1930-04-28

PRIVILEGE-MR. MANION

Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
rise to a question of privilege. I do so at this moment, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) is in his seat, and he might not happen to be when we reach the orders of the day. As a question of privilege is in order at all times, I presume I may bring it up at this moment. The question I wish to deal with is the report of a speech made by the Minister of Labour at Sioux Lookout and reported in various papers. It was reported in the Fort William paper and the Port Arthur paper along the same lines as I shall read from the Toronto Star of April 15, 1930. The heading is:
Proud of his birth. Heenan scores critic. Answers remarks of Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion but sees he is unaffected.
The despatch is dated Sioux Lookout, April 15. It says that this was a nonpolitical banquet. Then the following paragraph occurs:
149G
Privilege-Mr. Manion

During his short address Mr. Heenan declared that the occasion did not warrant the discussion of politics. In connection with interruptions and apparent attempts by certain members of parliament to throw him off his equilibrium, particularly a speech made by Dr. R. J. Manion (Conservative, Fort William) during which remarks were made in connection with the mediocrity of Mr. Heenan's early life and the humble surroundings in which he was born, the minister said: "Far from feeling down-trodden by the honourable gentleman's exposure, I am proud to let it be known that I was born under the thatched roof of a humble cottage in Ireland. In spite of the sarcastic reference by Dr. Manion, I was blessed with a home influence that cannot be equalled."
Asked if he were not a bit shaken by such unusual remarks made by Dr. Manion in connection with his birth, he smiled. "Why should I be shaken by an exhibition of bad manners on the part of another member?" he said.
Neither in the House of Commons nor on a public platform did I ever in any shape, manner or form refer to the place or the condition or the surroundings of the birth of the Minister of Labour or of any other hon. member. I am one of those who believe that the condition of a man's birth has nothing whatever to do with his attainments in life. If the minister is correctly reported, he stated what is absolutely and wholly untrue. Furthermore, if he is correctly reported, he stated what he knows to be untrue. I am hoping the minister will rise in his place and say that he is misquoted, and I am also hoping that the Toronto Star and the other papers that published this false information will give as much importance to the correction as they have given to the statement.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: I hope the hon. member for Fort
William will not expect me to try to interpret the speech he made on the floor of the house. I have a few editorials, one or two of which I might read. This is from the London Advertiser of April 7, 1930, and it is headed: "Parliamentary Manners." It reads:
The Honourable Peter Heenan is a labour man in the fullest sense, and one of the secrets of his success in settling labour disputes is his sympathy with the workers, with whose needs he is familiar by practical experience. Another of his valuable qualities is his unfailing courtesy and good temper.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: The member should blush when he reads that.


Peter Heenan: I am speaking now about good manners for members.
This appeared in a very marked way in the debate on unemployment, because of the contrast afforded by the extremely unmannerly interruptions to which he was subjected from the opposition benches, and that not from the back benches, but very largely from the front 
row. Even the leader of the opposition so far forgot his dignity as to ask Mr. Heenan who had prepared his speech. Mr. Heenan himself treated the interruptions with good-humoured indifference, but the Speaker, as guardian of the dignity of the house, felt obliged to intervene and to say that the continual interruptions were unfair. Dr. Manion (Fort William) was afterwards called to order for unparliamentary language. His remark that Mr. Heenan had "reached realms of prosperity beyond his fondest dreams in days gone by" was a contemptible sneer at the minister because he had not been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Wage-earners will resent the snobbish attitude of Conservative front-benchers toward one of themselves, who has carved out his career unaided, and has discharged the duties of his important office with distinguished success. We quote from Hansard to show the boorishness of the minister's critic.
Dr. Manion:	The hon. gentleman has a
method of his owm, ,a method which is cunning, if one cares to stoop to it during election time. He has a habit of misquoting statements and misstating facts, and after he has done that for a week

Some hon. Members:	Order.
Dr. Manion:	He spends a week doing that
sort of thing during election time, and. then on Sunday he goes to church and prays that the good Lord will not allow anybody to come around to tell the truth during the next week.
Some hon. Members:	Order.
Dr, Manion:	He also conjured up in his
brain-if I may use that term after listening to his three-hour speech-a sort of idiotic delusion that in some way I had endeavoured to stop the building of the trans-Canada highway.
Some hon. Members:	Order.
At this point the Speaker intervened, and Dr. Manion was obliged to retract. The member for Fort William was not the only offender. Many passages as reprehensible as the foregoing could be reproduced from Hansard. By actual account, the minister was interrupted 145 times.
Labour has reason to be proud of the demeanor of its representative in the government, and of his observance of the best traditions of parliamentary decorum. He showed an example of the manners which spring from natural goodness of heart, and which neither wealth nor college and professional training was able to impart to those whom Speaker Lemieux was obliged to rebuke.
I have another quotation here from the Toronto Globe of April 9, 1930. It is headed, " 'Smart Alecks' in the House," and reads:
No doubt the people of Canada generally regard the House of Commons as a place where the public business of the country always is transacted in a dignified and orderly manner. They will be disillusioned-and it is a pity- by reading reports of proceedings in parliament during a recent speech by Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour. Reasonable interruptions always are in order, but on this occasion opposition members went out of their way to create a ridiculous situation. Mr. neenan essayed to discuss the problem of unemployment; but, as reported in Hansard, his speech was rendered quite ineffective by "smart" interjections by honourable members who appeared to have little regard for the time and the business of parliament.

Privilege-Mr. Manion
The Stratford Beacon-Herald has been analyzing the incident, and finds that by actual count there were eighty-one interruptions during the course of the address. As the Beacon-Herald says, "the score runs like this": Stevens, 12; Irvine, 2; Bennett, 8; Manion, 12; Arthurs, 2; Geary, 1; Spence, 2; Fraser, 1; Short, 2; Ernst, 1; Hanson, 2; Ryckman, 1; Garland, 2; honourable members, 15; MacDougall, 13; McRae, 1; Chaplin, 1. Total, 81.
This record reads like the story of a cricket match, but unfortunately it indicates the view taken by some men of their responsibilities as members of a national deliberative assembly

the parliament of Canada. The annual session of the federal house costs the country in the neighbourhood of $2,000 per hour.
Mr. RYCKMAN; What is it costing now?


An hon. MEMBER:: Six thousand dollars
for the minister's speech.


Peter Heenan: If my remarks will help
to correct what these papers call bad manners, it will be money well spent. To continue the quotation:
There will be created in the minds of the taxpayers a feeling of resentment that so many members are willing to take up the time of the house in this way. There is no public interest in nonsensical interruptions-at least, not in eighty-one of them during one brief speech. And there will be disapproval of the evident attempt to make of the serious condition of unemployment a political football to be kicked about during the next election.
Here is another quotation that I think will be well worth my reading. It is from the Toronto Star of April 8, 1930, and is headed, "An Eruption of Interruptions." It reads:
The editor of the Stratford Beacon-Herald has been reading Hansard-and to good advantage. For he has discovered that the transaction of business at Ottawa is impeded at times by meaningless and frivolous objections. He has taken the trouble to count those which "turned into somewhat of a muddle" a speech recently delivered by the Hon. Peter Heenan. There were in all eighty-one-eighty-one interruptions in the course of a short address. Including those which Hansard lists as having been made by anonymous "honourable members" the interruptions were contributed as follows:
Then follows the list of interruptions by different members which I have already quoted. It goes on:
An occasional interruption is justified, hut a running fire of parliamentary heckling serves no good purpose. And wastes valuable time.
Here is a quotation from the Toronto Star of April 14, 1930, headed, " Giving Character to a Government." It reads:
The old saying that the most sticks and stones are to be found under the best apple trees may apply to Hon. Peter Heenan and the numerous attacks made on him by the Conservative opposition in the Commons. By actual count Mr. Heenan was interrupted eighty-one times during a recent speech, and this, while it 2419-95
may have been an unintentional tribute to the work of Mr. Heenan, must also be characterized as an abuse of parliamentary practice.
Mr. Heenan has been attacked as one who has bettered his position in life, as though the opportunities of self-improvement afforded by Canada were not among her chief attractions and the number of citizens who have risen from humble beginnings to prominence were not a source of national pride. Unlike many others Mr. Heenan has not forgotten the class to which he belongs, but has been tireless in his efforts to promote the welfare of the workers, not only by encouraging the application of the eight-hour-day principle and the payment of fair wages, but by trying to secure such high standards of working conditions at all times as to foster industrial peace.
Mr. Heenan has not been many years in the federal cabinet. But in the short period of his experience as a minister he has had a share in the establishment of the old age pensions system, the partial application of the eight-hour day in the civil service and the settlement of many disputes that threatened the interests of both workers and employers. His conduct of the Labour department thus far has enhanced the prestige of the Mackenzie King government.
I have read that last sentence for the benefit of the Prime Minister. To answer directly the question put by my hon. friend from Fort William, I had not even thought of him, let alone mentioned the hon. member's name in my address at Sioux Lookout.


Robert James Manion: I take it, then, that the
hon. gentleman denies that he made any of the statements which the various papers throughout the country have quoted?


Peter Heenan: No, I did not say that.
In my speech I said that I was born under a thatched roof, that I was proud of it, and that I got a training under that thatched roof which neither college nor university had imparted to those who heckled me during my speech; but in my address I did not mention the Hon. Doctor Manion or any other hon. member.


Robert James Manion: All I have to say is that
the hon. gentleman allowed the reporters to be under the impression that he applied this whole statement to me. I repeat, sir, that I have never either in this house or elsewhere spoken of the hon. gentleman's birth or upbringing or home surroundings or anything of the sort. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman's quoting from a lot of partisan articles in praise of himself is no answer to this statement at all. I repeat, the whole statement is absolutely and wholly untrue.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122 to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
[Stage Direction]


Criminal Procedure in Alberta.
He said: It happens quite frequently, Mr. Speaker, that the crown finds itself in possession of moneys which belong to parties other than the crown, and the claims to these moneys cannot be investigated under the present system because no judicial machinery has been provided for the purpose. This bill is to give authority for the Exchequer Court of Canada to order the deposit of such moneys into court and to adjudicate as to the law and the facts thereon.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 123 respecting criminal procedure in Alberta.
He said:	In the Alberta Act it is provided that the procedure in criminal matters as enacted by the Northwest Territories Act shall apply to the province until the governor in council declares that that procedure or part of it is inapplicable. In 1929 an order in council was passed declaring section 66 of the Northwest Territories Act inapplicable to the Supreme Court of Alberta. This section provided for the trial of many criminal offences summarily without a jury. The present bill is to confirm the order in council and to amend another section of the act to bring it into harmony with the present situation.
Mr. BENNETT:: Does the same apply to Saskatchewan?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Yes; but this was done at the request of the government of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113 respecting the capital stock of the Ottawa Electric Railway Company-Mr. Chevrier.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: There are a
number of divorce bills for first reading. Would one vote suffice?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried on division.
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Amy Lucinda Jenkins-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 118 for the relief of Mabel Robb 'Blaiklock-Mr. Black (Yukon).



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: (1)	What amount has been paid ex-Indian Army officers under vote of parliament item number 437, supplementary estimates for year ending March 31, 1930?
(2)	What amount has the government of Prince Edward Island contributed, or paid to such army officers as its share in settlement of these claims?
(3)	What are the names of those to whom paid, and the amounts paid to each, by the federal and provincial governments, respectively ?
(4)	What claims remain unpaid and what are the reasons for non-payment in each case?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: (1)	Payments were made, ex gratia, from a fund formed by joint contributions voted by the parliament of Canada and the legislature of Prince Edward Island, in accordance with the following account:
Compassionate Allowance to Certain British Ex-Officers
Amount voted by Dominion parliament-Miscellaneous No. 437-
1929-30	$	8,000
Amounted voted by Prince Edward Island parliament, 1929-30	 8,000


IMMIGRATION-MEDICAL EXAMINERS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many medical examiners were sent overseas for examination purposes on immigration?
2.	How many have returned home and for what reasons?
3.	Wh-!t was the length of service in each case ?
4.	How manv remain overseas and where are they stationed?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Department of Pensions and National Health
1.	Twenty-seven.
2.	Seven. Four resigned; one transferred to headquarters at Ottawa; one transferred to immigration medical duty at Canadian ocean ports; one dismissed for unsatisfactory service.
3.	Four years and two months, twenty-two months, twenty-one months, seventeen months, two years and one month, thirteen months, seventeen months.
4.	Twenty.
Area centre where stationed:
England-
London	 5
Liverpool	 3
Newcastle	 1
Wales-Cardiff	 1
Scotland-Glasgow	 3
Ireland-Belfast	 2
France-Paris	 1
Germany-Hamburg	 1
Belgium-Antwerp	 1
Poland-Danzig	 2


PERMANENT NIGHT WATCHMEN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton);
1.	What total number of hours per week are required to be served by permanent night watchmen of the Dominion government?
2.	Are the said employees allowed statutory holidays?
Mr. RINFRET:: 
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS
Mr. FAFARD:: How many maps were made by the topographical survey branch since 1917, stating,
(a)	the number of maps for each province,
(b)	the number of square miles mapped in each province,
(c)	the area in miles for each province,
(d)	the total cost of the said maps in each province,
(e)	the revenue derived from selling of the said maps since 1917?
Questions


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There were 167 maps made by the topographical survey branch since 1917:
(a)	Nova Scotia, 5; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 4; Ontario, 13; Manitoba, 36; Saskatchewan, 26; Alberta, 55; British Columbia, 10.
(b)	Nova Scotia, 4,070; New Brunswick, 3,403; Quebec, 20,565; Ontario, 66,149; Manitoba, 98,247; Saskatchewan, 88,496; Alberta, 87,142; British Columbia, 7,306.
(c)	Nova Scotia, 21,428; New Brunswick, 27,185; Quebec, 703,653; Ontario, 407.265; Manitoba. 251,832; Saskatchewan, 251,700; Alberta, 255,285; British Columbia, 355.855.
(d)	Nova Scotia, $77,600; New Brunswick, $62,270; Quebec, $112,155; Ontario, $86,830; Manitoba, $76,315; Saskatchewan, $214,470; Alberta, $213,430; British Columbia, $117,820.
(Cost of field work)
(e)	$16,590.-(for the years prior to 1924 information is not available).


EX-SOLDIER PENSIONS
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	How many ex-soldiers are drawing pensions for war disability?	_
2.	What is the average pension received by .each?
3.	How many dependents of the above are
.drawing pensions?	,
4.	What is the average pension each receives.
5.	How many applications for pensions have been refused?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	57,044 (as at March 31, 1930).
2.	$474.63.
3.	Number of pensions paid to dependents of deceased soldiers-19,632 (as at March 31, 1930).
4.	$546.86.
5.	Since 1924, 50,581 claims for entitlement to pension for injury or disease resulting in disability and death have been refused by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
Prior to January, 1924, there are no available statistics, but on demobilization many men were automatically considered on the military documents and their claims refused, and from demobilization until January, 1924, the records are so incomplete that any figures would be very misleading.
Approximately 8,000 dependent claims have been rejected.


RADIO BRANCH
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many radio licences were issued in the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, in each of the provinces of the Dominion?
2.	How many inspectors of radio were in the employ of the government in 1929?
[Mr. Fafard.l
3.	What was the cost of operating the radio branch in 1929?
4.	Has the government any financial interest in any broadcasting stations?
5.	If so, what are their names, locations, the cost of operation and the revenue derived therefrom?
6.	What regulations govern broadcasting at the present time?


Mr. CARDIN:: 

03 -0 2 <M rt 2 O oo 5-	03 ^
g:S >>
' xs . o >
Pm
administration. . .	$710,057	76	$659,887	70Civil government.	38,610	00	39,185	00(b) Service to broad-	cast listeners. . ..	166,775	89	178,002	48Civil government. ..	2,280	00	2,670	00$917,723	65	$879,745	184.	No.5.	Answered by No. 4.6.	(a) Nationality of Licences
Licences for " transmitting stations " are issued only to British subjects or to companies incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada or any of the provinces thereof. Licences for " private receiving stations " are issued to any person in Canada, irrespective of nationality.
(b)	Private	Commercial	BroadcastingLicence-Private	commercial	broadcasting
licences may be granted to land stations to be operated for the broadcasting by radiotelegraph or radiotelephone of news, information, entertainment or other service.
The working of the station must be strictly limited to the hours prescribed in the licence and the station must use such wavelength as is specified therein.
The station must be operated by a person who is the holder of a "first class " or a " radiotelephone " certificate of proficiency in radio.
(c)	Amateur Broadcasting Licence-Amateur broadcasting licences may be granted to recog-

Questions
nized radio associations. They will not be granted to individuals. Such licences will permit broadcasting on a wavelength of 250 metres at the hours and for the periods prescribed in the licence. The normal range of amateur broadcasting stations will be limited to 25 miles.
An association licensed to operate an amateur broadcasting station may, subject to
the approval of the minister, authorize a station belonging to one of its members to broadcast on its behalf; such station whilst broadcasting shall use the the call signal and wavelength allotted to the association. The association will be held responsible for the proper operation of the station in accordance with the provisions of the licence and the radio regulations.
Fiscal year 1927-1928
-	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T. and Yukon	TotalPrivate radio receiving	
Private commercial broad-	587 2	7,105 1	4,461 3	51,283 9	126,607 30	19,284 2	26,479 11	14,778 14	18,514 12	88	268,420 841	1	8	4	1	153	33	1	3	72	7	28	6	5	3	26	2x2	4	6	26	1	3	779	23	18	61	188	29	72	53	74	5	5321	1	3	4	90312
269,501
											
Fiscal year 1928-1929
-	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T. and Yukon	TotalPrivate radio receiving	758	8,611	6,289	49,812	145,480	20,497	27,386	14,974	23,480	111	297,398Private commercial broad-	3	3	3	9	24	4	11	12	10	792	6	3	1	123	33	1	42	18	30	io	5	3	28	2	982	3	7	27	l	1	5	46Amateur experimental	9	35	15	68	180	40	87	56	87	7	5841	1	1	1	1	52333298,564
Fiscal year 1929-1930 (11 months ending 28th February, 1930)
-	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T. and Yukon	TotalPrivate radio receiving	
Private commercial broad-	969 3	12,681 3	8,249 3	70,008 9	201,941 25	25,455 4	31,266 11	20,574 13	34,426 10	134	405,703 811	5	3	1	104	41	4	2	13	7	6	5	9	473	18	34	10	8	6	49	7	1352	2	14	36	1	4	12	718	34	14	64	213	41	92	52	87	5	6101	1	1	1	1	53320
406,989
											
Questions


RIVER ST. CHARLES-DREDGING AND DAMMING
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Were contracts made between the Dominion government and the city of Quebec, in 1910, in connection with the dredging and damming of the river St. Charles?
2.	On what date were contracts awarded to contractors for said works?
3.	To whom were said contracts awarded, what amount was paid to contractors for said works, and in what year?
4.	In what year and for what reason were said works discontinued?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	No.
2.	March 12, 1913 to Quinlan and Robertson. May 12, 1915 to the Dominion Bridge Company, Limited.
3.	Quinlan and Robertson:	1913-14, $83,-
200.00; 1914-16, $115,632.63; 1915-16, $384,373.57; 1916-17, $375,703.45; 1917-18, $93,315.15; 1918-19, $16,622.65. Dominion Bridge Company, Limited; 1925-26, $5,443.62.
4.	The then government decided to discontinue the works in 1917.


