particular point I was emphasizing, however, is that under modem conditions a large part of the work is done by subcontractors, and the majority of those who do the work connected with these buildings are not actually working on the immediate premises. That is coming to be increasingly true. I was giving the illustration of the steel required in connection with stone and reinforced concrete work. This steel is fabricated off the premises of course, yet it enters directly into the con * struction work. Apparently there is no protection whatever for people engaged in the work of fabricating steel or wood or any other material. I do not think that is as it should be, because it shuts out a large proportion of the workers.

In answer to a question of mine a short time ago the minister said these other workers already were covered by order in council. I can hardly think that the minister caught my question or that he has given quite the correct answer. For example, in connection with steel I would refer to the steel works at Sydney, where the men work continuously for twelve hours a day. They are not protected under this legislation. The minister has sent me a copy of an amendment which he is about to propose. That amendment would make it very clear that these workers are not protected by this legislation, and I do not think they are protected even by order in council. My point is that, since we are getting a little away from orders in council, and especially in cases where the workmen are not protected by order in council, there should be inserted in this act some more direct provision by which they would receive just as much protection as those who are immediately engaged on the job.


Peter Heenan: It is probable that the employees of industries engaged in fabricating supplies for use in government work are not included either under order in council or under this act. I think my hon. friend will see that it would be almost impossible to fill orders if we went as far as he would like to go. For instance, supposing we gave a contract, 'and the contractor wanted to sublet the contract for steel. It is very doubtful whether any plant in Canada would accept the order if they bad to enforce the eight hour day, and probably we would have to go to the United States in order to get material produced under those conditions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You would not
have to do it very frequently.


Peter Heenan: I think I know what my hon. friend wants, but the government feeis that would be going a little too far at the present time. I want to make it perfectly clear, in order that there may be no misunderstanding; in fact I have an amendment I should like to bring before the committee which makes it quite clear that this legislation does not apply to the manufacture or fabrication of certain materials. Another point has been brought up with which I may as well deal at the same time; it is whether or not the present legislation would apply to contracts now in existence. Therefore I desire to move:
That section 3 be amended by inserting after the word "contract" in the first line thereof the words "made hereafter."

Fair Wages and Hours
That will make the section read, " Every contract made hereafter with the government of Canada." I desire also to move that section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following as subsection (2):
The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in the fabrication or manufacture of materials, supplies or equipment for use in the work contemplated where such fabrication or manufacture is carried on in any established plant or factory other than a plant or factory established for the purpose of the work contemplated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
other two classes?


Peter Heenan: Day labourers who are
employed directly by the government come under the order in council which was passed a few days ago.


James Dew Chaplin: Before dinner the hon.
minister told us that they would come under section 4. Would he mind reading the order in council?


Peter Heenan: I left the order in council in my office; I thought we had finished with it.


James Dew Chaplin: You have not quite finished with it yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They would not come under section 4.


Peter Heenan: Those are the employees
of the government who are doing all kinds of manual labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They would not be protected by this legislation?


James Dew Chaplin: No.


Peter Heenan: The order in council would protect them. Section 4 provides for such men as are engaged to do day labour on the building of bridges, piers, docks, or anything of that nature and who are not permanent employees of the government; in other words, workmen employed on construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work. The order in council provides for an eight-hour day for the permanent employees of the government, while section 4 of this bill protects those men engaged for day labour on such construction work as is outlined in section 3.


Murray MacLaren: Would this bill apply
to the employees of harbour commission boards?


Peter Heenan: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, before
the bill is reported, I desire again to point out to the minister that I have received a substantial number of telegrams asking that an opportunity be afforded to those who may be affected in a practical way by this bill to present their views before a committee of the house. It is rather difficult to believe that the government has discharged its duty by the minister interviewing a group of gentlemen and then stating that they represent the whole body of those affected. The hon. minister apparently thinks that a delegation which spent an hour and a half with him represented the whole body of employers or employees who might be affected by this bill. It is true that this is a government measure, and the explanation given by the minister as to the course pursued when the delegation was here is at least some justification for his taking the view he does. But, as I suggested to him this afternoon, when the bill first went into committee, an opportunity should be afforded to those interested to satisfy themselves with regard to this measure. I am unable to determine the effect of the amendments without seeing them in the bill, and I am unable to realize their relation to the other clauses of the bill. I would suggest to the minister that if the bill is now reported it should be reprinted with the two amendments before it is given the third reading, so that we may be able to understand fully the operation of the proposed legislation. Then it could not be said, because of difficulties which might arise in the future, that we had neglected the duty devolving upon us with respect to legislation giving effect to an international treaty, the greatest the world has ever known.
I was unable to understand what the hon. minister had in mind when he went to such great lengths to show what somebody else had done some twenty years ago. The basis of this legislation is a treaty of peace between warring nations of the world, and when it was said the other day that the then prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, had taken an active interest in connection with the labour clauses of that treaty, the Prime Minister interjected some doubt as to whether or not he had ever seen those clauses. As a matter of fact that is not the record, and if he will take the trouble to inquire he will find that certain clauses in their present form were attributable to the work of revision by Sir Robert Borden. That is not secondhand evidence, and the right hon. gentleman can satisfy himself upon that point. Why go back to show what somebody else had in

Excise Act Amendment

his mind years ago, unless the purpose was as I indicated this afternoon? The minister's purpose was so apparent that I think it my duty to expose it.
The only other matter which remains for consideration is whether or not the legislation itself gives effect to the provisions of the treaty, and of the international conferences which were held under the treaty, in such a way as to protect alike the interests of employers and employees. As I said this afternoon, employers were represented as well as employees at the first international labour conference held by the League of Nations, and since the minister does not seem disposed to send this bill to a committee for consideration, I suggest that before the third reading it be reprinted in order that some of us who are interested may be able clearly to understand whether or not under the decision of the supreme court parliament is overstepping the powers which the provinces enjoy. As I said to the minister this afternoon, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was not present, I have always had grave doubts of the effect of section 92 of the British North America Act conferring exclusive legislative jurisdiction upon the provinces with respect to international treaties, having regard to the decision of the privy council in the British Columbia case. That point does not seem to have been considered by the supreme court in connection with the reference made to it regarding the relative jurisdiction of the provinces and the Dominion to enact an eight hour day law or provide for a forty-eight hour week.
Bill reported.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill
No. 48, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Power to examine on oath.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister proceeds may I ask him whether he does not think there is a possibility of substituting as judges officers of the department who necessarily are charged with a sense of their own responsibility? That is the only observation I had in mind in connection with this proposed legislation when I read the bill. Does the minister follow me?


William Daum Euler: I do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Power is given to summon witnesses, to pay the expenses of such witnesses, and to arrive at conclusions mostly judicial in character. That power is given to officers of the department who cannot be said to be other than charged with the responsibility of securing convictions for breaches of the law.


William Daum Euler: Even under the amendment
as it stands in the bill, this power would not be given to inferior officers of the department, if I may so term them. It confines the power pretty well to what are known as superior officers. My deputy informs me that in the interpretation of the act this means inspectors, and of course the commissioner or the assistant commissioner. The amendment is designed more particularly for use in instances in which an investigation is desired at remote places throughout the Dominion where a commissioner is not readily obtainable. I think I may assure the committee there will be no disposition to abuse this power and if the investigation were of major importance probably we would proceed in the usual way and appoint a commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An opportunity will undoubtedly be afforded to the persons affected to appear, if they so desire, and present their side of any inquiry that may be made?


William Daum Euler: Quite so. I might add further for the information of the committee this is based on a provision in the Post Office Act and I do not think it is abused there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I once assisted in an
inquiry under it and the question of an opportunity to be heard is very important.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Neglecting to keep books, making false returns, etc.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice that under this
clause there are certain statements with regards to fines for infringements of the law. There is no provision for imprisonment if people offend more than once.


William Daum Euler: The matter will be one for
the courts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Removing bonded goods without entry.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a departure from
the existing law. Will the minister make a statement about it?

Excise Act Amendment


William Daum Euler: It is really similar to the
amendment proposed in clause 3. We are proposing to make the removal of goods from bonded warehouses without authorization an indicatable offence in order to regularize what we have had just a bit of doubt about. We want to be able under the law to seize the goods. In the past we have done so, basing our right upon the provision respecting "fraud upon the revenue." We are not quite satisfied that this offence constitutes a fraud upon the revenue within the meaning of the act, and we simply want to regularize a practice which we have been following in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Proceedings against party.
William Daum Euler: This provision is exactly the same as the one in the Customs Act. It is merely to harmonize the two.


George Reginald Geary: This is not a provision which I like. What has been the experience of the department in the working out of the similar section of the Customs Act?


William Daum Euler: The experience of the department with regard to the Excise Act has been that where we thought it was perfectly plain that the onus of proving certain things lay upon the person in possession of the goods, magistrates in their wisdom, rightly or wrongly, insisted that we must prove illegal manufacture or illegal importation. This is an effort on the part of the law officers of the crown to make certain what we thought already was certain. I may say our law officers only hope this will do what we already thought was in force.


