1931-07-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre) moved that the tenth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ANGUS McGILLIS (Glengarry) moved:: That the petition of Arthur Edwin Hall of Cornwall, Ontario, and others of elsewhere praying to be incorporated under the name of the "Ontario-Quebec Canal and Power Company," which was presented to the house on the 17th instant, together with the report of 
the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 131, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. BENNETT:: This is a very short bill amending the company's act of incorporation and amendments thereto, permitting the company to increase the membership of the central council, to create an executive council to remove doubt as to their right legally to mortgage and alienate property that they have acquired.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ONBSIME GAGNON (Dorchester) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, to amend the Civil Service Act (Vacancies, outside service).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GAGNON:: The bill which I have the honour to sponsor speaks for itself; it needs no explanatory remarks. I feel, however, it is my duty to the house to say that I have studied the various questions involved, free from party prejudice and without the exaggerated zeal of a would-be reformer, but with a true desire to interpret the wishes of numerous people in Canada as well as of a great number of the members of this house, who contend that the Civil Service Act ought never to have been made to apply to the outside service, and that in the public interest reforms are urgently needed. Long before I had the honour of being a member of this house I had heard eloquent members of parliament denounce the Civil Service Act of 1919 as being inconsistent with the elementary principles of responsible government.
I have read the voluminous report of the Malcolm committee which was appointed by this house in 1923, and have studied the valuable recommendations made by the committee that wras appointed by the Senate in 1924. A good deal of evidence was adduced before the special committee appointed by this house in 1923. The deputy ministers' of

Civil Service-Outside Service
all departments appeared before the committee and made valuable suggestions. Amendments were contemplated, but no serious action has been taken. I venture to say that public sentiment in my province is strongly in favour of removing the outside service from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Act. The people realize that the civil service commissioners, whatever may be their qualifications, cannot find the best possible candidates for all positions. It is indeed amazing to expect the same three men to find the best possible candidates for positions as varied, for instance, as a caretaker in the port of Vancouver, a customs agent in Gaspe, a director of expositions in London, England, and a postmaster in the district of the Yukon. It is amazing that the government of the day must rely entirely on these three men, who therefore must be practically encyclopedists of science to determine the qualifications required for such diversified positions.
As one may easily imagine, a great many mistakes have been made. The civil service commissioners cannot act alone. They have to ask for the assistance of employees of the departments, and in many instances appointments have been made by an employee of tbe department. On the other hand, the Civil Service Act prevents the ministers and deputy ministers from making appointments. The situation indeed is intolerable and ridiculous. This Civil Service Act subjects parliament to the authority of a kind of bureaucracy, which Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England, has happily called the New Despotism.
I might give instances to show that the operations of the civil service commissioners are frequently long drawn out and are therefore prejudicial to the best interests of the country. During the month of January notices wrere sent out throughout Canada that applications would be received to fill the position of director of expositions in London. Applications were sent in in the month of February. The examination was held on the first of May, and even yet, on the 20th of July, the director of expositions has not been appointed. During the month of March in Quebec city applications were called for the position of immigration inspector or guardian. Examinations were held in the months of April and May, and a report has not yet been made by the Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Immigration has therefore been obliged, pending a decision by the commissioners, to hire temporary inspectors, or guardians.
I need not go further to show that amendments to the act are necessary. As I said
before, in my humble judgment the time has come for a change. During the month of January I happened to express my views on this question in a public meeting, and immediately afterwards most of the newspapers of the city of Quebec, both French and English, and even the Montreal Gazette, approved of my humble views and stated that amendments ought to be made to the act, and that the somewhat kaiser-like powers of the commission ought to be at least curtailed. Being a new member I appreciated that I ought to avoid any hasty action, and therefore I consulted with a great number of eminent members on both sides of the house, as well as studied the valuable reports of the Malcolm committee and of the Senate committee. I realize, of course, that the Civil Service Act cannot be amended without the concurrence of both parties. The other day an interesting debate was held in this house, and I am very grateful to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the views that he then expressed on this very question. May I ask you, Mr, Speaker, to give me leave to quote a few extracts from that speech, which really expresses the views shared by a great number of members on this side of the house. Speaking in this house on the 24th of June, the right hon. leader of the opposition said-


Mr. SPEAKER:: On a motion for leave to introduce a bill it is not customary to make a long speech on its merits, but merely to explain its purport. I think the hon. member has made a sufficient explanation.


Onésime Gagnon: Being a new member I
gladly bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I shall confine myself to explaining in a very few words the purport of my bill.
First of all, I want to exclude the outside service from the operation of the act. Secondly, as to appointments, I am asking the house to approve of the recommendation of the Senate committee in 1924, that in making appointments the Civil Service Commission ought to cooperate with the ministers and with the deputy ministers of the departments, and if both parties could not agree the matter ought to be referred to the governor in council for decision. Thirdly, I desire to amend that act. with regard to dismissals by substituting the words "head of the department" for the words "governor in council."


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I ask my hon.
friend why he waited until the last days of the session to introduce this bill, when, as he must know, it has no chance of reaching second reading?
post Office Act


Onésime Gagnon: I gladly answer my hon. friend, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I have already stated that no hasty action ought to be taken in this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Onésime Gagnon: Because I understand fully that the act cannot be amended without the concurrence of both parties. I think that all members of the house, now that the right hon. leader of the opposition has expressed his views, feel that parliament has gone too far in putting the outside service under the Civil Service Act, and I think that the time is ripe for a change.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 133, to amend the Post Office Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Onésime Gagnon: I think the object of the bill is very clear, and that it needs no explanation. In my own province, if not in all, sometimes we find that mail contractors become mere agents of the party in power. It is true that a public servant is entitled to his political opinions and to his vote, but he must not take an active part in politics, but in some provinces I venture to say that the mail contractors are sometimes agents of the party in power. The object of this bill therefore is to warn mail contractors that if they take an active part in politics their contract may be set aside.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Did the government give to the Norwegian steamer Haugherland a permit for carrying coal between the ports of Sydney, Montreal, and Quebec?
2.	What is the nationality of the crew of said ship?
3.	Why was the ss. Rose Cassell of the Canadian Merchant Marine not used for the transportation of this coal?
4.	For how long yet is the Rose Cassell supposed to retain her crew?
5.	Are all the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine presently used?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	By order in council (P.C. 230/1374), dated 12th June, 1931, the regulations respecting the

coasting trade, established by order in council dated 10th November, 1886, were dispensed with in the case of the British built, Norwegian registered steamship "Haugerland," to enable that vessel to engage in the carriage of coal coastwise from Sydney, NS., to points on the St. Lawrence river, up to the 16th November, 1931.
2.	The last arrival of the Haugerland (not Haugherland as in the question), was at Sydney, N.S., on May 15, 1931. Her crew at that time consisted of 39 persons, of which 37 were of Norwegian and 2 of Swedish nationality.
3.	The SS. Rose Cassell is not a Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessel.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No. Fifteen are laid up at present due to adverse trade conditions.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. JOHN STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	At what date was the first Canadian National Railways' station built at Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	Was it destroyed by fire?
3.	Prior October 1,	1930, was there an
arrangement between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in virtue of which the former company could use the latter company's station?
4.	If so, when did the agreement take place?
5.	How long did it last?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	In 1858. This was replaced by a new station in 18S4.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5. In 1886 the New Brunswick Railway Company was permitted the joint use of the Intercolonial railway station at St. John. There was no formal agreement though proportionate station charges were always paid. The Canadian Pacific Railway succeeded to that arrangement and a formal agreement between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways in respect to user of this station was not reached until January 1, 1927. That agreement is still in effect.


CIVIL SERVANTS-LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	Is any permanent civil servant permitted to obtain statutory leave of absence from his department at the beginning of any fiscal year provided the granting of such leave will not interfere with the work of the department?
2.	If not, at what date in any fiscal year does the government consider that the statutory leave for that year is earned?

Questions


Mr. CABAN:: 1	and 2. Leave of absence to civil servants is governed by section 40 of Civil Service Act (chapter 22 of R.S.C., 1927), which reads as follows: "The deputy head may grant to each officer, clerk or other employee a yearly leave of absence for a period not exceeding eighteen days in any one fiscal year, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after they have been at least one year in the service.
2.	Every such officer, clerk or employee shall take the leave so granted at such time each year as the deputy head determines."


THE H. M. MCMILLAN COMPANY
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What subsidies are paid to the H, M. McMillan Company for steamship service between British Columbia ports?
2.	Between what ports is service maintained?
3.	How many of the boats of this company engaged in the subsidized service are: (a) of Canadian registry; (b) of foreign registry?


Mr. STEVENS:: .
1.	Nil.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.
CENSUS	ENUMERATORS-KEN ORA-RAIN Y RIVER


Mr. HEENAN:: .
1.	Who were the census enumerators for the electoral district of Kenora-Rainy River?
2.	What salary and fees did each receive?
3.	What is the name of the person who instructed the census enumerators?
4.	What salary and fees did he receive?
5.	How many enumerators were employed?
6.	How many were returned soldiers?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. A. M. Rose and Mr. Pat Kerr.
2.	An allowance of $450 to cover organization expenses. For viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which they are appointed as commissioner, the following rates are provided:
1 cent for each name on the "population" 'schedule; 3 cents for each "agricultural" schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "animal and animal products, not on farm" schedule; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons; 1 cent for each record of merchandising and service establishments.
3.	Mr. Rose and Mr. Kerr instructed the enumerators in the districts assigned to them.
4.	See answer to question 2.
5.	Fifty.
6.	Eighteen.


GOLD HELD BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	On May 1, 1930, what was the amount of gold held by the chartered banks in Canada?
2.	What was the amount of subsidiary coin held by the banks?
3.	What was the amount of gold held by the Dominion government?
4.	What was the amount of subsidiary coin held by the Dominion government?
5.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	bank
notes outstanding?
6.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	bank
legals outstanding?
7.	What was the total amount of Dominion notes other than legals outstanding?
8.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	bank
loans?
9.	What was the total amount of savings bank deposits?
10.	What was the total amount of current account deposits?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 and 2. Gold and subsidiary coin held in Canada $43,148,589; gold held in central gold reserves $13,(B0,866.	(Gold and subsidiary
coin held by banks not reported separately).
3.	$85,645,601.
4.	$588,334.
5.	$134,495,175.
6.	$107,200,000.
7.	$40,541,798.
8.	Call and short loans in
Canada	$	180,526,619
Call and short loans elsewhere than in Canada..	116,985,827
Other current loans and discounts in Canada.. ..	1,130,226,227
Other current loans and discounts elsewhere than in Canada		216,554,080
Loans to provincial governments 		31,143,271
Loans to cities, towns, municipalities and school districts		124,607,974
Non-current loans		8,839,545
$	1,808,883,543
and 10. Deposits by public in Canada: Notice	$	1,453,305,140
Demand		595,697,443
Other deposits (not separated in returns as to whether demand or notice): Balances due to Dominion government		37,795,029
Balances due to provincial government		20,875,610
Deposits elsewhere than in Canada		338,961,487
Deposits made by and balances due to other banks in Canada.. ..	15,204,168
Questions

9 and 10. Deposits by public in Canada-Con.
Due to banks in United Kingdom	 3,734,779
Due to banks elsewhere than in Canada and United Kingdom.. ..	68,124,361


VAL DBS BOIS, QUEBEC, POSTMASTER
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster at Val des Bois, in the county of Hull?
2.	Has he been permanently appointed or is he only acting?
3.	By whom was he appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	Did a post office inspector, or any other official of the Post Office Department interview anyone in Val des Bois or in the county of Hull, for reference in connection with the said appointment?
6.	If so, who?
7.	What was the name of the previous postmaster?
8.	Why is he no longer employed as such?
9.	Was any charge laid against him?
10.	If so, what was the nature of the said charge ?
11.	By whom was it laid?
12.	If there was a public hearing of said charge who testified in support thereof?
13.	Was that the sole reason for this dismissal ?
14.	How long had he occupied said position?
15.	How did he fulfil his duties during his term of office?


Mr. SAUVE:: I,	2, 3, 4. Mr. Lorenzo Morin is in charge of the office although instructions have been issued for the transfer to Mr. William Thomas Peck, selected by the Civil Service Commission.
5.	Yes.
6.	No record of residents having been interviewed excepting the following applicants: William Thomas Peck, Hermas Morin, Archie Larocque, Telesphore Marion.
7.	Lorenzo Morin is the outgoing postmaster.
8.	Arrangements made for his dismissal.
9.	Yes.
10.	Active political partisanship.
II.	J. Noel Beauchamp, K.C.
12.	Postmaster admitted having acted as an active partisan.
13.	Yes.
14.	Six years.
15.	No record of any recent complaints concerning his management.


ILE-AUX-NOIX WHARF WATER LEVEL
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1. Who has charge of taking the water level of Richelieu river at the wharf of Ile-aux-Noix, in the county of St. Jean?

2.	Was Mr. Gosselin dismissed, and if so, why?
3.	What were the complaints against him, and by whom were they made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. Alfred Hebert.
2 and 3. Mr. Gosselin was replaced by Alfred Hebert. As these are part-time temporary positions it is optional with the department to appoint new employees.


SABREVOIS WHARF WATER LEVEL
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Who has charge of taking the water level of Richelieu river at the wharf of Sabrevois, in the county of Iberville?
2.	Was Mr. Bouthiller, of Sabrevois, dismissed, and if so, why?
3.	What complaints were made against him, and by whom were they made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. Armand Lafrance.
2 and 3. Mr. Bouthiller was replaced by Armand Uafranee. As these are part-time temporary positions it is optional with the department to appoint new employees.
department of public works coal contracts


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	To whom were contracts awarded for coal to be delivered to the Department of Public Works for consumption in the maritime provinces?
2.	What grade of coal did the contracts call for and what price is to be paid, in each case?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: In the absence of the mover I would ask that this question stand for further information. It is not clear as to what is referred to.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Who appointed the returning officer and the deputy returning officers for the electoral district of Northumberland, in the province of Ontario, for the Dominion election held on the 28th day of July, 1930?
2.	On whose recommendation were the above appointments made?
3.	How many of the persons appointed were at the time of appointment out of work?
4.	How many of the persons appointed were married men?
5.	How many of the persons appointed were returned soldiers?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FOURNIER :: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, inquiries and other documents, regard-

Saint John Harbour
ing the dismissal of Lorenzo Morin, postmaster at Val des Bois, county of Hull, and the appointment of his successor.


DUTY ON POTATOES
Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and representations made by any person, party or organization in Canada to any minister of the crown in connection with the duty on potatoes coming into Canada and their valuation for duty purposes; also a copy of all orders in council passed in connection with same, since August, 1930, up to the present date.



ST. NEREE MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. GIROUARD (for Mr. Boulanger):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda and other documents, in connection with cancellation of contract of Alfred Boutin, for the distribution of rural mail in the parish of St. Neree, in the county of Bellechasse.



SAINT JOHN HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Saint John harbour commissioners not exceeding $10,000,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
In view of the fact that in the city of Saint John there is a condition of emergency, I ask that, with the leave of the house, this resolution be taken into consideration now.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the change
made so that the minister may have leave to introduce the bill?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Yes, just to introduce the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Mr. VENIOT:: I know that because of
the fire an emergency exists in Saint John, and it would be well to put this legislation through one or two stages so that the work may be started.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the unanimous consent of the house standing order No. 60 will
be suspended. The motion is that the house do now go into committee of the whole to consider the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.


Mr. YENIOT:: Would the minister give
details now or wait until the bill is introduced? I should like to have some information in advance of the introduction of the bill. What part of the $10,000,000 is to be spent for further improvement of the harbour of Saint John, in addition to the expenditures incurred by reason of the fire.


Alfred Duranleau: The amount for further improvements would be $3,500,000 as specified in the former resolution. Those moneys would be spent to enlarge piers 3 and 5, and for some other facilities the details of which I have not before me at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is a bank loan of $1,500,000 which we will have to take care of.


Alfred Duranleau: The reconstruction
of five sheds is contemplated.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I should like to know how much is for the reconstruction of what was destroyed by fire?


Alfred Duranleau: About $5,000,000.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to a report appearing in the press concerning the reconstruction of that part of Saint John harbour which was destroyed by fire. If he has not the information before him he may bring it down when the bill is introduced. I see that in connection with that part of Saint John harbour which was destroyed by fire contracts have been let on a cost plus basis, and I should like to know if that report is true.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, immediately after the disastrous fire the authorities from the harbour commission of Saint John came to the department and insisted that work should be begun at once in order that the sheds would be built and ready for use on December 1, at the beginning of the winter season. If such action were not taken they said they would be exposed to loss of the winter trade. After sending Mr. Beaver, the assistant of Sir Alexander Gibb, to Saint John, and affording him the opportunity of studying the whole scheme, he reported that we should first start the repairs to the piers. As the house knows, the piers are of wooden construction, and some have been badly damaged, others less so. We have to repair the damaged wooden structures and cover them with cement in order to render the wharves as far as possible fireproof, as we intend to

Saint John Harbour

build steel sheds on them. It was intimated that in order to complete these works by the first of December we could not afford to spare the time necessary to prepare plans and specifications on which to ask for tenders. Moreover, the nature of the damage to these piers was such that it was very difficult to prepare specifications, for it is only during the progress of the work that we can see the extent of the damage. So Mr. Beaver suggested that we should have the repair work done by day labour on a cost plus basis of five per cent. Two companies, the Foundation Company and the Northern Construction Company, if I am not mistaken, tendered for the work, and it has been divided between them on a basis of cost plus five per cent. That is the maximum charge to be made. Now that the repair work is in progress we are drafting plans and specifications for the sheds, tenders will be asked for in the regular way and the contract will be awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: That is for the continuation of the harbour improvements?


Alfred Duranleau: Absolutely, the construction of the sheds. The repair work is under way now and the plans are being prepared for the sheds. I think under the circumstances we have taken the only possible course. There was a real emergency and we wanted to save the business of the harbour.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I am not criticizing the
minister for what he has done; rather I feel like complimenting him on the expeditious way in which he took steps to meet the emergency. But this information, I think, is due the public, I should like to know the cost plus percentage.


Alfred Duranleau: Five per cent.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will the
contracts for this repair work be made by the harbour commission or by the marine department?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared
to give a definite answer to the question at the moment. Sir Alexander Gibb is at Saint John to-day studying the whole situation, and of course we shall have to confer with this distinguished gentleman and his assistants on the procedure to be taken under the circumstances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
resolution before the house provides for assistance in the form of a loan to the harbour board; consequently one would assume that the contracts would be made by the harbour board and not by the government.