ROSS RIFLE FACTORY, QUEBEC
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Is the Dominion government the owner of the property on which is erected the Ross Rifle Company factory, located in the park of the National Battlefield, at Quebec?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to demolish the buildings of the Ross Rifle factory?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to remove to other localities the war material stored in the buildings of the Ross Rifle Company?
4.	Was there a request made to the Dominion government by the city of Quebec for the land on which is located the Ross Rifle Company factory?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	and 3. It is the intention of the government to transfer these buildings to the National Battlefield commission as soon as storage facility can be provided for the ordnance stores now housed in these buildings.
4. No.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL SUPPLY


Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Have the Canadian National Railways a hotel now in course of erection at Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	In view of the resolution passed by the house on March 21, 1928, does the building of this hotel not provide a suitable opportunity for testing and demonstrating the possibilities of pulverized coal?
3.	Will the government endeavour to secure the cooperation of the Canadian National Railways management in this matter?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	and 3. The possible use of pulverized coal for the heating of this hotel has been brought to the attention of the management by the Minister of Railways, at the instance of British Columbia members, and the management state that, after due consideration of alternative fuels, it has, for reasons of cleanliness and economy, been decided to use oil.

Questions


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY-ORIGINATING FREIGHT
Mr. KENNEDY:: What is the total tonnage of freight originating at all stations on the Hudson Bay railway in each of the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929, of (a) wheat, (b) oats, (c) barley, (d) rye, (e) other agricultural produce, (f) products of the mine, (g) products of the
forest, (h) all other products	9


Mr. DUNNING:: 1928	1929
(a)	Wheat	
(b)	Oats	
(c)	Barley	
Cd) Rye	
(e) Other agricultural produce	Tons	Tons(f) Products of the mine..	211	849(g) Products of the forest..	952	922(h) All other products.. ..	1,016	899Total	2,179	2,670
Records for 1925, 1926 and 1927 are not available, having been destroyed by fire.


BREAD PRICES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government take any steps to investigate the high price of bread in Canada, in view of the many months' and weeks' decline in wheat prices?
2.	Will the government undertake to find out if any combine or restraint of trade exists to enhance bread prices and the reason master bakers have increased the cost of bread?
3.	Will any inquiry be made into the continued high cost of living in Canada?
4.	Will the present inquiries into stock brokers' and plumbers' combines be enlarged to include a general inquiry into living costs and their regulation?


Peter Heenan: 1-4. Bread prices throughout Canada during the past year have shown no abnormal tendencies in relation to prices of wheat. Average for the Dominion advanced last fall three-tenths of a cent per pound and has since declined two-tenths. Investigations will be made when evidence appears of a combine against the public interest, in bread or other commodities. Inquiries are being made regularly into the cost of living and conditions affecting it, and results are being published by the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Labour. Special inquiries will be made as conditions indicate these to be necessary.


RADIO LICENCES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government or any member thereof consented to grant any radio licences for new plants or extensions to old ones?
2.	Have any plans of proposed new high-powered stations been submitted to the government? If so, by whom, and where are they located?
3.	Has the government approved of any such new plans and given promises of support to the same? If so, to whom?
4.	Will any papers dealing with the aforesaid be tabled?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Since 1st January, 1929, applicants for licenses for new stations, or for permission to increase the power of existing stations beyond 100 watts, have been informed that no decision will be taken with regard to their applications until such time as the report of the royal commission on broadcasting is disposed of.
2.	Applications have been received since 1st January, 1929, for the licensing of the following stations with power of 5,000 watts or over:
New Stations
Name of Applicant-Location of proposed station-Power in watts:
Canadian Pacific Railways, Montreal, Que., 50,000; Canadian Pacific Railways, Toronto, Ont., 50,000; Canadian Pacific Railways, Winnipeg, Man., 15,000; Arthur E. Woods, Windsor, Ont., 5,000; Canadian Marconi Company, Glace Bay, N.S., 5,000; Regina Broadcasting Co., Ltd., Regina, Sask., 5,000.
Increase in power for existing stations
Name of Applicant-Location of existing station-Power in watts:
Radio Service, Limited, Saskatoon, Sask., 5,000; Gooderham & Worts, Limited, Bow-manville, Ont., 10,000-50,000; Rogers Majestic Corporation, Ltd., Aurora, Ont., 50,000; London Free Press & Printing Co., London, Ont., 5,000; Western Broadcasting Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta., 10,000.
3.	No.
4.	All papers relating to the aforesaid on file in the department will be produced on request in the usual manner.


CROWN LANDS LEASED TO ORIENTALS
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	What acreage of crown lands, if any, are leased to orientals?
2.	Where are the lands situated?
3.	What are the names of the tenants?
4.	What is the duration of the tenancies?
5.	What are the amounts of the rents in each case?
6.	What is the land used for?
Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	27-5 acres.
2.	In the north half of section 14, township 21, range 1, west of the 5th meridian.
3.	Low Son.
4.	Five years from 15th May, 1926.
5.	$165 per annum.
6.	Garden.


FEDERAL APPEAL BOARD CASES
Mr. RENNIE:: 1.	How many cases have been heard by the Federal appeal board in each year, including 1929, since the hoard was established?
2.	How many eases have been adjudicated upon by the Board of Pension Commissioners in each year, including 1929, since its establishment?
3.	In how many cases has the adjudication of the Board of Pension Commissioners been reversed by the Federal appeal board?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.
September 1923, to March 31, 1925______ 409
During fiscal year ending March 31,1925..	651
During fiscal year ending March 31,1926..	851
During fiscal year ending March 31,1927.. 1,174 During fiscal year ending March 31,1928.. 1,667 During fiscal year ending March 31,1929.. 1,895 During fiscal year ending March 31,1930.. 2,873
Total	 g,520
Note: Of the cases heard during the period Sept. 1924, to Sept. 1926, 431 were heard twice, first by one member and subsequently by a quorum.
2.	From January 1, 1924, to December 31, 1929, 67,191 claims for entitlement to pension for injury or disease resulting in disability and death have been considered by the Board of Pension Commissioners sitting as a board.
Prior to January, 1924, there are no available records in this respect which are authentic, but all cases of ex-soldiers and dependents of ex-soldiers who were on pension at that time were adjudicated upon by the board or its employees and it would be impossible to arrive at the number refused during that period.
3.	1,972 (to March 31, 1930).


ALBERTA-SOLDIER SETTLER FORECLOSURES
Mr. SMOKE:: 1.	Have any soldier settlers been foreclosed in the province of Alberta, since the year 1926? If so, how many during each year in (a) northern Alberta, (b) southern Alberta?
[Mr. Gardiner.!
2.	What has been the loss sustained by the government through such forced sales?
3.	Is the department at Ottawa consulted before proceedings are commenced or is such step taken on the initiative of the district officer in charge?
4.	Are these farms resold? If so, how many have been resold to, (a) returned soldiers, (b) civilians?
5.	What has been the average price obtained?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
(a)	1926	 108
1927		 71
1928		 110
1929		 134
1930		 20
(b)	1926	 139
1927		 110
1928		 62
1929	 99
1930	 16
2.	(a) Total loss on chattels, $186,020. In all cases chattels completely sold. Total loss on land in 229 cases where farms sold, $326.
(b)	Total loss of $170,497 on chattels in 195 cases where chattels completely sold; total profit of $12,000 in 206 cases where land resold.
3.	Foreclosure proceedings are initiated by district office but head office is consulted before further action taken.
4.	Yes, when satisfactory offers are received.
(a)	Northern Alberta, (a) 2, (b) 227. In 25 cases of farms sold board still holds additional quarter section of low value.
(b)	Southern Alberta, (a) 3, (b) 203.
5.	(a) $3,190, (b) $3,573.


MR. ALEX. MCGREGOR
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Did Alex. McGregor, of Toronto, act as counsel in the Hunter inquiry, respecting the Christie street hospital?
2.	If so, what amount was he paid for his services in such investigation?
3.	What amount has the said Alex. McGregor been paid by the government, or any department thereof, for legal services during 1922 and to the end of the fiscal year 1929, including the intervening years?
4.	Is the said Alex. McGregor retained by the government, or any department thereof, in any litigation, or otherwise, at the present time?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Alex. McGregor acted as counsel in Hunter inquiry for Col. Hunter.
2.	No payment was made by Dominion government for his services.

Questions
3.	(a) Department of Justice, legal services as commissioner for the revision of the statutes between 1924 and 1929, $6,930.73.
(b) Department of National Revenue-
1921-2			 Nil
1922-3			 Nil
1923-4			$ 20 81
1924-5			 656 21
1925-6			 37 11
1926-7			 Nil
1927-8			 225 25
1928-9			 Nil
Total			$ 939 38
4. Yes.	
INCOME TAX	COLLECTIONS


Mr. ROBINSON:: 1.	What amount of income taxes was collected during each of the fiscal years 1928 and 1929, in the counties of Kent and Lamb ton?
2.	What was the total amount of the said taxes collected during each of the said years, in the London district?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Not available. Income tax statistics are not compiled by counties.
2.	1927-1928	$ 4,941,037 96
1928-1929	 4,180,823 06


PEACE RIVER-VERMILION TELEGRAPH LINE
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Is the telegraph line from Peace river to Fort Vermilion being built by the Public Works Department or by contract?
2.	Are all supplies for the telegraph line and the camps supplied by tender or otherwise?
3.	If by tender, by whom were tenders made, (a) for telegraph poles, (b) wire, (c) other equipment, (d) provisions?
4.	What was the amount of each tender and who was the successful tenderer in each case?
5.	What were the specifications so far as poles were concerned?
6.	Did all poles accepted come up to the
standard set in the specifications?	.
7.	Where were such poles brought from?
8.	What was the amount expended in 1929 on this line?
9.	When is it estimated that the line will be completed to Fort Vermilion?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Ity the Department of Public Works.
2.	All material used in the fiscal year 192930, except provisions and camp equipment, were purchased by tender. Provisions and camp equipment were purchased locally, as and when required.
3.	and 4. (a) for telegraph poles, 3,000 asked for:-
B. J. Carney & Co., $2.50 each	$ 7,500
Alberta Distributors, Ltd., $2.95 each.. 8,850
R. W. Bruhn, $3.00 each	 9,000
Archibald Cedar & Lumber Co., $3.00
each	 9,000
Duncan Hill & Co., $3.20 each	 9,600
Bell Lumber & Pole Co., $3.20 each.. 9,600 Pioneer Pole & Supply Co., $390 each.. 11,700
Successful tender, B. J. Carney & Co.
(b)	for 57,500 lbs. telegraph, and 350 lbs. tie wire:-
Steel Company of Canada, $2,258.25; Northern Electric Co., Edmonton, $4,589.00.
Successful tender, Steel Company of Canada.
(c)	for 1,000 lbs. nails, 5,000 side blocks and 5,000 insulators:-
Steel Company of Canada, nails only, $29.76; Dominion Shuttle Co., sideblocks only, $402.45; Dominion Glass Co., Ltd., insulators, $387.50; Northern Electric Co., Edmonton, lot for $775.00.
Successful tenders Steel Company of Canada, Dominion Shuttle Co., and Dominion Glass Company, Ltd., because the sideblocks offered, being birch creosoted, were superior, and the insulators were heavier and of approved form.
(d)	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Sound straight cedar telegraph poles standard specification, 25 feet long and six inches diameter at top.
6.	Yes.
7.	Near Sicamous, British Columbia.
8.	$46,171.08.
9.	Autumn of 1930.


SHEDIAO-PUGWASH PROPOSED RAILWAY
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Has a survey been completed of the proposed line of railway from Shediac, in the county of Westmoreland, New Brunswick, via Point Elgin, in the said county, to a point at or near Pugwash in the county of Cumberland, in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	If not, to what stage of progress has the said survey been advanced and when is it expected the same will be completed?


Charles Avery Dunning: No survey has been made. The possibilities of such a project have, however, been examined by the railway management whose studies indicate that there would be no justification for the construction of such a line.


CHATS FALLS-NAVIGATION
Mr. MALONEY:: In connection with power development now under construction at Chats falls on the Ottawa river, what provision has been made for future navigation possibilities on that stream?
Questions


Mr. ELLIOTT:: In connection with power development at Chats falls, future navigation possibilities on the Ottawa river provided in the undertaking given by the Chats Falls Power Company and embodied in order in council, P. C. 85, dated March, 21, 1920, as follows:
(a)	To convey to the Minister of Public Works, free of charge, such areas as may be required for permanent sites for the necessary locks, dams, embankments, canal reaches and appurtenant works and to provide also, free of cost, such other areas as may be temporarily required for the erection of false works, such as cofferdams, etc., and for construction purposes, which may be required in connection with the building of locks, dams, embankments, etc., provided such areas are owned or controlled by the company; and, further, to make no claim for any indemnity whatsoever owing to the temporary loss or inconvenience in the operation of the company's works, installation, or distribution of power which may be caused by the construction of the canal, dams, embankments and appurtenant works, provided such work is carried on with reasonable dispatch and the least possible inconvenience to the operations of the company.
(b)	To make no claim whatsoever should the construction of the canal, dams, embankments, etc., cause the height of water above the company's works to be increased or the flow to be altered.
(c)	To make no claim whatsoever for the use of water necessary for the operation and maintenance of the canal and works appurtenant thereto.
(d)	To make no claim whatsoever should the navigation project involve the maintenance of the level of lake Deschenes at a higher level than has heretofore been experienced.
(e)	In view of the conditioned approval, by order in council of September 30, 1912, P. C. 2600, and of September 24, 1913, P. C. 2383, of the bridge of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company (now Canadian National Railways), the Chats Falls Power Company agrees to bear the cost of any additional < changes in the bridge which may be necessary in the interest of navigation and which were not contemplated in the conditions recited in the orders in council mentioned but which are made necessary by the works of the Chats Falls Power Company.


PICTOU LANDING-GUARD PIER
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What amount was within the past four years voted for construction, rebuilding or repairs of a guard pier or wharf situated at the 
seaward or eastern side of the coal loading pier at Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia?
2.	How much money was expended on said -wharf or guard pier in each of the years 1928, 1929, 1930, for, (a) lumber and timber, (b) ballast, (c) other materials, (d) labour, (e) superintendence?
3.	Who was the superintendent in charge of this work?
4.	What proportion of projected work has been completed?
5.	What is the present condition of the work?
6.	Is it the intention of the department to complete it, and, if so, when?
7.	On whose recommendation was the work undertaken?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$6,000 (1928-29). .
2.	1928-29:	(a) $2,717.03;	(b) $253;	(c)
$597.83; (d) $1,932.25; (e) (foreman) $435.
3.	W. Grant Fraser.
4.	77 per cent.
5.	The inner end fully completed on a length of 210 feet; the outer 110 feet completed up to low water mark.
6.	Under consideration.
7.	By district engineer and concurred in by chief engineer.


PICTOU RAILWAY WHARVES
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What proportion of the repairs to the railway wharves at Pictou, Nova Scotia, referred to in the vote made in connection with the estimates of the years 1929 and 1930, have been carried out?
2.	How much money was expended on such repairs in each of the years 1929 and 1930, (a) for lumber and timber, (b) for other materials,
(c)	for labour, (d) for superintendence?
3.	When will such repairs be completed?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	1928-29:	The most urgent repairs required to the east wharf undertaken.
1929-30: Repairs to east wharf completed. Repairs to shed wharf partly completed.
2.	1928-29	1929-30
(a)		 $9,241 70 $5,404 43
(b)	 972 14	S73 41
(c)  	 3,169 60 2,928 96
(d) (foreman).. ..	535 00	785 00
3.	Expected that repairs will be completed during 1931-32.


ROBERT CATHR0
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How long was Robert Cathro farm instructor of Red Pheasant and Stony reserves?
2.	Why was he discharged?
3.	Why was the vacancy rot advertised?
4.	What is the name of ine present farm instructor?
5.	Is he a returned soldier?
6.	What is his salary?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	4 months, 22 days.
2.	Services reported unsatisfactory.
3.	Position exempt from competition.
4.	Alexander Lockhart.
5.	No information.
6.	$840 per annum, plus house, fuel, light and rations.



NATIONAL COAL SUPPLY

['1. Amounts paid to date on test movements of coal from the maritime provinces to Quebec and Ontario are as follows:\n1928- 29\t$ 23,318 27\n1929- 30\t 55,696 20\n1930- 31\t nil\nTotal\t$ 79,014 47\n2. No payments have yet been made on test movements of coal from Alberta to Ontario.\n150S', 'Unopposed Motions for Papers']
Mr. CHURCH:: What steps have been taken to carry out a resolution which was passed by the House of Commons in 1925-1927 for a national coal supply for Canada by which all coal would be mined and coked under the British flag, whether from Wales, Nova Scotia or Alberta, in view of the reported entry of Rusian coal into Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Orders in council P.C. 439 and P C. 539 of March 1928 provided for a three-year test movement on coal shipped from Alberta to Ontario and from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada are enquiring into the cost of these test movements and will ascertain the lowest possible rates that could be borne by the railways for transporting Canadian coal.
Since orders in council authorizing this movement were put into effect over 600,000 tons of Canadian coal have been moved to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario from Alberta and Nova Scotia, in direct competition with American coal.
Legislation to aid Canadian coals when used for the manufacture of a domestic coke has been passed.
Two coking plants, one at Halifax, and another at Quebec, are operating under the Domestic Fuel Act of 1927. Canadian coal has entirely replaced United States coal at both these plants.



Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is L. A. Giroux, Liberal member of the legislature of Alberta, now in Ottawa at the public expense?
2.	Did said Giroux come to Ottawa by aeroplane? If so, was it the same plane with which he was provided by the government on his trip to Dawson, Yukon, in 1929, and at what expense?
3.	Is said Giroux now- employed by the government as legal adviser of the director of the Northwest Territories and Yukon branch of the Department of the Interior?
4.	Upon what is said Giroux proffering advice, and to whom?
Questions
5.	When did the said Giroux cease to be the legal adviser or legal officer of the said director of the Northw-est Territories and_ Yukon branch of the Department of the Interior?
6.	What minister of the crown or government official sent for the said Giroux to come from Edmonton to Ottawa, and for what purpose?
7.	Is the said Giroux being paid or to be paid fifty dollars a day by the Dominion government? If not, how much, and when?
8.	Has the said Giroux been paid fifty dollars a day by the government?
9.	What was the last amount paid to the said Giroux by the government, and what for?
10.	When will the said Giroux's employment with the government come to an end?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	4, 5, 6 and 7. This information already supplied. See Hansard March 20th, page 805 and return tabled. Mr. Giroux was retained in the usual manner to supply the director of the Northwest Territories and Yukon branch of this department with any legal advice he might require while visiting the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, and to assist in the revision of the Northwest Territories ordinances. His retainer calls for pay only for days employed on this business which is not finally concluded. Remuneration is at the rate of $50 per day.
8,	9 and 10. As intimated above, Mr. Giroux is only paid for days devoted to business for which he has been retained which business has not yet been concluded. Last advance on account of professional sen-ices and expenses, $750.