George Reginald Geary: It is pretty drastic.


William Daum Euler: We already have it in the Customs Act.


George Reginald Geary: Was it taken from the Ontario Temperance Act?


Mr. ERNST:: It is exactly the same section the minister put into the Customs Act a couple of years ago to meet a difficulty which arose in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Duties of excise on every pound of screened malt.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain the operation of this?
2419-92J
Mr. EULER. This is merely to institute a different practice in the collection of excise duty on malt. Where malt is imported from the United States it is already screened anc no difficulty arises with regard to it. But under our present practice the domestic product has excise charged upon it before the screening is done. We propose to impose the excise duty after the screening is done in order to relieve us of a good many orders in council making refunds or providing for the passage of a sufficient quantity of malt to compensate for what are called the coomings. It is merely a matter of adjustment in the department to make it a little easier for us, and I might add that it meets with the approval of the maltsters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Tobacco grown for private use.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is that?


William Daum Euler: The grower of tobacco is now privileged without the payment of excise to make tobacco into the form of Canada twist. This will enable him to cut the tobacco for his own use without necessarily putting it in the form of Canada twist.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Alcohol made and treated in distilleries.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the effect of this section?


William Daum Euler: It merely provides that where the provincial government makes a seizure of liquor improperly produced, it must be surrendered to the Dominion authorities for destruction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that sound? In view of the fact that alcohol for use in hospitals costs so much money, why should not there be some arrangement by which that alcohol could be given to the hospitals? I have had visits from those who have to provide the money for the purchase of alcohol for the hospitals for rubbing and medicinal purposes, and looking over the legislation casually, it occurred to me that condensed alcohol might well be given to the hospitals.


William Daum Euler: They now get a 99 per cent drawback.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know; I am familiar with drawbacks. There are very few people
Excise Act Amendment

manufacturing in Canada who do not get drawbacks. But I am talking now about the consumer. It is one way of being free trade in practice and protectionist in theory, as the minister perhaps is well aware; at least, if he is not, he has forgotten more than I think he has. Another gentleman in the cabinet who is interested in drawbacks on coal used in salt works and dredging is not here to-night.
I think it desirable to consider whether that alcohol could not be given to hospitals and institutions of that kind. Here you have something that is worth money. It is seized because there has been a violation of the law, and it is to be destroyed. You compel the province to hand it over to the federal authorities for destruction. Now the province has property in it. I doubt very much whether we have the right to pass this section, because the province has the right to retain possession of that alcohol as part of the result of the operation of the law, it being something that the province has seized, and for which the offender has been convicted. The alcohol is legally in the possession of the province. Now you say that the province must hand it over to the federal authorities for destruction. I suggest that a very desirable way to deal with that difficulty is to give the alcohol to the hospitals for their use.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it alcohol illegally manufactured that is under discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This alcohol is well suited for the use of the hospitals.


Charles Avery Dunning: How do we know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The authorities know because they seize it, and they seize it only because it has not been sufficiently adulterated as alcohol not to be called alcohol.


James Dew Chaplin: It is tested anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and it is seized because it is alcohol.


William Daum Euler: When rubbing alcohol is purchased by the hospitals, they pay no excise at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but-


William Daum Euler: So I do not see very much point in my hon. friend's suggestion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But look at the price they have to pay for it.


William Daum Euler: We do not regulate the
price, and in every case they get 99 per cent drawback. A good deal of the liquors seized are not fit for hospital purposes. I should add .that I was in error when I said that the 
liquor must be handed over to the federal authorities in order to be destroyed. That is not exactly correct. It is denatured. In the province of Quebec when smuggled liquor is seized, we allow the commission to have it provided they pay the duty. In a case like this, where a province has seized the alcohol or whisky or liquor of some sort, the Dominion authorities certainly have a claim upon it because the excise should be satisfied. We want to make certain that alcohol of all sorts, no matter how produced or by whom seized, must pay its excise to the federal authorities. That is the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I still think that if the minister will have his legal officers advise him, they will tell him at once that the question I submit is not so easily disposed of as that. The crown in the right of the province has seized the alcohol, and of that property, by reason of legal condemnation, the crown in the right of the province has ownership. It therefore belongs to the province and not to the Dominion. You are now saying that the province must hand it over to the Dominion in order that the excise may be paid. You are either going to denature it or get your excise tax from it. To overcome that difficulty I suggest that you give it to the hospitals for their use. They will escape the excise tax and also escape buying something that is condemned. That property is vested in the crown in the right of the province. I doubt if this parliament has the right to take it away from the province. The minister has not quite appreciated the point.


William Daum Euler: Oh yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not so easily to be disposed of. The hon. minister's law is not always sound. This is property held by the crown in the right of the province by legal condemnation, which vests that property in the province.


Ernest Lapointe: In the course of a commercial venture, and they are liable to pay tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The province get it by condemnation proceedings, and the property is the property of the crown in the right of the province by such condemnation proceedings-not for commercial purposes, but by reason of a seizure, a trial and a condemnation. One day a question may be raised in the courts as to the legality of the action, and I merely make my suggestion in order to get over the difficulty. This is a property which might be used for a useful purpose

Excise Act Amendment
without costing anything for the alcohol which is condemned or anything for excise which has never been paid. I suggest that it be given to the hospitals. If the minister knew just what it means to some of these hospitals to buy alcohol despite the rebate of the excise and other taxes, he would realize how important this becomes to them. I know what it means from the efforts I made years ago to have the present regulations enforced in connection with rebates of the duty paid upon such alcohol.


William Daum Euler: I do not want to prolong
the argument, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think the Department of Customs could yield this, that any alcohol produced in Canada or imported is not fairly subject to excise or customs duty. This particular clause arises from the fact that the government of one of the provinces had made a seizure of alcohol; we demanded possession, there was a lawsuit, and it was settled finally by our consenting to the province denaturing the alcohol.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How was the settlement
arrived at?


William Daum Euler: By agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; and the agreement recognized the property rights of the province.


William Daum Euler: We consented to it rather
than have the lawsuit continued. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but this section has been introduced as an amendment on the advice of the deputy minister of Justice to make our rights perfectly clear to do what we say we intend to do. If we are wrong, and if the provinces choose to combat it and succeed before the courts, I shall have nothing to say.


James Dew Chaplin: Do you invite another
lawsuit?


William Daum Euler: Not at all; but I like to
maintain the rights of the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: I can remember
when seized alcohol was given to charitable institutions. Six or seven years ago I was connected with a hospital and I was told that that was the practice.


William Daum Euler: My knowledge does not go
back as far as that, but I am assured by the Commisisoner of Excise, who has been in the department about forty odd years, that it never was done.


Mr. ROBINSON:: It is the custom in
Detroit, and I believe in the state of Michigan generally, when alcohol is seized to turn it over to the hospitals for hospital use. When they get hold of good whisky they turn that over also-for the use of the doctors.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I feel very strongly on
this matter, Mr. Chairman. I was president of the hospital in my native town for twenty-five years, and I know what it cost that hospital for alcohol. The great majority of our hospitals, particularly in the towns and smaller cities, are maintained very largely by private contributions. Now, the expense in connection with the provision of alcohol such as is referred to is very considerable. The tendency of the minister is to introduce more and more arbitrary legislation. In this case it is directed against the provinces to take away from them a right they have always possessed, and when later he institutes action under this section provided the bill passes he will find that he will have to abandcn'"it. In view of the facts, I think he should meet the reasonable request made in this connection. This is not the first time that the matter has been brought to his attention; I have discussed it with the minister on two or three occasions prior to this session, and I rather thought from the conversation I had with him that he would consider the matter favourably. I am sorry he has not; eventually he will be compelled to accede to the request.


Mr. COTNAM:: I think the minister is
misinformed, because I am quite satisfied from my experience in dealing with hospitals that alcohol so seized in the past has been given to charitable institutions, that is hospitals.


Thomas Cantley: I am certain it has.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think the minister should consider the matter very seriously before making this regulation.


William Daum Euler: I must take the word of the Commisioner of Excise on this matter, for, as I say, I have no recollection of it myself! He says that so far as excisable liquor is concerned, that is liquor manufactured within the country, that has never been done. He does not answer for liquor that has been smuggled into the country, -as that would come under the Customs Act. After all, this is an amendment to the Excise Act, and I am assured by the commissioner that the practice of giving seized alcohol free to hospitals has never been followed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the general
principle laid down by the government would apply, that inasmuch as the major number of

Winding-up Act
the provinces of confederation are not of the hon. minister's political views, alcohol could not be given to hospitals in those provinces, not even five cents' worth. Is that the idea?


Ernest Lapointe: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Thomas Cantley: This day six months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.



WINDING-UP ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, to amend the Winding-Up Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-By whom application for winding-up order may be made. '
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the bill?