Alfred Duranleau: That may be; but
it is the intention of my department to see that these works and the expenditures thereon shall be checked up very closely. At the present time I have first class accountants checking up everything.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is the minister departing from the regular procedure in respect to this particular loan?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the
usual loan to harbour commissioners for the purpose of prosecuting their work, is it not?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: With this
difference, that an emergency situation has to be dealt with.


Ernest Lapointe: Has any consideration
been given to the policy of making Saint John a free port?


Alfred Duranleau: The matter is under
consideration, but I do not think at the moment we can change the policy followed in the past.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that with respect to that part of the harbour destroyed by fire the repair wot'k has been taken out of the hands of the harbour commissioners and placed under the direction of an engineer from the city of Halifax. Now, if the government is going to pay for the improvements and not charge the cost as a loan to the harbour commissioners owing to the emergency referred to, I can understand why the department would take the work out of the hands of the harbour commissioners and place it in charge of their own engineer. But if the cost is to be included in the $10,000,000 to be loaned to the harbour commission, I do not see why that course should have been followed. Perhaps I am misinformed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are.


Peter John Veniot: I know that an engineer
from Halifax is in charge of the repair work -at least the local papers have made an announcement to that effect, and that the work in connection with the improvements will remain under the direction of the engineer of the harbour commission. I should like to have some information on this point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid I must make a few observations in respect to this matter. The Minister of

Saint John Harbour
Marine (Mr. Duranleau) was absent for two days when the matter became very pressing. A representative of Sir Alexander Gibb and partners visited Saint John harbour and made a report on conditions resulting from the disastrous fire which practically destroyed the whole of the terminal facilities. On the strength of his report it became apparent that the harbour commissioners would need a very much increased sum of money to enable them to carry on the repairs if the harbour facilities were to be made available for shipping by the first of December. But inasmuch as it would take weeks to prepare complete plans and specifications and call for tenders for the work as a completed unit, it was thought desirable to proceed at once with the necessary repair work. He asked the Foundation Company, the Northern Construction Company and J. W. Stewart Limited, and I think, one other company, if they would undertake the work on a cost plus basis, and they agreed to accept five per cent, which is a much lower charge than is usually asked for such work; but it was emergency work and they said they would undertake it for that figure. The work is being divided between them. It is not being taken out of the hands of the harbour commissioners, but inasmuch as the emergency was great, the department put its facilities behind those of the commissioners, and when it came down to the question of where an engineer could be secured who had knowledge of construction work, the experience of Mr. McDonald, of Halifax, was regarded as peculiarly fitting him for such work. I telegraphed him myself and asked him to meet the representative of the Gibb firm, which he did. The harbour commissioners of Halifax were asked if they would loan him to the harbour commissioners of Saint John for the purpose of directing the construction of the work which was to be undertaken to prepare the harbour facilities for use this winter. Very reluctantly they agreed to do so, and the harbour commissioners of Saint John are making arrangements to provide the harbour commissioners of Halifax with such engineering assistance as they may require during the absence of Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald who is a most experienced man in what you might term tidal water construction work, has gone over to Saint John and will stay with the undertaking until the work is completed. In the meantime the harbour commissioner's have not been in any sense supplanted, but with their cooperation the government is endeavouring to facilitate with all the rapidity possible completion of the work necessary 22110-250J
to make the harbour available for business this winter. Had any other method been pursued it is perfectly obvious that the work would not be done. I think it is only fair to say that the engineer of the Saint John harbour commission has sufficient work to do in connection with the general undertaking of engineering and also in connection with the new work that is being done in West Saint John, with respect to which the contract is outstanding and was outstanding when this government came into power. That work is being pushed forward to completion. I fancy it will not be completed for use this winter; in fact I know it will not, so the only facilities that can be relied upon will be berths 4 and 5 and 15 and 16 and a potato shed on 17 for the purpose of enabling business to be transacted as usual. The question of grain conveyors has been given a great deal of consideration and will involve an expenditure of half a million dollars, but unless there are legs on each of the docks it will be impossible, with the rapid tide, to move ships in a harbour like Saint John, and that work is being carried on. On pier 17, where the old potato shed was, a new shed will be erected to accommodate the requirements of shippers at that point.
I may add that there is no lack of harmony between the commission, the engineer whose services they have been fortunate enough to secure and the government in pushing forward the work. The $3,500,000 originally asked for by the harbour commission to complete what I might call the new work, together with the $1,500,000 bank loan will absorb $5,000,000, and leave substantially the same amount for the completion of the repairs in connection with the old facilities.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for the full explanation he has given, which is perfectly satisfactory to me. The reports which have been appearing in the press left an impression such as the one I expressed this afternoon, and I wanted to have the matter cleared up. At the same time I wish to congratulate the government on accepting the estimate I gave the house following the fire. I then asked the government to vote $10,000,000, and that is the amount being provided.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a
word before the resolution is reported. I do not rise to delay the passage of the resolution; I think the government should be congratulated upon the speed with which they have attended to the situation existing in Saint John, but it is not with reference to that
Bonus on Wheat

matter I desire to speak. The Minister of Marine, in his preliminary remarks, and the Prime Minister in his more extended remarks, referred to a bank loan of SI,500,000. I think perhaps it would be well if the country had a little more information as to just how that loan was incurred. My understanding of the situation is that the previous harbour board let a contract to a concern known as the Atlas Construction Company for the building of what are termed the new works on the west side. That firm absolutely fell down on the undertaking, with the result that the people of this country have been called upon to pay a huge sum of money in excess of the contract price. I think these facts should be made clear.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Duranleau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 134, to provide for a further loan to the Saint John harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BONUS ON WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the governor in council may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of five cents on every bushel of wheat exported from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan of the crop of 1931, and to make provision for the determination of amounts payable thereunder, and for regulations to carry out the purpose of the act and prescribe penalties to be incurred for breach of the act or regulations.
He said: His Excellency the Governor Generali, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
I might just add that the word "Manitoba" should be added after the word "of", and before the word "Alberta." I do not know how that word happened to be left out; I take it to be my fault in that I did not read it with sufficient care. This proposal was always applicable to the three provinces, as I mentioned. With the consent of the house I should like to move that the resolution be amended to read, "Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan."
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Just in that connection, some time ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether that five cents would apply to the whole of Canada, and he said it would.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There must have been some misunderstanding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must have misunderstood my hon. friend, because I never made such a statement wittingly. I should like to look up Hansard, because I do not remember having made that answer.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PEACE RIVER OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) a question with reference to the Peace River outlet. I believe a conference was held the other day, and he may have something to tell the house with regard to this matter.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Yes, a conference was
held, but this is a large question and a great deal of consideration will be required before any definite statement can be given out. As soon as any real results come about I will be glad to tell my hon. friend and the house.



TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). There are several questions involved, in fact, but the answers are short and I believe the minister has the information before him. I should like to ask the minister: Is it true that the interest due on July 15 on the Toronto Suburban railway debenture stock has not been paid; are these debentures guaranteed by the national railways or by the government; what has been the financial situation of this railway with respect to earnings; how have interest payments been made heretofore; what action was taken by the national railways with respect to meeting the interest due on July 15 last, and what action will follow the said default in interest payments?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman told

Three Rivers Harbour
my deputy this morning that he was going to ask some question in this regard, and I will give all the information I have. This is a matter entirely in the hands of the management of the road. The debenture stock is not guaranteed by the management of the national railways or by the government of Canada. This is a subsidiary of the national railways, but thei debenture stock is not guaranteed. I have been informed unofficially that the interest was not paid; I believe that to be correct, and I have no doubt it was a decision of the management-made because of the decreased earnings and lessened business of the Canadian National Railways.
In view of the fact that my hon. friend told my deputy he was going to ask these questions I obtained figures Showing the losses of this subsidiary. In 1930 the total deficit, including interest, amounted to $198,807, with an operating deficit of $77,000. In the previous year the operating deficit was $83,000, so I presume the management decided to withhold interest payments due to the depression, just as the dividends of various kinds of industrial corporations have been discontinued.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What would be the result of this electric railway falling back into the hands of the debenture owners?


Robert James Manion: I was told by the management some time ago that if they did default, every facility would be given the debenture owners, without expenses, to take possession.



MARKETING OF WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday last. The heading is as follows:
Pool Elevators to be Separate Western Premiers Believed to Favour Bennett's Suggested Trading Corporation
Would the Prime Minister mind tabling a copy of the correspondence containing the proposals he made to the three western premiers regarding the marketing of this year's crop. At the same time, may I ask whether he has a further statement to make with reference to the same matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the latter question, I have
nothing further to add. As to the first, I
shall be glad to endeavour to get him a copy of the correspondence at six o'clock, although I might not be able to procure it until tomorrow. Roughly however, as I stated to him, the purport was, declining to enter into the marketing business on behalf of the Dominion and, secondly, suggesting that it might be desirable for the three provinces to form a trading corporation of their own, we endeavouring to assist them in their financial requirements.



CONSERVATION OF WILD LIFE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: An editorial in this morning's Citizen reminded me of a subject which I thought of bringing to the attention of the government a number of times; that is, the destruction of wild game in the west. I would commend to the favourable consideration of the government the work which Jack Minor is doing. I think the house will agree that the conservation of wild life is very essential, even in these times of distress.



PEACE RIVER OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: The Peace River outlet has been mentioned to-day. Is it the intention of the government to state some definite policy in this regard before the end of the session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has already answered that question.



THREE RIVERS HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Three Rivers harbour commissioners not exceeding $700,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specification and estimates for such work, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: What works will be
undertaken under this loan?	.


Alfred Duranleau: On September 18,
1929, an order in council was passed approving of the awarding of a contract to the Northern Construction Company Limited and
Three Rivers Harbour

G. W. Stewart for the amount of $2,660,535, for improvements in Three Rivers harbour. This was the lowest tender by $166,000, and according to the terms of the contract the works were supposed to be completed by October 31, 1931. Under a loan granted by this house the sum of $1,800,000 only was available. The contractors to date have carried out works amounting to $1,600,000, having ordered further materials amounting to over $200,000 to complete the contract. The works have progressed, but in such a way that the piers are not ready for use. The contractors have built the foundations of the whole work on which they have expended practically $1,800,000, but no section of it is yet completed. The whole of the loan made by this house of $1,800,000 has been expended to date, but, as I say, not a foot of these facilities is yet ready for use. We have to complete these works; there is no doubt about that; but we have tried as far as possible to save money. We have made some change in the plans resulting in a saving of about $300,000. Under the old plans, taking into account the small extras that have been provided for and the interest incurred during construction, together with engineers' fees and so on, we should have to ask the house for about $1,000,000 to finish the contract.


Ernest Lapointe: And the minister expects that with this $700,000 the work will be completed and will be available for use?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes; according to the reports of the chief engineer this amount will complete the undertaking. We found that, under the old plans, the pier, with two berths, was only 200 feet wide, and any practical construction man will realize that this is absolutely inadequate. Instead of building a 200 foot pier we have changed the plans somewhat, to make a straight line with the front of the government pier. This will provide a pier of 540 feet, with a 540 foot berth. The work will provide employment, because there will be a large amount of filling to be done, and we expect to have the filling made by the workmen of Three Rivers, as was done last winter. At that time, instead of securing the filling from dredging material, we provided work for the population of Three Rivers by getting earth from outside the city. It cost a little more than the sum charged by the contracting company, but under the circumstances we thought it wise to take that course in order to relieve unemployment.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows
that, anything that will give work to the unemployed of Three Rivers meets with my hearty approval. Any information which I may desire I shall ask for when the bill is in committee.


Peter Heenan: I take it that the work
will be done under the 1919 Fair Wages Act, and that fair wages will be paid the labourers.


Alfred Duranleau: That is a matter to
be adjusted with the contractors.


Peter Heenan: I do not think the minister quite understands me. An act of parliament was passed in 1930, providing that all Dominion works shall be carried on under a fair wage clause, whether they are done by contractors or by the Dominion government itself, and I am asking the minister whether or not this work will be done under that law.


Alfred Duranleau: So far as I know,
the present government has not departed from the law mentioned by my hon. friend, and I do not think it will in this instance. These works are under contract and I presume there is in the contract a clause whereby the contractor will have to comply with the law regarding fair wages. This contract was awarded in September, 1929, by the former government, and presumably a fair wage clause was inserted. We do not intend to make an}'' change in the contract in that respect.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Duranleau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 135, to provide for a further loan to the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 39, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Discounts.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I may say that this bill relates to nothing but administration, and it seems to me there can be difference of opinion with respect to only one matter which I had

Customs Act
better explain now. The act as it stands provides for certain penalties. To put the matter shortly, there is a maximum penalty of $500 and a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years. The situation is that the penalty of $500 is not sufficient and the term of seven years is too much. The fine of $500 is not sufficient because more in value can be smuggled so that it would pay a smuggler to have a maximum penalty of this amount. We seek to have that penalty made $1,000 The reverse is the case in connection with the term of imprisonment. The statute now provides seven years as the maximum, and that is too much, because juries will not convict and the accused is enabled to have twelve peremptory challenges instead of four. Since the maximum of seven years has been on the statute book there has not been one sentence of that term. We are anxious therefore that the term shall be reduced to four years and the statute made workable so far as the penalties are concerned. This question has given us a good deal of concern. It seems strange to increase the penalty in one case and to decrease it in the other. This in my opinion is the only point on which there would be any real difference, and I commend it to the committee.


Mr. YOUNG:: Section 1, subsection 6
reads:
In estimating the value for duty no discount or deduction shall be allowed which is not shown and allowed and deducted-
The two last words are underlined.
-on invoices covering sales for home consumption in the country of export in the usual and ordinary course of trade.
Where discounts are actually allowed in the country of export, will they be recognized by our department and allowed in Canada?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The reason for the
addition of the words "and deducted" is that we want the invoices to show the true history of the sale. One would think if the discount were shown and allowed, it would hardly be necessary to have this provision that it be deducted. We want the discount to appear on the invoice as deducted, so that there is a written record of the transaction and it will not be necessary therefore to find out whether it has really been allowed or not. It is suggested for the purpose of enabling the importer to receive better terms. All that this means is that the honest transaction should stand and be shown completely upon the invoice.


Edward James Young: That does not answer my
question which was this: If a United States manufacturer is allowing discounts to his customers in that country and he proposes to allow the same discount to his customers in Canada, will those discounts be recognized by the department?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They will be if the true history of the transaction as stated by my hon. friend is shown upon the invoice; if it is not a case of dumping, or if it is not a special rate fixed for duty.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
two provisos: the dumping and the special rate. There is no complaint about the dumping clause, but the department now have authority to fix value and under the circumstances I do not think this clause would be frequently applied.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The fixing of value does not arise in this case, but the hon. member for Weyburn put an all-embracing question that would include dumping duty and would mean, if a special value for duty purposes were fixed, and if the invoice showed what he stated, then we would be obliged to rely upon the invoice. But such is not the case. As I have stated, the intention is to have on the invoice, the actual, honest transaction or contract that the United States seller offers to the Canadian importer.


Edward James Young: The other day when we
were discussing the items of the budget I made the statement that under our Customs Act and customs regulations as they now stand there is a temptation for a man importing grtods into this country from another country to pay a higher price to the foreign manufacturer than he need pay in order to escape the dumping duty. I said that our regulations permit him to do that and say to him:	If you actually do pay a higher price
to the foreign manufacturer you do not have to pay the dumping duty, but if you do not pay that higher price you will have to pav the dumping duty. When I made that statement the Prime Minister replied that that was not the case to-day, and I asked when it ceased to be the case, and he replied "Some time ago." I propose to prove not only that it can happen to-day but that it does happen, and not only that it does happen but that it cannot help but happen, just as I said.
I have here a letter from the Edgerton Manufacturing Company, Plymouth, Indiana,
Customs Act

dated March 17, 1931, of which I shall read
an extract:
You may be interested in knowing that the freight rate on the cars we shipped you during the 1930 season averaged 17-6 cents per dozen packages. This amount added to the price of $1.80 per dozen, as fixed by the Dominion government, would result in a cost to you of $1-976 per dozen without taking into consideration the duty. The action of the Dominion government would increase your delivered price approximately 25 cents a dozen and likewise would result in a profit to us of about 20 cents per dozen higher than that which we enjoy on sales made in the states. We feel that our profit on Canadian business should be approximately the same as that received in connection with business done in the states.
Yours very truly,
Richard W. Burg,
Traffic Manager.
I have another letter here from the Western Cartridge Company, East Alton, Illinois, dated May 6, 1930, a portion of which I shall read:
On January 3rd this year we reduced ammunition prices to all of our customers in the United States by 10 per cent, and we extended the same discount at the same time to our customers in Canada.
That is why I asked the question I did a minute ago. The letter continues:
The Canadian commissioner of customs has refused to accept this extra discount of 10 per cent on shipments of our goods into Canada, and has threatened to charge dumping duty against our goods so invoiced; and, based on this decision of the commissioner, we have been obliged to withdraw these reduced prices from our Canadian customers and are now invoicing them at a price 10 per cent higher than we charge any of our domestic jobbing trade. This additional 10 per cent is, of course, in the last analysis paid by the consumer of Western ammunition in the Dominion, and we regard it is distinctly unfair to him and his interests.
We have been told that the commissioner's decision was based on a brief presented to the Dominion government in Ottawa by the Dominion Cartridge Company, in which brief they indicated their reasons for protesting the reduction in price of American-made ammunition. We should like to obtain a copy of this Dominion Cartridge Company brief as presented to the government, in order to be in a position to present, if advisable, our answer to it.
I put a question on the order paper some time ago asking for a copy of that brief, but it was denied me. Here we find our customs department saying to the Canadian purchasers of American ammunition: You must pay 10 per cent more for that ammunition than these manufacturers are willing to accept from their American customers and 10 per cent more than they are asking you for, or otherwise we will make you pay that extra 10 per cent into the Dominion treasury. That 
is just what I said the other day would happen.
Here is a letter dated Ottawa, March 22, 1931:
In reply to your inquiry as to the effect of the change in discount on imported automobiles, basing the former discount at 30 per cent and the present discount at 20 per cent, the list price of the car being $1,000, I have to advise you as follows:
$1,000 less 20 per cent equals $800; at 20 per cent equals $160 duty.
$800 plus $160 equals $960 duty paid value; at 5 per cent equals $48 excise tax.
$960 at 1 per cent equals $9.60 sales tax.- Total, $217.60.
The next statement is this:
$1,000 less 30 per cent equals $700; at 20 per cent equals $140 duty.
$700 plus $140 equals $840 duty paid value; at 5 per cent equals $42 excise tax.
$840 at 1 per cent equals $8.40 sales tax.- Total, $190.40.
Then mark this statement:
If the importer pays $800 for his car special duty will not be applicable. On the other hand, if fie purchases the car at $700 a special duty equal to $100 will be payable.
R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs.
The statement I made the other day that our customs laws and regulations as they stand at present tempt, almost force, a Canadian importer to send a larger amount of money out of the country to American or other foreign manufacturers in payment for his goods is amply substantiated by these letters, one of which is signed by the commissioner of customs himself. Not only does that happen, but under the act as it stands it must happen.
In the short session last fall we amended the Customs Act. I have a copy here of the amendments, but I shall read only the one that applies to this particular case. Section 2 reads:
Section 37 of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:-
37. In determining the fair market value for duty of goods imported into Canada, the prices of which are published or listed by the manufacturers or producers, or persons acting on their behalf, the governor in council may from time to time fix and determine a certain rate of discount which may be applied to such published or listed prices, and such published or listed prices, subject to the deduction of the amount of discount, according to such rate, shall be deemed and taken to be the fair market values of any such manufactures or productions respectively as are specified in such order in council.
That is to say, we gave the minister power to fix a certain rate of discount on goods sent here at list price, and the list price after subtracting that rate of discount shall be