COAL FREIGHT RATES SUBVENTION
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the government as subvention of freight rates on coal moved from the maritime provinces to central Canada in each of the years in which this subvention has been in force?
2.	What amount has been paid by the government as subvention of freight rates on coal moved from Alberta to Ontario in each of the years in which this subvention has been in force?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1. Amounts paid to date on test movements of coal from the maritime provinces to Quebec and Ontario are as follows:
1928- 29	$ 23,318 27
1929- 30	 55,696 20
1930- 31	 nil
Total	$ 79,014 47
2. No payments have yet been made on test movements of coal from Alberta to Ontario.
150S

Unopposed Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many years was Mr. Bourgault, now inspector of railroad operation under the Board of Railway Commissioners, secretary to the chief operating officer, Board of Railway Commissioners ?
2.	What is the name and title of the person who prepared the questions for the examination for the position Mr. Bourgault occupies?
3.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of all men who wrote on this examination ?
4.	What number of years practical railroad operation experience did Mr. Bourgault have, where did he work, and for how long?
5.	Did Mr. Bourgault write the "a" hook on standard rules governing the operation of railways?
6.	What is the number of Canadian National Railway's employees who applied for this position and wrote examination?
7.	What is the number of Canadian Pacific Railway employees w'ho applied for this position and wrote examination?


CANADIAN EXPEDITION ARY FOECES-ENLISTMENTS
Mr. WARD:: 1.	What were the total enlistments in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	What number served as officers or left the service as officers?
3.	What is the number of pensioners and the total amount paid monthly?
4.	What is the number of pensioners of the rank of captain and higher, and what is the total amount paid monthly to such ranks?
5.	What is the number of pensioners of all ranks lower than captain, and what is the total amount paid monthly to such ranks?
6.	What are the pay and allowances paid to officers who are admitted to hospital for treatment of war disabilities?
7.	What are the pay and allowances paid to those not holding the rank of an officer who are admitted to hospital for treatment of war disabilities?
8.	What accommodation is provided for officers?
9.	What accommodation is provided for the other ranks ?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Garland (Bow River): For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, recommendations and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mr. J. J. Letcher, supervisor for the Soldier Settlement Board at Drumheller, Alberta.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Dropped.



STEAM TBAWLEBS AND DBAGGERS

Mr. SHORT:: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams, both from Canada and other countries, in connection with steam trawlers, as relates to Bill 26 and order in council P.C. 2196, October 30, 1929; also as relates to draggers as set forth in order in council P.C. 39, of January 7, 1930.



PEINTING BUREAU


Mr. HANSON:: For a statement showing the names of all persons in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, superannuated under the Public Service Retirement Act (Calder Act), their ages, years of service, salary at the time of retirement and amount allowed per annum for superannuation.
OPIUM and NABCOTIC drug act


Mr. BRADY:: For a return showing: 1. What was the total amount expended by the Department of National Health in the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in each of the fiscal years 1925-6, 1926-7, 1927-8, 1928-9, 1929 to date?
2.	What was the total revenue derived by the Department of National Health in each of the said years: (a) from licence fees; (b) from fines; (c) from other sources in connection with the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
3.	What was the total amount paid by the Department of National Health in each of the said years: (a) for salaries; (b) for the travelling expenses of its officers in connection with the enforcement of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
4.	Any of the money's of the department charged to the payment of the travelling expenses of officers in connection with the administration of the Opium and Narcotic. Drug Act actually expended in paying the travelling expenses of any person or persons other than officers of the department, and, if so, to whom, and in what amounts in each of the said years?
5.	What were the total number of convictions in Canada for offences under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in each of the fiscal vears 1921-2, 1922-3, 1926-7, 1927-8, 1928-9, 192*9 to date?
6.	Of such convictions how many were obtained in each of the said years through prosecutions instituted by:	(a) officers of the Department of National Health; (b) provincial authorities; (c) municipal authorities; (d) Roy-al Canadian Mounted Police?
7.	How many narcotic prosecutions were instituted by the authorities of the Department of National Health in the fiscal years 1921-2, 1928-9, 1929 to date, and how many convictions resulted?
8.	What was the average expenditure of the Department of National Health: (a) per prosecution; (b) per conviction, under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in each of the fiscal years 1921-2, 1922-3, 1926-7, 1927-8, 1928-9, 1929 to date?
9.	How much was expended for the travelling expenses of officials engaged in enforcing the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act: (a) per prosecution; (b) per conviction, in each of the said years?

Private P>ills
10.	What increase has taken place in the staff of the narcotic division of the Department of National Health since 1921? What increase since 1927? What increases are proposed?
11.	How many known drug addicts are there in Canada? How many in each province?
12.	How many drug addicts have been sent to institutions for treatment and with what results? How many were cured?
13.	The respective percentage of persons of Caucasian and Oriental extractions.



CANADIAN COPYRIGHT ACT AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION OF BERNE

Mr. CHEVRIER:: For a copy of all papers, letters, despatches, telegrams and other documents exchanged since March, 1927, to date, between the British authorities and the Canadian government, relating to the Canadian Copyright Act and the International Convention of Berne for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34, to amend an act to incorporate the Canadian Bible Society auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society.-Mr. Evans.
Bill No. 45, to amend the act to incorporate the Imperial Trusts Company of Canada-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, respecting a certain patent of George Yates.-Mr. Casgrain.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 20, to incorporate The Cornwall Bridge Company.- Mr. Smith (Stormont).-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. GARDINER:: May we have an explanation from the sponsor of this bill so that we may know what it is about.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: I explained this
bill when it came up for second reading. It went to committee and was fully explained at that time, but I shall give further information if it is desired. The object of the bill is to incorporate a company to build a bridge at or near the town of Cornwall, so that there may be access between Ontario and Quebec and also between Canada and the United States. It is wholly in Canadian territory and is similar in character to Bill No. 71 of the year 1928, which dealt with the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company. The law department of the government was represented, and on its suggestion the bill was fully considered and certain amendments made to meet the wishes of the committee. There is no further explanation, but I will be pleased to answer any question which may be asked.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I would like to have an
explanation about tolls, and what their rates are. Is there provision made for the purchase of that bvidge by the municipality or by the province?


Arnold Neilson Smith: Yes. And clause 13 dealing with tolls, was changed at the suggestion of the members of the committee, the amendment reading as follows:
[DOT]-and the board shall have jurisdiction and control over tolls to be charged in respect of the use of pedestrian, vehicular, tramway, street railway, electric railway or other like traffic, on, over, across or through the bridges owned or operated by the said company and all the provisions of the Railway Act relating to tolls and tariffis shall apply thereto, mutatis mutandis, and the board may revise the same from time to time.
That was taken up in committee and met with entire satisfaction.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any objection
to this bridge by the provincial government of Ontario?


Arnold Neilson Smith: There was a
letter from a member of one department. There is no doubt that they had some objections in a general way, to the principle, but the committee did not consider that the provincial government of Ontario as a government had made any objection. We have an instance before us in connection with the Hawkesbury bridge, which has been hanging fire for eighteen years. They have been trying to get a bridge costing $400,000 to go across the Ottawa river for which the provincial government of Quebec has offered to pay one-third and this parliament has offered to pay a similar amount, but the province of Ontario has refused to pay the one-third allotted to it; they suggest that the Dominion should pay half. It has taken twenty years to deal with that bridge, and the committee felt that the province of Ontario had no serious thoughts of building at this location and if so they could deal with the company. We are asking that a bridge be built immediately, because it is absolutely essential.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the fair wage
clause require to be approved by the Minister of Labour?
Private Bills


Arnold Neilson Smith: This clause has
been suggested by the labour men, and the minister says it is the clause which applies to all such undertakings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Power to construct a bridge.
John Frederick Johnston: In this section the
words "Railway Act" are substituted for the words "Navigable Waters Protection Act."


Robert Gardiner: We might have some
explanation of this amendment.


Arnold Neilson Smith: The legal
officers of the department claimed that this matter came more properly under the Railway Act, which would give them power to deal with the question of tolls and other matters of that kind. There is no machinery under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for dealing with these matters, so I readily agreed to the change which was requested by the legal officers of the department.


Robert Gardiner: The Navigable Waters
Protection Act would protect the interests of navigation in connection with this bridge, and surely that is not done under the Railway Act?


Arnold Neilson Smith: The bill provides that the bridge must be constructed subject to the approval of the governor in council, and navigation is safeguarded adequately. The plans must be all approved by the various departments of the government, and all interests are safeguarded.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has this bill received
the approval of the Ontario government?


Arnold Neilson Smith: That is not
necessary.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the fact
that this bill gives power to the Board oi Railway Commissioners, why was it not sent to the railway committee?


Arnold Neilson Smith: I do not know.
It was immaterial to me whether it went to the railway committee or the private bills committee; I believe the Minister of Finance suggested that it should go to the railway committee, but Mr. Speaker ruled that it should go to the private bills committee. I sponsored a somewhat similar bill in 1928, which also was sent to the private bills committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.

On section 12-May accept grants.
Robert Gardiner: I must object to this
section. I do not think it right that this House of Commons should give permission to a company which intends to build a bridge for profit to accept gifts from municipalities. I will move that this section be stricken out.


Arnold Neilson Smith: I have no
objection, because I do not know of any municipality which will offer any gifts to the company. I might say that the idea is that where the bridge joins a roadway, or in any similar case, some small concession might be made, or small parcels of land might be traded or perhaps even deeded by the municipality. I have no objection to striking out the section if that is the desire of the committee.


John Frederick Johnston: I am afraid the amendment is not in order. According to standing order 113 no important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in committee of the whole house or on the third reading of the bill unless one day's notice has been given. I will have to rule the amendment out of order. Shall the section cany?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: I declare the section
carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Sections 16, 17 and 18 have been deleted.
Sections 19 to 23 inclusive agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: Section 24 has been
struck out.
On the preamble.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It has been ruled that
section 12 has been carried without amendment. Is the sponsor of the bill desirous that that amendment be withdrawn?


Arnold Neilson Smith: I do not desire it, but I have no objection.


John Frederick Johnston: The bill is in the hands of the committee, not in the hands of the sponsor.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 44, respecting a certain patent of Edgar D. Crump.
On section 1.-Extension of time for application to restore and revive patent.
Robert Gardiner: Will the sponsor of the bill give the committee an explanation?
The - CHAIRMAN:	The sponsor is not
present.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have a few notes regarding this bill which covers a patent on tourniquets, an apparatus used to stop the flow of blood, granted to Dr. Charles F. Dorsey on August 13, 1913. The owner of the patent failed to renew the patent after the expiration of the first period of six years. When an owner of a patent asks later on for a renewal the department does not object provided the bill covering such renewal is framed in such a way as not to interfere with anyone who, in the interval, may have made use of the patent. This procedure is carried out quite frequently and as far as the department is concerned we have no objection to the present bill.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Do I understand the
minister to say that the saving clause has been added to this bill?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand that the
bill has been amended by the private bills committee.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will the chairman read
the amendment?


John Frederick Johnston: Section 2 which is the
amendment, reads as follows:
In the event of the commissioner making an order restoring and reviving the patent designated in the preamble, if between the date on which such patent expired for non-payment of fees and the twelfth day of October, 1929, any person has commenced lawfully to construct, manufacture, use or sell in Canada the invention covered by such patent, such person may continue to construct, manufacture, use or sell such invention in as full and ample a manner as if said patent had not been restored and revived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-New Section.
Robert Gardiner: This section protects
anyone who has made use of the patent prior to October, 1929.


John Frederick Johnston: Prior to October 12, 1929.


Robert Gardiner: Someone may have
started to manufacture this product subsequent to that date.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I cannot speak for the
sponsor of the bill. These bills come to us as instructions from parliament, and perhaps this particular one may be allowed to stand.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think the clause read Dj the chairman covers the point raised by 1he hon. member. This section provides protection to anyone who has manufactured or sold the invention since the time of expiration of the patent.


Robert Gardiner: Someone may have commenced to manufacture this product since October, 1929, and he is not afforded protection. I think the section should be amended so that protection would be given up to the time of the passing of this particular bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As far as the department is concerned we have no objection. If my hon. friend will move such an amendment I am quite willing to accept it.


Robert Gardiner: Change the section so that it will cover up to the date of the passing of this bill instead of October, 1929.


John Frederick Johnston: If the bill were allowed to pass through the committee such an amendment could be moved on third reading.


Robert Gardiner: I think it would be better to allow the bill to stand so that the sponsor could be present to accept this amendment.
Progress reported.



THE CORNWALL BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANISLAS BLANCHARD (for Mr. Smith, Stormont) moved the third reading of Bill No. 26, to incorporate The Cornwall Bridge Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, does it not require the unanimous consent to give third reading to a bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill was not amended.


Robert Gardiner: Which bill are we dealing with?


Mr. MARCIL:: Bill No. 26.
3 he DEPUTY SP..AKER: Tup bill was not amended in committee of the whole.


Robert Gardiner: i understood tn-re were quite a few amendments.
Private Bills


John Frederick Johnston: The amendments were made in the select standing committee to which the bill had been referred, and not in committee of the whole. The motion for third reading is in order.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



ESTATE TRUST COMPANY-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 23, to incorporate Estate Trust Company.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): While the sponsor of the bill is not present, I recollect that when it was before the select standing committee on banking and commerce, a change of name was insisted upon because of a conflict between the name desired by the promoters of the bill and names already in existence. Through a clerical error the name went forward to the Senate as ''Estate Trust Company," and the Senate has amended the bill by adding the letter "s" to the word "estate," making the name the " Estates Trust Company," the name which is now desired by the promoters and to which there is no exception.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



THE SAINT NICHOLAS MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVDCH (Vegre-ville) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 29, to incorporate the Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association.
Mr. BOURASSA:: What are the amendments?


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The first is an
amendment (e) in section 4, reading as follows:
To befriend and protect Ukrainian immigrants arriving in Canada, to encourage them to settle permanently on the land and to assist them in doing so, having regard to the fact that Ukrainians belong chiefly to the agricultural class.
Section 5 has been struck out in the Senate and the following has been substituted:
5.	Only persons considered by the society to be of Ukrainian origin and who are of the Greek Catholic faith, in communion with the Holy See of Rome, shall be admitted as members of the society. Provided that the society

shall, upon the conclusion of any agreement such as provided for in section 17 hereof, admit as members all persons who are then members in good standing of the provincial society as at that time constituted.
These people had a provincially incorporated society and they now seek federal incorporation. Another amendment is to section 11, subsection (1). The original subsection reads:
The society may maintain a general fund, to which shall be credited all dues and other sums intended to be used for the payment of expenses of administration and all expenses of the society shall be payable out of such fund-
To this the following words have been added in the Senate committee:

including the expenses arising from the exercise of the powers conferred by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of section 4 of this act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



PATENT APPLICATION OF THOMAS BERNARD BOURKE AND GEORGE PERCIVAL SETTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince) (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No.
50,	respecting a certain patent application of Thomas Bernard Bourke and George Per-cival Setter.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


John Frederick Johnston: These bills will be referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and it will save time if they are allowed to pass the second reading.


Robert Gardiner: All right.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



PATENT APPLICATION OF HARRY BARRINGTON BONNEY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince) (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No.
51,	respecting a certain patent application of Harry Barrington Bonney.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If the sponsor is unable to be present, it seems to me somebody ought to represent him here I do not like these bills passing without any explanation being given.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon.
gentleman objects, we shall have to let it stand.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: A number of bills exactly similar
concerning patents come before parliament

Private Bills
every year. The only principle involved in the second reading is that a patent may be revived by legislation, but the bill is going to be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills and it can be fully discussed there. Unless my hon. friend presses his objection, I do not think we should oppose the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



FIXE HILL DIVINITY HALL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St.
George) (for Mr. Black, Halifax) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to incorporate Pine Hill Divinity Hall.
Henry Elvins Spencer: May we have some explanation of this?


Mr. CAHAN:: Pine Hill Divinity Hall is well known to me, because I was a student at Dalhousie university, when Pine Hill was the divinity hall of the Presbyterian church which cooperated on the secular side of its teaching with Dalhousie university. I have not looked into the merits of the measure, but I know the object of it is to incorporate by Dominion charter this collegiate institution, now of the United church, because its students are collected from all over Canada and it has general interests throughout Canada. The bill will go to the private bills committee. It is very similar to a bill which I introduced a year ago in order to incorporate at Montreal a divinity school which cooperated on the secular side with McGill university. I do not think any principle is involved and the bill might well be allowed to pass its second reading and go to the private bills committee where any parties who may have objection to its terms may be heard.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



NIAGARA RIVER BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (for Mr. Chaplin) moved the second reading of Bill No. 55, to authorize the Niagara Parks Commission to erect, construct, acquire, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Robert James Manion: I have a memorandum
which was given to me by the member who is sponsoring this bill, in which he says:
During the sessions of 1928 and 1929 application was made to parliament to incorporate a number of private individuals with power to construct a bridge across the Niagara river at Niagara Falls.
These applications were opposed by the Niagara Falls Parks Commissioners, a public body operating as a department of the government of Ontario.
The ground taken was that a new bridge was not immediately necessary, and that when it became so it should be built by the parks commissioners, and not by a private corporation.	*
In the session of 1929 the Ontario government passed a bill authorizing the parks commissioners to apply to the parliament of Canada for power to build a bridge at Niagara Falls.
The legislation was passed by the Ontario legislature too late to enable the parks commissioners to apply for Dominion legislation last session. They are doing so now.
When the bill reaches committee full explanation as to its scope and necessity will there be presented by the promoters.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



CONFEDERATION LIFE ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park) moved the second reading of Bill No. 57, respecting the Confederation Life Association.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: The Confederation Life Association, with head office in Toronto, is one of the old life insurance companies. It was incorporated in 1871. The charter of incorporation contained a clause to the effect that the original capitalization of $500,000 could be increased by by-law of the company to $1,000,000, and a by-law was passed by the shareholders and directors in 1882 raising the capitalization to $1,000,000. Later, Mr. J. K. MacDonald, the founder, president, and manager of the company, between 1S82 and 1890, fearing that the management of the company might get out of the hands of those who had been instrumental in founding and developing it, had an amending bill passed in 1890 restricting the amount of stock that could be held by any one person or company. Unfortunately, when that amendment was made to the act, owing to some mistake which we are unable at the present time to explain, a clause was inserted to the effect that the capitalization should not be more than $500,000. The practical effect of this was to rescind or annul the by-law that had been passed by the company's shareholders raising the capitalization from $500,000 to $1,000,000. In the meantime the company had been carrying on, on the strength of the by-law, and stock had been issued and dividends paid. The mistake was not discovered until very recently. Many blocks of the stock of this company have got into the hands of trust companies for the beneficiaries of de-

Private Bills

ceased persons, and on account of the limitation as to the amount of stock that could be held by any one person or company it has been found difficult in some cases to establish proper title to the stock. The bill now before the house is for the purpose of declaring that the act of 1890 did not annul or repeal or otherwise affect the original by-law, and that the capitalization should be, as it is, 81,000,000, and that there should be no restriction on the amount of stock that any shareholder can hold. As I say, it affects particularly trust companies or trustees acting on behalf of beneficiaries, as a result of the devolution of estates of deceased persons, and at the present time a larger amount of stock is, in many instances, coming into the hands of trustees than is permitted by the act. This bill is to remove that limitation. The management of the company is the same as it has always been since its foundation. The company is a very successful one. This bill is purely to rectify an error that crept into the act of 1890, which error has only recently been discovered by the management of the company in connection with the disposal of stock.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I do not rise for the purpose
of opposing the second reading of the bill. As its sponsor has indicated, the matters raised in this bill are somewhat complex in character, and indeed somewhat unique. I approve of the second reading of the bill simply for the purpose of getting it before the banking and commerce committee, where the Superintendent of Insurance may be able to place at the disposal of the members of the committee, and for the benefit of the house, of course, his examination of the facts in relation to this whole matter. Without concurring in any way in what is proposed by the bill, I support the second reading at this time simply for the purpose of giving those who are asking for this legislation an opportunity to go into the matter thoroughly before the banking and commerce committee.