Ernest Lapointe: It is a very simple bill. Section 10 of the Winding-Up Act provides in what cases a winding-up order may be made. Section 11 specifies by whom the application may be made for a winding-up order. When a company is insolvent the law provides that a shareholder holding shares in the capital stock of the company to the amount of at least $500 may make application for winding up its affairs. To-day many corporations issue no par value stock, and the purpose of the amendment is to confer upon the holder of stock without nominal or par value-no par value stock-as nearly as .may be the same rights as are given by the existing section to the holders of shares having a par value; that is, if he holds at least five shares of no par value he may make application for a winding-up order.


Robert Gardiner: I suppose the value of the shares cannot be determined except by actual sale.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


Robert Gardiner: Why are banks and insurance companies excepted?


Ernest Lapointe: They are already under the act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 56, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: This bill is
the usual one which we introduce each year for the purpose of withdrawing from forest reserves lands in the three prairie provinces, and this year in the province of British Columbia-lands which were included in forest reserves and which upon examination have been found fit for agricultural purposes. These lands are examined by officials of the department and recommended for withdrawal from the forest reserves. The bill also makes a considerable change in the area of the Rocky mountains and Jasper parks. It provides for an addition to these two parks of a considerable area at the southern boundary of Jasper park and the northern boundary of Rocky mountains park, where the two will now meet. This addition is very desirable from a scenic standpoint; as far as we know the area has no mineral value. On the other hand 1,364.46 square miles of rough, timbered, non-agricultural lands are being excluded from the Rocky mountains and Jasper parks. We are excluding the Spray lake and an adjacent area in the south; to the north of that there would appear to be minerals, particularly coal, along the eastern boundary of Rocky Mountains park and Jasper park. This change will affect the boundary lines of the two parks on the eastern side. So far as we know it will exclude everything that has any prospect of producing coal, except perhaps the area on the north or northeastern extremity of Jasper park, where there is undoubtedly some coal. There is a desirable country in that district consisting of very steep mountains and a narrow entrance through which the Canadian National railway passes; our road enters the park at Pocahontas, and it was thought desirable to make that the boundary of the park. Otherwise we have included non-mineralized areas.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The land will go to. the
province?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
forest reserves.


George Gibson Coote: Has the province been consulted in regard to it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.

Forest Reserves and Parks Act


Archibald M. Carmichael: Is it necessary to
have any portion of lands leased for community pastural purposes withdrawn in the same manner as these are? I refer particularly to lands fit for agricultural purposes and which at the present time are used as community pasture lands, leased through the department of agriculture of the province.


Charles A. Stewart: In a forest
reserve ?


Archibald M. Carmichael: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Well that
would be a lease that we have turned over to the provincial government. That is not included in this.


Archibald M. Carmichael: But is it necessary
to have it withdrawn in this way in order to make it available for homesteading purposes?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it
would be necessary to withdraw the lands from forest reserves if they were to be used for agricultural purposes. One or two leases have been turned over to the province for the purpose of community grazing, but they were leases of crown lands not included in forest reserves. Of course in nearly all the forest reserves we have been allowing stock to graze, and in some cases they have had leases. Very few leases however, are in existence. Nearly all the forest reserves which are fit for pasturage have been grazed.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The land I refer to is open prairie land and was at one time ranch property. I think it is dominion land and at the present time is leased to the provincial department of agriculture for community grazing purposes. A portion of the township consists of good agricultural land but so far the people have been unable to get the use of it. I was wondering if it would be necessary to have it included in a bill as in the present case.


Charles A. Stewart: In connection with ranch land we have been consulting with the provincial departments of agriculture, and there have been withdrawals from leases for this purpose as well as from the forest reserves.


Mr. KENNEDY:: What progress has been made in connection with the surveys or resurveys of the proposed forest reserve area?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give any definite information to my hon. friend on that point. I can ascertain how much has
been done, but at the present time I cannot say what was accomplished last year. The section between the forest reserve and the park has been surveyed.


Milton Neil Campbell: Have these provinces
been consulted in regard to the large block of land withdrawn from the Porcupine forest
reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
usual to consult the provinces in these matters. We send from our department men who have agricultural experience to examine the land, and if they report favourably, or report that the land is of more value for agricultural purposes than as forest reserves, we add these sections to the bill; we withdraw the land for agricultural purposes. I may say that we will not proceed to homestead these lands, particularly in Alberta, because the Alberta government have notified us that they do not purpose to continue homesteading. I believe they intend to sell these lands.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does that apply to
Alberta only?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think we have had any such communication from the government of Saskatchewan. It may be in the office; I would not like to say definitely. However, we will do nothing with these lands without consulting the provincial government as to what they desire to have done with them.


George Gibson Coote: Does this bill make provision for the inclusion of any lands in the forest reserves except what the minister mentioned in regard to the national parks?	.


Charles A. Stewart: No. We have been adding to the forest reserves by order in council, but it takes a statute to withdraw from them.


George Gibson Coote: These are all withdrawals?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister can
tell us how much land is in the forest reserves now?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I have
not that information at hand, but I oan get it.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: What is the purpose of the withdrawals, just in a sentence?


Charles A. Stewart: The inclusion in the forest reserves has been by order in council, and large areas were set aside as forest reserves without very minute examination. We are now making that minute exami-

Forest Reserves and Parks Act
nation, and after it 'has been made, if it appears that the land is more useful for agricultural purposes than for growing timber, we withdraw the land.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice there are several small portions here for Indian reserves. Is that being done in order to make better boundaries for these reserves?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in
nearly every case.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us
how much land is covered by the bill?


Charles A. Stewart: It is mentioned' in the bill. There are so many reserves involved, together with some very small parcels being withdrawn, that I have not computed the total amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It happens that the representation from west of the great lakes on this side of the house is very Limited. It will not be as soon as the people have an opportunity to change it.


Ernest Lapointe: You are full of hope
to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not of hope but of
knowledge. May I direct attention to the fact that under this legislation, originally passed by this government, I think, orders in council can add to the forest reserves but orders in council cannot take away from them. The national parks of this country can be added to by order in council, but only by an act of parliament can they be limited. That applies to forest reserves. It will be observed that under the bill quarter-sections are being taken out; small areas are being taken out; one area of eight square miles is being excluded, and the whole matter has been gone into with a good deal of >care. These forest reserves will be vested in the provinces when the legislation has been ratified by the imperial parliament. The minister knows that at least one of the provinces suggested that a certain township which was opened for settlement the other day should not have been opened up, and they asked that that should not be done. The minister should lay on the table the correspondence which indicates that Alberta and Saskatchewan are satisfied with the proposed changes. I would expect that to be done; it is the right of the house to ask for it on behalf of the provinces here represented. The mere assertion that the provinces are satisfied is hardly sufficient. One of course accepts the statement of the minister, but there may be conditions imposed and exceptions made.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.!


Charles A. Stewart: I suggest to my hon. friend that the provinces have not been consulted about these withdrawals; I was speaking about the boundaries of the parks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I
desire to make. Do the provinces know that the forest reserves, which they believe they are to get under the natural resources bills, are to be lessened by these areas? I submit that they do not.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is correct, I suggest that the minister do not proceed with this bill until the provinces have had an opportunity to say whether or not they will be content to have the areas they otherwise were to get lessened by what the minister is now taking away. Control of land is given to the Indian department in one case and to another department in another, while a further parcel is to be administered by this government as crown land in the right of the Dominion instead of in the right of the province. While this bill might be agreed to as far as the reference to the committee is concerned, it should not be passed until the provinces have signified that their interests have been adequately safeguarded. They should be given an opportunity to go over this bill, to plot the areas on the map, and see exactly what the facts are. For my part I have not had the time to examine the bill m detail. I did endeavour in a more or less casual way to look up the areas on a map, and it can be seen that they are very considerable; for instance, there is one area of 2,500 square miles. If my memory serves me aright, it will mean that about a million and a half acres of land which one of the provinces believed was to come under its control will now be withheld from it.


Charles A. Stewart: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it amounts to.


Charles A. Stewart: No; my
hon. friend is making an entire misstatement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some land certainly goes to the Indian department.


Charles A. Stewart: Only a very small portion is going to one or two Indian reserves, and in that respect I may say that the agreement specifically provides that any lands we require for the purposes of the Indians are to be given us by the provinces, so that we are not trespassing in any way.

Forest Reserves and Parks Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has not
followed my point. It may become a matter of the utmost importance to the governments of the provinces to know what the particular areas are; for they may be of strategic value from the provincial standpoint, and as the provinces are charged with the responsibility, in my judgment it would be well for the minister during the recess to have the matter formally presented to the provinces affected and to receive their approval. I cannot but think that in the circumstances this is a fair proposal, and one that the minister would be expected to act upon under other like conditions if he were concerned for the provinces and not for the Dominion. While my duty primarily is to the Dominion, I have a duty to the provinces as well.