Customs Act
the value of the goods for duty purposes. At the same session last September we amended the customs tariff, section 6. I will read the amendment:
In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value of the same article when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of its exportation to Canada, or is less than the fair market value, or value for duty thereof as determined under the provisions of section 36 of the Customs Act, or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the governor in council under the provisions of section 37 of the Customs Act, or is less than the value for duty thereof as determined by the minister under the provisions of paragraph (a) and (e) of section 41 of the Customs Act, or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the minister under the provisions of section 43 of the Customs Act, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof or value for duty thereof; and such special or dumping duty shall be levied, collected and paid on such article although it is not otherwise dutiable.
I have ifnderlined the parts that apply particularly to the question we have under consideration, of goods shipped in here at list price, subject to discount. I will read now the underlined parts by themselves:
In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada ... .is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the governor in council under the provisions of section 37 of the Customs Act, .... there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof or value for duty thereof; and such special or dumping duty shall be levied, collected and paid on such article although it is not otherwise dutiable.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, by the amendments made last fall we gave the minister power to fix a certain discount on these listed goods wdiich had the effect of fixing a certain value for duty. The value for duty having been fixed, then we amended the customs tariff in such a way that that value for duty as fixed by the minister had to be the actual purchase price of the goods. Therefore, if any man imported those goods into Canada for less than the price fixed by the minister he was exposed to the imposition of a dumping duty. The only way he could expect to avoid that dumping duty was to pay the same
amount of money over to the American manufacturer instead of paying it into the treasury.
That is the position in which we find ourselves as a result of the insane desire which possessed this government last fall to shut out goods from other countries at no matter what cost; it did not matter to them what the effect would be on Canadian trade; it did not matter what the cost would be to Canadian purchasers. The whole thing is this:	The Canadian importer is faced with
a choice of one of two things, either he must pay a higher price to the American manufacturer for the articles he buys or the government will fine him an equal amount in dumping duties. That is a situation I have repeatedly drawm to the attention of the minister and I hope he will understand what it means. I hope that at this session before the house prorogues an amendment to the customs tariff will be brought in which will give Canadians the right to purchase goods in other markets as cheaply as the people in other countries can purchase them, and legislation which will not force Canadians to pay a higher price to American manufacturers for the goods they wish to buy.


John Livingstone Brown: Would the minister tell
us whether the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has correctly interpreted the act?


Mr. EULER:: I was going to ask that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, this bill
does not deal with the merits, if I may so call them, which the hon. member for Weyburn discussed. It says that a discount to be allowed must be shown upon the invoice, and this will be true whether or not the minister has power to fix the value for duty. It prescribes the form of the invoiee used when importing goods into Canada.


John Livingstone Brown: Those remarks refer entirely and only to the bill before the house at the moment. I hope hon. members opposite who have been so ready and willing to cry " Carried, carried " will take note of the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn regarding changes made last fall. I think the hon. member has correctly placed the facts before the house.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: We know
about that.


John Livingstone Brown: But the people at home do not know it.


William Daum Euler: I think the minister is quite right when he says that the matter to which the hon. member for Weyburn has referred
Customs Act

has no direct connection with the matter before the committee, and I may say in passing that I am in agreement with the legislation contained in this particular clause. I rise however to seek information on the point raised by the hon. member for Weyburn. Possibly I am out of order, but I think it only fair to revert to those matters because there may be no other opportunity of doing so. A few days ago I asked a question similar to that asked by my hon. friend from Weyburn, namely whether the dumping duty would apply when a value was fixed arbitrarily on any commodity imported into Canada, and whether, if the importer did not actually pay the price which was fixed arbitrarily for duty purposes only, the dumping duty would then apply. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) replied that it would not, but I think he was in error. If in fact he was mistaken I think a correction should be made before the committee. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) would answer yes or no to the question asked by my hon. friend from Weyburn. I believe unintentionally an incorreot reply was made by the Minister of Finance. In my opinion the dumping duty does apply, and I must say we have pretty good proof of it. It always did apply under the old clause which permitted the governor in council, through the Minister of National Revenue, to fix a price on natural products. When we fixed a price on natural products that price was taken as the basis for a dump. I think the same was done when the minister fixed a price of $1 a ton on soft coal. If that soft coal was actually purchased at 60 cents a ton, as it might have been, then the duty was 50 cents a ton. There was a dump however of the difference between 60 cents, the actual price, and the dollar fixed by the minister. I think then the dump of 40 cents was applied. If it was done in one case I suppose it would apply in all other cases, but I think the minister should say whether or not that is the fact.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has admitted that this discussion is outside the ambit of the bill.


William Daum Euler: I asked the question only because a wrong answer was given.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Prime Minister having given one answer and the hon. member for North Waterloo being of another opinion I should like to look into the matter before stating my view.
[Mr. EuJer.l


John Livingstone Brown: I feel the proper view is that expressed by the hon. member for Weyburn.


Edward James Young: We ought to know what the minister thinks.


William Daum Euler: If the minister is not sure we shall have to ask him some other time.


Edward James Young: If he is not sure, I think he ought to be, because three months have passed since I first drew his attention to the matter. The other day when I mentioned it again he laughed, and he laughs now. Surely he ought to have a serious moment when he might look into the matter. I think we have a right to know the correct interpretation of the law. There is a law which gives power to fix an arbitrary valuation, and which states that the difference .between the invoice price and the price he fixes shall be levied and paid.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: I do not think the matter is debatable on this particular section.


Edward James Young: This section deals with discounts.


Finlay MacDonald: The section now before the committee merely refers to the administration of the act and states that the words "and deducted" shall be added to the section. The minister says he will deal with the point raised by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Territorial waters defined.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman I desire to move an amendment to this section. My reason is that recently there has been a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which would show that the present section is ultra vires of this parliament. An appeal is being taken, but if the statute of Westminster comes into force this section 5 will be appropriate. I am therefore asking to make this amendment:
That subsection 7 of section 5 be amended by adding thereto the following:
Subsection 7 shall come into operation upon a date to be proclaimed by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette.
I will ask my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to move this amendment.


Mr. RHODES:: I move the amendment
accordingly.


William Daum Euler: Three or four years ago,
when I had the honour of being Minister of

Customs Act
National Revenue, I introduced an amendment which was carried under some protest, extending the ordinary three mile limit to twelve miles with regard to the right of seizing liquor-laden vessels which were supposed to be destined to Canadian ports. At that time I think the present Prime Minister and others questioned the validity of such an enactment. However, I said, "We will try it for what it is worth." The minister has now referred to the fact that in a case brought into court recently the section was declared ultra vires, and that the government proposed to lodge an appeal. I suppose that means that the case will be appealed to the privy council. If this section is acknowledged hy him to be ultra vires, is he hoping by an appeal to the privy council to establish the validity of the amendment made some years ago?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We hope to establish
the validity of this legislation and that the decision of the supreme court is wrong in law. We are supporting, as I understand it, the position that was taken by my hon. friend some years ago. The decision of the supreme court is to the effect that outside the three mile limit we have not the jurisdiction which my hon. friend desired to give, and which we desire to maintain.


William Daum Euler: I am very glad to hear that, for it rather vindicates the position I took at the time, and indicates a right-about-face on the part of those who then opposed it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We are always just.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Arrest without vrarrant for indictable offence-jurisdiction of officer making arrest.
Charles A. Stewart: What is
the reason for the reference to the criminal code?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: At present there may
be offences against the Customs act that would not be indictable under the criminal code. Naturally we want to have it declared by this legislation that indictable offences whether against the Customs act or the criminal code may be dealt with by customs officers acting on reasonable and probable grounds.


William Daum Euler: Does it not in effect mean
that where a regular customs officer has the right by virtue of his office to make an
arrest, and, the ordinary preventive officer has not that right, it is proposed to give the latter that right?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes.


Edward James Young: I should like to know exactly what powers the minister gives to his preventive officers. I received a complaint some time ago that a certain family on returning home found their house in possession of a stranger who had broken open a trunk and was rifling the contents. On being asked what business he had there he said he was a preventive officer and had a right to make the search. I should like to know from the minister whether if a man finds a stranger in his house under those circumstances he has not a right to use a club on him?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The facts to which my hon. friend refers have not come to my notice. In the past preventive officers have been men who have a reasonable knowledge of their duty and act accordingly. I can think of only two cases of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend. If there is an honest belief on the part of the preventive officer that the customs laws have been broken, for instance, that goods have been smuggled, then the officer has specific instructions to proceed just as if he was following His Majesty's writ and make a search. I would be very much surprised to hear that officers of the preventive service were guilty of making oppressive searches without being properly instructed and without a reasonable belief that the law had been infringed.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Who gives them the
necessary authority?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The officers have the
authority that the statute gives them. There is a chief inspector and I have no doubt that any preventive officer would consult the chief inspector before making an oppressive search, unless he was in the very midst of infractions of the customs law. There are no officers running around loose jumping into men's houses and ransacking them. As I say, I have heard of only two cases of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young). In one of those cases there was absolute justification; as to the other case I have not yet heard all the facts.


Mr. ERNST:: I think it might be correct
to say that their powers of search come under a writ of assistance granted by the Exchequer Court of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Customs Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 9-Further penalty if value two hundred dollars or over.
William Daum Euler: I do not understand from
the explanatory note the reason for the reduction of the minimum fine from $500 to $200. I am not objecting to it particularly, but I should like to know the reason for the change.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As the note explains,
the maximum fine, not the minimum, was $500. We desire now that the maximum fine be $1,000 and the minimum $200. Formerly the term of imprisonment was seven years, now we desire that it be made four years for the reason stated in the note. There has not been one conviction under this seven year law and we feel there must be a stringent law that will compel the observance of the Customs Act. If hon. members will read the note they will see the purpose of the legislation.


Edward James Young: In the explanatory note on the opposite page I find the following words:
-it will be made more difficult for a defendant by exercising his right of peremptory challenge to select a jury to his liking.
Is that the purpose of the legislation, to make it more difficult for the defendant?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No; my hon. friend does not understand it correctly. This will make it more difficult for the defendant to get a jury to his liking. When the term of imprisonment may be five years or over the accused is allowed twelve challenges; when it is under five years he has but four challenges, and we desire that the defendant should have but four challenges. In cases of this kind it is hard to get a jury who will find a man guilty when the penalty may 'be seven years imprisonment, no matter how serious the infraction of the law, but at one time-and my hon. friends know when that was-parliament thought it advisable to make the penalty seven years. That has not accomplished what parliament set up to do.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Where goods of the value of two hundred dollars or over.
William Daum Euler: I think this embodies a very radical departure from the old act. Perhaps I might refer to something that is more or less history. Three or four years ago, Shortly after the customs investigation, it was thought desirable that persons who smuggled goods to the value of $200 or over, if found guilty should be sent to prison without the option of a fine. I remember that when I introduced the amendment I found a great deal of

opposition from those who were supposed to be supporting me and a great deal of support from those on the opposite side, I think notably the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Justice. That amendment was adopted. Now I see there is a departure from that method; I take it that this clause means that a person convicted of smuggling to the value of $200 or over need not necessarily be sent to prison but that the judge has the option of imposing a fine or imprisonment. I should like to ask the minister if that is not the meaning of this section.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is quite correct.


William Daum Euler: I think the reason for this change is that in some of the provinces east of Ottawa-we will not say just how far east- it was found impossible to get a conviction in connection with liquor smugglers who had brought in good's to the value of $200 or over, so that really the law was a dead letter and defeated its own purpose. Juries would find culprits not guilty rather than find them guilty and send them to gaol. Perhaps they would have been quite content to bring in a verdict of guilty if a substantial fine could have been imposed. I am rather inclined to agree with this change; in fact last year I had some thought of bringing in an amendment to the same effect, but I was just a little doubtful whether one should make a right about face so quickly. I am quite in accord with the amendment now proposed.


Edward James Young: I should like to ask how far back in a man's career the officials may go to get this total value of S200. Will they go back six months?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, this means for one offence.


Edward James Young: This is the way I have known it to work out: A certain man's house was raided and the preventive officers searched through his papers. He had been indiscreet enough to keep papers; he had kept all his store bills for years back. He lived near the border, a long distance from any Canadian town and had purchased goods in the United States because there was no other place where he could buy them. He had purchased lumber there which was incorporated in his buildings. The preventive officer came along and found these papers-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Showing offences?


Edward James Young: Showing he had bought
these goods in the United States. There was no place within miles where he could report them, after he had purchased them in the

Customs Act
United States because it was the handiest place, and in fact, the only place where he could buy them. He did just as you or I would have done.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, I separate myself
from that statement.


Edward James Young: I hope my hon. friend is
as good as he thinks he is; I will say, then, that this man did as any ordinary Christian would have done. The preventive officers totalled up the bills, which ran into several hundred dollars and the poor fellow is billed with an amount he will never be able to pay as long as he lives. I want to ask the minister if there should not be a time limit in connection with these offences.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend mean
to say that the officers have added together the value of individual importations in order to make up the $200?


Edward James Young: Yes.
Mr. EULEiR:	Surely that would not be
sound; the $200 is supposed to apply to one individual shipment.


William Gordon Ernst: He might be harbouring
several shipments at the one time.


Edward James Young: He had bought lumber,
which was incorporated in his buildings years previously. The officers found the bills for that lumber and added everything together, making the man pay a fine equal to the duty X>aid value of the goods. The man will never be able to pay this amount; a preventive officer calls on him every once in a while, and the man is at his wit's end.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Officials with powers of two justices.
Mr. GERSHAW:: I should like to point
out that some farmers who live close to the boundary find great difficulty in locating a customs officer in order to report their purchases; in the sparsely settled districts they may have to travel thirty or forty miles. I wonder if the minister would consider appointing postmasters or other reliable people in some of these sparsely settled districts who could carry on the work of the officers and save these farmers the long journeys they must make in order to report their purchases.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I know that the difficulty of which my hon. friend speaks does exist, particularly in districts such as the one from which my hon. friend comes, where there are stretches of land along the border perhaps
sparsely settled. There is difficulty experienced by a resident in passing his goods through customs, and endeavour has been made by the department to help in these cases, where that can be done reasonably. In some cases I understand they have been allowed to observe the customs law in a generous way, always keeping in mind the necessity for the collection of the full duty. There is that difficulty, however, and if my hon. friend has anything to suggest I will be glad to consider it.


James J. Donnelly: I do not see why the mounted police or some other authority could not take from settlers a list of their effects and report to the customs. In my constituency there is one section in which the customs offices are some 60 or 70 miles apart. A man coming with a wagonful of settlers' effects and desiring to settle close to the line discovers when he gets there that he must go still further north into Saskatchewan, a distance of 30 miles, before he can find roads going east and west. He then has to travel east 40 miles and south a considerable distance, so that altogether he is put to a great deal of unnecessary trouble. It seems to me that he might go to a justice of the peace or some designated person of good repute who would take a statement from him as to the amount of goods he had brought in, exempt by reason of being settler's effects. I submit that some arrangement of that kind should be made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Gordon Ernst: I was not here when section 5 was passed, and I should like to ask the minister a question regarding it. On a former occasion I took the position that the power which the department sought in this regard was really ultra vires of parliament. I would remind the minister that in the Dunphy case this power was held to be ultra vires. I was wondering whether in passing that section he had in mind the statute of Westminster-


Finlay MacDonald: There has been an amendment
to that section.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.



ROOT VEGETABLES ACT


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I do not think that the amendments should be concurred, in. The Senate ibas added a clause which is not only unnecessary
Root Vegetables Act

but which will be very inconvenient and dilatory. They have added to clause 1, as a subclause, the following:
Such regulations shall come into effect from the date of publication in the Canada Gazette, except as provided in paragraph 2 of subsection 1 of this section; and-
This is the part objected to.
[DOT]-shall be printed in the prefix in the next succeeding issue of the Dominion statutes.
That is to say, the amendment to the Root Vegetables Act shall be printed in the prefix to the statutes. It is pointed out by the law clerk that this might hold up for some time the publication of the statutes. These regulations may be changed before the statutes are issued and they will only mislead the public. I do not think their honours in the Senate could have fully considered that. The same difficulty arose two or three years ago with a similar amendment and it had to be blotted out by another statute in this house. I suggest the omission from the amendment of these words:
And shall be printed in the prefix in the next succeeding issue of the Dominion statutes.
That would allow the regulations to be published in the Canada Gazette-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: In the usual way.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. The regulations
might be changed from week to week, and if they were in the statutes it would only mislead the public. I move that we do not concur, but that the matter be referred back to the Senate.


Mr. NEILL:: Is there not some of it
that you accept?