Alexander James Anderson: I shall
be quite satisfied if the bill is given its second reading now and is referred to the banking and commerce committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



ST. CLAIR TRANSIT COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 121, respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.
He said:	As this is an amendment to a
bill that has been adopted by the committee

on miscellaneous private bills, to which committee all international bridge bills were referred, might I suggest that after the bill has received its second reading, it be referred to that committee?
Charles Avery Dunning: It is not a railway
tunnel?


Mr. GRAY:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER.: There are three pages of divorce bills on the order paper standing for their second readings. I understand that there is an amendment to be moved. Is it the pleasure of the house that I shall put one motion to cover all these second readings? If I am not mistaken, the amendment would apply to all the bills. I think it would be just as well to have one motion and one amendment, but, of course, I am in the hands of the house.
James Shaver Woodsworth: That procedure,
Mr. Speaker, would shut out any discussion of individual bills, and some of us have objections to make to particular bills. The amendment touches merely a question of procedure.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Very well, if there is not unanimous consent.



HERBERT CHICK

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved that Bill No. 61, for the relief of Herbert Chick, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the following amendment:
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the 12th of May, 1930".
This is equivalent to putting off the discussion of this bill for two weeks. If the house would consent to the procedure, it would seem to me to be a good thing to include in this amendment the other bills that immediately follow. I think the reasonableness of the amendment will be conceded by every member. Since almost the beginning of the session we have had a bill before the house for the establishment of a divorce court for the province of Ontario. As all members know, there has been a very full discussion of the bill, and it passed its second reading. The principle was then decided, and it is not usual

Divorce Bills
for discussion to be continued after the second reading; but that course has been followed in this case, with the result that so far the house has not had an opportunity of finally deciding the question. Now, I take it that we are here not to block measures

and I am not accusing any hon. gentleman of having blocked this bill so far. As we all recognize, under the rules there are only two hours in the week when we can discuss a matter of this kind. Personally, I think we ought to have much more time allowed for public bills, even when they are introduced by private members. However, the rule now is such that, as I say, only two hours a week are permitted us-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: After private bills.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) says, that is after private bills are disposed of. This means that if a number of private bills are on the order paper we have no opportunity in those two hours of discussing public bills. To make matters worse, many members from Toronto and Montreal take their homeward flight early on Friday. Hence it is impossible for us to discuss any matter of importance on Friday evenings. I have been willing to concede on one or two Fridays not to press this matter to a vote, as it seemed to me that we ought to have the whole house represented when the final vote was taken. But that means in practice that we are confined to one hour a week for such discussion, and in that one hour we may have a number of private bills preceding public bills.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, entirely apart from what we may think of the principle of Bill No. 20 which has been under discussion, it is not in the interests of good government in this country that, a bill of its importance should be held back from week to week until eventually the session may end without its having been finally disposed of. I think some members have not been altogether consistent in their attitude to this divorce question. For example, one hon. gentleman who voted against the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario, and who declared himself very strongly against the principle of divorce and denounced some of us who thought it wise to establish such a court, last session sponsored divorce bills to the number of thirty, and already this session nine such bills stand in his name. As I say, I do not think it is altogether consistent that someone who is opposed to the principle of divorce, and who censures those of us who would establish a divorce court in Ontario, implying thereby that we are in favour of divorce-I say it is 2419-964
not altogether consistent that he himself should have sponsored thirty divorce bills last session; and I have no doubt that number will be exceeded this session.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: He wants to keep the
business here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be, but
I say he is not opposed to the principle of divorce when he sponsors divorce bills. Some of us I think during the whole period we have sat in this house have not been guilty of sponsoring a divorce bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Guilty?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am honoured, not in sponsoring a divorce bill, but in sponsoring a bill to establish a proper court where the matter may be dealt with in a proper way. That brings up the whole question for which I have introduced this amendment. If we deal with these bills at this stage before having decided the general principle, it will mean that some of us will be simply compelled to call a vote on bill after bill. I do not believe we are justified any longer in permitting hon. members to say they are opposed to the principle of divorce and then permit divorce bills to be passed without any formal division. If they are opposed to the bill to establish a divorce court in Ontario, surely they ought to be opposed to each and every divorce bill that is brought forward. Without making any threat to the house, I think we shall have to face the situation of considering each bill on its merits and insisting that it be fully discussed and then definitely voted upon.
We all recall that last session when we were in the midst of a matter of this kind the Prime Minister made an important statement. That statement has already been referred to this session, but I should like to quote it again now. He said:
I would express the hope that by another session, by conference in the interval with members of the house and by other methods, we may find it possible to effect some arrangement which will enable those seeking divorce to secure such redress as should be given them by a 'means which will commend itself more completely to parliament and avoid a recurrence of a situation such as we have at-the moment.
I can only appeal to the common sense of the house in this matter; the government must follow the rules of parliament and the government wish to uphold the rules. It might be possible for the remainder of the present session to allow bills to pass second reading and to go to the committee as has been the case in the past, and for hon. members who wish to raise objections to particular bills, to raise those objections in the committee, it being understood that between now and next session the
Divorce Bills

members of the government and other hon. members of the house will do what they can towards finding some means of freeing parliament from the necessity of continuing to deal with divorce bills along the lines which we have followed thus for.
This session has gone on for some weeks, Easter has passed, and we are still under the necessity of continuing to deal with these bills in the unsatisfactory way in which we have dealt with them in years past. No suggestion has so far been forthcoming from the Prime Minister which would seem to hold out any hope of satisfactorily dealing with these bills. I think with the bill for the establishment of a divorce court for Ontario before us, the only thing we can do is to ask that these individual divorce bills should stand over for two weeks. That is not asking too much. It seems to me a very reasonable request that these bills stand over for two weeks in the hope that before that time has elapsed we may have a full house decide on the bill for the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario. If the question is definitely voted down by the house or if it is passed by the house we will know how to proceed with individual divorce bills. Since it is a mere matter of procedure I think it would be well if the members would consent that this same resolution should apply to the bills which follow. If that course is not taken I shall have to make a similar motion as each bill is presented.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: The bill before the house is under my name. I did not read the evidence in connection with the matter until this moment, but on glancing through it I find that it is a perfectly proper case for the granting of divorce. If, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggests, each case which comes before the house should be considered on its merits, this case is one in which the house could not fail to grant a petition. The hon. member said that as yet there had been no attempt to hold up the bill for the establishment of a divorce court in the province of Ontario. I agree with the hon. member when he makes that statement. I am in favour of the bill and it is my opinion that it would be well for the hon. member to refrain from his present method of *procedure until some attempt has been made to hold up the bill designed to establish a divorce court for Ontario. It will be time enough for him to follow such tactics when obstruction is actually attempted. In the meantime this petitioner has come before the house in the regular way and should not be made the victim of conflict with respect to another bill. I repeat that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should refrain
(Mr. Woodsworth.]
from tactics which savour of obstructing this legislation until it becomes necessary to take that course. The passing of this bill would not jeopardize in the slightest degree the passage of the bill to establish a divorce court in Ontario, and I think the present bill should be allowed to go through in the ordinary course. There would be less work for the house at a later stage in the session and it is my opinion that this is the appropriate time to dispose of this legislation. It is not a proper time, however, for the suggested amendment by the hon. member.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think the proposition suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be described as tactics intended to delay matters. Taking it at its face value I think his action is quite logical. For some weeks past the house has been considering a public bill the object of which is to create jurisdiction in tne province of Ontario for the consideration of applications for divorce. If that bill passes,- parliament will have no reason to deal with these divorce applications. Most of the members of this house who have supported Bill No. 20, for the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario, have agreed that this is not the proper body to deal with the divorce problem. That statement was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, and I agree with him. Therefore, if it is the judgment of parliament that a divorce court should be created in Ontario, it should be the judgment of parliament not to deal with these cases the moment the divorce court is established. If parliament decides, as it has already done on the second reading of the bill, and as was decided in the Senate three years in succession, I cannot see the logic of considering these bills until we have dealt with the public measure. Once the public measure is adopted the gentlemen who have pronounced themselves as being in favour of the establishment of the divorce court in Ontario should be the first to reject any petition from that province which might come before parliament. It seems to me that the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is absolutely logical, as a consequence of his attitude on the second reading of public bills. If either house decides against the final adoption of Bill No. 20, proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there might be some reason for proceeding with these bills. They should not be proceeded with holus-bolus and without the exercise of judgment in each particular case, or by the reading of the evidence just before the second reading is moved; they should be considered

Divorce Bills
with a thorough knowledge of what we are doing. Surely the question of the general principle should be decided before we adopt a measure which is admitted by most of the members to be unsatisfactory. I think it is generally agreed that having regard to the abnormal increase in the number of petitions for divorce the present procedure is absolutely unsatisfactory from every point of view, and it seems to me that the public principle should be decided before we proceed with any private measures.


Mr. BOYS:: I do not know whether I have correctly understood the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I do not think he means that if the bill respecting divorce should pass this house all petitions at present before parliament should not be dealt with in this house, because if the bill were passed there would be a day when it would come into effect, after the disposal of all the bills which have been regularly presented to this house and to the Senate. One cannot imagine that the house would take $210 from every applicant, to say nothing of the other expenses, and leave it at that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It would be a simple
matter to remit the money.


William Alves Boys: That is only one consideration. No doubt the money could be refunded, but what about the money that has been spent for advertising and necessary expenses? In addition one has to consider the counsel fees in connection with procedure before the Senate committee, witness fees, etc. To my mind one has only to mention the proposition in order to see its absurdity. It seems to me that these bills have to be dealt with by the house, and if there is to be a divorce court it would become effective at the close of the session. In view of the statements which we have heard in the house, surely the time has come when the divorce question should be settled once and for all. It cannot be settled, however, if we are to be limited to two hours each week. In view of the statement which the Prime Minister made to the house and which has been read to-day, could he not set apart one day, either two weeks hence or at any other time, when this matter could be quickly and effectively discussed and when the sense of this house could finally be taken upon this question? I do not believe there is an hon. member who will not say that the procedure in connection with divorce in the Dominion of Canada is a farce. It would be fairer to hon. members who desire to see a divorce court established in Ontario if the Prime Minister would set apart a definite
date when the matter could be discussed from beginning to end. The discussion should not be interrupted by the calling of another order; the debate should be proceeded with and a vote taken. I am sure everyone who desires a divorce court in Ontario realizes that it is purely a question of procedure. We have divorce at the present time and we will always have it; it is purely a question whether we shall proceed in this farcical way before a committee of the Senate and in this house and thus take up an immense amount of valuable time. I do not wish to say one word against the work of the Senate committee. When I first entered the House of Commons-some eighteen years ago, I sat, much to my sorrow', session after session as a member of the subcommittee of the private bills committee to hear these cases, and I can assure hon. members that one or two years' service was sufficient. I sat there long enough however to understand the nature of the consideration which was given to the petitions by that committee, and during my eighteen years' membership in this house I can recall only three cases in which the decision of the committee was reversed by the house. There is no court of appeal in the province of Ontario or in any other province with such a small percentage of reversals. The record of their work is a credit to them, and on behalf of that committee I want to say that they give every consideration to these matters, which is something the members of this house do not do, and I include myself among those members who do not thoroughly attend to this work. We would have to spend hours reading over this evidence if we wanted to do our duty honestly and conscientiously, and everyone who has had anything to do with law knows that a proper conclusion cannot always be reached by the reading of evidence. It is very desirable that the demeanour of witnesses should be observed; in that way conclusions may be reached which could not be arrived at by merely reading the evidence. Therefore I earnestly request the Prime Minister to give us an opportunity to deal with this measure. After all, Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces of Canada without divorce courts. Prince Edward Island has a divorce court, although it is not made U9e of.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Alves Boys: I understood that province had a divorce court, and as a matter of fact I believe one divorce has been granted by that court during its existence.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman
will allow me, I have studied this question and

Divorce Bills
I may tell him that in Prince Edward Island they constituted the lieutenant governor in council as a court, but the only divorce granted in that province was passed by this house.


William Alves Boys: I really do not care very much whether I am right or wrong; the fact is that Ontario really is the province affected by this bill, so I suggest to the Prime Minister in all seriousness that we should face this problem. Surely this house cannot prorogue without something being done in view of his promise last year and in view of what has been done during this session. A vote has been taken which shows that a majority of the members of this house favours a divorce court for Ontario. Now are we not to have a chance to determine this question definitely one way or the other? Let us get it settled and we will abide by the consequences. People are put in a very unfortunate position; they do not know what to do, so I do ask that this opportunity be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to my hon.
friend's remarks, as I understand it the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is designed simply to facilitate our reading the public bill which he has before the house without possible delays meanwhile consequent upon long discussions of individual bills -which may be before us at the moment. I *am inclined to agree that the course suggested by the hon. member is in the matter of procedure the wise one to pursue; dispense for the time being with these measures and at the next appropriate time, which I think is tomorrow night, proceed with the further discussion of the public bill in question. There has been no attempt to block that measure, and I see no reason why, with a reasonable attitude on the part of all, it should not be disposed of to-morrow night.


William Alves Boys: The Prime Minister must know that in the past efforts have been made to hold up this very question. There is no doubt of that, and there is no question that similar efforts can be and will be made in the future, if we are to have only two hours a week for its discussion. I am not charging anyone in particular with holding up the legislation, but it will occur again unless an opportunity is given the house finally to settle the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend suggests
that in the past this bill has been held up. That is not the case. Last year a division took place the very first day the second reading was moved, and this year I do not think anyone can say it has been held up.


William Alves Boys: I will go so far as to say that
the bill has been talked out.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it was defeated last year the first time it was introduced.


William Alves Boys: I can only say to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that this question should be brought to some final conclusion. If it is to be finally settled two weeks hence I should be glad to agree to the proposition which has been advanced, but if we cannot be sure of that I must confess that I cannot see any reason why this particular bill should be held up.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the amendment?
Amendment agreed to on division.



ALBERT EDWARD SAUNDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 62, for the relief of Albert Edward Saunders:
Hewitt Bostock: Shall I say "stand" for
all these other bills? I wish to facilitate the work of the house and lose as little time as possible. I understood the hon. member to state that if his amendment carried he would move it to every other divorce bill, so we might save time if we make it apply automatically. to these other bills and postpone them all until May 12.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might affect procedure as far as the hon. member is concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might affect his
attitude of mind, because he wants to make sure that the divorce bill will pass and that a divorce court will be in existence another year, but for the present I think every hon. member will agree that we are confronted with many cases which must be considered by this court. After all, whether we like it or not this is the high court of parliament dealing with these cases, and the creation of a divorce court in Ontario is not going to affect our responsibility. These cases are before us; they have come here in the regular manner; petitions have been presented and fees paid, and we must deal with these applications. The creation of a -court for the future will be very satisfactory, of course, to those who desire to secure a divorce, but for the present we are dealing with litigants who have presented their applications to the high court of parliament. I think we should pass the second readings of these bills now; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has served his purpose. We should give these measures second reading now if the hon. members sponsoring them are prepared to accept responsibility, because ultimately we will have to do it anyway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, this resolution to postpone consideration of these bills does not apply to a bill which appears over my name. I have not introduced into this house nor have I had my name attached to more than one divorce bill preceding the one I have mentioned. I am not strongly in favour of divorce under any circumstances, but, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, this is the high court of parliament, and every constituent of St. Lawrence-St. George has a constitutional right to appear before parliament by way of petition, and I as the representative of that constituency, which consists of several racial and religious groups, have felt that when a constituent of mine was aggrieved and had a right to apply to parliament for a bill of divorce, it was my duty as the representative of that constituency to see that such bill was brought before parliament and voted upon during its various stages. I may have been wrong in refusing to introduce divorce bills coming from other constituencies as it has been pointed out to me time and time again that owing to the views which prevail in my province, Protestants in other constituencies had the right to appeal to me, I being a Presbyterian and a Protestant. So far I have declined to
introduce bills from other constituencies, but I have a bill in this group which appears over my name. The petitioner, a woman, is a resident in my constituency and the facts were clearly proved at great expense before the Senate committee. The enactment of a bill for Ontario does not apply to this case, and it should be heard.
I do not agree altogether with the statements made here to-day that, if a bill for Ontario alone passes this house, is enacted and becomes law, that necessarily applies to the hundred odd petitioners who are now before this court of parliament. Those people have the right of petition to parliament and they have a constitutional and legal right to be heard before the Senate of this parliament. Their cases have been heard and have been pronounced upon, and I fail to see how the constitution of a divorce court in the province of Ontario can have an ex post facto application and annul all proceedings which have hitherto taken place in the Senate and in the House of Commons with regard to these special bills.
I feel that there should not be a general application of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) because it does not apply to cases coming from provinces other than Ontario, and also I am in extreme doubt as to whether it should apply to any of the cases now before parliament, except that the object be to prevent those bills passing as a means of coercing parliament into providing during the present session a divorce court for Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. gentleman would have withdrawn his motion as I must confess, as one who has consistently supported the bill to take divorce out of parliament and place it within the courts, I do not think that an objection to these bills, which must be dealt with in any event by parliament, is helping the cause very much. The second reading of these bills would allow them to get before the committee and receive attention during what may be a somewhat protracted debate, and thus allow the work of this house to go forward. That is my principal objection and I agree with the observations made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I do not believe that the bill to regulate divorce will be advanced by holding up these bills.