Charles A. Stewart: With the
exception of the additions to Indian reserves which, as I pointed out, are provided for in the agreement with the provinces, the whole of these lands remain with the provinces. All the land, with the exception of the additions to the Jasper and Rocky Mountains national parks, where we are adding a very small portion in comparison with what we are withdrawing from the parks, goes to the province of Alberta. It is well understood by the province that the boundaries are to be changed, which is done by agreement. There can be no complaint about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is the agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: The agreement as to boundaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resources agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: No, this is an agreement between the federal government and the province. For some two years the officers of both governments have been surveying the boundaries, and all the facts are well known to the Alberta government. With respect to the withdrawals of the remainder of the lands throughout the railway belt in British Columbia and in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, all these lands will be the property of the provincial governments, and I have stated that it is not my intention to make any disposition of any of these lands by way of homestead or otherwise, while they remain under the control of the federal government, without consulting the provinces. I should like to point out to my hon. friend that all this work has been performed by the officials of the Dominion government. They have examined these lands and recommended their withdrawal from the
forest reserve, and I am quite confident the provinces will be very glad to have this work performed. My hon. friend will agree with me that if land is of agricultural value, it should not be included within the area of a forest reserve, because there are large enough areas of land in all these provinces unfit for agricultural purposes which can remain within the boundaries of the forest reserve. Although I am quite satisfied that there will be no objection raised, I am perfectly willing to consult the province because I have no desire to have my hon. friend or any other hon. member of this house think that I am trying to take advantage of the provincial governments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now that the hon. minister has mentioned the matter, I will give him an illustration. The province of Saskatchewan and the Dominion of Canada made a bargain by which lands in the province within certain areas were to pass to the crown in right of the province. There was in that province an area known as t'he quarantine reserve; the minister opened it for settlement and it has been taken up. He received a request from the premier of Saskatchewan not to take this action, but it was disregarded. I brought the matter to his attention, acting upon a telegram sent to me, and the minister said that the notice had been given some time prior to that, in the month of March, and that the day fixed for entries at Moose Jaw was March 20. The premier of Saskatchewan asked merely that the date be extended for a time, but the minister telegraphed back that that could not be done and, as a matter of fact, that quarantine reserve has been homesteaded or preempted. What I was endeavouring at that time to point out to the minister with respect to the quarantine reserve, I say now about these forest reserves. Is there any assurance that the minister, having designated these lands as agricultural lands, will not do the same with them as he did with the quarantine reserve? It is all right to say that the provinces have agreed to this, but he offers no evidence of that; he says simply that they understand what is going on.


Charles A. Stewart: I never said anything of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked if there were any letters on the file, and the minister said there were not.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly, but my hon. friend is mixing up the matter.
i458

Forest Reserves and Parks Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: A notice in writing should have been made by the minister indicating that this was to be done, and a reply received by the provinces saying, yes or no.


Charles A. Stewart: I have never said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I am endeavouring to make. Governments do not transact business of this character on mere word of mouth; there should be an undying record for the future, because governments are but ephemeral-very much so in this instance. May I impress upon the minister the seriousness of a matter of this kind? The minister has many things to care for and we cannot expect him to remember everything, but here vast areas are being set aside for agricultural purposes, some in Alberta, some in Saskatchewan, and lesser areas in Manitoba. All I have suggested to the minister is that we should not take those areas out of the operation of the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act unless there is some real assurance-not a Seven Sisters assurance -to the provinces that these matters will not bo dealt with by the minister while an agreement is pending. No minister is discharging his duty who merely says: Oh, well, it is understood. There should be a record available to the Minister of the Interior which would show that the provinces agreed to this being done.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend would like to leave the impression that (here is some laxity on my part with respect to notifying the provinces, and I hope he is not confusing this matter with the arrangements made for the changed boundaries of the national parks. There is no understanding, as far as I know, with respect to the withdrawal from the forest reserves, nor have we ever consulted the provinces in this respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You were not under the same obligation as you are at present.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has mentioned the incident of the quarantine reserve in Saskatchewan. Arrangements for the opening of that reserve had been in progress for two years; it was advertised; a date was set, and everyone had made arrangements to homestead that particular area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will interrupt the minister to state that the advertising had been done since the first of the year 1930.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right, but under the arrangements leading up to that advertising, necessary time had to elapse for filing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not since the first of the year.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right. My hon. friend will admit that the province of Saskatchewan was the very last to come here and conclude an agreement for the transfer of its resources, and I do not think he xvould want the whole machinery of the Department of the Interior to stop for that province. However, I am perfectly willing to leave this matter in abeyance until the provinces can be consulted. If the provinces want to take the trouble to examine every quarter-section indicated in this bill, they are welcome to do so, and every source of information will be open to them. I have no desire to leave the impression that I am tiying to put something over with respect to this bill. I move that the committee rise and and report progress.
Progress reported.



MAPLE SUGAR INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 59, respecting the maple sugar industry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker,
I desire to move that this bill be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization for consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would give us some explanation of this bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I did so when the bill was first introduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation was very brief.


Charles A. Stewart: This bill provides for the inspection of manufactories or places where maple sugar is processed, and gives the inspectors powers to seize adulterated maple sugar products. The bill provides for general supervision of the industry, for registration, and for the repeal of part III of the Food and Drugs Act, chapter 76 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and brings the control of the industry under the Department of Agriculture.

Maple Sugar Industry


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) thinks that this is wholly within the powers of parliament, having regard to the point raised in connection with the egg-grading statute, which was held to be in part beyond the competence of the federal authority. It strikes me that except for interprovincial trade there is grave doubt as to part of this proposed bill being legal. May I direct particular attention to section 16, which extends to the minister powers of a most amazing nature. This section reads in part:
16. The minister may make regulations prescribing:	.
(a) The duties of inspectors under this act;
(b) The types of labels or markings that shall be used on containers of maple products or on the products themselves if in solid form;
(c)	Methods of sealing containers of maple
products;	.	,
(d)	Methods of labelling and marking maple products and the containers thereof;
Unless the whole thing could be brought within the purview of trade and commerce or of agriculture, it would be difficult to have a maple tree within the Department of Agriculture, although, it is alleged., many wooden heads have at times been interested in the transaction of business in that department. It would be hard, however, to bring "maple" entirely within it. Leaving that for the moment, I think the minister will agree that these are certainly powers that are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the province. It occurred to me it would have to be limited to interprovincial trade or export trade. I saw the explanation of the minister yesterday. A group of Canadian wiomen who are very much interested in this matter had taken active steps to direct attention to the importance to maintaining the purity of the product. On more than one occasion in the Department of Excise in the old days, as well as in more recent years, samples were taken from various stores in the large cities and sent to Ottawa for analysis, and much adulteration of maple products was found. I think the minister is quite right in trying to take steps to maintain the purity of our maple products. The quantity of maple syrup shipped to the United States will probably be curtailed by reason of their proposed tariff. Maple syrup is very largely used there in connection with the manufacture of cigarettes. It was some time before I ascertained the purpose of its use in that connection, but I found that it affords a sweetening superior to any other form of sweetening in the manufacture of cigarettes.
With regard to some of the powers it is intended by this measure to exercise, I see
great difficulty. If the bill is referred to the committee on agriculture with the understanding that that phase of it will be looked into by the Justice department, there might be no difficulty if certain of the clauses were limited in their scope to interprovincial or export trade, but I should think interprovincial trade could not be affected by the proposed legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: I will see to it that the bill is scrutinized and fully considered by the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the bill passed its
second reading?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. This discussion is
on a motion to refer the bill to the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the bill is to go to the
committee on agriculture, I think a general notice should be given to the producers and manufacturers of maple sugar in order that they may have full opportunity of appearing before the committee and making any protests which they may deem expedient or advisable in the premises.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works - chargeable to income - harbours and rivers - British Columbia, $730,400.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this resolution
was last before the committee we were considering Glenannan wharf.
Glenannan wharf, $2,000.


Mr. BARBER:: I think the hon member
for Cariboo asked for an explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote of $2,000 required for the completion of the wharf now under construction by day labour at Glenannan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harrison Hot Springs-contribution towards protection work, $3,000.
Harry James Barber: Who is contributing the
balance required for this work?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $3,000
is asked to be provided as a contribution
1460	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
towards protection work required at the south end of Harrison lake at Harrison Hot Springs. The department is in receipt of information that a serious case of devastation has occurred at the south end of Harrison lake, British Columbia. The action of the lake driven by high winds has created a very peculiar situation and unless some measures are taken very soon to protect property, considerable damage will be sustained by residents at this point. The district engineer reports as follows:
I have looked into this matter, and find that the shore of Harrison lake at the south end is eroding every year at high water for a distance of about 3,000 feet. The provincial government have started work on the west end of the portion that needs protection, and expect to complete about 1,000 feet this year with the $4,500 they have available for this work.
The method of protection is the placing of one-man rock on the bank, forming a slope of 45 degrees with the rock hand placed on the face, which will undoubtedly make an excellent protection and should last indefinitely.
When the provincial government finish this year (1929) there will be about 2,000 feet of protection required to prevent the balance of the road from being destroyed, which would cost about $9,000.