Hugh Guthrie: All but the words I have indicated. I move that the appropriate message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours with the fact that this house does not concur in the words:
And shall be printed in the prefix in the next succeeding issue of the Dominion statutes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Guthrie, seconded
by Mr. Weir (Melfort). moves:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees from their amendments to Bill No. 87, an act to amend the Root Vegetables Act, for the following reason:
The proposal to print the following words in the clause of the amendment "and shall be printed in the prefix in the next succeeding issue of the Dominion statutes," might delay for some time the publication of the statute, and be misleading to the public, as the regulations are frequently changed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (for Mr. Bennett) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Old Age Pensions Act by increasing the amount of the payment to the provinces for old age pensions from one-half to seventy-five per cent of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions, and to provide for the examination and audit of expenditures in the province and the accounts relating thereto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that the only
change is the substitution of "seventy-five" for "fifty," and to provide that the acceptance of the increased amount shall enable the Dominion to make such investigations and inquiries as may be necessary to ensure that the moneys so paid have been expended for the purposes intended. The statute provides that the agreements shall have a life of at least ten years. That is to say, the existing agreements are predicated upon the assumption that the provisions of the statute regarding the length of time during which the subsidy of fifty per ednt was payable shall be maintained for ten years. There may be some questions to be considered later in that regard, but at the moment no question arises with respect to the substitution of "seventy-five" for "fifty." My only regret is that the situation does not warrant making the sum larger. In any event the whole proposal is but temporary in character, and contemplates a contributory system to old age pensions as was mentioned in the House of Commons when the Old Age Pension bill was under consideration. For that reason this provision has been made for the year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right hon. friend indicate what additional outlay will be occasioned per annum under this change?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is exactly half as much again as we paid last year. A few days ago I gave the figures, but I do not care to rely upon my memory. I shall see that they are given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I should like to make is that this means a very considerable increase in the amount of money to be handed over from the federal treasury

Old Age Pensions Act
to the provinces for their administration. The Prime Minister has, I think, indicated if not promised that the present administration will give 100 per cent of old age pensions, and if that is what he is working up to by this measure, it seems to me that the time already presents itself when he should consider the desirability of having the entire fund administered by the federal government. I cannot see any justification for the government handing hundreds of millions of dollars- because that is what this ere long will likely mean-over to the provinces for them to administer as an old age pension fund, the federal parliament providing something like 100 per cent of the oultay, and not itself taking in hand the work of administration. The constitutional difficulty was among the reasons why originally, when the Old Age Pension Act was passed, there was an arrangement whereby 50 per cent of the amount would be transferred to the provinces. But it was never contemplated that if .that amount of 50 per cent were exceeded, the federal government itself would not take over the administration of the old age pension law in its entirety. I should like to suggest to my right hon. friend if anything of this kind is in contemplation and the British North America Act in any respect stands in the way, he should take immediate steps to have the provisions of the act so amended as to give the federal government the right without delay to administer the entire old age pension law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestion of the right hon. gentleman is a most reasonable one, but I think the ex-Minisiter of Justice will agree that when the statute of Westminster is passed we shall find it much easier than we do now to deal with a situation of this character. My own view is that no amendment to the British North America Act is required to deal with this problem on one phase of it, and in the preamble to the bill I have indicated that the census of the year will form the basis of actuarial computations that would warrant a contributory system on a national scale being embarked upon. As the right hon. gentleman will recall, we discussed that without going into detail when the original proposal was made. As the matter stands, I know of no constitutional impediment to the federal parliament voting 50 per cent of the sums paid by the provinces to old age pensions. I think it will be agreed that if there is no constitutional impediment against paying 50 per cent, there is none with respect to paying 75 per cent, and it is clear that it is not only probable but almost
certain that there will be an increase in the payments made under this statute by reason of other provinces, now that the sum has been increased to the amount I have mentioned, availing themselves of its provisions. In the meantime I assure the committee that the whole problem is being considered from the angle of a contributory system predicated upon an actuarial valuation of the liabilities that would be involved. That is not as simple as perhaps would appear from the mere statement of it, but this year's census will enable us to determine with some degree of exactitude what is involved, and if there are any constitutional limitations upon our activities in that direction, I think the house will be only too glad to remove them. I do not contemplate any difficulty on that score.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
there is no constitutional difficutly in the matter of making grants to the provinces, but do I understand, if the contributory system of which my right hon. friend speaks becomes a government measure, it will be administered by the federal government; that is, that the old age pensions will be administered by the federal government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my judgment the answer to that would be in the affirmative. While one should not speak with any degree of certainty as to what conclusions might be arrived at in the light of further information or knowledge, I have in mind the thought that this and allied social insurance matters might be administered by a commission that would have the powers of a body corporate, but that would administer the act as a federal undertaking. My own view is that there is no constitutional difficulty in the way of administering such an act as a federal undertaking on a contributory basis.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my right hon. friend mean by "on a contributory basis"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that we should
do as is done by many countries; determine the number of people that have to be provided for. That the census will show. Then the expectation of life can be ascertained by actuaries and the capital sum involved would be arrived at by multiplying the number of expectant annuitants in given years by S240. The amount of contributions that would have to be made by every person who hoped to share ultimately in the distribution of that fund would be a matter of calculation. It is not unreasonable to say that all who hope, after a given period, to share in old age pensions should, commencing at a certain period of time, make a contribution.
Old Age Pensions Act


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon.
friend think, if this is made compulsory, it will not be beyond the powers of this parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you put it just as
compulsory, as the statute now stands, it might be regarded as ultra vires, but if you made it conditional on all those who received benefits being compelled to make contributions, then that option is not compulsion.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: And if the condition is
not met, then the system would not work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill to be
introduced will be an amendment to the existing statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Edward James Young: I would like to call the Prime Minister's attention to what appear to be to me one or two injustices in the working out of the present act. In one case a woman who has lived all her life in Canada, and raised a family here, now finds herself with her husband dead, her family scattered, and no home of her own in any province; she spends her time living with friends, a few months in Ontario, a few months in Manitoba, a few months in Saskatchewan, and so on. Yet she is totally unable to qualify for an old age pension because she cannot establish "residence in any province.
The other is the case of a woman who came to this country when she was over fifty years, who speaks a foreign language, and settled in a remote district where there was no opportunity to learn the English language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is she married or single?


Edward James Young: Married. Going before a
judge of the district to qualify for citizenship, she could not qualify because dhe had not an adequate knowledge of English. An injustice is done in both these cases that was not intended in the act, and I trust that the Prime Minister will give these two classes of cases his consideration in framing his amendments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say in reply to my hon. friend from Weyfourn that whatever difficulties may have been experienced, this statute does not endeavour to remedy them; it merely accepts the situation, and increases the financial responsibility from 50 to 75 per cent. There have been what appeared to be cruel hardships in some cases, and there have also been impositions upon the fund in other cases. I would hesitate to take the time of the committee in indicating some of the charges on the fund which have been imposed upon the provinces, as well as upon the Dominion. People in moderately good circumstances have disposed of their properties and qualified to receive the old age pension. It dame to my attention that in one case there was quite a little settlement of them in one province receiving the $20 per month, and when one of them presented his cheque to the bank for payment, the

Old Age Pensions Act
banker said, "What is this for? Surely you are not getting an old age pension, because you have a substantial sum of money on deposit in this bank." The man said that he had managed to get it, that somebody had told him he should have it. It is cases such as that which impel the addition of a provision to provide for the closest scrutiny with respect to payments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should a contributory system be under discussion there may be differences of view with regard to it, and the government may be faced with the possibility of having to carry on the original scheme increasing to 100 per cent the amount that is going to the provinces, or take over the entire administration itself. I would therefore suggest that the Prime Minister institute steps immediately to clear the way for the possibility of the federal government itself at the earliest possible moment administering the old age pension scheme, so that if parliament is asked to make any larger contribution out of the federal treasury it will be sure that it will have the right to administer the moneys in its own hands, and that no exception can be taken to its administering the scheme in its entirety. Indeed it should secure this right where the amount of the federal contribution exceeds 50 per cent as will be the case when the bill based on this resolution is enacted. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider that aspect of it and secure as early as possible some amendment, to the British North America Act, if that be necessary, to enable the federal government from now on to administer the old age pension act.


Alan Webster Neill: I am rather surprised that
the Prime Minister has announced what really is a very important departure of policy at this late stage, and in a rather casual way, connected with a bill that does not immediately refer to that matter. He must have had it somewhat in the forefront of his mind, for he tells us that he has been .consulting the actuaries of the department with regard to it. I cannot recall that it formed any issue on any platform in the election campaign, or that any reference was made to it in the speech from the throne, and it would be there that I would look to see what really is a radically new policy. The Prime Minister has indicated that he does not wish to discuss details, but perhaps he would oblige me on this one point. As has been pointed out, if contributions are made compulsory the question of constitutionality will arise. If, as the Prime Minister rather indicated, the contributions are
made voluntarily, then this question will arise:	Thrifty people, good citizens perhaps,
would make their contributions, but there is always a proportion who are not good citizens and who dissipate any money they get one way or another, and when they come to old age they would be old and destitute and yet would not be eligible for relief. Could we tell them: It is your own fault. You should have contributed to this voluntary scheme when you were young and able? To tell anyone in such circumstances that he or she should have done something years ago is very little use. It is our duty to let no one starve in this country. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would be fully aware of that aspect. What I wanted to ask was, would the Prime Minister be willing to give the assurance that in case such a contributory scheme is started, those who are now old and unable to contribute will be taken care of under the present system or something allied to it.


Mr. HEAPS:: Before the Prime Minister
thinks of adopting any scheme of contributory old age pensions I hope he will give the matter his very serious consideration, because I know of no English-speaking country where a person receiving a pension at the age of seventy pays any contribution towards pension. In Great Britain, of which the Prime Minister spoke, the pension is paid at the age of sixty-five, and the pensioner contributes towards that pension only for that portion of his life between sixty-five and seventy years of age. Beyond seventy years of age the whole obligation becomes a national obligation and the pensioner contributes nothing. Consequently there is no analogy between the system of pensions in Great Britain and the system of pensions in this country. I am not going to speak on the constitutional side of this question. I know it is very important. I am afraid, however, that if we were to attempt a compulsory system of pensions on a contributory basis, it would be almost impossible in this Dominion.
My reason for rising was to speak about another matter which has not been mentioned this afternoon. It is one which I am sure will appeal to the sympathies of most of the members of the house. For a number of years there has been a very strong agitation in Canada to give pensions to the blind people of this Dominion, and I am just wondering if the government would take into consideration the question of providing pensions for the blind. I am not at the moment fully conversant with the provisions of other old age

Old Age Pensions Act

Pensions acts in other countries or how they deal with the blind, but I am under the impression that in some countries where the blind people receive a pension there is a special provision in the act whereby blind people are eligible for the pension at an age much below that of the ordinary pensioner under the act. I was wondering if the government would take into consideration, when the act comes before parliament this session, the insertion of a clause which would give to the blind people of this Dominion a pension at an age at which I think the blind people ought to receive it. I do not think it is necessary to deal in any way this afternoon with the difficulties the blind people have in this Dominion. I think the matter speaks for itself, and undoubtedly action will depend on possibilities of financing. The cause is so great however that I think the Minister of Finance would be well advised to find ways and means of giving a pension to the blind payable at an earlier age than that stipulated in the Old Age Pensions Act.


Peter Heenan: At this stage I do not
intend to go into this matter at length; before doing so I should like to see the bill, and I take it for granted that there will be opportunity for further discussion on the second reading. I should like, however, to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the appeal with respect to the blind made by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). Deputations from the blind people made frequent representations to the late administration, and on casual survey we found that it would cost about a million and a half dollars to include in the pension scheme the blind people of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that the share of the
federal government, or the total cost?


Peter Heenan: The total cost.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Half of it would be a federal responsibility.


Peter Heenan: That is my recollection. I do not mind saying to the Prime Minister that assurance was given to the blind people that on the first occasion old age pensions were dealt with they would be given consideration.
My hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) has brought up a point which should receive the attention of the government. He has referred to people applying for pensions who must be residents of a province for at least five years. When the act was in its initial stages we realized that at first only a few of the provinces would take advantage of old

age pensions, and it was our desire to protect the provinces which would enter the joint scheme. It was manifest that when the act was passed the province of British Columbia would participate at once. Realizing that if other provinces did not take advantage of the legislation there would be an inducement for old people to go to the province of British Columbia to receive the benefits of the old age pension, we included in the legislation a stipulation that a person must be in a province for five years before he or she would be permitted to receive any benefits. Times have changed, and to-day we find that five provinces are participating in this joint scheme. Three other provinces have passed legislation to participate in the benefits, with the result that of the nine provinces eight seek the advantages of the legislation. Consequently I believe we have reached a time when the five year provision might well be eliminated. We have reached the stage where anyone in Canada who within five years may have had reason to move from one province to another should receive the benefits to be derived from old age pensions. Canada has been built up by the pioneers, men and women who went from one part of the country to another, and made names for themselves in new territory.
Apart from that I wish to reserve my further remarks until the bill is before me. I should like to ask a question concerning the audit for which provision is made in the resolution. Does the Prime Minister not think that there is sufficient power provided under the regulations made under the act. Provision is made that-
The minister charged with the administration of the act may at any time require the province to furnish information, detailed or otherwise, in connection with statements of account rendered by the province.
I was wondering if the Prime Minister had overlooked that section, or whether it is not sufficient to cover the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn referred to some of the difficulties in connection with the administration of the act, and I pointed out that when the statute was passed in 1927 these words were inserted as section 4:
Every agreement made pursuant to this act shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to determine the agreement is given by the governor general to the lieutenant governor of the province with which the same was made.
The act contemplated that in the first instance the provinces should pass old age

Old Age Pensions Act
pensions statutes, such matters being clearly within their constitutional rights. Then the Dominion undertook to pay 50 per cent of such expenditures. Section 5 further provides:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this act comes into operation the governor in council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the governor in council.
In other words, by the joint operation of provincial and federal statutes the agreement becomes one which cannot be altered by either party without the consent of the other. For instance when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River refers to difficulties connected with the five year period I point out to him only that the statute was in operation from 1927 until 1930, during which time no change was made, and it still remains as it was passed. Whether or not it was thought desirable to leave it as it is one can conclude only from the fact that it was not changed.
With respect to what has been said by the hon. members for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) concerning the blind, I may say that representations no doubt similar to those made to previous governments were made to the present government respecting these most deserving people. It is admitted that in the first instance the obligation is provincial in character. Until further provisions are made by the provinces it would be obviously unfair to ask the Dominion to carry the load, for the simple reason that for many years the education of the blind has engaged the attention of provincial legislatures. For instance in Nova iScotia, where I believe there is one blind person for every 1,000 of population, there is a school for the blind, the principal of which was honoured by His Majesty some years ago with a knighthood. The school has an international reputation, and through the expenditures by the province as well as private benefactions it has been enabled to carry on a very excellent work. I think the same may be said concerning other provinces. The federal government donates a small sum to two or three organizations in the province of Quebec which have in view the interests of the blind. Ontario makes the same provision as do the other provinces for the education of the blind. Concerning a pension for the blind, I spoke to the delegates of organizations which appeared before me in practically the same terms as did my predecessor, namely that in the first instance the provinces have not indicated any intention of taking action.
Until they do indicate a determination to discharge an obligation which constitutionally is theirs, action by the federal government will have to wait. Of course the blind who have been deprived of their sight by the war are taken care of by the military pensions act.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), for some reason best known to himself, said that in my remarks to-day I had proposed a policy. I did not do that, nor had I any intention of so doing. I said to him and to the committee that when the Old Age Pensions Act was being considered we had discussed the question of a contributory system, and had further considered compulsory contributions. I said I had instructed that the figures be gathered together in order that I might be informed as to the situation. I said this without in any sense indicating that it could be treated as a policy. My mind was running along the idea of some system in a new country like this being entered upon that would not leave, as some of the older countries have found, a very large number of old and dependent people to be provided for, but that beginning in their youthful years, as soon as they were able to earn their living, by making contributions, large or small, there would be accumulated a fund that would ensure them from want in their old age. That is a very different thing from enunciating a policy, which I have not done, and which I would not do on the committee stage of a resolution dealing with an increase of the federal contribution from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent; I do not think I would choose that as the occasion for a declaration of policy on a matter of this kind. I merely indicated it to the committee in order that its members might consider the problem, because they have given a great deal of attention to it. For instance, the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) has, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has, and the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has, and as well the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I merely mentioned these matters because it occurred to me that it is desirable that such matters affecting the welfare of this country should be thought of from time to time, regardless of our party affiliations, and I was merely making the suggestion that this was worthy of their consideration. In fact my mind is free to arrive at any conclusion that after mature consideration I think may be best for the country as a whole.
Old Age Pensions Act


Ernest Lapointe: I have always been in favour of an old age pension system, but I earnestly wish that some means might be devised under which all the provinces would be treated alike and would share equally in all rights and privileges under the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I am of the opinion that if my right hon. friend had made up his mind to change the present statute, he should have gone the whole way and made it 100 per cent, because by increasing the federal contribution from 50 to 75 per cent the burden on those provinces which have not adopted the scheme will be increased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Ernest Lapointe: For instance, in my own province there is considerable difficulty to be met in the handling of this question. In the province of Quebec the old and needy people have always been looked after in various institutions to which the provincial government contributes a large amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And largely by family arrangement.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Under this system of course the province will continue to contribute to all those institutions a very large amount; for after all I think it is recognized that the old people are very well looked after in my province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Apart from that, the people of Quebec will contribute their share of the 75 per cent which will go to all the other provinces. If my right hon. friend were adopting a federal system of old age pensions -I mean a hundred per cent contribution-then either the province would cease to contribute to those institutions or possibly some other arrangements might be made in virtue of which part of the money would be reimbursed to the province for the contributions which it makes to those various institutions. I simply submit that for my right hon. friend's consideration. As it is, the system works in an unfair way towards the province of Quebec. I do not want to be critical in any way, but somewhere in my room I have a report of a speech delivered by my right hon. friend when he visited my city of Quebec, in which he told the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Electors.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the electors-and his hearers there gave him a very fine reception, as he acknowledged-that the Old Age Pen-

sions Act was not applied to Quebec because the province could not see its way to accept it; but that he, my right hon. friend, when he became Prime Minister, would see to it that the benefits of the old age pension legislation should be extended to Quebec by statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not recall putting it as strongly as that, because I could not enforce my views upon the province of Quebec, but I recall I made some observations along that line.