Hewitt Bostock: There is nothing before the house. It is moved by Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast), seconded by Mr. Simpson, that Bill No. 62, for the relief of Alfred Edward Saunders be now read a second time.
Divorce Bills


James Shaver Woodsworth: I move an amendment as follows:
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the 12th of May, 1930."
While there may not be anything before the house, I thought that it was understood that the previous motion would apply to all these bills. I recognize that objection has been taken and it will be necessary to move this motion in connection with each particular bill. I appreciate the position taken by the liun. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that logically this motion would not apply to the cases from the province of Quebec, which cases will have to be dealt *with by this parliament and which will not be affected by Bill No. 20. I have not sufficient legal training to know whether the passing of Bill No. 20 would affect the bills from Ontario now on the order paper, but I would hardly think that it would as it would seem to me that those bills will have to be dealt with during this session of parliament. We might however deal with them in an altogether different way than we would should Bill No. 20 be voted down. We are discussing a matter of procedure, but the merits of the cases cannot be separated altogether from that question and the right of this house to divest itself of certain responsibilities which it has had previously to carry. As I said before, this is a very reasonable proposal because I do not think the postponement for two weeks of these bills would very seriously retard the business of the house.
If these bills are brought forward, I for one shall be compelled to ask the sponsors to give an outline of each particular bill. It was necessary to do that last year, partly because we thought it was right that such information should be given to the house and partly in order that we might acquaint the public outside with the farce which was being enacted here. I have no desire to be particularly hard on the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black), but he states that he has only now read the evidence regarding the bill which he is sponsoring. Under those circumstances I .do not think he is in a particularly good position to give me the information for which I might ask, and I venture to say that what he has so frankly admitted with regard to himself would be largely true of most of the hon. members who are sponsoring divorce bills in this house. My amendment seems to me to be a reasonable way out of the difficulty. Further I would join with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) in making a plea to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie 
King) that a definite time should be decided upon to consider this matter. This plea has been made *without avail in the past, and I recognize with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the evil day is simply being put off, but for two weeks we would have an opportunity to discuss other matters and before that time had elapsed we would have decided the disposition of Bill No. 20. Should this matter not be decided on Tuesday, we shall have to urge that the Prime Minister set aside a day for discussion, because this matter cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely. So far as the plea made by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is concerned, I would say that my amendment seems to be one way of expediting the business of the house.


Charles A. Stewart: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to be perfectly frank. I think it will.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
frame of mind I cannot understand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it will, because if we decide to set up a divorce court for Ontario where these bills can be dealt with in a judicial way, I for one am not going to be such a stickler on matters of procedure as to insist upon a vote being taken on every measure as it passes the house. The house has already decided the principle and if the minority of the house should proceed on the tactics that they would refuse to give us an opportunity of deciding a measure that is of importance to the country, I for one do not hesitate to say that so far as it lies within my power, I shall endeavour to insist upon the house taking a roll-call vote in each case. If we do so, I would say to the Minister of the Interior that we shall be here for a good many weeks, because we shall have to take a roll-call vote in every one of 300 bills. We have a perfect right to call for such a roll-call vote and if the house should by any mischance refuse to set up a divorce court for the province of Ontario I think we would be justified in having every member of the house put himself on record in regard to each bill so that the house and the country may know where each stands on this matter.
For this reason I think the easiest course is to set this and other bills aside for two weeks. No interest is at stake; nobody's petition is being jeopardized; the matter will not be de-

Divorce Bills
layed in any way. After two weeks, when the main principle is settled, we can then proceed to deal with the particular bills as they come before us.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) agreed to.



MARJORIE GLADYS PICKEN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. GARLAND ('Carleton) moved that Bill No. 63, for the relief of Marjorie Gladys Picken, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I move in amendment:
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the 12th of May, 1930".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton) moved that Bill No. 65, for the relief of Raymond Garbutt Little, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I move in amendment:
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the 12th of May, 1930".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.) moved that Bill No. 67, for the relief of Florence Isabel Naughton, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I move in amendment :
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the 12th of May, 1930".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved that Bill No. 68, for the relief of Lucy Beryl Marshall, be now read the second time.
He said: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his remarks in regard to Bill No. 61 suggested that my statement that I had just read over the evidence might be interpreted to mean that I had not been able to , form an opinion. The evidence in that case, as in the one now before the house, is very short, and it takes nothing more than a glance to convince one that it is a proper case for granting a divorce The proceedings before the Senate committee have undoubtedly been properly taken. The necessary evidence to entitle the petitioner to a divorce has been
adduced before the committee and the case has been proved. It seems to me that the case under Bill No. 68, like that under the former Bill No. 61, is one that the house should now deal with.
I do not think the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to-day will have the desired effect because he is now attempting to coerce the house, to hold up its business. There has never been a more flagrant exhibition of holding up the house than that which the hon. member has given us this afternoon. I do not think it will have the effect he wants it to have. I am entirely in sympathy with the public bill for the establishment of a divorce court for Ontario, but such tactics as these will not help the bill; if anything, they will incite in those who are opposed a determination to adopt just the tactics the hon. gentleman is now indulging in. If he wants his bill passed he would be better advised to allow the legislation that is on the order paper to take its proper and natural course and go through. He is not thereby lessening in any way the chances of the bill to establish a divorce court for Ontario to go through; in fact he is increasing those chances and is more likely to get support. No amendment such as he has moved to the former bills should be moved to the one now before the house.
If, as the hon. member suggests, members who have these bills in their names are going to be called upon to explain the details, that can be done. I understood him to say he would call upon every member to express an opinion. Fortunately he cannot make every member express an opinion. Members may remain silent or may express an opinion, as they choose. Doubtless my hon. friend will express an opinion because, fortunately or unfortunately, he seems to have an opinion on every conceivable subject that comes up. No doubt his opinion will be heard on every divorce bill and on every other bill that comes before the house this session. If in this particular case he wants the edifying details, they are here to be read by every member, and they may very easily be detailed to the house. The case is one in which the man deliberately left his wife and went to live with another woman as his wife without having obtained a divorce. The proof was ample and uncontroverted. If ever there was a case in which this high court of parliament, as it has been called, should act, it is this one. These petitioners who have come to parliament, within their rights, appealing to this court, should not be subjected to such tactics as
Divorce Bills
[Stage Direction]
have been indulged in with regard to previous divorce bills. I suggest that in this particular case the conditions which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests should be imposed have been fulfilled. I have given liim and the house the details. I have not read them word for word, but I have briefly stated exactly what the case is as set out in the petition, and the nature of the evidence that has been adduced; and the proof is ample and uncontroverted. As the conditions my hon. friend suggests have been met, why not proceed with the granting of this divorce in the regular way?
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I am entirely in sympathy with the bill that was introduced last year and again this year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) for the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario, and I would like very much to see it pass. I join with those who urge that a full opportunity should be given to this house to pass upon the merits of that measure.
I cannot say, however, that I am in sympathy with the course that has been pursued by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regard to these divorce bills. There is some indication, of course, that his bill No. 20, has been deliberately held up or talked out. I do not want to make the charge that that has been done, but there is at least some indication of that nature. I think it would be well for the hon. member to allow us to have at least another hour to-morrow night in which to discuss the merits of his measure without at this time assuming that it is being held up. The hon. member has admitted that he is taking the course he is now taking in order to coerce this house into a certain course.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


John Livingstone Brown: It means nothing else than that. He has also stated that his attitude towards these divorce bills will depend very largely upon the attitude of the house in regard to Bill No. 20. I was very strongly in favour of the passing of his bill last year, yet I was compelled to dissent from the attitude taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre following its rejection last session. Parliament acted perfectly within its rights in rejecting his bill, and I did not see any particular reason for departing from the regular method of granting divorces by this parliament simply because parliament saw fit to exercise its rights with regard to that particular measure. Parliament at this session

has very clearly indicated that it is in favour of the passing of that measure, and I think it would be becoming at this juncture if the hon. member would cease the tactics that he is now following and allow these divorce bills to be dealt with as they have been in the past; and if the time should come when there is further or fuller indication that Bill No. 20 is being deliberately held up or talked out, that situation can be dealt with when it arises. In the meantime I heartily join with those who have already urged that an opportunity should be given to this house to discuss that measure on its merits and decide it one way or the other. But it never entered my mind for one moment that the passing of Bill No. 20 at this session would in any way interfere with the ordinary procedure followed in the case of the divorce bills that are now before the house. I understood that for this session we would be compelled to deal with them under any circumstances just as we have dealt with them in the past.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not on this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has moved an amendment.
Mr. W'OODSWORTH:	Not to this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I must accept the hon.
gentleman's word, but the amendment has been repeated so many times that I thought it had been made in connection with this bill.
Mr. W'OODSWORTH:	I want to make
sure, Mr. Speaker, that it is moved. I move that the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added at the end of the question: "on the twelfth of May, 1930."
May I say that there has been no suggestion whatever of coercing the house in this matter?
I expressly stated that I made no charge that Bill No. 20 had been held up. May I refer the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), to the remarks made a few minutes ago by his colleague the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys), who suggested that it was next to impossible for a man who had not heard the evidence to judge its weight, and so the hon. member for the Yukon, even as a lawyer, is hardly in a position, having cursorily read the evidence, to assure the house that the case is distinctly proven, and some of us as laymen do not feel ourselves altogether in a position to accept his assurance given under such conditions.

Divorce Bills
May I say that the prolongation of this part of the procedure is not my fault? I suggested that the one motion should be applied to all these bills, in which case the whole matter would have been disposed of in two or three minutes, and an amendment in connection with each bill would not have been necessary. However, objection was raised by some hon. members to that procedure, and so I am compelled on the second reading of each bill to move an amendment. I am not holding up the house. It is those who objected to the procedure that I suggested who are holding up the house.


Mr. CARDIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Messrs:



KATHLEEN MARY DAVIES

[Stage Direction]
Adshead,
Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Benoit,
Bertrand,
Bettez,
Bird,
Bock,
Boulanger,
Bourassa,
Bourgeois,
Bradette,
Cahill,
Campbell,
Chevrier,
Crerar,
Denis.
Desaulniers,
Deacoteaux,
Dunning,
Dussault,
Evans
Fafard,
Fansher (Last Mountain),
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River),
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Barber,
Bennett,
Black (Yukon), Black (Halifax), Boys,
Brown,
Cahan,
Charters,
Cotnam.
[Stage Direction]
Esling,
Garland (Carleton), Grimmer,
Ilsley,
Gershaw,
Johnston (Long Lake), King, Mackenzie (Prince Albert), Laicombe,
Lafiamme,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lucas,
MacLean (Prince), Macphail (Miss), Mareil,
Neill,
Perley (Sir George), Perras,
Pouliot,
Ralston,
Rinfret,
St-Pere,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Telford,
Thorson,
Tctzke,
Venoit,
Woodsworth.-54.
 NAYS Messrs:
Jenkins,
Lawson,
Lovie,
MacLaren,
McLean (Melfort), MaeNutt,
McGregor.
Plunkett,
Rowe.
Ryckman,
Simpson,
Smoke,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Stewart (Leeds), Stirling,
White
(London).-33.
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) moved that Bill No. 76, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Davies, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to find out whether this case is outside the province of Ontario. After I spoke on the last bill I understood from some hon. gentleman that the case brought forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) was outside this province. Had I been aware of it at the time I would not have insisted on my amendment. If this case is outside Ontario I do not press my amendment.


Mr. THORSON:: The petition shows that the petitioner resided in the city of Montreal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would move the following amendment, Mr. Speaker:
That the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added: "on the 12th of May, 1930".


An hon. MEMBER:: Montreal is not in Ontario.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When I used the
expression "outside of Ontario", I was thinking of the case coming from Manitoba, the province from which my hon. friend comes. If it comes from Quebec I withdraw my amend-mcrl.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman withdraws his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Divorce Bills



ALBERT DAVIS BLAGRAVE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert) moved that Bill No. 91, for the relief of Albert Davis Blagrave, be now read the second time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I will move my
amendment to this bill.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Notwithstanding the remarks of my friend from Winnipeg North Centre a few minutes ago, he now takes exception to my motion for the second reading of the bill. The applicant is a resident of Montreal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will withdraw it.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Woodsworth moves, seconded by Mr. Evans, that the word "now" be struck out and that the following words be added: "on the 12th of May, 1930."


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you heard the request by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the withdrawal of the amendment.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is in the hands of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member
wish to withdraw the amendment?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. Since it is in the province of Quebec I will withdraw it.


Hewitt Bostock: It can be withdrawn only by consent of the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.



GEORGE COLLIER DRAPER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 99, for the relief of George Collier Draper.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved the second reading of Bill No. 112, for the relief of Mary Ritchie.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we conclude with private bills, I beg to move:
That whereas private bills could not be presented to the house between Friday, 11th of April, 1930, and Monday, 28th April, 1930, owing to the adjournment of the house during that period,	.
Resolved, that the fines of $100 and $200 respectively, for late presentation of private bills, as per paragraphs (b) and (c) of standing order, 93, (3), be not chargeable until after Friday, the 2nd May, 1930, and Friday, 30th May, 1930, respectively.
This motion is occasioned only by the Easter vacation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Canadian National Railways


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the readjustment in accordance with the terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act of the pensions of officers and constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired to pension prior to 31st March, 1924, and who were in receipt of extra pay during the whole or part of the period from 15th May, 1919, to 30th May, 1924; and to readjust the pensions of widows of officers who had received the extra pay as aforesaid.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide that an annuity equal to his salary at the time he ceased or ceases to hold office may be granted to a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the exchequer court of Canada who held office on 31st March, 1927, and continued or continues in office until he attained o.r attains 75 years of age; and that an annuity equal to two-thiirds of the salary annexed to the office which such judge holds at the time he so ceases to be a judge may be granted to a judge of the said courts, appointed after 31st March, 1927, attaining 75 years of age after service of 10 years, or aggregate service of 10 years in that office and as judge of a provincial superior court.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General. having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister)):	In the absence of the
Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar), I beg to move that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railway Company to provide for the issue of new securities by the company, guaranteed by the Dominion, not exceeding $8,609,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities, to repay temporary loans negotiated by the company as successors by amalgamation to the Grand trunk Railway Company of Canada for the purpose of retiring the five per cent ten-year refunding mortgage gold bonds of the Central Vermont Railway Company, dated May 1, 1920, amounting to $8,609,000,
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 49, respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this bill might stand until the next sitting. I have in connection with the matter a communication that may necessitate my making a few observations. The bill might stand until tomorrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
right.


Peter Heenan: At the last sitting of the house the hon. member for Argenteud (Sir George Perley) asked that the third reading stand over. I have other duties to perform and I am sitting here waiting to get this bill through before I leave the city on a very important engagement. The bill has been discussed on its second reading and in committee and unless there is some real reason whj the bill should stand, I would like my hon. iriend to let it have its third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister says the
bill must pass, that is the end of it; he has the majority.


Peter Heenan: I did not say that. I was not insisting. I was simply saying that unless there is some very good reason for postr ponement, I should like the bill to pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on with the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on with the bill so
far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker.
Motion stands.

Natural Resources-Manitoba



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The second reading has not passed, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. Did not the hon.
gentleman hear?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not hear, and I was
listening. I understood that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was going to explain this bill. If he does not, I will undertake to explain it myself.


Charles A. Stewart: While the explanation on the introduction of the bill was not very extended, a brief outline of its main provisions was given, and I thought that by now the house had possibly had time to digest the bill thoroughly. I have no idea of the nature of any objections that my hon. friend might have to take to the bill. The federal government and the provincial government have come to an agreement as to the transfer of the natural resources. The provincial government have passed their legislation, and it remains for us to pass legislation here. The main provisions of the bill have to do with the setting up of the necessary machinery for the administration of the lands and natural resources which will be transferred from the federal to the provincial jurisdiction. Outside of the provision for the payment of a fixed sum of money and the continuation of the subsidies, I do not think there are any sections of the bill that will require much discussion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, the bill of which the second reading has been moved is one of three bills relating to the prairie provinces, and it seems to me that these bills are of such prime importance that a clear statement might, well have been expected from the Minister of the Interior with regard to their subject matter.
I quite appreciate the fact that the Conservative party, under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden as Prime Minister, committed itself to the transfer of the so-called natural resources of the prairie provinces. I understand that the actual carrying out of the 
transfer was delayed 'by the war coming on suddenly in 19>14 and extending to 1918, and by the vast amount of public business which came before parliament in the years of reconstruction.
To my mind, the importance of this legislation largely centres around the fact that it is conveying to the province of Manitoba, in this case, and to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in the bills dealing with those provinces, the school lands and the school lands funds which were set aside as a quasitrust at the introduction and enactment of the first Dominion Lands Act. Apart from-that, I .make no special opposition to the bill.
I remember in earlier days that it was recognized by both parties in this house, under the leadership first of Alexander Mackenzie, assisted by Mr. Blake, and again when the question came up under the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, that these public lands in what was then the Northwest Territories had been vested in the crown in the right of the Dominion government. I remember something of the discussion of those days to this effect, that those crown lands so-called in the Northwest Territories would require for their development for agricutural and industrial purposes such a large investment of public funds as could only be supplied by the federal treasury of Canada. It is no new thought, but I had always expected that there would sooner or later be in the government of this country a department which might well have been called a department of industrial development and which would have devoted itself wholly, if not exclusively, to measures for the development of Canada as a whole. Such a development could be carried out only by a department of government with the entire resources of the federal treasury behind it.
I recognize that both parties are committed at this stage to the transfer of these lands to the respective governments concerned. Sometimes I wonder whether, if I could return at a later stage to this terrestrial sphere, I would find that that development had increased as it should by coming under the disposition and control of the several provincial governments, because to my way of looking at it they are undertaking vast duties and responsibilities towards the people of their several provinces and towards the people of the whole country which can be carried out to full fruition only by large appropriations from the federal treasury.
Leaving that aside, this bill proposes to vest in the crown in the right of the province of Manitoba those school lands and school land