Harry James Barber: Then the other party is the provincial government only?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is here dealing with a matter I am sure every member of parliament has at times considered, namely, the extent to which the federal parliament should grant moneys where the matter concerned is an inland lake over which, and the areas of land contiguous thereto, the province exercises sole jurisdiction. What is the guiding principle? I realize it may sometimes be important that work of this character be done. But is this a case in which political considerations govern, or is there any other rule that can be applied and made effective? Is it the question whether or not the provincial government is Liberal that governs, or is it the size of the lake, the extent of the injury done by the waters, or what? Every hon. member knows that from time to time requests of a similar character have been made and denied. This hotel company has pretty powerful influence with the government and I should like the minister to explain the principle that governs; because I warn him that in the near future there will be presented to him many other claims far greater and far more deserving than that of the proprietors of the hotel on this lake-cases where the banks of rivers have been swept away by spring freshets and where assistance from this government-the provinces being unable to give it-has been sought in vain.	[DOT]


John Campbell Elliott: This contribution is being made to supplement a contribution made by the government of British Columbia. It is one of the cases which are, as my hon. friend has said, pretty numerous throughout the country where the devastation, as it is described by the engineer, is great. It was not considered that the province would repair the whole of the damage, and this contribution is being made as similar contributions have been made in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the estimated cost complete? The amount is small, but a principle is involved in which everyone of us in the western provinces is greatly concerned, especially in the prairie provinces, along the banks of the Saskatchewan river and the Bow river. For instance, the city of Calgary found that the Bow river was cutting into its banks, with the result that lots that had been bought and sold as such have disappeared. Last spring on the Elbow river considerable property was simply swept away. A retaining wall would have saved that property, and there is a stronger claim for that retaining wall than any that can be made by the friends of the administration who own this hotel.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The same might be said of the banks of the Assiniboine and Red rivers. A portion of the town of Brandon was flooded a few years ago, and an effort was made to get the government to contribute something, but in vain.


John Campbell Elliott: Replying to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the total cost will be $9,000, and we are bearing half the cost of completing the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us strip it of everything superfluous; this is just an ordinary case of political favouritism. As long as the principle is established, well and good, but let it be understood that that is what it is.
I know the whole property at Hot Springs, having seen it within a reasonably short time. The fact is that they wanted some money, the province is not giving them sufficient for their purpose, and so this government is going to give them some. I know how it goes on. Use sufficient pressure, carry on enough log rolling; represent what you are going to do when the time comes, and you will get it. But the time has come when this sort of thing should stop. This work could be done by day labour. It is under $5,000, and the eight-hour day could be applied, but only, of course, to those favourites who are able to get the work because they are supporters of the government.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has had the same thing done in Alberta on the Highwood river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Highwood river was
crossed by a railway, and the railway spent many thousands of dollars and could get no assistance from any source. As far as my memory goes, no assistance was given in connection with the Highwood river.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
on two occasions a division of expenditure between the provincial government and this government. Moreover, near Blairmore-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not on the Highwood.


Charles A. Stewart: No. There
were, of course, the irrigation works in which this government was interested. On the occasion I speak of there was a division of expenditure between the provincial and the federal governments to prevent the flooding of the river's banks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not saying that it
has not been done. In connection with the irrigation undertakings, of course they are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, and certainly a claim was lodged and recognized that where irrigation works had the effect of destroying the banks there was an obligation on the owners of the irrigation works or on the Dominion government to do something with respect to it.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
the fear of the breaking out and flooding of the High river on the west bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I remember about the
High river, but the point I make is this: Here you have an inland lake, and a grant of $4,500 for the purpose of doing something- let us be frank-for the political friends of the government, who want $4,500, and they are going to give it to them. There is an election coming on.


John Campbell Elliott: Just before we go further
with our conclusion, may I read a letter upon which this department has very largely acted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Very largely".


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and upon the recommendation of the engineer. Just to show how much political favouritism there is in it, on March 11, 1929, we received from Hon. N. S. Lougheed, Minister of Public Works in the British Columbia government, the following letter:
This department has on several occasions discussed the matter of protection of the lake front at Harrison lake with your district engineer at New Westminster.
The time has now come when immediate action should be taken with a view of carrying out some permanent protection works, and I respectfully ask that your government assist financially' to the extent of fifty per cent of the cost of the work.
Will you, therefore, kindly give consideration to this request in so far that your government will pav fifty per cent, not to exceed a total cost of $15,000; that is to say, your government paying $7,500.
It turns out from the work that has already been done that it is not going to cost anything like the amount that was first contemplated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the only letter?


John Campbell Elliott: No. There is a letter
from District Engineer Worsfold. He reporrs that this erosion was not caused by any works constructed or dredging done by the department, but it is of a class of work that has been contributed to by the federal government. There is a list here of similar works that have been contributed to. This work is in Fraser Valley riding.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this simply
the first instalment or is it all that will be necessary?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000.


Mr. FRASER:: What are the details of
the several expenditures to be made?


John Campbell Elliott: I can give the same
answer that I gave my hon. friend in reply to a similar question last year. I can give the expenditures made last year. I cannot say yet what expenditures will be made out of the general vote this year. The total expenditure last year up to February 28, 1930, was $60,345.18.


John Anderson Fraser: That is for 1929-30?
Mr.	ELLIOTT:	Yes.Mr.	FRASER:	What are the details of
last year's expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a long list covering
several pages.
Mr.	FRASER:	What	is the	smallest
amount?
Mr.	ELLIOTT:	The	smallest	amount
seems to be $7.85 for excavating sand at Argenta.
Mr.	FRASER:	What	are the	amounts
over $250?


John Campbell Elliott: They are as follows:
Barnston Island-building float at wharf, $254.56.
Blubber Bay-repairs to wharf, $735.03.
1462	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.O.
Burwood Bay, Read Island-repairs to float, $358.38.
Burgoyne Bay-repairs to wharf, $446.05.
Carr's Landing, Okanagan Lake-replace dolphin at wharf, $318.59.
Chemainus-repairs to wharf, $279.40.
Church House-move float to new location, etc., $325.77.
Coal Harbour-repairs to floating approach, $600.32.
Concrete mixers, etc.-tools, $626.80.
Cowan's Cove-repairs to wharf, $878.07.
Crescent Bay-repairs to wharf, $390.33.
Donnelly Landing-repairs to float, $433.28.
Ewing's Landing - replacing dolphins at wharf, $417.66.
Fraser river near Agassiz, $482.18.


George Reginald Geary: Is that $475,000 worth?


John Campbell Elliott: No, about $62,000 worth
altogether.


John Anderson Fraser: I am more interested in
the works in my own constituency. Will the minister kindly give those?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
show my hon. friend the whole list if that would answer his purpose as well. I regret to say that I have not these items by constituencies.


John Anderson Fraser: Thank you. I might continue the argument I had with the minister the other night with regard to Glenannan.


John Campbell Elliott: Very well, although we
passed that item some time ago.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister stated that
the work at Glenannan had been let by tender. Tenders were called for and two were received, one from Edward A. Nolan, of Glenannan for $6,000 and the other from R. C. McCorkell, Vanderhoof, for $8,638.03. From the minister's answer I understood that he decided to accept the Nolan tender, but that Nolan would not sign up; is that so?


John Campbell Elliott: His tender was what the engineers described as a non-balanced tender; that is, he did not give proper unit prices. He was asked to sign up at unit prices submitted by the engineer, but refused. The next tender, the second highest, was for $8,638. We considered this so much above the estimate that we decided to proceed with the work by day labour, and I understand we are getting it done at a more reasonable price.


John Anderson Fraser: But these tenders were submitted and Mr. Nolan, the lowest tenderer, refused to sign up when it came to doing the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, he refused to sign
what was submitted to him.


John Anderson Fraser: Deposits are required with
tenders, are they not?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.
Mr. F'RASER:	Was Mr. Nolan's deposit
forfeited to the crown?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Nolan's was not a
proper tender under the specifications, and he refused to tender in accordance with the units on which he was asked to tender by the department. We proceeded to do the work by day labour, and I understand it is turning out better than if we had attempted to enforce his tender.


John Anderson Fraser: But my point is, tenders
were called for and submitted and the deposits required were put up. The lowest tender was accepted by the government-


John Campbell Elliott: No, because Nolan's tender was not in accordance with the specifications. He was asked to make a tender on a proper unit basis, but he refused to do so.


John Anderson Fraser: But the minister's statement is that Nolan submitted a tender for $6,&00 and put up the required deposit. Very well. The minister asked him to enter into a contract in accordance with that tender, he refused to do so, but his deposit was returned to him. Why was the deposit not estreated?


John Campbell Elliott: I have already stated to my hon. friend the reason. The tender was not accepted because it was clearly not a tender in accordance with the specifications. For example, there was an estimate by the engineer of sixty-five cents for piling; Nolan's tender was for one item at two cents; piling was the only thing to which you could allot that item. It was perfectly clear that that was not a tender on the piling, that by some mistake he had not tendered in accordance with our specifications. There were certain negotiations and he was asked to submit a tender at unit prices, the total of which would approximate the lump sum named by him for the various units, but although we told him what we thought were fair unit prices, he refused to tender under the circumstances.