Ernest Lapointe: That the question would be solved without the assistance of the province of Quebec, if necessary. I think that is substantially what my right hon. friend said. Of course, this bill will not redeem that pledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish to say, moreover, that at the present time there is a commission sitting in the province of Quebec, on which employers, labour and men interested in social work are represented. They are studying and considering old age pensions, unemployment insurance and other social problems, and I hope they may come to a conclusion in virtue of which the province may be able to arrive at an agreement with this government and this parliament so that the injury-because it is a real injury-that is worked on the province at the present time may be remedied.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One always hears of the contributions that the province of Quebec makes to the rest of Canada. It is quite possible that the rest of Canada is contributing also towards the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Who denies it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is a thing that works both ways. Personally I should like to see the province of Quebec under the old age pension scheme. Then the old people who are in the homes referred to by my hon. friend would be taken care of; that is, the $20 a month which the old age pensioner receives would go to the institution in which he happened to be housed at the time, and it would relieve those institutions of a good deal of the obligations they are now carrying. Consequently if the province of Quebec would come under the federal old age pensions scheme, those institutions would be the beneficiaries and would be better off than they would be under a scheme of the character enunciated by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).

Old Age Pensions Act
I want to refer for a moment to the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to the question of pensions for the blind. He states it is a matter almost entirely-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, primarily.


Abraham Albert Heaps: -primarily for the province to take care of. The same might be said of old age pensions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think in other countries where the blind people receive pensions they come under a special provision by which they become entitled to a pension at the age of forty or forty-five. I am pleading with the Prime Minister now that we do in this country what they have done in other countries and that by a special clause we give them the benefit of old age pensions at the age of forty or forty-five, whatever the government might think proper. As I say, that preferred treatment is already in effect in other countries. I think some of the provinces have already gone on record to the effect that they would be prepared to put the blind under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. But I think the first move must be made by the federal government. That is, this parliament is the authority to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, and unless it is amended as I suggest, then the provincial governments find themselves powerless to move in the matter. In view of the fact that the number is comparatively small, we would be conferring a blessing on a class of people who need it I think almost more than any other class in Canada. I think the government would be doing a worthy and desirable thing if they inserted in the new act a section giving pensions to blind people perhaps at the age of forty or forty-five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has overlooked just one fact. He is quite right when he says the exercise of the powers of this parliament would be absolutely imperative for the insertion of a provision of that kind in the law, but I direct his attention to the fact that the present Old Age Pensions Act is predicated upon the assumption that the provinces have an old age statute of their own, before we act at all. That was what I meant when I said the primary obligation rests with the province. These are the words:
.... equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions, pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions specified in this act and the regulations made hereunder.
That is, the Dominion comes in and pays half, but the statute passed by the province is the basis of the action, and that statute must be in accordance with the terms of the arrangement made, namely that $20 a month shall be payable as indicated, that properties must be turned over to the state, and so on.
As far as the blind are concerned I think there is a universal feeling that if the provinces treated them as being eligible for pension before the age of seventy and asked for cooperative action on the .part of the Dominion, such action would be taken, but no province has made that request or taken the initial step of providing for such pensions, although there lies the liability.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to say a word on this question, because I think it is one of those humanitarian matters which should be entirely taken out of politics. The care of the helpless, the infirm, the aged and the blind should be a matter apart from our party' discussions. As has been stated by the exMinister of Justice, the province of Quebec occupies a very unfortunate position at present-in this respect. Owing to our peculiar social system we have a large number of institutions in almost every constituency which are able to look after the aged people in many cases better than they could look after themselves. Before a change should be made the provincial legislature thought the matter needed further investigation, and a commission has been appointed to study this question. It is true, as the right hon. Prime Minister says, that the basis of this measure is a provincial statute, but we brought about that condition when we ourselves adopted a statute which provided that when the provincial statute was adopted the Dominion would act.
I have no doubt that if the finances of Canada permitted them to do so, the Prime Minister and his colleagues would have granted 100 per cent instead of 75 per cent; that is just one step further. "I think our present system is very faulty; I frequently receive letters from old people in my constituency asking for this old age pension, and I have to refer them to the provincial government, with the result that very little satisfaction is obtained. When this parliament starts to vote money I think this parliament should control its expenditure. That is a very wise system; if we are going the length of contributing !75 per cent I think this would be a good opportunity to stipulate, by an amendment to the bill which is to be brought in, that the province wishing to receive

Old Age Pensions Act
75 per cent should consent to that money being administered by the Dominion.
Those are the only remarks I wish to make. I support the bill, because I think any further step in the way of helping unfortunate people, especially in the eastern provinces where conditions are different from those in the western provinces, deserves support. Our younger ipeople go west, those who have not gone to the United States, and the old people stay at home; that is the condition in the three maritime provinces and in Quebec. I think under the circumstances this government should go one step further and try to bring about an arrangement under which the Dominion would come to the assistance of the poor people and of the blind as well. A contributory system might be provided for people who are in their youth or middle age, but when you are dealing with an old man or woman who has reached the age of sixty or seventy years, and who is penniless and without any means of sustenance, it would be almost cruelty to ask them to contribute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would not be expected to contribute.


Charles Marcil: I am glad to hear that. I just rose, Mr. Chairman, to say that I heartily support any further legislation of this kind, which I know will meet with the approval of the country at large.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say to my right hon. friend that I am glad to see that the responsibilities of office are beginning to have their effect upon his point of view. He intimated to the committee a few moments ago that it would be wise for all the members to do a little thinking before they went too far in the matter of expenditure from the federal treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said it was desirable to think about this from the standpoint of the nation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, to think about a contributory system in connection with an old age pension system. In the same connection my right horn, friend said that with conditions as they are to-day it was hardly probable that for some little time to come his government could think of going much further than they are going at this moment. If I gathered aright the meaning of his words it was that when they did go further in the matter of old age pensions, and certainly if they went to the extent of 100 per cent in the matter of expenditure, it would be in connection with some contributory system. That mlay be a wiser course of proceeding, and more in the national interest,
[Mr. Marcil.l
but it is a very different course from that taken by my right hon. friend when he was speaking during the election campaign at this time a year ago. Then he was very definite as to what he wias going to do if he and his party were returned to power. There were no conditions or considerations. I am afraid the statement he is making to-day will create very serious disappointment in the minds of many people all over the country, who gave him support on the strength of his promises, particularly in those provinces which at present have no old age pension scheme.
Speaking at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, on July 2, my right hon. friend said, according to the Halifax Herald of July 3:
If the Conservative party is successful on July 28, I will see to it that old age pensions are paid to every province of the Dominion from the federal treasury.
That was fairly specific; it did not leave much doubt in the minds of those who applauded that statement that the aged in their province were going to get a 100 per cent payment as soon 'as my hon. friend took office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just read that again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: VeTy well:
If the Conservative party is successful on July 28, I will see to it that old age pensions are paid to every province of the Dominion from the federal treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paid to every province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, from the federal treasury, and I have no douibt, that statement being made in Nova Scotia, that all the Nova Scotians felt that when my right hon. friend brought in legislation they would come in for an old age pension scheme maintained in its entirety by the federal treasury. Now they are being told that if their province will raise 25 per cent my hon. friend will contribute 75 per cent.
Of the speech my right hon. friend made on July 3 at Halifax, the Halifax Herald of July 4 had the following to say:
The opposition leader's reiteration of his definite pledge to establish a federal system of old age pensions, the cost of which will be borne entirely by the federal treasury, brought prolonged cheers and applause, as did his latest statement with regard to the pledges that he had made, when he emphatically declared, "I will ask the Conservative candidates from this province who are elected to parliament to vote against me and my government if these pledges are not fulfilled.
The Halifax Herald, which is one of my hon. friend's organs in that province, took his statement as a definite pledge to establish a federal system of old age pensions, the cost of which would be borne entirely by the

Old Age Pensions Act
federal treasury. And yet, if my right hon. friend's remarks to-day mean anything, they mean that he has thrown overboard altogether the idea of a federal scheme to be borne entirely by the federal treasury, inasmuch as, in his present opinion, any scheme to be administered federally will be one having a contributory feature as an essential part of it.
At Chatham, New Brunswick, on July 11, touching on old age pensions, he is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of July 12 as having spoken as follows:
I say to you, if the Conservative party is returned to power we will provide for the payment of old age pensions from the federal exchequer, so that the provinces will not be called upon to contribute a cent and so that the provinces who now find the burden too great will be able to benefit equally with all the provinces of the Dominion.
The constitutional point had been raised by the premier. "If," he said, "it is constitutional to pay 59 per cent, would it not be constitutional to pay one hundred per cent? We will pass the law to pay one hundred per cent and it will be legal."
He is not redeeming that pledge to-day, and his words would indicate that he does not quite see when it will be possible for him to do so. He is not sure that it would be wise to have a federal scheme at all unless on a contributory basis.
At Montreal, on June 26, as reported in the Montreal Daily Star of June 27, the right hon. gentleman said:
"We say," the Conservative leader continued, "that if the federal government can provide half the cost of the old age pension scheme it can provide the whole without wrecking the constitution."
It is not difficult to judge of the effect of his speeches on his supporters, and the use they made of his repeated references. For example the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), among the number, created great expectations in Ontario. The Ottawa Journal of July 17, in a report of the Conservative meeting at Renfrew on the day previous, contained the following:
Cheers greeted Dr. Maloney when he stated that Mr. Bennett had promised a national old age pension law. The present caused hardship on the poor and dependent aged as there were four provinces which had not entered the scheme. Under Mr. Bennett's plan he would protect the aged from coast to coast.
That was all very well a year ago, but to-day we are far from protecting the aged from coast to coast. When I was speaking in the last campaign, I repeat, I was speaking with a sense of the responsibility which one in office is obliged to have, particularly when facing difficult and hard times, and I was careful not to raise unduly the hopes of the electors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Prince Edward
Island, for instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and all
over Canada. But my right hon. friend put no restraint upon his language nor upon the promises he made, and he is finding it now extremely difficult to fulfil them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It being six o'clock, I
will deal with that afterwards.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.


Alan Webster Neill: At six o'clock I was just
going to ask a question. The ex-Minister of Justice indicated that Quebec was very unlikely to take up the old age pension scheme on its present suggested basis of 75 per cent. Has the Prime Minister any information that would lead him to believe any of the other provinces will take it up on that basis?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have seen in the press various statements, but nothing, so far as I can recall, has been communicated officially to the government. I have received no intimation that any of the provinces contemplate at the moment taking up the matter. Discussions did take place with the eastern provinces as to their making arrangements in that direction, but nothing has been officially intimated.
I should just like to say this in answer to the leader of the opposition: In 1927 there was at Winnipeg the most representative political convention that has ever been held in this country. There were present men of business, professional men, representatives of every walk in life, of every human activity, so far as Canada was concerned. At that convention the Conservative party determined that old age pensions should be a federal undertaking and they made that a plank in their platform. The same convention which passed those resolutions honoured me by selecting me as the leader of their party, and to the best of my ability I presented to the Canadian people the policy of the party as outlined at that convention. I have nothing to withdraw from and nothing to add to what I said. I said to the electors what most of them already knew, namely, that if the Conservative party were elected, it was prepared to make old age pensions a federal undertaking. Unlike some parties, the Conservative party believes, if it is elected on a platform, it should at least endeavour to give effect to it, and it has endeavoured to do so.
Old Age Pensions Act

The Conservative party did not say that this should be done at the next session; neither did I. It naturally should undertake, at the earliest possible moment consistent with the conditions that prevail, any obligations imposed upon it. Those obligations it has undertaken, and it will continue to undertake until its promises to the public have been discharged. The Conservative party sought power upon a platform; it was given power because of that platform, and I can only say it was a matter of pride and satisfaction to me to be the leader of a party that promulgated the policies it did, policies that proved to be so acceptable to the people. We shall continue, as conditions warrant, to give effect to our promises. That is all I can safely say in reply to what my right hon. friend has said. If objection is taken to the statements I made I can only say I was interpreting the promises of the Conservative party made at that convention, and if any hon. gentleman desires further information on that point, if he will take the trouble to read what the declaration of the party was at that convention at Winnipeg, he will find them, I think, substantially in the terms in which I expressed them to the electors some two or three years after the electors had themselves, through their delegates at that convention, made that a plank in their party platform.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish
to add more than that I am prepared to leave the electors to judge for themselves what they understood my right hon. friend to say. I believe that most of them at the time he was speaking to them thought he intended to have a national old age pension scheme introduced at this session of parliament. Personally, I believed this would be impossible of achievement, but I think that is what the old people had in mind and now they will just have to judge for themselves. As I say, I do not think there were many conditions or parentheses in the remarks of my right hon. friend about this time a year ago. I venture, however to predict that before he has completed the task which he has Laid out for himself, there will be many considerations of which he will have to take very full account.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This question is far more
important to the provinces which had not adopted any form of old age pensions than it is to the provinces which had adopted a scheme. The three maritime provinces and Quebec had not adopted an old age pension scheme, and when it was intimated that if the present Prime Minister came into power, his government would pay old age pensions 100

per cent through the federal treasury, the people of those provinces took that at its face value and believed the Prime Minister of to-day was at that time stating something which he intended to carry out. Those provinces have been looking ever since for the fulfilment of that promise. I do not think the Prime Minister can very well explain his position away by saying to-day that he is endeavouring to fulfil that promise, because on every platform in the maritimes he gave us distinctly to understand that that pledge would be implemented in full. Just before six o'clock he referred to something which the leader of the opposition had said in Prince Edward Island during the campaign. I want to refer the leader of the government to what he said when he was in Prince Edward Island during the camgaign of last summer. Speaking at Summerside in my riding on July 4, he is reported in the Guardian of July 5 to have said this:
The Conservative party pledges that old age pensions will be dealt with in a national federal act by which eligibles will be granted pensions, while the province will be under no additional burden of taxation.
If that is not a definite statement that the provinces would not have to make any contribution to the scheme, I cannot understand the English language. As reported in the Guardian in its issue of July 7, this is what the Prime Minister said at Charlottetown:
The Conservative government will pay the whole cost of old age pensions to every province in the Dominion. Do you know any reason why it cannot pay 99J or 100 per cent of old age pensions in Prince Edward Island? The answer is simple: There is no reason.
If that is not a definite statement, I again say I cannot understand plain English. At the present time we are having a local election in Prince Edward Island, and this old age pension scheme is being trotted out again before the electors in the endeavour to gain a few votes in the local campaign. I think our hon. friends should be ashamed to mention the subject of old age pensions when one considers the record of the present government. They opposed this scheme when it was first introduced in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If I had time to look
up Hansard, I think I could find proof that what I say is correct. My right hon. friend said that it should be a contributory scheme and he is advancing the same scheme to-day. Yet they are telling the people down in the maritime provinces: Yes, we are implementing our promises. How are they implement-

Old Age Pensions Act
ing them? All they are doing is simply to give 25 per cent more than under the system of the late government. I claim that that is by no means fulfilling the promise that they made to the electorate. They could not do this and face the electorate. During the election there was no question as to whether the finances of this Dominion would permit the federal government paying 100 per cent of the cost. There was nothing said then about the progressive steps that would be taken by the federal government in this matter. No, the electors were told plainly by hon. gentlemen opposite that the federal government would pay 100 per cent of the old age pensions, and would do it at the very first opportunity. Now they come before us and say:	We will give you a paltry 25 per
cent over what you received under the old act, and before we go any further we will consider whether we will make the system a contributory one. I could read column after column of speeches by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in the maritime provinces and elsewhere throughout the Dominion where he said on every platform that the federal government would pay the old age pensions 100 per cent, and it is no excuse for him now to come and tell this house that the federal government will only pay 25 per cent additional. I know that some of the provinces will endeavour to put legislation through implementing this legislation, but I say that it is not treating the provinces fairly when you consider the promise that was made to them by the present leader of the government.


Mr. DUPRE:: I think the electors of the
provinces and of Canada generally will be satisfied with this legislation because they realize how hard times are and how trying the circumstances we are now facing. The position taken by our friends opposite is very queer. On the one hand they blame the Prime Minister because he does not pay 100 per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and on the other hand they say that the federal exchequer cannot afford to pay more than 50 per cent.
I submit that no other prime minister has ever carried out so many of his promises in so short a time under the most trying circumstances. I deplore the fact that the province of Quebec will not benefit by this legislation. The Liberal administration in the province of Quebec has considered that that province should not come under this old age pension legislation, but may I express the wish that
the present administration, or if you prefer, some other administration in my province, will enable the people to benefit by it. I congratulate the Prime Minister, and I can assure him that the electors will not forget that under this legislation they get 25 per cent more than they would have got if my hon. friends opposite had been returned to power. I challenge right here my hon. friends opposite to vote against this measure.


Charles A. Stewart: Who is going to vote against it?


Peter Heenan: I think on this legislation we have had an illustration of the quickest jumping-jack body of men who ever occupied the treasury benches in this house. We have had the Prime Minister give one excuse for this federal government not paying 100 per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and we have had the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) giving another. The Solicitor General deplored the fact that the Liberal administration in the province of Quebec had not seen fit up to the present time to adopt old age pension legislation. I wonder if he knows what his own colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) stated during the late election campaign in the province of Quebec why the province of Quebec had not adopted old age pension legislation. If he does not, 1 will read it to him. The present Postmaster General is reported in the Montreal Star of July 9, to have spoken as follows:
Mr. Sauve argued that laws passed by the King government like the Old Age Pensions Act and the Rural Credits Act were entirely unsuited to the requirements of the province of Quebec, and were so because they were dictated by the western farmers. The heads of the government were in the west and the will of the west prevailed.
That is the only reason why Quebec did not accept the old age pension legislation, according to the Postmaster General-because Quebec was being dictated to by the western members of the government.
I do not know of any body of men of any party which has jumped around from pillar to post on any subject more than the Conservative party have jumped about with respect to this one. They have already changed their view up to the present five times. They have jumped hurdles and turned handsprings five different times on this question of old age pensions. At first they voted against the federal system of old age pensions in 1025. In 1906 when the old age pensions was introduced on a cooperative scheme, they said it was a provincial matter and a municipal obligation, and that the federal government
3956	COMMONS
Old Age Pensions Act
of the day would be better advised in looking after its own business instead of provincial business. In 1927, after the election, they took the view, when the old age pension leigslation was introduced again, that it should be a purely federal scheme. Then in Winnipeg, as the Prime Minister has said, this great body of men, very respectable, some of them, for some of them come from my own riding, adopted as a plank in their platform for the first time in Canada, after the Liberals had put the legislation on the statute books, that there should be a national system of old age pensions. They forgot that the King government had already established a national system. They simply jumped up on the band wagon on this question as they have done in connection with so many other subjects. During the last federal election campaign they promised a national system of old age pensions. As has been said here to-night, it was quite understood by the electors that if the Conservatives were elected to power they would pay 100 per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and that that legislation would be among the first to be introduced in this house. But now they have introduced a measure to amend the old age pension law, a law which they declared in 1927 and have done so up until now was unworkable, inadequate, a joke and a dead letter. They are now going to amend this joke, this unworkable scheme of old age pensions, by paying a further 25 per cent of the cost. They have changed five times already on this question, and the Prime Minister before the dinner hour to-day said that he had in mind still another system of old age pensions, a contributory system. Somebody has said that it was a good thing that the Conservative party had announced their position on old age pensions, but they have announced so many policies on this question that I do not know which one they are going to adopt. However, there was a national system adopted in 1927, and it was put on the statute books in spite of the opposition that was put in the way of it by our Conservative friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will please be good enough to indicate what he means by that.