Natural Resources-Manitoba
funds which have been accumulating ever since the first Dominion Lands Act was passed by the government, I think, of Alexander Mackenzie. In fact it was Mr. Blake, if my memory is correct, who drafted those first provisions with regard to the accumulation of the school lands fund and the setting aside of lands then unappropriated for the purpose of increasing the principal of that fund to provide for all time revenues for school purposes in the Northwest Territories or in the provinces which subsequently might be carved out of those territories.
The school lands fund as at present accumulated and the school lands which are unappropriated are very extensive indeed. I have taken the trouble to examine into the matter, and if I may be allowed to refer to these schedules it will enable me to illustrate my point more clearly. I find that the land areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as
of January 1, 1929, was:
Acres
Land area of Manitoba		14-8.432,640
Land area of Saskatchewan.. ..	155,764,480
Land area of Alberta	 161,872,000
Total acres	 466,069,120
Of the surveyed tract, so-called, that is of that portion of these 466,069,120 acres which has been surveyed to date, exclusive of land covered by water, I find the acreage to be:
Acres
Manitoba	 37,376,098
Saskatchewan	 79,153,099
Alberta	 85,640,866
Total	 202,070,063
So that there is of land not water-covered, now unsurveyed, in those three provinces, 263,099,057 acres.
Now. of these 264,000,000 acres unsurveyed, when finally surveyed, one-eighteenth of the area as surveyed in sections must, according to the present law, be set aside as a school land endowment; that is, approximately 14,666,000 acres of school lands remain unsurveyed. In addition to that I find that of the surveyed lands of Canada the acreage on March 31, 1929, set aside as a school land endowment, and the acreage at present undisposed of, are as follows:
Surveyed Acres Acres area disposed of unsold Manitoba. . . . 1,637,800	633,932	1,003,868Saskatchewan. . 3.944.400	1,771,554	2.172,846Alberta	
3,760,500	1,222,613	2,537,887Totals. .	. 9,342,700 3,628,099 5,714,601
That is, there are now 5,714,601 acres of surveyed lands included in the school land endowment which remain undisposed of, and
in addition approximately 14,666,000 acres of the school land endowment not yet surveyed, and not likely to be disposed of for many years to come.
Now, as these lands were sold under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act the proceeds were set aside as a fund held by the federal government, the interest on which was to be paid, and was paid in fact, to the several governments in respect of the areas sold, within the territories thus settled, and such proceeds have been accumulated to date as a school lands endowment fund. I find the balances standing to the credit of the school lands fund of each province as on March 31, 1929, for the fiscal year ending on that date, were as follows:
Amount
Total amount invested in Province	at credit of	debenture
fund	stock
Manitoba	$ 5,888,709 88	$ 5,880,800
Saskatchewan. . . 16.646,177 08	16,645,004
Alberta	 9,124,536 28	9,124,000
$31,659,423 24	$31,649,800
When I look into the amounts which were paid to these three several provinces for the year ending March 31, 1929, I find that certain interest was paid, and that in addition certain revenues from leases and royalties and grazing rights in respect of these school lands were received from year to year and also paid over annually to these provinces, with the result that for the year ending March 31, 1929, the three provinces received the following:
Interest Net Revenue
Paid	Paid Total Paid
Manitoba $ 293,412.50 $ 20,776.24 $ 314,188.74 Saskatchewan.	.	788,150.00	352,330.08	1,140,480.08Alberta	.	423,687.50	331,527.82	755,215.32Total .	.	$1,505,250.00	$704,634.14	$2,219,884.14The figure $2,219,884.14 represents the total amount paid last year by the Dominion government as the interest upon the accumulated school lands fund and the revenue from school lands.	The agreement with Manitoba, as
in the case of the agreements with Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively, provides for the transfer to the several governments of the principal sum of $31,650,000. That sum is now invested in Dominion bonds or debentures upon which they receive only the interest. In addition this agreement provides for the transfer outright to the several governments of all the lands held by the crown in the right of the Dominion government according as they are located within the bounds of these respective provinces. So that in addition to the sum of $31,650,000, we are proposing at



I52S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Natural Resources-Manitoba
the present time to transfer to these provinces 5,714,601 acres of school lands at present surveyed, and 14,666,000 acres of school lands which at the present time remain unsurveyed. This represents an enormous sum of money and involves a very great area of land. The question arises whether that fund, which has always been regarded throughout the several provinces of Canada-and especially in the province which I have the honour to represent -ns a quasi-trust for the support of schools in those respective provinces for all time to come, shall hereafter be maintained. Under the legislation as it now stands only the annual revenue may be appropriated by the provincial legislature for educational purposes.
Various opinions have been expressed as to the safeguards which are necessary in order to ensure that this fund may be permanently invested as it accumulates from year to year. At the convention of the Conservative party held at Winnipeg a resolution was passed approving of the transfer of the natural resources to these three provinces but insisting that there should be provision for the maintenance and administration of the school lands and school land funds for educational purposes according to the laws of the respective provinces and also in compliance with the letter and spirit of the constitution. That resolution was approved in turn by this House of Commons at a recent session. The point I wish to emphasize is that I believe it was the intention of this house to provide for the maintenance and administration of those school lands and school land funds for all future time and thus to secure to these several provinces a school endownment which would be of great value for the present when they are in receipt of the large annual income of 82,220,000, and which would, if allowed to accumulate, amount in a few years to a principal sum of many millions of dollars.
When I look at this Manitoba agreement I state frankly that I think it is unfair to the house that before the agreement was executed it was not submitted to parliament, so that we in good faith could have considered whether the terms of the agreement conserve the school lands fund in the present and in the future as intended by parliament. My complaint is that instead of the government taking this house into its confidence and submitting the agreement for approval before it was executed, they have gone so far as to execute this agreement and to induce-is that too strong a term?-[DOT] to induce the legislature of Manitoba to ratify the agreement by legislation, and to induce the legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan to ratify the agreement in like manner. All

three legislatures have now been adjourned before this matter has been brought up for our consideration.
The House of Commons is placed in the position that it cannot demand that the agreement be amended in certain essential particulars in order to carry out the clear intention of this house without taking the position of being entirely opposed to the transfer of these resources to the several provinces as intended. To understand the principle of this statute one must look beneath the surface and consider the terms of the agreement itself. I find that the first section of this Manitoba agreement, as in the case of the Saskatchewan and Alberta agreements, purports to transfer to the province all the crown lands within that province. There can be no doubt that the transfer proposed by the first section of the agreement includes all the school lands within the province which are undisposed of at the date of the sanction of this agreement. Then, the declared intention of this first paragraph is that the province may be in the same position as the original provinces of confederation by virtue of section 109 of the British North America Act, 1867. Let me read section 109 of that act in order that the intention may be clear:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
Therefore the intention is clear to transfer all these lands to the province; it is expressly provided that the lands so transferred shall belong to the province, but it adds, "subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof." I presume the Minister of Justice will contend that those words, which are taken from section 109 which I have read, are intended to refer to the nature and conditions of the so-called trust which is exercised by the Dominion government in respect of the school lands endowment funds now held by that government and in respect of the school lands now vested in the crown in the right of that government.
I have considered this matter carefully, and it is my opinion, for what it is worth-and I can see no other interpretation or construction which can be placed upon the words- that these school lands which are being transferred certainly are not a trust or a trust estate within the meaning of that section. I think that is so clear that I need not argue it. It is further provided in this agreement that:

Natural Resources-Manitoba
The said lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall he administered by the province for the purposes thereof, subject, until the legislature otherwise provides, to the provisions of any act of parliament of Canada relative to such administration.
That clause undoubtedly provides that, upon the transfer of these lands being made, each of these three legislatures may pass legislative enactments repealing and amending the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada relative to the administration of these lands. That is a very, very broad provision. It is a major provision of the agreement, and it seems to me that the subsequent clauses of the agreement may be well interpreted or construed by any court in the future subject to that provision, because the legislature of the province is thereby empowered to amend or repeal any act of the parliament of Canada relating to such lands.
Then the sixth paragraph of the agreement provides for the transfer to the provinces of existing school land funds. The first paragraph provides for the transfer of all the lands, and the sixth paragraph provides in addition for the transfer to the province of the existing school land funds. This applies to each of the provinces, but at the moment I am dealing with Manitoba. Then the seventh paragraph, let it be noted, relates solely to the administration of the school land funds, not for the future, not for all time to come, but as at present accumulated and invested, and to school lands which have not yet been disposed of. I contend that no provision is made therein for the administration of the proceeds of school lands which may be sold hereafter. This seventh paragraph provides that the school land funds as now accumulated, which are to be transferred to the province by the sixth paragraph, and the unappropriated school lands shall be set aside and shall continue to be administered by the province in accordance, mutatis mutandis, with the provisions of sections 37 to 40 of the Dominion Lands Act.
When I look at those words "in accordance with the provisions of sections 37 to 40 of the Dominion Lands Act" I think it is perfectly clear by any accepted canon of construction that they imply that section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act is not included and does not apply. In fact, so convinced am I that this is the proper interpretation that I am persuaded in my own mind that it was never the intention of the draftsman of that agreement that section 40 should apply to the school lands or the school land funds. I think it is clear that the word "to" has not a settled legal meaning, but by the English

[Stage Direction]
courts it is uniformly construed as a word of exclusion, unless by necessary implication it must be held to be used in the inclusive sense in order to effectuate fully the clearly indicated intentions of the parties to the agreement. In this case it is clear that there is no such necessary implication. You will find in construing statutes that there is in the interpretation act of many English statutes a provision to the effect that the citation of sections 1 to 3, for example, shall be deemed to include sections 1 and 3, but so far I have been able to find there is no such interpretation act which applies to statutes of Canada or to agreements which have been confirmed by the parliament of Canada. There is no such necessary implication that this word "to" is used in an inclusive sense.
The use of the final words in the seventh paragraph reading "for the support of schools organized and carried on therein in accordance with the law of the province" clearly indicates to my mind that it was the intention of the draftsman, or of the parties who signed that agreement, to exclude section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act, which in terms provides that the interest arising from the school funds shall be paid towards the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the law of the province. If it was the intention that the whole of section 40 should apply, the agreement certainly would not have quoted a material part of that section and left unquoted the remainder. Let us look at section 40, which provides for the maintenance in the future of that fund. Section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter 113 of the revised statutes of Canada, reads as follows:
All moneys from time to time realized from the sale of school lands shall he invested in securities of Canada to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province within -which such lands are situate, towards the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the law of such province;
If it had been the intention of the parties to include section 40, that section would have been named specifically. If it had been the intention of the parties to include section 40, they would never have quoted only a part of that section without in express terms making the rest of that section applicable.
Paragraph seven of the agreement clearly indicates to my mind an intention to exclude all the provisions of section 40 from application to these Dominion lands and the Dominion lands fund. I notice that the hon. gentleman smiles, but I venture to say that if he looks
edition
1S30
[Stage Direction]
Natural Resources-Manitoba
carefully into this he will find that section 40 is the only section which provides, first, that moneys realized from the sale of school lands shall be invested in securities to form a school fund; second, that the interest arising from those securities shall be paid annually to the province; and, third, that this annual interest shall be applied for the support of schools, etc. In other words, if section 40 is not included in the terms of this agreement, and it seems to me probable if not inevitable that the courts of this country will hereafter declare that section 40 is not included, then there is no provision in this Manitoba agreement, there is no provision in the Alberta agreement, nor is there any provision in the Saskatchewan agreement, for the permanent maintenance of the principal sum of the school land fund, and for its further increase and accumulation in the future as other school lands are sold. There is no provision that the moneys realized in the future from the sale of school lands will hereafter form part of the principal fund, the interest only on which shall be used for school purposes. There is no provision in the agreement that the principal sum shall be maintained intact and that only the interest thereon shall be appropriated by the respective legislatures from year to year for the maintenance and support of schools.
I venture the opinion that each of those three governments has placed on this agreement the interpretation which I am now giving to it before this house. I venture the opinion that none of those governments through their responsible attorneys general could be induced to express openly an opinion which is not in accord with the contention I am making. If it is the intention, as hon. gentlemen on the other side seem to suggest by their smiles, to include section 40, then why not say so? Paragraph seven of the agreement reads in part as follows:
-mutatis mutandis, with the provisions of sections thirty-seven to forty of the Dominion Lands Act	
It would be very simple to say, "sections 37, 38, 39 and 40," or it would be very simple to say, "sections 37 to 40 inclusive." Such language is used every day in drafting agreements; it is used every few months in drafting laws, and the use of such language would enable the draftsman to express clearly the intention that sections 37, 38, 39 and 40 shall apply.
I should have preferred that either one of the Alberta or the Saskatchewan agreements, both of which contain somewhat different clauses, had been introduced first in order that I might have discussed the whole matter at

one time. However, I shall reserve the right, when either the Alberta or Saskatchewan agreement is presented, to make a few additional observations.
I say to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that he is the special guardian of the traditional rights and interests of the people with respect to the school fund of the Northwest Territories and of the provinces which were created out of those territories, and it was his special duty and responsibility as Minister of Justice to see that this agreement was drawn so as to express the meaning and intention which this parliament desires to be expressed. I think that he has neglected his duty in that respect because he has left an opening for future litigation which may destroy the entire framework of this fund as well as render useless its effectiveness as a permanent fund, the interest on which shall be used for all time in the future to maintain schools in these respective provinces.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is always rather
disagreeable to me to be criticized by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), but in this instance, if his criticism has had the effect of putting me in a different light from that indicated by some of his friends in other parts of the country as would appear from different newspaper reports, then a good purpose has been served.
The hon. gentleman commenced his remarks by saying that he and his party were committed to the principle of this bill transferring the natural resources to the western provinces. With this I heartily agree. But he also said that when the war broke out, preparations had already been made to give effect to the pledges which had been made, and that the outbreak of war was the reason why the matter was not carried out by the friends of my hon. friend. The war has been made responsible for many things, but I have yet to learn that it was responsible for the postponement of the settlement of this very important question. In point of fact I think I could not quote a better authority than the former Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Meighen. During the last session of Parliament over which he presided as Prime Minister, that is, during the session of 1921, a motion with respect to the matter having been presented to parliament by the hon. member for Nelson, Manitoba, the then Prime Minister gave the reasons why this question had not been settled. Mr. Meighen may have had imperfections, but he had the merit of frankness and boldness in the statements he made and he did not hide himself behind a

Natural Resources-Manitoba
wall in giving the reason why no solution of the question had been reached. I have his speech under my hand, and I commend to hon. members a perusal of it. They will find it in Hansard, of 1921, at page 2541 and subsequent pages. I will quote only a couple of sentences. In this speech the then leader of the Conservative part}' admitted, confessed, utter failure with regard to this question. He said that it was almost insoluble. As reported on page 2545 he made this statement:
It becomes a matter with respect to which it is impossible to arrive at anything like an accounting on a trustee basis at all. Consequently I have argued-and I have argued very recently with the prime ministers of these provinces-that we do not get any further by trying to establish and admit the principle that the lands originally should have been transferred. We do not get any further by setting up that trustee principle-as "a great white flame" if we only keep our eye on it will settle this matter on the eternal basis of right-you do not get any further by that method. You may get further by one way, and one way only, by presenting some concrete proposal in figures that will appeal to a fair-minded man as a square, bald, rough but honourable solution.
He was then asked by Mr. Reid, representing the constituency of Mackenzie:
In 1911 Sir Robert Borden the prospective premier, promised us that if he was returned to power he would give to the western provinces their natural resources. Have the difficulties of doing that multiplied very much since then?
Mr. Meighen:	Was the government, which
the hon. gentleman supported, the government in power at that time, ready to take those resources unless it got the subsidies as well? Sir Robert Borden did not say he would give the provinces the subsidies as well as the resources: and the provinces have never agreed to take the resources unless they keep the subsidies as well.
But I wish to quote the concluding sentence of that speech. Mr. Meighen said:
You might settle it by arbitration, but I do not think that outsiders coming in to arbitrate could do as well as the heads of the governments themselves. You could not settle it in the courts, because there is no principle to go on. I would be only too glad if this was a question of law, then it could easily be relegated to the courts and there decided-a solution devoutly to be wished.
Mr. Crerar:	Why not send it to the
exchequer court?
Mr. Meighen:	The exchequer court is a
court of law, and it would have to decide the question on principles of law. If it were such a question it would not be very long troubling the government; that is where it would be, but it is not such a question. Nor does it seem to me that we could get very far by arbitration. You would have to arrive at mutual concessions, and you would have to have some principles which the board of arbitration could follow to decide what portion of any special class of expenditure was attributable to the 2419-97J
fact that the Dominion retained the resources; and to get an accounting on anything like a fiduciary basis seems to me a task beyond the capacity of the human mind. At best it can only be got at in a rough way, and can never be reached until both sides approach the matter in a fair and conciliatory spirit.
It is an achivement that we are able to present to parliament to-day three agreements with three western provinces solving this question which was stated by the Prime Minister in 1921 as being impossible or almost impossible of solution. It is a great step in advance in this country, especially at a time when, in spite of temporary difficulties which may have arisen, we are on the eve of a tremendous development of our resources. It is a great achievement that the decks should be cleared for action and that those difficult questions which have been rather an impediment to progress in this country should have been solved as they will be when these agreements shall have been put into effect by the legislation of parliament and subsequent enactments.
My hon. friend has devoted the whole of his remarks to the matter of the school lands and the school lands fund. I agree with him that this is an important matter, and that it was always contemplated that these lands set aside for purposes of education should be considered as an endowment and a trust and should be preserved by the various governments which will have to deal with the question. It was in 1872, after the acquisition by the Dominion of the Northwest Territories, that the first statute concerning Dominion public lands was enacted, namely, chapter 23 of 35 Victoria. In that act section 22 created that educational endowment, sections 11 and 29 in every surveyed township being set apart for purposes of education in the territories. In 1879 chapter 31 of 42 Victoria, placed under the Minister of the Interior the administration of school lands and school funds derived from the sale of such lands. Those statutes have been consolidated at various times and they form part of the present Dominion Lands Act, being sections 37, 38, 39 and 40, as has been mentioned by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those sections were
amended in 1908?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. As was pointed
out by various statesmen on many occasions, and more particularly by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1883-and I am quoting his words:
The Dominion government is merely the trustee for these lands and cannot divert them in any way whatever from the purpose of school endowment.

Natural Resources-Manitoba
In 1884, when the province of Manitoba made application to be given back the lands, it was specifically stated in the order in council passed by the then government of Sir John A. Macdonald that when the return of the lands would be considered, provision would be made to preserve this school endowment. I am glad that this meets with the views of my friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. I may tell him that it is what this government had in mind, as well as the government of the western province in the execution of this agreement.
My hon. friend complains that the agreement was not submitted to this house before being signed. But the agreement was the result of a conference between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba, an agreement which was reached only after many interviews, conversations and negotiations; and like all other agreements it was signed subject to ratification by parliament. Surely that is the democratic way of proceeding. It would be utterly impossible to adopt any other method. May I remind my hon. friend that the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which rather boast of their democracy, also signed these agreements before submitting them to their respective legislatures, and I have not seen that anybody has been criticized on that account.
My hon. friend says that we have induced the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan to accept these agreements. Well, I do not know, but I do not think the present government would find my hon. friend's friends in Saskatchewan so very easy to seduce. We have come to an agreement in good faith with the various provincial governments subject to the usual ratification by our own parliament and by the respective provincial legislatures concerned.
My hon. friend also says that it is now too iate. He complains because the legislatures of the provinces have prorogued, and says that to delay now would postpone a solution for another year. May I say that the government would have been prepared to proceed with this legislation before the Easter holidays? As a matter of fact, consideration of this bill has been postponed, once at the request of my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was going to be absent the following day, and again at the request of the leader of the opposition himself because of the absence of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. So we cannot very well be blamed for having delayed the introduction of this measure.