John Anderson Fraser: I quite realize the minister is making as fair an explanation as possible, but I wonder if he would produce the papers for me?


John Campbell Elliott: Without the slightest
hesitation.


John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister let the item stand in the meantime?


John Campbell Elliott: I should be glad to oblige my hon. friend, but as we are getting near

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
the Easter vacation, if I complied with his request all of the British Columbia items would have to stand, and as they are all in ridings that my hon. friends represent I think it would be advisable to pass this item. I will undertake to submit all the papers to my hon. friend.


John Anderson Fraser: That will do.


George Reginald Geary: Are you doing better than you would have done under the tender?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: How do you know?


John Campbell Elliott: That is my information; we will be SI ,400 ahead.


John Anderson Fraser: You have not finished the work yet. There is a vote in this year's estimates to complete the work.


John Campbell Elliott: That is to complete the payments and the work; but the work is all done with the exception of about $55, so we know we are making about $1,400 by the change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ivaslo-wharf reconstruction, $20,000.
Mr. ESLING:: I think there has been some communication with the department in connection with this wharf. A request was made that consideration be given to the fact that everybody on the west arm of the lake must go to this wharf, for the reason that there are neither highways nor railways in that section of the country. The department has been asked for a landing wharf alongside the main wharf. Would the minister tell me if any consideration has been given to the request? Small boats must go there at all hours of the day and night, and heretofore it has been very inconvenient for them to make a landing.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I know what my
hon. friend is referring to. A request has been received for a' landing capable of accommodating small boats. The engineer has been asked to investigate the application and to make a report. The report has not yet been received but it is expected shortly and will receive consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ladner-contribution to provincial government of British Columbia in lieu of dredging, $8,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: May we have an explanation of this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a contribution to
the government of British Columbia; it is a
revote. The matter is one concerning which there has been considerable negotiation. In a letter dated the 25th of November, 1929, Mr. P. Philip, deputy minister and public works engineer of the government of British Columbia, states as follows:
I would advise it is our intention to undertake this work with as little loss of time as possible. It may be, however, in view of the high tide and other conditions liable to arise that it will be impossible for us to have the work completed before the end of your fiscal year. I shall therefore be greatly obliged if you will be good enough to have your department arrange to carry this money over if need be, so that it may be available for payment when due.	*
This was in the estimates last year, but it was not proceeded with. They were working on it but it had not been finished.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: May I ask the minister
if this place has any connection with the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner)?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand this place
was named after the family of the hon. member for Vancouver South.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Needles-wharf replacements, $6,300.
William Kemble Esling: In connection with four
items here there are revotes. A vote was passed last session for this particular one; have contracts been let for these wharves?


John Campbell Elliott: It is under contract. This
is required to complete the work now under contract with Messrs. McCharles and Mc-Dougall of Nelson, British Columbia.


William Kemble Esling: I notice that there are
four votes in connection with which revotes are indicated; they were voted at the last session. Has the work been commenced on them, or have contracts been let?


John Campbell Elliott: I think contracts have
been let for all of them.


William Kemble Esling: Is work under way in all
of them?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Kemble Esling: They were held up last
year because of high water. The work will have to be proceeded with pretty soon, or high water will be encountered again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sicamous-wharf reconstruction, $9,000.
John Anderson Fraser: I ask the minister for an
explanation of this item.
1464	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to rebuild entirely the existing wharf, which is reported to be beyond repair.


John Anderson Fraser: What kind of wharf is being erected? Have you a description of it?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, it will be a good
wharf.


John Anderson Fraser: Thanks. I would like to hear the size of it, or something of that nature.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to replace the
existing wharf, which has served its life. The construction consists of a new pile bent and timber superstructure wharf 142- feet long by 32 feet wide, built on an incline, with an approach thereto 152 feet by 16 feet. Included in the item is a pile and timber breakwater 200 feet long to protect steamers and boats lying at the wharf.


Harry James Barber: We have had several items of wharf repairs, and I would like to ask the minister if he has any further information with regard to Minnekahda wharf, which has been brought to his attention for the last three years. This place is on the Pitt river. I think the reason given before was that the municipality unloaded a quantity of rock on this wharf and it broke under the weight; they refused to reconstruct it. I visited the wharf this year and I find it is in such bad condition that a load of groceries would have broken the underpinning; it is badly rotted. I have a letter under date of March 18 stating that the public works engineer had visited the wharf and suggested that a wharf with a slip and thirty feet in width would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the district. The council agreed to that. I was wondering if the minister had further information upon it.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not aware of any further report. Of course the item to which my hon. friend refers is not one of the items mentioned in the present instance.


Harry James Barber: No, it is omitted.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the details of it before me, but I recollect the circumstances. The wharf to which the hon. member refers was of ordinary pile construction and built for ordinary traffic. The municipality piled a quantity of crushed stone upon it and it broke under the excess weight. The claim of the department was that is it had been broken while being used for purposes for which it had not been constructed, the repairs should be made by the municipality which had been responsible for the breaking down. That has been the attitude of the department.


Harry James Barber: I think the wharf has been used for that purpose from the time it was constructed, because the quarries are located up the river, and rock is continually pasing over it. It is the wharf from which supplies are shipped up the Pitt river and through the lumber and mining camps on Pitt lake.


John Campbell Elliott: That is what it was built for.


Harry James Barber: And also for the quarries. There is a large quarry just above that on the river; it is about half way between that point and the lake. But the wharf was in bad condition; it was not safe to walk on when I was there a few weeks before the house opened. As I say, the department suggested a thirty foot wharf with a slip, and apparently they have given the council to understand that this would be acceptable to them. I have a letter saying that the council have agreed with the district engineer at New Westminster. I was wondering if the department had anything further to say in regard to it.


John Campbell Elliott: I will look into the matter and get all the details in connection with it that I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria harbour-dredging, $100,000.
Mr. PLUNKETT:: Does this appropriation provide for any rock blasting in the inner harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: This provides for the removal of a further portion of Hospital Rock out of the inner harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-maritime provinces, $650,000.
Mr. SHORT:: How much of the $650,000
under this item was expended last year?


John Campbell Elliott: It was all spent last year.


Harry Bernard Short: There was sufficient to take care of the necessary dredging for which there were no special votes? If the minister will recall, for the last three years I have directed his attention to some very necessary dredging at Victoria Beach in Digby basin. It seems to me that an appropriation of $650,000 should permit him to set aside a few thousand dollars for that work which is badly needed, and again I am going to appeal to him to issue instructions to have some dredging done at that point out of this vote. Does the minister's nod mean yes?


John Campbell Elliott: I am advised that the
work to which my hon. friend refers will cost in the neighbourhood of $2,200 and can be done by teams and scrapers.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


Harry Bernard Short: You have some other point in mind; there is ten feet of water there.


John Campbell Elliott: Evidently I was thinking of the wrong place, but I will look into the question. I had hoped to be able to give my hon. friend a favourable answer, as I have done practically every time he has made a request since I have held this office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-British Columbia, $475,000.
John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask the minister if a certain portion of this vote will be applied to the inland waters of British Columbia?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Then I should like to know if some dredging will be done at Shuswap lake, for instance. The particular point I have in mind is Salmon Arm; what dredging is proposed to be done in the neighbourhood of Salmon Arm?


John Campbell Elliott: I notice that is part of the work allotted to dredge 309, the Pelican, the estimated cost of which is $7,343.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the nature of the work to be done? Is that a complete work, or part of a work which will be spread over a number of years? I might say that there is in anticipation a reclamation scheme there. Is this work to be done in connection with that reclamation program?


John Campbell Elliott: The work allotted to the dredge at this point is for the purpose of providing an entrance channel at all lake levels to the public wharf at Salmon Arm. The object of the dredging is to remove materials which have sloughed in from spoil banks from previous work and from the silt and other material brought down the valley by the Salmon river near by, and by surface draining. It is also intended to provide a channel one foot deeper than hitherto has been the case, in order to serve ja new steamer just being built for this service. The dimensions of the entrance channel are 4,300 feet by 70 feet, in addition to a turning basin having a general length and width of 600 feet by 40 feet respectively. Depths now average 3.5 feet, which will be dredged to 6.0 feet below low water level. The work consists in dredging by clamshell bucket and overcasting on dumps thrown up alongside the channel. The materials are silt and sand, held together with a small percentage of clay.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The appropriation for 1930-31 is $100,000 more than the appropriation last year. Will the minister explain the purpose of the increase, and state whether the major portion of the increase is to be spent in one particular locality?


John Campbell Elliott: Early in August, 1929, the tug Point Garry started to leak rather badly. On docking it was found that the garboard seams were leaking and that the caulking in most of the other seams was very soft in places. On caulking the seams great care had to be used as the wood was very soft and soggy. To make a satisfactory job of the caulking it became necessary to remove the old iron sheathing and felt under the iron. This was all renewed. Then there is $18,500 for a new tug to replace the Point Garry.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Surely the caulking of
this tug and other repairs would not come under the heading of dredging.