Peter Heenan: I am going to prove it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take Hansard and look at
the vote.


Peter Heenan: I say that that legislation was placed there in spite of the Conservative opposition at that time, and I will undertake to prove that before I sit down. The governor. Heenan.]
ment of that day, after placing that legislation on the statute books solicited the cooperation of the provinces. Because of the attitude taken by our Conservative friends we had quite a task to secure the cooperation of the provinces. Notwithstanding all the encouragement they got however, notwithstanding all the propaganda and the fact that the scheme was said to be unworkable and inadequate, despite the fact that it was called a joke and a dead letter, we were successful in enlisting the cooperation of five different provinces. By that action, which was termed a joke and a dead letter, old age pensions are provided to over 60,000 people in Canada.
What have we now before us? We have the Prime Minister's explanation of the resolution before the committee concerning amendments to legislation which was said to be a joke and a dead letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who described it in
that way?


Peter Heenan: Who?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, who?


Peter Heenan: If the Prime Minister will allow me to go on-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who described it in that way?


Peter Heenan: I would recommend that
the Prime Minister ask his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). To-day five provinces are paying to and participating in old age pensions. Three provinces have passed legislation in this connection, and I am satisfied if it had not been for the opposition of the Conservative party two of those provinces would be also paying old age pensions to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon.
friend for a moment?


Peter Heenan: I would rather my hon.
friend did not interrupt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has referred to me and I think I should be extended the courtesy of replying to his observations.


Peter Heenan: After I get through I shall quote where the minister said it was a joke.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not
quoting correctly my statements. What I said on that occasion was this-


Peter Heenan: I do not wish to be interrupted.

Old Aye Pensions Art


Finlay MacDonald: Order; the hon. member has not
given permission to interrupt.


Peter Heenan: If the province of New
Brunswick had not intended to accept the Old Age Pensions Act, why did they, two sessions ago, pass legislation so that they would be in a position to participate in the scheme? The whole record of the Conservative party with respect to old age pensions has been humbug and propaganda of the worst kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: Let me outline briefly
the history of that party in connection with this particular legislation. I shall not go back farther than the year 1925, when a committee of this house was appointed to inquire into the feasibility of old age pension legislation, and a report was brought in which amongst other things recommended the adoption of a scheme regulated on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces. When that report was before the committee of the whole my hon. friend from Westaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), who at that lime represented East Calgary, moved an amendment to the effect that the matter be referred back to the special committee with instructions to bring in a purely federal scheme rather than a cooperative one. If the Conservative party were convinced that the scheme should be purely federal they had their chance so to express themselves on that occasion. However only one Conservative in the whole house voted for that amendment, namely Mr. Church of Toronto. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was a member of the committee and of the Conservative party, but he did not see fit to accept the amendment. On that occasion his words as reported at page 4433 of Hansard for 1925 are as follows:
We feel that the administration by the provinces would be much cheaper. The overhead would not be so large. We have given this matter all the consideration that is necessary, and I hope the house will pay absolutely no attention to the amendment that has been moved to the committee's recommendations.
That was the attitude of the Conservative party when they had the opportunity to vote on an amendment which would have inaugurated a purely federal scheme.


Robert James Manion: How did the Liberals vote on that occasion?


Peter Heenan: The Liberals had consistently advocated all the way through that the matter of old age pensions should be arranged between the Dominion and the
provinces, and they so voted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They voted against that amendment.


Peter Heenan: They voted for a Dominion-provincial system. My hon. friends opposite who are now advocating a national system on that occasion voted to the contrary.


Mr. SPENCE:: Is my hon. friend against a 75 per cent payment now?


Peter Heenan: I am for 100 per cent administered by the Dominion government.


Maurice Dupré: Why did not the hon. member make that change when he had the opportunity?


Finlay MacDonald: Order.


Peter Heenan: When the old age pensions bill was introduced after the election of 1926, during the temporary absence of Mr. Meighen, the then leader of the Conservative party, Sir Henry Drayton, made the following statement which appears at page 1941 of Hansard, 1926:
I am not at all certain that it is a good thing for this parliament to try to look after other business than its own, to try to look after provincial business, ....
That was his attitude on that occasion. Then we have an expression of opinion by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). He stated, as many hon. members will recall, that there was no necessity for old age pensions, and that for the Dominion government to contribute money to provincial governments was a bad system because it lent itself to extravagant expenditures on the part of the provinces. Speaking not only for Quebec but for Nova Scotia he made the following statement, as it appears at page 2472 of Hansard, 1926:
In my own native province of Nova Scotia, there is no need, I think for old age pensions or for pensions to those who are suffering special disability owing to blindness or being deaf and dumb. That province has undertaken for years past to educate its deaf and dumb and blind. The work has been so extremely well managed and so extremely beneficial that it will compare with similar work in any other civilized state in the world. I do not think there is any demand from that province for contributions of this kind in respect of work which they have undertaken as a province and in which the municipalities assist. They regard this as a provincial and municipal affair and they are prepared, I believe, unless there has been a change of sentiment in recent years, to continue it in the same vigorous and successful way in which they have carried it on in the past. . . .
Shortly afterwards the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Meighen, entered the chamber, and after referring to the speech by
Old Age Pensions Act

the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) he had this to say, as it is reported on page 2474 of Hansard, 1926:
Now aside from the fact that the provinces heretofore have taken care of this situation, this being their responsibility under the constitution, this legislation is not framed on the principle of disability at all. As a matter of fact there is no principle of any kind underlying it.
At that time the then leader of the Conservative party said there was no principle underlying a system of old age pension. He continued as follows:
If the Dominion is going to step in and assist the provinces in the care of old persons, the Dominion is under as great a responsibility to step in and assist the provinces to take care of others who are disabled from earning power from any cause.
Of course there was an election after that statement, and I do not wish to refer to Mr. Meighen's statements during the campaign because in many respects they vary. Then on April 15, 1926, we had the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) speaking on this subject. Turning to page 2481 of Hansard of that date I find the following:
I supported the principle, and have done so for years. I did so long before this government had the courage to bring it in, because I think legislation is good, but not of this particular type. The government's hope is that the Senate will throw it out and relieve them of the embarrassment which it causes. And why will the Senate throw it out? If the Senate throws out this legislation it will do so because it knows it is not effective. That is the reason.
On the following page will be found these remarks by the hon. gentleman:
By attempting to pass a measure of this kind before a conference of the provinces is held and an agreement on the part of those provinces secured, the government are passing a piece of legislation that will be a joke on the statute books of Canada.
Then he continued:
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a genuine effort lias not been made by the government in this matter. I do not like to indulge in prophecy, but I predict that one year, two years or three years from now this legislation will be a dead letter on the statute books of Canada if it passes both Houses of parliament this year.
Now. Mr. Chairman, that legislation did pass both houses of parliament in 1927. And if is neither a joke nor a dead letter, for alreadj' over 60,000 people are receiving old age pensions under that legislation. I do not wish to quote the speeches delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Com-

merce during the election campaign, but he ridiculed this legislation to such an extent that the newspaper report I have in my hand shows that his audience jeered and laughed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Peter Heenan: The Vancouver Province
of August 25, 1926. The present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) also spoke on the old age pensions bill. His remarks will be found at page 2488 of Hansard under date of April 15, 1926. He said:
There are conditions under which this government has a right to legislate. My good friend from Comox-Alberni quoted a decision of the Department of Justice, and I think correctly, that this is a matter for the provinces and not for the Dominion.
Concluding his address the hon. gentleman ' said:
I have offered these constructive suggestions, but the most important to my mind are these two: First, the system should be contributory, and secondly, we should get the provinces to agree before we insist on taking them into this scheme.
The bill was introduced again in the session of 1927, and on February 18 the hon. member has this to say-I am quoting from page 461 of Hansard:
As to the attitude of the Conservative party on old age pensions at the present time, we would prefer to have a federal scheme, with the necessary grants paid out of the federal exchequer, but if we cannot get a federal scheme we are going to support this bill. That, however, does not deprive us of the opportunity of criticizing some of the details of the measure, and because we offer some criticism of certain details is not to say that we are opposed to the bill itself.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: That was in 1927. In 1930 we had the election. The Dry den Observer of June 27, reports that the hon. Doctor Manion of Fort William spoke on the platform with Mr. McManus at Dryden to the effect that the Conservative party were not against old age pensions, but they claimed that the expenses in connection with it should not be divided, but the whole should be paid from the federal treasury. That statement of my hon. friend's was received with loud applause. The report continues, and in this I quite agree with the writer:
The hon. Dr. Manion is a rapid and pleasant speaker. He met with no interruptions nor were any questions asked by the audience.
I commend that to my hon. friends opposite. The people of Kenora district know how to treat a man when he is delivering

Old Age Pensions Act
a speech. As I have said, the bill was again introduced in 1927. The Conservative party had obstructed the measure in every possible way in 1926, but now it turned hands and was in favour of a Dominion scheme. Before I deal with that change of front I desire to quote what the leader of the Conservative party in the Senate said about the bill when it was before that chamber. These are his words. I am quoting from page 187 of unrevised Senate Hansard:
Hon. W. B. Ross:	If it is the duty
or the right of the Dominion to provide old age pensions, why should it not provide lunatic asylums, houses of providence, shelters for the deaf and dumb-in fact, institutions for assistance for all the poor of the country. The unreasonableness of such a position is quite apparent. Therefore, in my judgment, this bill is not only an improper infringement upon provincial rights and duties, but it is ultra vires of the Dominion parliament.
Those were the views of the leader of the Conservative party in the Senate on the occasion when the bill was thrown out. In 1927 the then leader of the Conservative party in the person of my hon. friend the present Minister of Justice (M,r. Guthrie) said:
The Conservative party stood for a federal system of old age pensions, one hundred per cent paid by this government.
He was applauded by his party. After saying that the party were in favour of a federal system he continued-I am quoting from page 332 of Hansard of February 15, 1927:
Have we or have we not the right to pass a federal measure dealing with this matter? I submit without hesitation, without any reservation, that under the constitution of this country this parliament can pass a federal measure. Unquestionably it has the right, and if the government will propose a measure applying to all Canada, where the whole amount is to be paid out of the federal treasury, there can be no doubt as to our constitutional authority to do so. We impose no burden upon any province. We exact no condition from any province. We ask no contribution from any citizen of any province. We invade in no respect what is known as property and civil rights in the various provinces. We have the right.
Speaking at Guelph on June 28, 1928, he is reported in the Guelph Mercury' of that date as follows:
The Hon. Hugh Guthrie, M.P. for South Wellington, addressing a banquet held in Ryan's auditorium in connection with the annual convention of the managers of homes for the aged and infirm, said: "The Old Age Pensions Act legislated by the Dominion government is not working altogether satisfactorily," in Mr. Guthrie's opinion for two reasons: "I voted for it," he said, "but it only gives $20 a month to those 70 years or over. Seventy cents a day will not support any man or woman, and the balance must come from somewhere."
He continued:
"Another point is that the provinces are not accepting the scheme, only three have done so so far, and in this application the act is somewhat unfair." Mr. Guthrie stated he would favour a national act, but the country cannot afford it, and dcelared that in his opinion Ontario's method of letting the counties take care of their poor people was among the best.
On July 8, 1929, there was a provincial election in the offing and the premier of the province announced that he intended to adopt the old age pensions legislation for Ontario. The Hon. Hugh Guthrie was reported in the Toronto Mail and Empire of July 18, 1929, as having spoken at Hamilton on the preceding day with respect to old age pensions as follows:
Old age pensions were approved by the speaker, who complimented the Ontario government on its decision to adopt the scheme. The speaker added "there are many clauses of the federal act which should be amended."
There are three different hurdles which the present Minister of Justice jumped in the space of two years on the question of old age pensions. Now let me quote what the present. Prime Minister said in 1926 when he gave the house what I thought was a very fine lecture -I do not mean that in any offensive sense- on old age pensions. He showed plainly that he had studied the matter not only from the Canadian viewpoint, but from that of the empire as a whole. He took this position:
But I do venture to plead with my friends opposite not to urge the government to proceed with it at this time.
I think anyone listening to those words would realize that in 1926 the present Prime Minister did not want the government to proceed with the scheme which had been introduced. Then on the same day, at page 1975 I find the following statement by the present Prime Minister:
I apologize for trespassing again to-night upon the time of the house, but I feel very strongly on this subject. I am deeply interested in it; I desire to see it succeed. I am convinced that it cannot succeed without the cooperation of all the provinces, unless the Dominion, in defiance of our constitutional jurisdiction as voiced by the deputy Minister of Justice, sees fit to undertake the whole responsibility, which would involve us in an expenditure of $23,000,000 per annum and, in a very short time, an expenditure of $40,000,000 per annum, an expenditure entirely too large for us to entertain at the present time.
One would hardly think the present Prime Minister was very enthusiastic at that time. At page 478 of Hansard for the session of 1926-27 we find the present Prime Minister saying:
This side of the house gave its support to that measure after pointing out its weaknesses;
Old Age Pensions Act

we did not ask for a division, and for myself I then stated, as I now state, that I believe in an old age pension scheme. But I do not believe in an old age pension scheme based upon a mere granting of money to a provincial authority, thus imposing our views upon them willy nilly. There must be an exercise of some legislative discretion by these legislatures if they desire to pass a measure of this kind, but that is denied them; they must either accept or reject. They must take it as it is or drop it; they cannot get a sou unless they take it as we give it to them, and if they take it in that way they may get some money. That is the position, and that is what the leader of bis party pointed out the other day.
In other words it was a case of "take it or leave it", and as I understand this legislation we are still in the same position. The Prime Minister adds 25 per cent to our contribution, and says to the provinces who have not participated as yet, "You can either take it or leave it." Again at page 481 of the same volume we find the following statement of the right hon. gentleman:
Now, it might be well to look on the political side of the matter. You know what took place in Australia under conditions such as these. You are going to have a system that is not contributory. An election is coming on. They go out and say that more money should be given, that $20 is not enough. "Well, we will give them $25 if we get into power," ....
* And so on. I wonder if the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues did not run true to form in regard to what was in the mind of the Prime Minister at that time. The evidence is quite conclusive that the Conservative party did go out during the last campaign and bid for the votes of the people, saying that something more would be given than the Liberal party had given them in connection with old age pensions. The Prime Minister said he would give the provinces 100 per cent instead of 50 per cent, and some of the hon. members who were supporting him in that election promised even more money than $20 a month, and to reduce the age limit. Then we have Senator Robertson speaking in the east, as reported in the Halifax Herald of June 24, 1930:
Again Senator Robertson referred to the Conservative convention at Winnipeg and to the unanimous endorsation given by that convention to the proposal to establish a purely federal system of old age pensions, the cost of which would be entirely borne by the federal treasury.
I believe Senator Robertson was sincere in that statement, but apparently he cannot get his government to carry out that promise. Then we have Colonel Taylor speaking in the Manitoba legislature with regard to old age pensions and reported in the Manitoba Free Press of June 24, 1930, as follows:
tMr. Hcenan.l
In closing he called attention to the proposition made by Hon. R. B. Bennett in his Walker theatre address to make old age pensions solely a federal responsibility.
Then we have some editorial comment by several Conservative newspapers with regard to this promise made by the Prime Minister. In order that there might be no doubt left in the minds of hon. members as to what the Conservatives iu the east expected, I want to quote from an editorial appearing in the Amherst News of July 16:
From the standpoint of justice and equity, and from the standpoint of our own provincial services, the argument is all the one way, that old age pensions should be a straight federal charge. It is Conservative policy, and if that party comes into power on July 28, it will be one of the first measures to be introduced by the new government under Mr. Bennett.
Those are the words of the editor of the Amherst News, a very important paper in the maritime provinces. The Halifax Citizen had the following to say editorially under date of June 27, 1930:
We are robbed to pay the pensions of the wealthy Canadian provinces. After July 28, Mr. Bennett will see that the rich provinces are made to foot the bill for our old age pension scheme.
So there can be no mistake as to just what the provinces expected. My good friend the present Minister of Fisheries spoke at a byelection in Halifax and, according to the miners, he promised that his government would adopt the old age pension plan in cooperation with the federal government. At a convention in Truro the miners' union passed the following resolution:
Whereas, the provincial revenue is greater by millions of dollars than in former years; and whereas, the provincial government is receiving substantial sums in the form of federal subsidies; and whereas, there is all possibility that when government control of the sale of liquor comes into force the provincial revenue will be enhanced to a still greater total, annually; and whereas, repeatedly in the past conventions of the U. M. W. of A., district 26. have urged the government to put into effect the necessary legislation to meet old age pensions in accord with the general pension scheme; and whereas the premier of this province has frequently promised an early enactment of this legislation;
Be it therefore resolved-
And they call upon the provincial government to take action.