Now I come to the main contention of my hon. friend. I do not yield to him in my desire to make sure that the school lands and the school lands fund shall be maintained as an endownment for educational purposes. My hon. friend says that the language of section 7 of the agreement does not include section 40. May I first read section 7 of the agreement ? It says:
The school land fund to be transferred to the province as aforesaid, and such of the school lands specified in section thirty-seven of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter one hundred and thirteen of the revised statutes ot Canada, 1927, as pass to the administration ot the province under the terms hereof, shall be set aside and shall continue to be administered by the province in accordance, mutatis mutandis, with the provisions of sections thirty-seven to forty of the Dominion Lands Act. for the support of schools organized and carried on therein in accordance with the law of the province.
My hon. friend says that the intention was to exclude section 40. May I tell him that the intention was, and is to include section 40? That was the intention of the parties to the agreement, and section 40 is certainly included in the language of section 7.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why was not the word
inclusive" put in after the word "forty," as is usual in agreements of that kind? '


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know. I did
not draft the agreement myself, but those who drafted it are absolutely convinced that the language covers the objection of my hon. friend. That is also my own view. It is the view of the Department of Justice, of the deputy minister and of the officers of the department. It is the view of the Solicitor General. It is even the view of somebody else that I shall surprise my hon. friend by mentioning in a moment or two.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Do not prolong the suspense.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be all the more interesting to my hon. friend; the surprise will be the greater.
If hon. gentlemen will look at the Dominion Lands Act, they will see that sections 37, 38, 39 and 40 are in a separate group by themselves, with a separate title, school lands. Section 37 deals merely with the lands. Section 38 also deals merely with the lands. Section 37 designates the school lands and sets them apart as an endowment for purposes of education, subject to the special provisions contained therein. Section 38 regulates the sale and leasing of school lands. Section 39 regulates the terms of payment in respect of sales of school

Natural Resources-Manitoba
lands. There is no question of the fund at all in any one of those three sections. Sections 37, 38 and 39 deal with the school lands. Section 40 regulates the investment, application and distribution of all moneys realized from the sale of school lands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the whole question
centres around whether section 40 is included or not.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly, and I think I
shall be able to convince even my hon. friend that section 40 is included. Section 40 says:
All moneys from time to time realized from the sale of school lands shall be invested in securities of Canada to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province within which such lands are situate, towards the support of schools or organized and carried on in accordance with the law of such province; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the said government in such manner as it deems expedient.
I repeat, sections 37, 38 and 39 do not refer at all to the fund, to the moneys raised by the sale of the lands; only section 40 deals with the school lands fund, its administration, its management, the use it is being put to. So when paragraph 7 of the agreement says:
The school lands fund to be transferred to the province as aforesaid and such of the school lands specified in section thirty-seven of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter one hundred and thirteen of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as pass to the administration of the province under the terms hereof, shall be set aside and shall continue to be administered by the province in accordance, mutatis mutandis, with the provisions of sections thirty-seven to forty of the Dominion Lands Act, for the support of schools organized and carried on therein in accordance with the law of the provinces.
-it is more than obvious that section 40 is included, because it has the effect of providing for the administration of the fund which will continue to be administered by the province in accordance with those sections, and it is the only section which deals with the administration of the fund.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: How can my hon. friend say that the whole section does not make it clear that section 40 is included, because it deals with the administration, with the management, and is the only section that deals with it in the school lands group of the sections of the Dominion Lands Act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish I had a moment to explain the matter. I may have an opportunity later.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will certainly have his opportunity. May I say that the words "to" "from" "up to" "until" and similar words might be-and this is absolutely according to the authorities, and I have quite a number that I should be pleased to quote to my hon. friend-might be either inclusive or exclusive according to the intention, which intention is to be discovered from the context and by applying the ordinary rules of interpretation; and one of the main rules of interpretation is that the intention must be found so that the context does not lead to something which is absurd. This would be absurd there, because we speak of the administration, we say that the fund will be set aside and continue to be administered according to sections 37 to 40-obviously in order to be set aside and to be administered you must include section 40, for it is the only one that deals with administration and management.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? I do not wish to ask it if he thinks it will put him out. Paragraph 7 is not correctly quoted by the hon. gentleman.
It says:
The school lands fund to be transferred to the province-
That refers to an existing fund. Then it refers to:
-such of the school lands-
And so on.
y-*as pass to the administration of the province under the terms hereof, shall be set aside and shall continue to be administered by the province.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I said.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How long? Until under the previous section they pass provincial acts amending the Dominion legislation to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Ernest Lapointe: Never. I am glad my hon. friend is bringing that forward because he referred to paragraph 1 as the basis of his contention. He'said that the words:
-and the said lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall be administered by the province for the purposes thereof, subject, until the legislature of the province otherwise provides, to the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada relating to such administration.
And he claimed that this would authorize the legislature to pass legislation which would do away with what is provided for by paragraph 7 of the agreement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just one moment and I will not interrupt again.


Ernest Lapointe: It is rather difficult-

Natural Resources-Manitoba


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know it is, but I think in order that the hon. gentleman may make his arguments clear I should be allowed to call this to his attention. Section one says:
Shall be administered by the province for the purposes thereof, subject, until the legislature of the province otherwise provides, to the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada relating to such administration.
There it is subject only to any existing act of the parliament relating to such administration until the legislature otherwise provides.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly. This refers to lands in general, and my hon. friend may see the title-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We do not construe titles.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend keep his peace for a minute and give me a chance?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is difficult listening to such a ludicrous statement.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is usually sure of his ground, but he is usually wrong. I am sorry to have to say that because of our friendly relations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Anything the hon. gentleman says I regard as friendly.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend always interrupts when I am speaking. I am sorry to have to make the request, but I would be much obliged if he would give me the advantage of proceeding with my argument.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I asked the privilege of calling attention to a mistake the hon. gentleman was making.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend allow me to proceed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply called attention to a mistake the hon. gentleman was making.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend keep on calling my attention to what he considers mistakes?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not necessarily. I trust the hon. gentleman has intelligence enough to understand my point.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is always referring to the intelligence of others. I acknowledge that he has a great intellect; I admire it, but he might be kind enough to concede to those who differ with him some little particle of intelligence. That concession will not take away any of his intellect at all; it will rather enlarge it. Paragraph 1 refers to the lands in general and my hon. friend may notice the words:

and subject as therein otherwise provided- -which certainly puts a different light on what he said. All this is subject to what is in the agreement "otherwise provided"; and paragraph 7 surely otherwise provides. Paragraphs 6 and 7, as well as paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, are exceptions to paragraph 1, and it is specially stated in paragraph 1 that that section is "subject as therein otherwise provided". I have not the slightest doubt that the clauses referring to the school lands and the school lands fund stand by themselves in this agreement and do not at all come under section 1 as my hon. friend has stated.


Mr. EVANS:: Will the hon. gentleman admit a question there?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Evans: Paragraph 7 says:
The school lands fund to be transferred to the province.
But the school lands are only to be administered by the province. Are they not to be transferred as well as the fund?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, they are to be transferred as well as the fund.


John Evans: Why are those words used in the fourth line: "pass to the administration of"? Why is not the word "transferred" used?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the word "pass" is just as good as the word "transfer". This language is accepted by both parties to the agreement, but I assure my hon. friend that both the lands and the fund are transferred and pass to the administration of the province.
May I say with regard to the objection of my hon. friend that a critical examination of sections 37 to 40 of the Dominion Lands Act proves the following facts in reference to the relation of section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act to the school londs fund and its administration: First, that section 40 is the only one of the four sections which provides for the creation and administration of the school fends fund, which is the subject principally dealt with by clause 7; second, that it is the only section in which the fund is directed to be applied towards the support of schools carried on in accordance with the law of such province. This is substantially the language employed in clause 7. I have said that there are many authorities with regard to the use of the words "to," "from," "until" and "up to" as being either inclusive or exclusive according to the context and the intention as it appears in the documents. In this connection may I quote an authority from western Can-

Natural Resources-Manitoba
ada? I refer to the case of Quail vs. Beatty (1913) which is found in 24 Western Law Reports at page 22. In that case the decision is closely applicable to the question of construction now under consideration. The question was whether an agreement for the sale and purchase of land in which the land was described as "lots 1 to 4" embraced lot 4. Mr. Justice Walsh after considering the decisions held that lot 4 as well as lots 1, 2 and 3 was covered by the agreement. In support of his contention the learned judge stated at page 244:
In all of these cases it is held that under a description of land as extending from one point to another both of these points are excluded.
He further states:
These descriptions all differ however from the one in hand. They are descriptive of land lying between two certain points the nearest parts of which to the land in question are properly taken as its boundaries. If the description here had been "from lot 1 to 4" it might have been successfully contended that neither of these lots but only the intervening lots 2 and 3 passed for the form might have been used to describe the land lying between the nearest points to each other of lots 1 and 4. The words here used however are descriptive of the lots themselves and it must be taken, I think, that each of the lots thus mentioned is included in the agreement.
This is exactly the same circumstance as we have in the present instance. Sections 37 to 40 are descriptive of the sections which apply and all of them are certainly included, more particularly in view of the fact that the one which my hon. friend says seems to be excluded is the one which deals exclusively with the school lands fund. My hon. friend almost issued a challenge when he said that it was the intention of the parties to the agreement to exclude section 40. He said that we could not induce any one of the parties to the agreement, apart from ourselves, to say that the intention is to include section 40. I am very glad my hon. friend raised the point, as I have a surprise I wish to spring on him. We are at the present time dealing with the Manitoba agreement, and when I learned that someone harboured a doubt as to whether section 40 was included I asked the province of Manitoba whether they had so construed seotion 7 of the agreement. I have in my hand a telegram sent to me by the Attorney General for Manitoba. My hon. friend took the trouble to say that no attorney general of the provinces concerned could be induced to say that he considered section 40 as included. I wish to read the following telegram:
Winnipeg, Man., March 19, 1930. Hon. Ernest Lapointe, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ont.
It is our understanding that clause 7 of natural resources agreement as it stands covers all four sections, both 37 and 40 of the Domin-
Attorney General for Manitoba.
Although I am always hesitant to align my own opinion against that of my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrenoe-St. George, my views in this respect are shared by the legal gentleman who drafted the agreement, Colonel Biggar, as a representative of the Department of the Interior in these negotiations; they are shared by the Deputy Minister of Justice and by the officers of the Department of Justice; they are shared by my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who has no doubt in the matter, and they are shared by the Attorney General for the province of Manitoba. With all humility I say that I have no fear in the discharge of my duties, and although my hon. friend dealt harshly with me in his concluding remarks I have no doubt that section 40 is included as well as the other sections.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman
allow a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When this telegram was sent by the Attorney General for Manitoba why did the hon. gentleman not reply? Why not use the word "inclusive?"


Ernest Lapointe: There is no doubt that if the agreements had not been signed and ratified at that time by some of the legislatures that would have been easy. However as there is no doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the section I do not think it would be advisable to reopen the whole question for the purpose of putting in that word.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Laflamme in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement confirmed.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply wish to refer to
this matter a little more in detail. I do not find the statement of the Minister of Justice convincing, and I am sure this matter will come before the courts. I regret very much that he did not personally superintend the drafting of the agreement. I remember when the previous agreement came up two years ago I directed the hon. gentleman's attention

Natural Resources-Manitoba
to the interpretation I then placed upon the word "to" in that connection, and when a new agreement was being drafted I should have thought that it might have been made clear. I am quite sure that if my hon. friend had retained the direction of the drafting of the agreement he would have placed in the clause words which would clearly indicate that section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act was included, but he will see the following in the schedule to this agreement:
And whereas by an order in council adopted upon a report from the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the first day of August, 1928, it was provided, pursuant to an agreement in that behalf entered into with representatives of the government of the province that the province would be placed in a position of equality with the oth'er provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources

That is the foundation of the whole agreement, namely that the province of Manitoba shall be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources. Then the agreement provides in terms for the transfer of all those natural resources without limitation, in so far as they have been unappropriated up to the present time. Then section 1 says:
-the said lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall be administered by the province for the purposes thereof, subject, until the legislature jf the province otherwise provides, to the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada relating to such administration

My contention is that this is a clear provision that the legislature may hereafter amend or repeal any act of the parliament of Canada with respect to the administration of these lands or relating thereto.
My third contention, in brief, is that section 6 simply provides for the transfer to the province of the money or securities constituting that portion of the school lands fund which is derived from the sale or other disposition of any school lands within the province, and so on. That constitutes a transfer of the school lands fund in so far as it is at present accumulated and, as far as section 6 is concerned, without any limitation or condition whatsoever being placed upon the use or disposition of this fund. Then we come to section 7, which provides:
The school lands fund to be transferred to the province as aforesaid and such of the school lands specified in section thirty-seven of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as pass to the administration of the province under the terms hereof, shall be
[Mr. Cahan.J
set aside and shall continue to be administered by the province in accordance, mutatis mutandis, with the provisions of sections thirty-seven to forty of the Dominion Lands Act, for the support of schools organized and carried on therein in accordance with the law of the province.
My contention with respect to that section is that the provision that this fund is to be administered applies only to the fund as at present accumulated, and to the administration of the lands which are now being transferred in accordance with certain sections of the Dominion Lands Act, only so long as those provisions of the Dominion Lands Act are not repealed by the legislature, which is empowered in a previous section of the act to repeal them. I submit further that the use in section 7 of the words, "for the support of schools organized and carried on therein in accordance with the law of the province" is a quotation of the express words of section 40 of the Dominion Lands Act, and that by incorporating in this agreement certain words of section 40, the application of the other words of that section is excluded.
Having pointed out these facts as being my clear opinion in a matter of such great importance to many people throughout this country and of such peculiar importance to my own people in the province of Quebec, the Minister of Justice must take the full responsibility with regard to the interpretation of that agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: I do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it intended to discuss the sections of the agreement at all? The schedule to the act is the agreement. Is it intended in committee of the whole to discuss the sections of that agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Is Jt the desire of the committee that the schedule should be discussed paragraph by paragraph?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
On the schedule-paragraph 1 agreed to.
On the schedule-paragraph 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will remember that many of the contracts for the lease of property between the crown in right of the Dominion and lessees throughout the country refer to regulations. Was it the purpose in framing section 2 to make certain that the regulations which are incorporated in such

Natural Resources-Manitoba
documents shall continue to be binding as part of the contracts between the crown and the lessees?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree that the wording covers that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am very doubtful about.


Charles A. Stewart: The paragraph reads:
-every contract to purchase or lease any crown lands, mines or minerals and every other arrangement whereby any person has become entitled to any interest therein as against the crown-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate the terms of that paragraph but a few days ago my attention was directed to this matter by a letter which I received from a lessee, I think it was one of the numerous oil companies operating in Alberta. I was asked the question whether or not it was abundantly clear under the provisions of the agreement that the regulations of the Department of the Interior, approved by the governor in council, which are incorporated in some of these leases would remain as governing regulations during the lifetime of the lease. I am unable to give a definite answer to that question. The regulations issued by the Department of the Interior and approved by the governor in council, and which are made a part of some of the leases, are very far reaching; but if the effect of paragraph 2 is to continue those regulations as conditions governing the relations between lessor and lessee then there would be no difficulty. If, on the other hand, the regulations are subject to change it might well be that an entirely new contract could be set up by the provincial governments in connection with outstanding leases. My answer would have been that the language of the paragraph is broad enough to cover the case, but when I was west the other day-perhaps I should discuss this matter in the Alberta case-one of the smaller companies referred to the fact that certain changes had been recommended in the regulations and that the provincial government had agreed to adopt such suggested changes. Obviously the effect of that would be to render paragraph 2 of doubtful value. I was only able to say in a general way that my understanding was that the purpose of the agreement and of the legislation was to ensure that whatever contractual rights might be enjoyed by any party in any contract outstanding with the crown at the date of the transfer would be respected in their entirety. I think that was the intention, but I believe that the
Solicitor General will agree that there is something in the suggestion that if some of the regulations are incorporated in a lease there is nothing in that paragraph which makes it certain that such regulations cannot be changed, in which event you might have a contract subject to regulation passed by the provincial authorities which would be in variance with those already existing.


Charles A. Stewart: That matter was discussed with the provincial representatives, and all the provisions of the agreement will have to be honoured by the province. There is one exception in favour of the crown, namely, that they reserve the right to make general changes in royalties from time to time. We could not ask the province to accept that provision when it appeared in all leases, and during the life of such documents they will be subject to such regulations as were in effect when the document was executed. It is only such changes as I have mentioned that would apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid the hon. minister has not grasped my point.


Mr. CANNON:: Any privileges which are
now enjoyed are to be continued, with two exceptions; that any changes which may be made are to be by agreement and by general legislation. Regulations passed by the provincial government which would affect these contracts would have to be regulations passed under general legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. Solicitor General and the Minister of the Interior are quite clear as to the last four lines of the paragraph, which read:
-or, in so far as any legislation may apply generally to all similar agreements relating to lands, mines or minerals in the province or to interests therein irrespective of who may be the parties thereto.
Even the consideration of the phrase "except either with the consent of all the parties thereto other than Canada" does not answer the question as put to me. I was curious to know whether or not the matter had been considered, because my own mind is very uncertain about it. Take the question of royalties as mentioned by the minister. I apprehend that the right to increase royalties is derived from the latter part of the paragraph, that portion which relates to legislation of a general character. An agreement to make the term of a lease ten years instead of five would be an illustration of the first point covered by the paragraph, and the matter of royalties would be an illustration of the second point.
153S
Natural Resources-Manitoba

The question of royalties might vitally affect the whole condition of the terms of a contract, and I was a little doubtful as to whether or not that is the only power which would
authorize an increase in royalties.


Lucien Cannon: It would have to be a general increase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize that. Suppose
there is a grazing lease outstanding on which the rental is five cents an acre; would it be competent for the province to make that rental ten cents an acre as of January, 1931?


Lucien Cannon: If it was changed by
general legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that quite fair in view of the preceding part of the paragraph, which reads:
The province will carry out in accordance with the terms thereof every contract to purchase or lease any crown lands, mines or minerals.


Lucien Cannon: The Dominion would have the right to do that, and if the province is substituted in our rights, they would be exercising a right which we have already. The lessees would be in no worse a condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not quite grasped the point which I have in mind. It would not be competent for the Dominion to increase the rental on a lease from five to ten cents an acre without granting compensation.


Lucien Cannon: It would be federal legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not be done by a federal order in council.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that, but suppose we passed general legislation giving us authority to do so, then we could do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not without compensation.


Lucien Cannon: If general legislation was passed by the province, then the province exercising its right under rhat legislation could change certain aspects of the leases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not without the payment of compensation.


Lucien Cannon: Oh, yes, by general legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the crown by general legislation takes away a right, it must be presumed to pay for it. The privy council said so about 1870 in the Windsor-Annapolis railway case. I also had the question before 
the exchequer court in the case of the estate of the late Maunsell against the crown where under the Irrigation Act lands were taken away, the statute being a general one, and it was claimed there was no compensation to be paid, but the court decided otherwise.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend's difficulty in this respect will be overcome. I am not so sure about the exact provisions of the grazing leases in regard to which he raises a question, but I am clear as to the reservation in connection with oil leases and mining leases in cases where royalties are collected. We have that right if we so desire; that is, the lessee leaves himself subject to changes if they are of a general character. I am not clear whether or not that is embodied in the grazing leases, although I am inclined to think it is-that is, in regard to specifying a term of years at so much per acre.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it in a case of that kind in any event it was intended section 2 should safeguard the interest of the lessee who had a lease for a definite term at a fixed rental.