John Campbell Elliott: This tug looks after our
dredging plant. Then there is a new scow to be attached to dredge 302, $13,500; a new launch for the dredge Arrow Lakes, $2,600, and a new launch to replace the Bob-O-Link, $40,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What dredging is to be
done in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


John Campbell Elliott: The tentative program for 1930-31 is as follows:
Place	Cost
Beaver river, Sask	 $ 4,000
Black island, Man	 3,450
Cowan lake, Sask	 250
Channel island, Man	 1,760
Devil's point, Man	 12,000
Fox bay, Man	 1,600
Little Spruce island	 2,080


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is that on the Nelson
river?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is in the constituency of Nelson.


William Kemble Esling: Has the minister given consideration to supplying a new dredge for the narrows on the Columbia river? At the present time these narrows become so filled with silt that it is absolutely impossible at certain times of the year for boats to get through. At low water there is a clearance for only 3J foot draught. There is at present a dredge which lifts the material about 20 feet up on the bank, but as soon as high water comes along this material is washed back into the stream. The channel is so shallow that a barge cannot be accommodated upon which the material could be placed in order to take it to a more distant point. Some ten or twelve years ago I believe there was a vote for a suction dredge, but due to considerations

14G6

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
existing at that time the matter was dispensed with. The settlers along this river should be ensured constant accommodation, and I would ask the minister to look into the matter of providing a permanent suction dredge. I know it would be a very expensive project, but it is important that navigation on the Arrow lakes should be kept open.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
navigation on the Arrow lakes is kept open except during the period of the year when it is interrupted by ice forming in the lower Arrow lakes. The question of providing a suction dredge has been considered and will be given further consideration, but I feel bound to tell my hon. friend that it is not deemed to be reasonably feasible in the immediate future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-international bridge over river St. John, between Clair, N.B., and Fort Kent, Me., the state of Maine to provide $36,000, $50,000.
George Halsey Perley: I would like a
little information regarding this item, more particularly as to how the cost is to be divided between the state of Maine and the Dominion of Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: This revote of $50,000 is required to complete Canada's share of the cost of the construction of the international bridge across the St. John river between Clair, New Brunswick, and Fort Kent, Maine. This work is being performed under contract by the Dominion Bridge Company, Limited, at 896,968 for the superstructure, and by Mc-Dougal Brothers of Ottawa at $35,009.25 for the substructure. To complete the work on the Canadian side, the assistant chief engineer reports that the sum of $50,000 will be required in 1930-31 for the following work:
To complete contract for superstructure,

Floor and walk, $13,000.
Painting superstructure, $4,000.
Highway approach on Canadian side, $7,202.
Contingencies and inspection, $3,798-Total, $50,000.
The cost of this work is divided equally between the state of Maine and the Dominion of Canada.


George Halsey Perley: The figures given by the minister total roughly $130,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a little over that
amount.


George Halsey Perley: Is that the cost to us, or the total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the total cost.


George Halsey Perley: So that the cost to us would be only $65,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Why was there
a vote last year of $130,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Well, the only explanation I can give is that tenders were advertised for on both sides of the line. The tenders were very much lower than the estimates of the engineers on either side of the line.


George Halsey Perley: Is the minister
correct in saying that the amount of $130,000 covers the total cost? Is that not our share of the cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the total cost.


George Halsey Perley: How much was
spent last year out of the vote of $130,000?


John Campbell Elliott: 


George Halsey Perley: And another
$50,000 is required to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Will this $50,000 complete the whole thing?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: The minister said that the state of Maine was to pay for this bridge fifty-fifty with Canada. This item reads, "the state of Maine to provide $36,000." The item in our estimates is $50,000. Will the minister kindly explain the discrepancy?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
the state of Maine paid more last year than Canada and we are evening up the amounts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Interprovincial bridge over Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Quebec and Ontario governments each to contribute one-third of the cost, $40,000.
George Halsey Perley: Has the minister had any communication from the Minister of Public Works of Quebec or of Ontario recently regarding this matter?


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that we have a communication from the Minister of Public Works of Quebec agreeing to bear their share of the cost. So far as I am aware we have not any communication from the province of Ontario. Information reached me indirectly that the Minister of Public Works of Ontario would be in Ottawa during last

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
month and I had hoped I would be able to have an interview with him, with the Minister of Public Works of Quebec and with some of the representatives of the adjoining territory, but apparently this was impossible; at least, we have not been able to get together.


George Halsey Perley: I had hoped that the Minister of Public Works for Ontario would have been here before this. I am still hoping he may come in the near future and that they will be able to meet and talk this matter over. While we are on this item, in which I am very much interested, I should like to call the minister's attention to a fact that was put before me not long ago by some of the people from Hawkesbury. It is an added argument in favour of the government paying more than one-third of the cost of this bridge. The minister perhaps knows the situation of the town of Hawkesbury. The approach to it from the Ottawa river is very poor, the water being shallow, and it is hard to get to the town. For many years there has been an agitation in Hawkesbury for a public wharf and as the department has been providing these public wharves at various places all along the Ottawa river, I can see no reason why they should not provide the town of Hawkesbury with a public wharf. The gentlemen who were here from Hawkesbury the other day having a chat with regard to this bridge called my attention to the fact that there is good wharfage at Grenville, with good water, and that if this bridge were built the town of Hawkesbury would be quite content to use the wharf at Grenville, thus relieving the government from the necessity of building a wharf at Hawkesbury. I am told a wharf at Hawkesbury would be a very expensive structure. Although the constituency I represent is across the Ottawa river, still I feel that the town of Hawkesbury is important enough to warrant the people there in expecting a wharf on the Ottawa river. Perhaps the minister may have heard something about this before.


John Campbell Elliott: Some time ago there was a public wharf at Hawkesbury, but that apparently has passed out of use. There is a wharf at L'Orignal and it seems the more urgent requirement of the town of Hawkesbury at present is a bridge, not a wharf. We have not made as rapid progress as I know my hon. friend and I hoped we would have made with regard to the bridge.


George Halsey Perley: But by building
the bridge you would give them a wharf as well, the wharf at Grenville, which they could quite comfortably and conveniently use from Hawkesbury.
2419-93J


John Campbell Elliott: The Grenville wharf would not be any closer than the L'Orignal wharf.


George Halsey Perley: I think the minister is mistaken.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is more familiar with that territory than I am, but I think he will find there is very little difference. At the present time, however, the urgent matter is the bridge, and the wharf will receive due consideration.


George Halsey Perley: I am not arguing with the minister to give Hawkesbury a public wharf in that town. I am simply putting before him the fact that these people from Hawkesbury say that the building of this bridge would relieve the department from any further demands for a public wharf at Hawkesbury. Therefore, if the minister would be good enough to give a larger percentage towards building the bridge, he might charge part of the cost up to the public wharf which would no longer be required at Hawkesbury.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend will not encourage the view that we should pay more than our one-third share in order to relieve us of the necessity of building a wharf which we do not need to build. That is the situation. That proposition was put up to me, but it did not appeal to me that we should pay more than our share because if we did so we would be relieved of the necessity of building a wharf which does not at present exist and which would not be needed.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: About $362,000.


William Thomas Lucas: When is it expected to be completed?


John Campbell Elliott: That is difficult to say. The government hope it will be completed very soon. We are prepared to go on with our part of it. I am not blaming anybody else, but we have not made as rapid progress as we had hoped in getting together with the provinces concerned. I am, however, looking forward, with the assistance of my good friend across the floor, to making much better progress in the near future.


William Thomas Lucas: Has work been started on the bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: No. We would not start the work until we got the funds from the various jurisdictions concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1468	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines
North Timiskaming bridge-repairs, etc., $4,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Where is this bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: On the Ottawa river, in Pontiac county.


John Anderson Fraser: Is it an interprovincial
bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Majorique, Que.-repairs to bridge approaches, $2,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What is the explanation of this vote? Is this an international bridge, and where is it situated?


John Campbell Elliott: It is on a colonization road on the south shore of the Gaspe peninsula.


John Anderson Fraser: In Gaspe county?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Why is the Dominion government paying for repairing this bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: It was built originally as a colonization bridge, and apparently for years the Dominion has borne the cost of keeping it in repair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Nova Scotia -Cape Breton-general repairs and improvements, $11,200.
Thomas Cantley: I wish now to call the attention of the minister to the cable on Pictou island. Some little time ago I asked for some information which the minister was good enough to procure for me. This cable was first laid down in 1921, and during practically every year since it has been out of commission for some portion of the year. In March, 1922, nine months after it was laid down, the cable was out of commission for about three and one-half months; in 1923, for nine months; in 1924, about one and a half months, and the same in 1925; in 1927, it was out of commission again, also in 1928, and in 1929. The difficulty is that the cable was landed at a point on Pictou island where it is impossible to maintain cable communication. That difficulty has been repeatedly pointed out to the officers of the government. The cable is landed at a point where it is practically all rock, and the cable is worn through by the action of the waves and the surf rubbing and chafing it over the jagged rocks. The minister's officers will probably tell him, as they have told me, that the cable was destroyed by the action of the ice, but that could not have been the case

in the months of June, July, August and September. That is not the cause of the trouble. It is due entirely to the fact that the island end of the cable was landed at the wrong point. There is no trouble with the landing on the mainland end, and never has been. The difficulty always has been at the island end. I am told that no recommendation has been made for changing the landing place, but I would point out to the minister that more than one recommendation has been made to change the landing place on the island to a point further eastward, where it wovdd land on a sandy beach and where the present difficulty would not occur. Will the minister be good enough to tell me what is going to be done about it?