Finlay MacDonald: The hon. member's time is up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not have risen
but for the rather irresponsible remarks of my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River

Old Age Pensions Act
(Mr. Heenan). The hon. gentleman frequently regales the house with long series of statements characterized chiefly by their absolute irresponsibility. He is in the pernicious habit of picking up observations here and there and setting them forth as the deliberate utterances of those whom he is presuming to combat. The hon. member said that the Conservative party had resisted this legislation when it was brought in; that we had ridiculed it; that we had called it a joke; and so on. He mentioned myself as having referred to it as a joke.
I purpose referring briefly to the speech from which he quoted in order to indicate the stand I then took; and then I shall make one or two further observations. In 1926 there took place in this house a debate, from which the hon. gentleman quoted, on a resolution similar to the one now before us. In the course of my remarks at that time I directed attention to a report of a committee of this house on the subject in 1924. The terms of that committee's recommendation were stated in these words:
Your committee further recommends that the government communicate with the various provincial governments to ascertain if they are disposed to adopt the above system and enact the necessary legislation.
We were urging the government of the day to do this and to bring in legislation acceptable to all the provinces. I pause to make this point. The burden of our objection was that the legislation then introduced and subsequently put into effect, having been in force up to the present time, would not be acceptable to all the provinces. The proof of the soundness of that stand is the fact that only a certain number of the provinces have been able to take advantage of that legislation. Up to this time several provinces have not availed themselves of it. Some declare they cannot take advantage of it, and yet they are paying their share to the participation of other provinces in the benefits of the legislation.
The situation is quite clear. In the west there is a preponderating element of younger persons; in the extreme east you have exactly the reverse. The smaller maritime provinces, we pointed out, would be burdened with a charge which it was absolutely impossible for them to bear, whereas in the west the burden was very much lightened by the large number of younger people living there in comparison with the aged. It was on that ground that we combated, not the principle of the legislation but the wisdom of its form; and if ever a party was justified in any stand
it has taken, this party has been vindicated over and over again in its attitude towards that legislation by the fact that the legislation has not been and cannot be adopted b}r all the provinces of Canada.
On that occasion I made this statement:
I supported the principle, and have done so for years. I did so long before this government had the courage to bring it in-
I was referring to the government of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I made that statement because I thought the principle was good. I took that stand then, and for several years prior to that, from my place in the house, I had urged some measure of old age pensions. Yet my hon. friend has the audacity to-night to say that we of the Conservative party consistently opposed this measure of relief to the aged of the country. I then referred to what action the Senate might take. My hon. friend suggested that we rather wished that the Senate would throw it out. On that occasion 1 said:
So far as I am concerned, if I had any influence with the Senate I would advise them to pass the legislation, even though it is of an abortive character, so that the uselessness of it may recoil upon the government's head.
Again, I say, the ineffectiveness and injustice of that legislation have been amply demonstrated in the efforts of the last few years to put it into operation. I am not going to quote further because it is not neoessary for the point I wish to make.
Let me say a few words on the principle of the legislation. Ten years ago, long before my hon. friend came to the house, and for several years prior to the placing of the present legislation on the statute books, I took the stand, as I take it now, that a proper system of old age pensions should be a contributory system. But we always contended that certain other measures should be adopted to take care of the aged who were on our hands and who, of course, could not participate in a contributory system. The government of my hon. friends opposite, under the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition, made no attempt whatever to work out a contributory system-not the slightest attempt. They made no effort to introduce a permanent and definite system of old age pensions. They did introduce a system which, as I have already said, has been taken advantage of by a few provinces but not by all.
Then there is the second point: we contended that the system should be federal; that is to say, that it should be a measure
Old Age Pensions Act

introduced in this parliament and worked out on a proper actuarial basis. My hon. friend asks: Why has not the leader of the government brought in a federal 100 per cent measure at this time? There is one very definite reason, and my hon. friends opposite are entirely responsible. They have entered into ten year contracts with five provinces under the scheme of legislation they introduced, and before a definite federal scheme can be worked out the present legislation will have to be disentangled. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for
West Edmonton laughs at the suggestion. He always treats difficult legislation in that way; just why I do not know.


Charles A. Stewart: I will tell
you why.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member was a
member of the government that saddled this country with the legislation at present in force; and that legislation, with its ten year contracts, stands in the way. That is one very good reason. But other reasons have already been indicated; the condition of the country, and the fact that, in view of the amount of legislation before parliament this session, the working out of a scheme that will be federal in its character, that will be contributory, and that will be fair, will take a very considerable time. What the government is trying to do under my right hon. leader is, at this session, in the short time at our disposal, so to amend this legislation that other provinces may have an opportunity of participating, pending the working out of a full measure of federal legislation. It is wholly untrue for any hon. member or anyone else to say that the members of this government and the Conservative party have consistently opposed old age pension legislation. I brand that as an absolute unequivocal untruth, and it should not be allowed to pass. The fact of the matter :s that the Conservative party is clearly on record, as my leader has stated to-night, as being in favour of a proper federal scheme of old age pensions.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said to-night: I am for 100 per cent. Was he for 100 per cent last year? Was he for 100 per cent the year before? He certainly was not. He stood in his place and voted against the very amendment that he twitted us for voting against. He was the Minister of Labour. He was the minister who had
r\Tr. St evens.!
this matter in hand. He was the minister who administered it. He was the minister who was responsible to the people. He was the minister who went up and down the country and claimed credit for almost all the social legislation passed in the legislature of Ontario and in this house during the last ten years. There is scarcely a bit of social legislation that appears on our statute books for which he has not at one time or another wrongly claimed credit. Yet he sat in the government year after year, and session after session, and never made any proposal for a 75 per cent participation, for a 100 per cent participation, no, not for one per cent more participation than was in the legislation passed in 1926. It ill behooves my hon. friend to make reckless statements regarding the attitude of hon. members on this side of the house. Our record has been consistent. We asked for a measure that would be effective throughout the whole of Canada, and my hon. friend and his friends had a measure passed that has been abortive, that has been useless to half the provinces of Canada, which they cannot take advantage of, indeed, which they dare not take advantage of. Because we now seek to afford some measure of relief in respect of that intolerable situation, he condemns it and his friends condemn it as a piece of legislation unworthy of support. The legislation is worthy of every support, and it is an earnest of what this government proposes to do as soon as there is reasonable opportunity to give effect to our declarations in this regard.


Peter Heenan: I have not had many
lessons on debating, but I have often heard that "when people get into a tight corner and cannot get out of it, they resort to ridicule. Here we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) rising in his place and talking about irresponsible statements from this side Of t'he house, referring to me. Then at the latter part of his address he says that the hion. member for Kenora-Rainy River stood in his place and voted against the very resolution I accused him of voting against. If he knew what he was talking about, he would have known I was not a member of the House of Commons at that time; I was a member of the provincial legislature.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has supported the party ever since.


Peter Heenan: Yes, and I will support the party again that in spite of the apposition of the Tory party will put on the statute books legislation that will provide for the

Old Age Pensions Act
payment of 60,000 pensions. He says that his party were always consistent. I have quoted from his own words where he called the legislation a joke.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not call it a joke.


Peter Heenan: He called it a dead letter. If hon. members will read the Vancouver Province of August 25, 1926, they will see that my hon. friend), speaking from the public platform, ridiculed it, made it the subject of jeers by misrepresenting it. He says the Tory party were always consistently in favour of old age pensions. I have shown him that when there was an opportunity in 1925 for a federal system of old age pensions, under an amendment moved by the then hon. member for East Calgary to make it a federal scheme, hon. members opposite voted against it. When in 1926 a Dominion-provincial scheme was brought in, my hon. friends said thlat it was a provincial matter and the federal government should keep their fingers away from it and mind their own business. When the Conservatives in the Senate threw the legislation out and an election took place, they saw what the people thought about the matter, and then when it was introduced in 1927 they wanted a federal scheme. Later they had a convention at Winnipeg and they broadcast throughout the four corners of the earth that the King government had introduced an old age pension scheme that was unworkable, that was inadequate, and other similar adjectives. Yet they are amending this old, unworkable, inadequate system to-day, and endorsing the very principle they denounced in 1927. The present Conservative party led by the Prime Minister went up and down the country saying: Vote for us and we will bring in an old age pension system, a national system without one cent of expenditure from the provinces. Now the Prime Minister comes into the house and introduces an amendment to this old unworkable, inadequate joke, which they say is a dead letter on the statute books of Canada. That is the attitude of the Conservative party, and in the introduction of this legislation the Prime Minister turns around and tells us: This is not the system we have in mind; we have in mind a contributory system. Heaven knows what he will have before he brings in another system.
I have put pretty nearly all the members of the present government on record as to what they said during the past campaign. I see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodtes) in his seat. According to the Halifax Herald of July 18, 1930, he is reported as having said this:
On the question of old age pensions Premier Rhodes quoted the Conservative platform as 22110-252
adopted in Winnipeg, and made the notable declaration that if Mr. Bennett was elected to office on July 28 and did not keep his pledge in regard to making old age pensions a federal charge, he himself would retire from public life.
He got a great reception because of that speech. My hon, friends across the house want to make it appelar that the King gov-vernment was permitted to put that old age pension legislation on the statute books without any obstruction from anyone. The whole thing was ridiculed throughout Canada wherever there was a Conservative speaker. Even a gentleman in the oity of Ottawa, the provincial member, Mr. A. E. Honeywell, is reported in the Ottawa Evening Journal of May 9, 1928, as having made this statement with respect to old age pensions:
The present old age pension act of the federal government was nefarious in its operation, Mr. Honeywell told his audience. It left even provincial appointments to a large measure under the control or supervision of the Minister of Labour.
He was opposed to old age pensions because he thought the provincial appointments in respect to the matter would be made by the federal Minister of Labour.
Last but not least we have the Toronto Telegram reporting an Orangeville editorial under date of April 17, 1928, as follows:
Go to the racetrack, step into the poolrooms any night and you can see the class of fellows who will be drawing old age pensions tomorrow. The thrifty, hardworking people will have to sweat to provide the means to keep those improvident bums in comparative luxury in the evening of their lives-and this class of no-goods live a long time. The number of needy people who have to be kept at the public expense is very small, but the bums and never-do-wells is large. Why, we ask, should the hustlers and self-sustaining, who labour and keep themselves, be taxed to maintain that class who were never any good to themselves or anybody else? Premier Ferguson is well advised to go slow on this old age pension business.
That is a Conservative paper in the province of Ontario, and that is the kind of propaganda with which the government was baset all over the country with respect to the old age pension legislation. I would say to my right hon. friend, who suggested that my statements were irresponsible when I was referring to himself, that it is probably because I was simply quoting his own words from Hansard. It is about time the Conservative party and the present government stopped trying to fool the people with respect to old age pensions. The people ought to be told that the present government did not mean or intend what they said with regard to old age pensions during the last election campaign or

Old Age Pensions Act

during the Winnipeg convention. If they do not bring in an old age pension scheme now with the federal government paying 100 per cent to relieve the provinces, it is because they do not wish to do it. If they bring in such a measure I am satisfied that this side of the house will support them 100 per cent, because that is the kind of old age pensions that we wanted; that is the kind that would have been introduced by a Liberal government had we been returned to power. My hon. friends opposite laugh. They say that we were in power for four years and what did we do? We did this: we introduced an old age pension scheme in accordance with the report of the committee of the house on which sat Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives and Labour members of the house, and we announced at that time that it was but the first step in an old age pension scheme. I stated on the platform in the maritime provinces and everywhere else that as soon as the provinces came into the scheme the federal government would consider any amendments that were considered necessary to the legislation. We hesitated to bring in any amendments before the last election for fear of being accused of amending the old age pension legislation just prior to the election for party advantage. That is the reason there were no amendments made at that time. We want the government to live up to their promise to the electorate to pay 100 per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and I say, Mr. Chairman, if they do not do it, it is because they do not want to do it. If the Prime Minister does not intend to do it, I would suggest to his followers that they live up to the declaration made by himself when he said:	If we do not live up to our
promise I ask all the Quebec and maritime members to vote against me in the house.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
intend to take any part in this debate, but really the spectacle we see to-night of hon. gentlemen opposite trying to justify their position under the present circumstances is enough to bring any member to his feet. I am not going to quote speeches by hon. gentlemen opposite because there can be no doubt about the fact that every one of them promised the electors of Canada that as soon as they were elected they would introduce an old age pension scheme with the federal government paying 100 per cent of the cost. No hon. gentleman opposite dare deny it.
My hon. friend from East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens)' stands in his place to-night and says: The reason we cannot do this thing is that the previous government entered into contracts with several provinces, and we dare

not break those contracts. At different times I have heard my hon. friend make some splendid defences of his position and of the party he supports, but I am bound to say I was justified in laughing at the statement he made to-night. There is nothing on earth, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend, to prevent a change being made in the agreements with the provinces. He knows that, and everyone of ordinary common sense knows it.
Why did the province of Alberta fail to vote the necessary money to take care of their old age pensions this year? I will tell my right hon. friend. It was because they depended on the word of hon. gentlemen who are sitting in the seats of the mighty to-night. That is the reason they did not vote the necessary sums in the legislature to take care of their share of old age pensions. And now, forsooth, the government is going back to its old love; we must have a contributory scheme. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite are not going to go back on their promise. The Prime Minister says, "This was our policy. It was so stated at our convention at Winnipeg. There was nothing new about it. I simply repeated it during the election campaign from one end of Canada to the other." The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) makes another excuse. But may I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that some of the provinces were not willing to go into the scheme on the basis of a fifty per cent contribution; they were promised during the last campaign a one hundred per cent federal contribution, and if the aged people in those provinces, about whom my hon. friends opposite were so much concerned in the last election, do not get relief it is because the federal government has failed to carry out its promise of a one hundred per cent contribution. Hon. gentlemen opposite were very solicitous about old age pensions and unemployment and all the rest of it during the election campaign; but now that they have the responsibility they calmly stand in their places and try to evade it by referring to the vacillation of the men who preceded them. Is it any wonder that we laugh at you when you make yourselves so ridiculous? I cannot understand that kind of mentality. For heaven's sake, quit talking about the men who held office before you when you have gone back on your promises to a greater degree in your nine months of office than we did in our whole nine years. Talk about vacillating-


Robert James Manion: The death knell of protection, for instance.

Old Age Pensions Act


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is pleasing me more than enough because he is contributing to the death knell of protection by keeping on increasing the tariff. When hon. gentlemen opposite introduce even a 75 per cent contribution to old age pensions, to partly keep their promise, I am going to support them. When they make it 100 per cent, I am going to support them. But do not any longer charge those who preceded you with vacillation, because for a vacillating government you take the cake. You have demonstrated in the short period you have been in power that you did not mean what you said when you appealed to the electors .last July.


Arthur Sauvé: I thank the ex-Minister of Labour for the attention that he has devoted to me during this debate. He cited an extract from one of my supposed speeches, reported in fthe Winnipeg Free Press, not in the Montreal Star, as he said previously. My attitude on this question of old age pensions was defined in the legislative assembly of Quebec in 1929, as recorded in the Journals of the legislative assembly at page 315, as follows:
Mr. Sauve moved, seconded by Mr. Duplessis, and the question being proposed, that it be resolved, that whereas one of the members of the government has declared that he held the "Old Age Pension Act" to be anti-social-
That was the law of the King government; and the member of the provincial government here referred to was the Hon. Mr. David, the provincial secretary, a Liberal, and a friend of the leader of the opposition:
[DOT]-and that certain jurists who were consulted by the government-
Those jurists were Mr. Geoffrion and others: -have decided it is unconstitutional, this house is of opinion that:
(a)	it is expedient to seek for and to find what method could best be followed to protect our indigent old people, without any injustice and without affecting the economic system of the province;
(b)	that it is opportune to entrust the study of this entire question to a special committee composed of representatives of the government, of the opposition, of the universities, of the School of Higher Commercial Studies, and of the labour and agricultural unions:
(c)	that this committee, authorized to meet even during the parliamentary recess, be instructed to inquire into the different systems adopted or suggested elsewhere, to study the consequences thereof and to report at the opening of the next session of the legislature.
The resolution was defeated. The year following the same government, that of Mr. Taschereau, appointed a committee to study 22110-2524
the question. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my resolution speaks for itself. Since 1929 I have been studying the question, and as a result I am prepared to support the measure now before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, if my remarks at this time were likely to cause further controversy I should hesitate to make them. I feel, however, that they may tend to remove what misunderstanding there may have been concerning my statements in the maritime provinces.
Just before six o'clock the Prime Minister referred to statements I had made when speaking in Prince Edward Island, which he spoke of as a Liberal province, and then proceeded to compare those remarks with my statements in Nova Scotia, which was spoken of as a Conservative province. I gathered that the comments by my right hon. friend were based on a speech made in the course of the debate on the budget a few days ago by the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), who I am glad to see in his seat at the moment. On that occasion the minister said he had heard my statements over the radio and for that reason he was quite sure he was giving a correct report of my remarks. May I say to him that his statement as to what he heard over the radio was right. I contend, however, that the inference he sought to convey was wrong. The statement made is that while in Charlottetown I said I was not averse to a 100 per cent old age pension scheme but that I thought in the first place there should be an accounting with the provinces so that we might learn the respective obligations of the federal and provincial authorities. According to my hon. friend that was the statement I made in Prince Edward Island and I now state that he has correctly repeated what he heard.
The Prime Minister sought to leave the impression that my statement was intended to win votes in the smallest eastern province, that it was an appeal to that province to support a 100 per cent old age pension scheme. On the other hand in Nova Scotia it is alleged I put matters in such a way that the Liberal party might, through a different representation, gain at the expense of the Conservative party. I made, to all intent and purposes, the same statements in Prince Edward Island with respect to old age pensions that I made in Nova Scotia, and in all other provinces in which I spoke on the subject.
Old Age Pensions Act