Charles A. Stewart: There would be no question about that. I merely want to make it clear that all the rights the provinces get in the way of any changes are the rights now enjoyed by the federal government. That is all we are transferring to the provinces in that respect; otherwise every provision of a contract will have to be carried out in its entirety by the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was my understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 3 and 6 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph 7.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess I have been
unable to understand why in the preparation of this document about which it is well known that difficulties may arise, the word "inclusive" was not added after the word "forty." At one time I was very actively engaged in the preparation of documents and I certainly would not prepare such a document without the insertion of the word "inclusive." What the Attorney General may say has no effect upon the construction of a document, as my hon. friend knows, and the general principle is that stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The opinion of Mr. Justice Walsh, that is the opinion of a single trial judge, was that the sale of lots one to

Natural Resources-Manitoba
four includes four, but I could give cases in which numerals from one to a number designated did not include the last. In Great Britain there is a section of the Interpretation Act dealing with the matter, which fortunately or unfortunately we do not have in this country. I only mention that it is difficult to understand why, when there was a possibility of trouble and where the use of one word would cure it all, that one word was not used.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no doubt that if these agreements had not all been signed and even given ratification by legislatures, it would have been an easy matter to insert the word "inclusive," but I have no doubt that the word is really included in the meaning of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 8.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps what I have to
say in connection with water might be better said in connection with one of the other agreements, because I think the question of water and water-powers is left in a very uncertain position. The use of half a dozen words would have cured the trouble. The Irrigation Act of Canada provides that all waters in the Northwest Territories are the property of the crown; that is, in Alberta and Saskatchewan the property in the water itself is in the crown. Under the autonomy acts of Alberta and Saskatchewan the crown in the case of water was defined tc be the crown in right of the Dominion and not of the provinces. I had a very personal knowledge of that, because at that time I was actively engaged in irrigation work with the Canadian Pacific, and I assisted to the best of my ability in making certain that the section of the autonomy acts clearly provided, as perhaps the minister will recall, that the water should be held by the crown in right of the Dominion. Under those circumstances is it clear that the waters in Saskatchewan and Alberta-I am not talking about Manitoba for the moment-will belong to the crown in right of the provinces without any further action being taken? I am leaving the question for the moment and I trust the minister will look into it, because frankly I am certainly very doubtful whether or not the waters and water-powers in Saskatchewan and Alberta have been transferred to the provinces under the agreements.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to find out from the Minister of the Interior what the policy of the government is regarding the
water powers of Manitoba. So far as this clause goes, it seems to give away property rights enjoyed by the prairie provinces. We know what the policy of the government is, because last session, after a debate of several days, they surrendered water powers to private owners. I am surprised that some of my Progressive friends who stand for public ownership of the water powers of this country do not rise and protest. Just last Friday the Governor of New York state came out clearly for expropriation of the water powers of that state to preserve them for the people for all time.
Nobody knows to-day the vast wealth in water powers of the prairie provinces Last year there was a debate in the house for several days in an endeavour to do something as a legislature to preserve for the people the water powers of the great prairie provinces. The question of water powers has been made a football by the present government. Nobody knows where they stand on the question in regard to not only Manitoba but Ontario. They have been afraid to face the music and to do something for the people of Ontario regarding the St. Lawrence waterway. They have shelved that problem, which is one purely of navigation, by handing out these deals to various corporations in Ontario and Quebec. I am surprised that we are going to make the mistake to-night of passing this clause. The fact that the government of Manitoba agrees to this is no reason why it should be the law and the clause may be taken to the privy council. A few years ago there was passed in this house an act which was taken to the privy council and I venture to say that that is where the St. Lawrence question will be taken, because the people will not stand for two governments sitting down together and making an agreement regarding water powers, robbing the people of what belongs to them.
Hon. members know what the water powers of Ontario have meant to the people of this province and the money they have saved to the toiler on the farm and the artisan in the city. We are bartering away to one corporation the Winnipeg river and the Seven Sisters falls; we are giving to another gentleman the Lake of the Woods, and as regards this particular clause 8, the fact that the Premier of Manitoba comes to Ottawa, sits at a table with representatives of the Dominion government and makes an agreement which they say is an agreement, does not make it one. Clause 8 prevents and hinders the people of Manitoba from having their own property. We are sitting here as the party tc the second part,

Natural Resources-Manitoba
backing up the Bracken government in taking away these resources from the people of Manitoba and handing them over to private greed and gain. In the coming election this question will be one of the great issues. In the United States the Democratic party and the Governor of New York are coming forward with a policy of public ownership to preserve the water powers for the people. Who knows the vast wealth that lies in the magnificent undeveloped water powers of the prairie provinces? Iam sure a large number of the members know hardly anything about this agreement and I doubt whether anybody knows where this particular clause 8 is going to land. It will certainly find its way to the privy council. Clause 8 reads:
The province will pay to Canada, by yearly payments on the first day of January in each year after the coming into force of this agreement, the proportionate part, chargeable to the development of power on the Winnipeg river within the province, of the sums which have been or shall hereafter be expended by Canada pursuant to the agreement between the governments of Canada and of the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, made on the 15th day of November, 1922, and set forth in the schedule hereto, the convention and protocol relating to the Lake of the Woodis entered into between His Majesty and the United States of America on the 24th day of February, 1925, and the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, being chapter 32 of 18 and 19 George the Fifth-
And so forth. All these payments and agreements are made whether the people like them or not. What is the policy of the government regarding the water powers of this country? So far it has been to give them away to private greed and gain. This has been the case with regard to the Beauharnois, the Seven Sisters falls, and if the present government is to continue to have its say, there will not be a water power left to the people of Canada. There has been no election in Manitoba to decide whether or not the Bracken government has the support of public opinion in regard to clause 8 of this agreement. I venture to say that if there were an appeal to the province in Manitoba tonight, the people would not back up the Bracken government because of the way it has been handing out the water powers of that province. There was a deal made only a few years ago by which Mr. Backus, the American millionaire, crossed into Canada and was given very valuable rights. The government is giving him help in connection with the Lake of the Woods agreement. We ought to have some minister tell us what the policy of this government is regarding the question of water powers in the province of Manitoba. There are on the government benches some supporters of Hydro-Electric in Ontario. What

do they think of the hand-outs that are being given? What does the Minister of Railways think on this question of water powers? Is he for private ownership, or would he turn these magnificent water powers over to private greed and gain?
There was an investigation held by the Washington government not very long ago which brought out the fact that many of these millionaires in possession of the magnificent water powers of that country were buying up newspapers to influence public opinion in regard to water powers in the eastern and central states. They were spending large sums of money in advertising, and had their candidates at election time. I am afraid that they have crossed over into Canada, judging by what I see in the province of Ontario. The question of light and power is being made a football of. Sir Adam Beck tried to keep the water powers for the province, but now we are simply a filling station for these privately-owned water powers in Quebec, and the result of it all will be that the rates will be doubled and trebled before the contract terminates. Are we going to repeat this monument of folly in Manitoba by passing clause 8? You are adopting here the policy of private ownership of water powers. Are we going to hand over these magnificent water powers in Manitoba to Mr. Bracken for him to hand them over to a few favourites, as was done in connection with the Seven Sisters Falls? What about the undeveloped water powers of that province? There is going to be a day of reckoning, and the time has come for the government to lay down a policy. The government has authority to develop all these water powers and to hand them over to the province at cost. That would save the situation so far as the public is concerned. Where does the public come in with regard to clause 8? They are not consulted at all. There is such a dearth of public opinion with respect to water powers that almost any kind of water power agreement can be put over, but in a few years the country will wake up. We shall find that we must buy back these water powers. We have been buying them back in Ontario, and at a fabulous capital cost.
What has the Labour party to say on this question? Where does the Minister of Labour stand? He is supposed to represent the working classes of the province of Manitoba. He is supposed to put some protection in this agreement for the working classes, instead of the jokers with which it is filled from cover to cover, and the true meaning of which we shall not find out until a case goes to the privy council.

Natural Resources-Manitoba
So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the policy of the present government, handing over the natural resources of this country to the province of Manitoba with riders and restrictions therein. The province of Manitoba is not protected in any way in this agreement. The Bracken government is giving away water powers all the time. They would give away the parliament buildings in Winnipeg. If there is anything that they would not give away, I would like to know what it is. They are parting with water powers everywhere to a few favourites, and with no public control over rates. We had the same situation under the Liberals in Ontario up until 1905. They had given away all the water powers of the province when Sir James Whitney came into office, and he had to buy back the last power site in the Niagara district, from which he built up a magnificent system under public ownership.
Where does the Minister of Railways stand in this question? What is his policy regarding the city of Brandon and the water powers of Manitoba? Is he in favour of private ownership, or does he stand by the Seven Sisters deal and all that kind of thing? Is he in favour of the policy of the government in regard to the lake of the Woods? There seems to be such a dearth of public opinion in Manitabo that the government can give away anything and the people will know nothing about it. The government have absolutely failed to preserve the water powers for the people. This government could have developed power on the St. Lawrence, but instead of doing that they allowed three or four favourites to get away with valuable power sites. The government did have a policy at one time, and they referred it to the courts, but the judges could not understand their questions. I venture to say that the day is not far distant when the great development of the province of Manitoba, agriculturally and industrially, will make it necessary to buy back these water powers for the benefit of the people.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend never fails to take the opportunity to make a speech on water powers. Paragraph 8 has very little to do with water powers. It ' makes provision for repayment to the federal government of moneys used for the purpose of raising the levels of the lake of the Woods, which is in Ontario, and by the way was agreed to by the Ontario government, and for the repayment of the investment in Lac Seul, which is also in Ontario, and from which Ontario receives considerable benefit. The ownership of the water powers will be vested
in the Manitoba government. They are responsible to the people of Manitoba, and will no doubt inaugurate a policy of dealing with those water powers that will be satisfactory to the province. That is all we are providing for here.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph 15.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It does appear to me to be a rather serious thing to say that the exclusive legislative power authorized to deal with a national park in Manitoba or any national park shall be the parliament of Canada, as this section does. In the days of Sir Oliver Mowat, were such a proposal made,
I know what the answer would have been. Perhaps the Solicitor General will recall very readily the great case of the St. Catharines milling company which went to the privy council to establish the right of the province with respect to lands that wrere part of the Indian reserves. We are creating a little park of the Dominion of Canada within a province and subjecting that little park to the exclusive legislative power of the federal parliament. That is something that thus far in Canada has been unheard of,-that by agreement made with a province, and which the province reluctantly is compelled to accept, you provide that even with respect to taxation, where there is conflict between the province and the Dominion, the Dominion legislation shall prevail with respect to a national park in one of the western provinces. I can only register my protest against it, and I feel certain the day will come when this parliament will have to undo that which it is now doing in this regard. The sections are the same in all the agreements, and section 16 perhaps is the more objectionable. It provides :
The parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the whole area included within the outer boundaries of the said park, notwithstanding that portions of such area may not form part of the park proper;-
That is a queer statement, that the legislative power over part of a province, vast in area it may well be, containing towns and villages, as in fact is the case in one of the parks, shall now vest in this parliament.
-the laws now in force within the said area shall continue in force only until changed by the parliament of Canada or under its authority, provided, however, that all laws of the province now or hereafter in force, which are not repugnant to any law or regulation

Natural Resources-Manitoba
made applicable within the said area by or under the authority of the parliament of
Canada,'-[DOT]
That is, by order in council.
shall extend to and he enforceable within the same, and that all general taxing acts passed by the province shall apply within the same unless expressly excluded from application therein by or under the authority-
Not of the legislature but-
-of the parliament of Canada.
That is such a departure from the provisions of the British North America Act that I have to content myself with merely making my general statement with respect to it. I shall discuss it further when I come to deal with the Alberta agreement.
May I say this? It is futile for us to make objections here. The Minister of Justice in the observations he made a few minutes ago indicated that we are but a rubber stamp. These agreements have been accepted by the respective legislatures and each constitutes now a contract between two parties, the province and the Dominion. We have no power to amend, we have no power to change, because no one party to a contract can change the contract without the consent of the other party. Therefore so far as this parliament is concerned we might as well accept these agreements and be done with them. All we can do is call attention to points which occur to us as we go along, and objections which we have to certain phases of the agreement; but as the minister very properly observed, it is too late to talk of changes once a contract is signed unless both parties thereto consent; and inasmuch as one party is not available for the purpose of making changes without long delay, there is nothing more to be said but to accept the agreements as they are.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, before this section passes I desire to say merely a word or two, because later on when this agreement may be further investigated it will be the wonder of the one who reads it how we assumed to have legislative authority to legislate as is proposed in this section 16. The scope and extent of the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada is defined by the British North America Act, and in my opinion it is idle and foolish-and I want to put that statement on record-that we as a parliament should attempt to determine what is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Did my hon. friend say that he reserves his other remarks until the Alberta agreement is under discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well.
Paragraphs 15 and 16 agreed to.
Paragraphs 17 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraphs 20, 21 and 22.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to what I
assume is a very large increase in the actual subsidies payable to the three western provinces, is it the intention of the government to make a readjustment with the maritime provinces, so that their subsidies will be permanently increased in proportion as the subsidies are increased by these agreements?


Charles A. Stewart: The position of the government is well known in that respect. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that each province or each section of the country and its problems will be treated on its merits. Now, the maritime provinces have received consideration, as my hon. friend well knows, and the arrangement for the settlement of the resources of the province of Manitoba is in a similar category. I fail to understand how one could give an answer to my hon. friend's question. If the maritimes feel they have some claims that are still unsettled, it is their privilege to make their representations to the federal authorities, as the western provinces have been repeatedly making their representations with respect to this matter, of which this agreement is the outcome as to Manitoba.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I understand the hon. gentleman to say, on behalf of the government, that inasmuch as the annual subsidy from the Dominion treasury to Manitoba is increased by this agreement, and similarly in the cases of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the government are prepared to reconsider the whole question of subsidies to the older provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend expect me to answer?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I say at once, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not? Take the province of Quebec: in dealing with territorial interests the argument is frequently made that a large territory was subtracted from the Northwest Territories and annexed to Quebec, whose territorial limits were thereby extended in order that the property rights within that area might be vested in the crown in the right of the province. It has been stated also that the area of Ontario was increased so that the

Natural Resources-Alberta
lands brought within its jurisdiction might The agreements stand upon their own feet, and
be vested in the crown in the right of that province. But in addition to transferring all these lands and everything implied in the word " lands," such as mines, minerals and royalties, when this agreement is ratified and confirmed by imperial legislation these will be vested in the crown in the right of these several provinces. Therefore they are restored to all the rights which were withheld from them at the time those provinces were created. But there is also a very large increase in the federal subsidy to each of those provinces under the several agreements, which puts out of balance, it seems to me, the whole question of the distribution of federal subsidies as between the older provinces and the new. Is that fact to be considered in a readjustment of the subsidies to the older provinces, especially to the maritimes? Are we acknowledging that that is a fair basis on which application may be made by those provinces and favourably considered by the government?


Charles A. Stewart: The basis of the adjustment was not on any other theory or policy than that of putting the western provinces on an equality with the other provinces of Canada. May I point out that as early as 1912 the request of the premiers of the three prairie provinces to the federal government was that they should have returned to them their unalienated resources and that the full subsidy provided under the act of autonomy of 1905, when the population had increased to the extent that they would earn the full amount, should be continued for all time to come. That has been denied them up until the present, and the statement of my hon. friend that additional subsidies have been granted is not quite correct in that respect. These were provided for in the act of 1905, and they are getting no more than the continuation of the subsidies provided for in that act when they have the population to earn them. This is to make a basis upon which other provinces will base their demands. No one can prevent a province from making demands upon the federal government for consideration of any sort. I do not know upon what grounds they may base their contention for consideration; that is their privilege. As far as the western provinces and these agreements are concerned the intention is to put those provinces on an equality with the other provinces of Canada. So I say that the question whether the maritime provinces have the right to make an appeal to the government under the provisions of this agreement or on some other ground remains entirely with those provinces.
as stated in the agreements themselves, they are to put the western provinces on an equality with the other provinces of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman say that paragraph 20 of the agreement specifying the sums payable until the population of the province reaches 800,000, and then thereafter until it reaches 1,200,000, and then thereafter as provided in this section, does not increase by the extent of one dollar the provision already named in the 1912 legislation in respect to the payment of subsidies to the province of Manitoba?


Charles A. Stewart: No; that was the provision of the agreements with the provinces, that when they had the population the subsidies would be increased from time to time until they reached the maximum of $1,125,000. That is the amount specified in each of the agreements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a population basis.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, on a basis of population.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. NATURAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I presume we will have some explanation as to the special features of this bill. If not, I shall proceed to make some criticism upon it.


Charles A. Stewart: There are some slight differences between the agreement with the province of Alberta and the agreement respecting the province of Manitoba. In the main however the provisions are almost identical. They are identical with respect to the terms for the payment of subsidies, and I wish to inform the house that the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) will move an amendment to section 2 so as to bring the Alberta act in conformity with the provisions of the Saskatchewan act. When that is done the two acts will be identical in every particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest that the
minister read the amendment so that it will appear in Hansard to-morrow?
Natural Resources-Alberta


Charles A. Stewart: All right.
The amendment will affect section 2. Section 2 is as follows:
The agreement set out in the schedule hereto is hereby approved.
I shall ask to have section 2 amended so that it will read as follows:
The agreement set out in the schedule hereto is hereby approved subject to the proviso that in addition to the rights accruing hereunder to the province of Alberta the said province shall be entitled to such further rights if any with respect to the subject matter of the said agreement as are required to be vested in the said province in order that it may enjoy rights equal to those which may be conferred upon or reserved to the province of Saskatchewan under any agreement upon a like subject matter hereafter approved and confirmed in the same manner as the said agreement.
May I say in explanation of that amendment that the province of Saskatchewan was anxious that the matter referred to the commission should not be confined to the period from 1905, the date of the act of autonomy, to the present time. They suggested that they should be permitted, upon the submission of certain questions to the courts, to decide whether or not compensation which they claimed from 1870 onward should be given. This puts Alberta in identically the same position if it desires to take advantage of the provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is another point
as well: Saskatchewan reserves the right in connection with the Dominion Lands Act.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it reserves that right, of course, but that gives the Alberta government exactly the same privileges and rights, if they desire to take advantage of them to bring forward a test case on this question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What were those rights?


Charles A. Stewart: They can
be discussed better in committee, I think. The matter is contained in the Saskatchewan agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be better to take the Saskatchewan agreement first?


Charles A. Stewart: I much
prefer to deal with this agreement first if possible because I should like to take them in the order in which they were executed by the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the minister a question, if I may. How can you add to the agreement, which is a contract between the two parties, without both parties agreeing to such amendment?


Lucien Cannon: There is a provision in
the agreement whereby such an amendment can be made.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing in this agreement in addition to what was contained in the Manitoba agreement. The only difference is the provision in the Manitoba agreement for the repayment of the moneys which were expended for improvements of water powers, and the lump sum payment provided for in the Manitoba agreement. This simply provides for the payment of the subsidy when the province has a population sufficient to earn the increased subsidy up to $1,125,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to speak for
some time in connection with this agreement. It is now fifteen minutes to eleven o'clock; we have done all we possibly could to assist in putting through the Manitoba agreement, which is very important, and I should like to suggest that I be allowed to move the adjournment of the debate.


Charles A. Stewart: Would not my hon. friend be content to make his remarks in committee of the whole?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the proper place, and it is my intention also to speak on the second reading.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.46 p.m.
Tuesday, April 29, 1930.