John Campbell Elliott: It is quite true that the cable has been out of commission at various times, for various reasons, and the reasons have been, I think fairly stated in the memorandum which my hon. friend has. That is the history of cables generally. Sometimes they are destroyed by ice shoves, sometimes by anchors of vessels catching them.


Thomas Cantley: No, not in this case.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh yes; that is the main
reason, I am told. Cables are put out of business by many causes. So far as the location is concerned, considerable thought has been given to that matter, and we have had no recommendation from the departmental officials to change the site. That is the situation at the present time.


Thomas Cantley: There may be many
reasons why cables in a general way go out of commission, but I am not discussing that. I am discussing this particular cable. I am not concerned about what suggestions have been given to the minister by his officers. I assert that this cable has broken down for the reason I have stated, and for no other reason. It is all very well for the minister to tell me that the cable has been carried away by vessels. That is not correct. The minister's information is at fault. I have been on the ground and have seen the condition of the cable more than once, and I also know what the opinions of the men on the island are, and they are quite capable of determining the cause of the trouble. The rough jagged rock surface at the point where the cable lands can at low water or half tide be seen quite easily. The cable itself is then easily visible; indeed the cable actually lands close to the public wharf head, and if the minister would look it over, he would see that it passes over a ledge of rock with a sharp, jagged surface, on which the waves and surf wash the cable back and

Supply-Public Works-Cable Ship
forth and wear it out. The obvious thing to do is to move the cable to a more suitable landing place a quarter of a mile distant, where that trouble will not occur. I defy anybody to successfully maintain anything different from what I have now stated.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend, whose judgment I esteem so very highly. I am surprised to hear him state with so much positiveness that the trouble is not as I have indicated. I would just refer him to the answer that was given him in reply to a question, on March 19, as to the cause of the cable ceasing to operate. I am sure that he has read it because he always pays great attention to the answers that he receives to his various questions.


Thomas Cantley: Thank you, sir.


John Campbell Elliott: His questions were as
follows:
1.	At what date did the Pictou island cable connection with the mainland last go out of
commission ?
2.	What was the cause of cable ceasing to operate?
The answers were:
1.	December 12, 1929.
2.	Broken by buoy carried adrift by ice dragging its mooring across the cable.


Thomas Cantley: I am told by people who live on the island that that statement is not correct. I think they know what they are talking about and I prefer to believe them rather than the officer who has reported to the minister. That is definite.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend has a
perfect right to make his choice; and I hope he will accord to me the privilege of making mine.


Thomas Cantley: Certainly.


John Campbell Elliott: I take the opinion of the
officials of the department. I must confess that I still think they are right in spite of what my hon. friend says, and I have great respect for his statements.


Thomas Cantley: In view of the repeated
breakage of this cable, why do the minister's officers persist in maintaining the landing place at the present point? This cable has been out of commission practically every year from two days to eight or nine months, due invariably to the one cause. Now, why not move the island landing place where the break has always been made? I would point out again that at the mainland end of the cable there has never been any obstruction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces-cable ship, $75,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Might we have an explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
either towards the construction of a new cable ship, the cost of which is estimated at $670,000, or the purchase and fitting up of a ship to replace the existing cable ship Tyrian. The Tyrian was constructed in 1869 and has been in the service of the department since 1901. It was repaired in 1928, but the condition of the vessel was such that the marine inspectors would issue sailing certificates for the limited period of two years only, at the expiration of which time a new ship will have to be in commission. The appropriation last year was $100,000, nothing was expended, and we are asking for a revote of $75,000.


George Halsey Perley: When is the
period of two years up?


John Campbell Elliott: 
George Halsey Perley: How old a vessel is it?


John Campbell Elliott: Somewhere around twenty
years. It cost originally about $150,000. It is in the West Indies cable service now, but we have not been able to get delivery.


George Halsey Perley: I doubt very
much the wisdom of the government buying a boat twenty years old. I am not an expert in these things, but it seems to me that this is rather an ancient craft. May I suggest to the minister that the consolidation of the cable companies put through last year in England, and to which we assented, must have resulted in a surplus of cable ships on the Pacific. I think it would be worth while for the minister to make inquiries in this regard. Certainly a boat twenty years old can hardly be expected to last very long.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a good deal of
force in the argument against buying old boats, but the Tyrian was never built as a cable ship. Of course for cable work we require a particularly strong ship built for the purpose. But the Tyrian has lasted sixty-years.
1470	COMMONS
Supply*-Public Works-Telegraph Lines


George Reginald Geary: It does not owe you much if it has been, paying out cable all that time.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: What is the difficulty about delivery?


John Campbell Elliott: They bad an earthquake in the West Indies where the boat now is.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do you expect to continue negotiations for the purchase of the Henry Holmes?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and if we can get the boat at that price, provided it is satisfactory to our inspectors, we intend to take it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: the earthquake did not hurt the boat?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it was too strong a boat for that.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where was the boat built?


John Campbell Elliott: On the Clyde.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-reconstruction of north shore, St. Lawrence telegraph system from Bersimis eastward, $25,000.
John Anderson Fraser: How much was expended on this vote last year?


John Campbell Elliott: The whole vote.


John Anderson Fraser: How much line are you building?


John Campbell Elliott: This is reconstruction of the old line. We have about 850 miles of line.


John Anderson Fraser: How much of the line will this reconstruct?


John Campbell Elliott: About 100 miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Telegraph line from Peace river to Fort Vermilion, $61,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it estimated that this amount will complete the line?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia northern district-general repairs and improvements, $27,000.
John Anderson Fraser: The details of costs of
expenditure for the last year wovdd indicate that it has cost $10,000 more this year than last.


John Campbell Elliott: The condition of these
improvements varies from year to year. This is the estimate of what will be required to remedy the defects in the condition that exists at the present time.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the general location of the lines under construction; is that the Yukon line?


John Campbell Elliott: This is between Ashcroft
and the Skeena river.


Mr. BRADY:: This vote affords me the
opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister the grave importance of federal telephone communication in northern British Columbia and particularly in the constituency of Skeena. I may not have another opportunity to mention this fact, and as it is a very important subject I ask the indulgence of the committee at the present time. I have placed before the minister for his consideration three new lines which are absolutely essential. One is from Houston to the Owens lake mining and development property. Twenty-six miles of new road have been constructed by the provincial government and by the Owens lake mining interests. The old telephone line went along the old road which led to Nadina; this road is not being used to-day. There is an urgent request for the construction of a new telephone line to meet the requirements of this large and important mine which employs over fifty men. I have given information, which the minister no doubt has, regarding the importance of this line, and I trust he will see to it that this matter will receive immediate consideration.
The next point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is the fact that for three years I have been asking for the construction of a telephone line from Colleymount to North Francois lake. In order to show the seriousness of the situation in that section of

Private Bills
the country I will read part of a letter which should be of profound interest to the minister and to the hon. members in this house. There is no telephone system in the whole district. There is a farmers' institute consisting of 27 farmers with their wives and children. These people have to travel 40 miles, when emergencies arise, in order to get in touch with a doctor. The letter I have in my hand has to deal with the conditions that exist in that section.
Dear Sir:
Again we wish to call to your attention the vital subject of a telephone for Colleymount post office. We have been told by the forestry department of British Columbia that we could have a lookout station situated on Colley mountain, provided the Dominion government would give telephone connection to Colleymount and community. By so doing a vast amount^ of valuable timber may be saved from destruction by forest fires every year, and the residents be helped out of their great handicap.
To show what our people here are up against,
I may refer to the very sad death of the three year old son of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Roberts which occurred here recently from spinal meningitis. Due to the lack of a telephone m our community it was necessary to take this very sick child to Burns lake for treatment, a distance of forty miles. I am_ sure you will agree with us that when our institute^ has a membership of twenty-seven we feel entitled to a telephone.
It is the belief of the people in this community that had there been telephone communication immediate steps could have been taken to save the life of this child. The child died before medical assistance could reach Burns lake. I wish to say to hon. gentlemen that I am sorry to hinder at this late hour the progress of the estimates, but this is a matter of such importance that I feel it is worthy of your special consideration, and now that you are in possession of the facts you will realize the importance of assisting these people. They are asking only for one of the essential things of life, telephone communication, and I cannot see why they should not receive it. The third line is between Bickle and Grassy Plains. I trust these matters will receive the sympathetic consideration of the miinster and that steps will be taken to have these lines installed. Will the minister promise to give this his attention?


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon.
friend that every request he has made will receive most sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clook the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 11, 1930