I have before me a report of my speech in Prince Edward Island as it appears in the Charlottetown Guardian of June 23, 1930. Apparently my^words were taken down by a shorthand reporter, and I ask the committee, when listening to my words, to judge whether my statements were calculated to win votes by promises in connection with old age pensions. I shall now read the report of my speech because it emphasizes the point I have been trying to make concerning provincial grants. From the point of view of winning support I admit the criticizing of the giving of provincial grants is not popular, but I do believe that careful consideration of the view I have expressed is essential to save our country from a very serious condition with respect to future taxation, something to which we ought now to be giving much more attention than we really are. Of my speech delivered on June 22 in Charlottetown, the report in the Charlottetown Guardian of June 23, 1930, is as follows:
May I say this, I am not averse to the idea of taking over the old age pensions law as federal obligation, but I think before we take over any more obligations at the present time, we had better have a pretty careful accounting of what the total amounts are of those things that we are contributing to, and what the total expenditures are, both provincially and federally. This is all bound up with the constitution of our country. When the provinces came into confederation they gave up certain rights of taxation. For that they were given in consideration; they were given an agreement to get so much in the way of subsidy. That means that they would be handed out of the federal treasury certain grants of money which the federal government would have to raise in the form of taxes. Under that arrangement Prince Edward Island got so much. The intention of confederation was that each of us-the provinces and the Dominion-would work in our own fields. Now I think the time has come when those arrangements, especially with regard to subsidy should be revised even more _ than they have been. When we had a Dominion-provincial conference at Ottawa, I found that the premiers of the different provinces and their ministers all took the view that whatever is being given to them from the federal treasury should be given in a lump sum and that the provinces be allowed to spend that money as they think best. They stated in so many words: We don't like this contribution for highways, etc. Give us the money and let us do what we think best! I think that is a fair way to go on. Let us make the subsidies fair and let each province expend the money as it thinks advisable.
I am quite prepared at the appropriate time to go very carefully into this whole question of the matter of subsidy and what should be given, and if in this connection it may seem advisable for the Dominion government to take over the old age pensions we can get our British North America Act amended to take over that particular charge, and we can write off against that expenditure what we propose to give in
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
the way of subsidy. But a matter of this kind that relates to the Dominion as a whole, in relation to the several provinces should not be made a matter of party polities, but should be made a matter of straight business and good government.
That was the statement I made in the maritime provinces and which I made repeatedly in this house during the last parliament. I have made a similar statement frequently this session and it is one I should like to repeat at this moment.
I do submit that however well intentioned the Prime Minister may be when he makes additional grants for old age pensions, when he proposes additional grants for technical education and binds future governments for fifteen years by a bill now .before the house, when he pledges further grants of very considerable amounts for unemployment, when he proposes to make a grant running into many millions of dollars to meet a great emergency existing in another part of the country-I say that when my hon. friends consider that they have had at this session so considerally to increase taxation, when they know that at the close of the fiscal year they will be far behind in revenues and will have enormous deficits and that there will be necessity for imposing additional taxation, they ought to be giving more in the way of thought to the additional burdens of taxation they are loading on the backs of the people.
I suggest that they call these grants by their right names. Call them additional taxation of the people made for this, that or some other purpose. All the grants out of the federal treasury for the provinces are under provincial administration, notwithstanding the fact that the moneys are raised by the federal government for federal purposes. I say that the government ought to think twice before it continues to increase expenditures right and left. My proposal during the general election campaign, and my suggestion of the government's present duty is: Before they throw away what bargaining power they have in dealing with the provinces-and I submit that members of the Dominion government have an obligation to the Dominion; the provinces will look after themselves and their obligations, and When its comes to making an agreement With the provinces you need all your bargaining strength-I say before throwing away what real bargaining power they have in negotiating with the provinces, members of the Dominion government should convene a Dominion-provincial conference, at which the Dominion and provincial authorities should go very fully into

Old Age Pensions Act
their respective obligations. Let the Dominion decide, if it so desires, to take over altogether the control and administration of certain of these social services that to-day are being divided between the Dominion and the provinces. Dor example, let the Dominion say: "We will take over and administer the whole scheme of old age pensions." Let them with respect to other matters, if they deem it right so, to do, say: "We will also take over and administer these, but we will leave to you the complete control and administration of such and such other services." Having thus arranged a division of services between them, they might then go on to say: "Now a balance for purposes of adjustment will be struck betwen us in respect of what shall be paid further to the provinces by way of subsidies according to the principle underlying the British North America Act." In this way, you will be giving to the provinces what is justly due to them, and you will be allowing them the utmost freedom in expending those subsidies in the way they think best." Any other method of dealing with these matters is to a certain extent an interference with the autonomy of the provinces. I am not taking exception to any of the very worthy purposes that these grants are intended to serve; least of all do I take exception to a federal old age pension scheme, because I think where more than 50 per cent of the cost is met by the government at Ottawa, it should be an old age pension scheme administered by the federal government. I say when you are about to relieve the provinces of a burden such as is now being proposed in connection with old age pensions, there is no reason why the Dominion government, as a means of adjusting financial relations between the governments of the provinces and itself, should not have had to its credit the fact that it is assuming this further obligation.
That was the whole point I was making. I submit it was not the kind of appeal that would win votes. I venture to say that I lost thousands of votes all over the country-


An hon. MEMBER:: You sure did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -through being perfectly honest in stating the position-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -through
being perfectly honest with the electors in stating the position as to what in difficult times a government that was charged with great responsibilities could hope to be able to do. I told the people very frankly that
these obligations meant additional taxation- taxation which I did not feel the federal government would be justified in adding to existing burdens until at least there has been this Dominion-provincial conference to adjust financial arrangements. I shall wait and see what the outcome of all this legislation is going to be in terms of taxation and increase of the public debt. That is what the country will be interested in more than anything else. The country will watch with a great deal of anxiety the increased burdens of taxation put upon its shoulders year by year by the present administration. It will be no excuse after two or three years have run by and each year there continues to foe an additional deficit and a further increase in the public debt and in taxation for hon. gentlemen opposite to say: We were seeking to carry out certain promises we made in the thick of a general election lor the sake of gaining political power.
As I say, I do think there should be greater care with regard to the expenditure of public money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Especially when under an arrangement such as I have proposed, the whole object can be attained quite satisfactorily, and I submit, more to the interests of the provinces as well as the Dominion itself.
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said a moment ago that the previous government had entered into contracts for a period of ten years under an existing statute, and that was one reason why 100 per cent legislation could not be introduced at once. Why, those very contracts will have to be changed under this legislation. If you can change contracts with the provinoes to give them 25 per cent more money, surely you can do so when you are giving them 50 per cent more. I am surprised that my hon. friend would think anybody was guillible enough to to be taken in by a ruse of that kind, notwithstanding the fervid manner in which it was put forward by him.
May I say one other word? I believe experience has shown that many of our municipalities are being driven into bankruptcy by the burdens which are being put upon them by the federal government in connection with the various conditional grants to the provinces. Throughout Ontario at the present time the government of the province does not meet 50 per cent of the old age pensions, as was the understanding with the province
Old Age Pensions Act


Maurice Dupré: You cannot
wiggle out, he said it was anti-social. There is but one interpretation to the word antisocial.


Mr. ROBITAILLE (Translation):: That is also what we contend. Moreover, we state that this act is ultra vires. Our leaders hold the act to be so in its very principle because it encroaches on provincial rights. However, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) after having admitted that it was ultra vires, came to the province of Quebec to visit the beautiful county of Maisonneuve, where at a large meeting he made all kinds of promises: immediate relief of unemployment, free ports for Halifax, St. John, etc., including old age pensions in full. If we have the authority of offering 50 per cent to provinces, why not 100 per cent, or 99 per cent, he stated? He did not fulfil this pledge. But he did fulfil one; when an old lady asked him: "How are you going to fulfil all these pledges?" He answered: "By taxation." That is the only pledge which he kept. I submit, sir, that this legislation is not equitable. There are provinces which avail themselves of it, others do not. Those which do not avail themselves of it contribute by taxes to meet the expenditure entailed by such legislation, without any benefit to them. You may say that they are free to accept it or not. That is true, and as the right hon. leader of the opposition has stated, it was suggested at the conference of prime ministers of the provinces, that the Dominion government should give a round sum to each province. I also suggest that the government should do something for the provinces which do not avail themselves of this act. The government should allow them a grant either proportionate to their population or proportionate to their subsidies or again based upon the census of their old people. This would be a very equitable and justifiable measure. I understand that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) stated just now that all the provinces could not adopt this act-I must state that Quebec is the most important province from a financial viewpoint. It is the only province whose budget showed a large surplus.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: It is a
fictitious surplus.

Old Age Pensions Act


Mr. OASGRAIN (Translation):: Who says so?


Clément Robitaille: The hon. member should have an auditing of the books of the province before making that statement. Auditors more competent than the hon. member have examined the books and have found that the statement of such a surplus was a truthful one.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: As truthful
as a tooth drawer.


Clément Robitaille: Quebec has the means from a financial viewpoint to avail itself of this act. However, we have in Quebec special institutions to help the old people and t'he provincial government generously contribute to their upkeep. I therefore suggest, sir, that the Dominion government should vote a fixed amount to the provinces which do not avail themselves of this act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not my desire to be a party to the delaying of this resolution, because it has 'been under consideration now for some time, but I feel it essential that I should say a word in view of the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). If I remain silent my silence may be construed as accepting his statement of the position he took with regard to this question while touring the maritime provinces.
I do not know why my right hon. friend went out of his way to protest his qualities of virtue and to announce so vehemently that he was speaking with the utmost frankness to the people of the maritime provinces. In fact, he said, he was so frank that while making his statement he expected he would lose votes. We all know that my right hon. friend did not expect to win any votes on that occasion; that was far from his thought in addressing audiences in the maritime provinces. He just came down to pay us a sort of friendly visit, and he was so anxious to pay that visit that he came to the maritime provinces in spite of the fact that he expected to lose votes. As a matter of fact my right hon. friend might as well admit very frankly that in discussing this question he did not expect to lose any votes at all; he was trying to deal with a very difficult question under difficult and different conditions.
My right hon. friend read a statement which purports to be, and may be, part of the report of a speech delivered by him in Charlottetown, as quoted in a Charlottetown newspaper, but
he went on to say that this was the statement he made in the maritime provinces. On that statement I wish to take direct issue with him. The clear impression which my hon. friend left with his audiences in Prince Edward Island was that he was prepared to consider a scheme which involved the payment of old age pensions by the federal government. In Charlottetown my right hon. friend did not raise the constitutional question at all, nor did he place upon the premier of that province the responsibility because the people of Prince Edward Island at that moment did not enjoy the benefit of old age pensions. On the other hand, speaking in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the very next night, my right hon. friend brought up the constitutional question as an impassable barrier over which he could not jump; he said that was the bar to his government giving 100 per cent old age pensions. There, in contrast with his attitude of the night before, my right hon. friend said to the audience in plain words, "The reason you have not old age pensions in this province is because Premier Rhodes has not given them to you." Having said so much merely for the purpose of keeping the record accurate, I do not propose to labour that point very much further. However, before I resume my seat I must take exception to one other statement made by the right hon. gentleman. He complains that the municipalities to-day are being burdened almost to the point of bankruptcy because of the burdens imposed upon them in turn by the provinces because of this contributory scheme of old age pensions. Who but my right hon. friend brought in that contributory scheme? It was brought in not after a conference with the provinces but in defiance of the fact that the provinces, through their premiers, had stated in terms that they would not accept any part of a contributory scheme. That point should be made very clear indeed. To-night, if you please, the right hon. gentleman criticizes this government and protests our action because he says we had not the foresight to consult with the provinces before bringing down this bill. Those protests come from the right hon. gentleman who is himself responsible for having introduced the principle in the face of the opposition of the provinces. Is it necessary that this government, now that they find this bill in being and this principle established, should consult the provinces as to whether they should ameliorate their troubles to the extent of one-half the gap between 50 per cent and 100 per cent? I think not.
There are other angles and other phases of the matter which I shall not discuss at this
Old Age Pensions Act

time. I could not remain quiet in my seat and allow my right hon. friend to leave the impression with the committee and with the country that the report of his speech in Charlottetown contained the statement he made throughout the maritime provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I have sent to Hansard the copy of my speech from which I quoted. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat says I did not raise the constitutional question at all in Charlottetown.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will look at Hansard to-morrow he will see that in the course of what I reaxi this evening I stated that the constitutional matter would have to be considered before there could be any 100 per cent old age pension scheme; that is the very thing I said in Charlottetown. My hon. friend is quite right in another point; I did say that the people of Nova Scotia would have to look to Premier Rhodes. Perhaps I drew a little more attention to my hon. friend in his own province because he was taking a very active part in the campaign, especially in connection with the question of old age pensions. But may I ask my hon. friend if the statement which I made was not literally and absolutely correct, when I said that if the electors of Nova Scotia wished to have the benefit of the old age pension scheme, as it was than in force, they would have first to look to the then Premier Rhodes. Was that not literally true?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "certainly."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister is now increasing this grant from the federal treasury to 76 per cent; and I would say this, that before the electors of Nova Scotia can get the benefit of that increase and of the original amount they will have to look to the premier of that province to introduce an old age pension law, agreeing to contribute 25 per cent. Is not that true?
I ask my hon. friend.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will speak when the
right hon. gentleman has done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I will
make the statement perfectly plain. Until the province of Nova Scotia enacts an old age pension law, agreeing to pay at least twenty-five per cent towards old age pen-
FMr. Rhodes.]
sions, they cannot get a single dollar in the way of pensions from the legislation which the Prime Minister is now introducing. That was the position I took in Nova Scotia, and I was right. My hon. friend said I was right in what I stated on the question when he was premier of Nova Scotia, and I am equally right in regard to the position as it affects the present premier of that province. The hon. member suggests that I was not seeking votes in the maritimes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We all know that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not say that for a moment. I most decidedly was seeking votes in my appeals through the maritime provinces. But in those parts of my speeches in which I discussed old age pensions I was losing votes every time I referred to the matter. I was placed in this position. My hon. friends opposite had promised the electors that they would pay 100 per cent of old age pensions; I was obliged to explain why we were not prepared to follow them in, shall I say, an appeal of that kind-I will use the mild term.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ex-Minister of
Labour (Mr. Heenan) said that was what you were going to do if returned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh no; he did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He said that
we should first have a conference with the provinces. If he made that statement I did not hear him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought you were
listening to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said was that there would be a conference between the provinces and the Dominion, at which time we would put forward a proposal to take over old age pensions 100 per cent, but that we would make it part of a final arrangement, adjusting between the Dominion and the provinces their respective burdens. That was our position. The Prime Minister had taken the position that, if returned, he would pay 100 per cent. Had I been indifferent to what became of the public treasury, and to what the proposal would mean to the people in the way of additional taxation, I could easily have told the electors that we would do precisely the same thing. And I might have done that not only in regard to old age pensions but in regard to technical educa-

Supply-Immigration
tion, highways, unemployment relief and many other proposals on which hon. members opposite made their appeal. I submit that when an appeal is made to the electorate in that way it is simply an effort through vast outlays from the federal treasury to gain the support of an entire province. I hesitate to describe what that sort of thing really amounts to in public life, but I submit that it is not a practice that can be long followed without bringing the nation into bankruptcy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend takes an extraordinary position. In the latter part of his speech he said, "We were prepared to consider a 100 per cent old age pension scheme after a conference with the provinces.5' This is to say, having forced upon the provinces a scheme which they refused to accept in advance, in virtue of which they had to pay one-half-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did
they refuse to do it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Through their premiers,
the Hon. Mr. Taschereau and the Hon. Mr. Ferguson. And the premier of Nova Scotia wrote here in response to communications sent him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, saying that the province would have no part in such a scheme as was proposed. The right hon. gentleman forces this scheme upon the provinces without a conference, a scheme in virtue of which they must pay half, and then, if you please, he says, "I will have a conference with the provinces to ascertain whether they will consent to our paying the whole of it." That position is manifestly too absurd for words.
The right hon. gentleman put to me a query as to whether it would not be necessary under this legislation for the present government of Nova Scotia to pay 25 cents on every dollar. It will. I raise the point, however, not on its merits but merely to contrast the position taken by my right hon. friend in two different provinces in the maritimes. In Sydney he emphasized the constitutional issue to the point that it was a barrier to his paying 100 per cent, and he took the position that it was the fault of Premier Rhodes that the aged person of the province did not receive old age pensions; whereas the night before he had taken a different position. When I spoke the other day I did so from notes which I had taken over the radio at the time the right hon. gentleman addressed the electorate, and I can quote him almost exactly. He said, "Our Conservative friends say they are prepared to pay 100 per cent old age pensions. I am prepared to consider that proposal, subject to an accounting with the provinces." Those were his exact words, interlarded, of course, and overburdened with a multiplicity of words which would enable him on any subsequent occasion to explain his position. But he did not say in Prince Edward Island, on a Liberal platform with a Liberal premier, "If you want old age pensions in this province you must look to Premier Saunders.'' Not at all. And my purpose in rising now is to point out the clear distinction. Of course, he was not appealing for votes there; we all know that. He had taken high ground, with that same uniformity on general principles which is befitting the leader of a great party. Nevertheless there is that juxtaposition, which is most striking and typical of my right hon. friend and his method of dealing with public questions, even where he is not appealing for public support, and where he is so frank, as he always is.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 136, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Immigration, salaries and contingencies, including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, provinces, and loans for stock, equipment, etc., for Canadian boys, as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,905,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister be good
enough to give a detailed statement as to how this money is divided up amongst immigration societies, women's hostels and so forth?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The outside
salaries amount to $1,055,000. This item is divided into various districts as follows:
Eastern district	$564,330
Western district	 164,975
Pacific district	 76,090
United States	 22,320
Retiring allowance	 8,000
British Isles and Irish Free	State.	145,800
Continent	 29,210
Women's division in Canada, but
not including staff at	Ottawa..	25,695Juvenile immigrants division..	..	12,270'Unforeseen	
6,310
Supply-Immigration

The contingencies amount to $850,000. The
details are as follows:
Publicity	$ 78,500
Printing and stationery	 29,000
Salaries of temporary employees at
head office, also contingencies..	.	40,000Postage,	telegrams,	telephones,express and freight	
15,000Inspection	British	immigrantchildren	
*	20,000Seaport	agencies,	detentionhospitals and catering	
45,000Inland agencies and	immigrationhalls	
65,000Deportation	
100,000
Boundary inspection expenses and
temporary inspectors	 150,000
Provision for overtime rates.. ..	20,000
Contingencies and general expenses,
United States	 50,000
Contingencies and general expenses
in Great Britain	110,000
Contingencies and general expenses
on the continent	 25,000
Colonization expenses	 54,000
Women's division including grants
to hostels	35,000
Grants to provinces and	societies.	8,000Motor car expenses at	Ottawa..	300Unforeseen expenses	
5,200


William Thomas Lucas: What societies are receiving
grants?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the present time no
societies are receiving any grants. These estimates were of course made up earlier in the year, in fact in January if my recollection serves me correctly, and at that time the picture was changing with a good deal of rapidity. I doubt whether any of this vote will be used. At the same time I do not think it should be disturbed in the event of our having to use it before the end of the fiscal year.


William Thomas Lucas: What amount is paid to the provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The only payments made were on juvenile immigration, but this year that immigration is of course practically nil and I doubt if we will be called upon to pay anything.


William Thomas Lucas: Is part of this vote used for repatriation in the provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That comes under this
vote. The arrangement, as the hon. member knows, was open for acceptance by all the provinces, but it was taken advantage of only by Quebec. Last year they received $50,000 and I suppose they will be expecting it again this year.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The minister mentioned an item of $78,500 for publicity. Just what 
form does that publicity take and what is its object, considering that at the present time we are not endeavouring to attract immigrants to this country?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is another item that unquestionably will not be fully used. I do not think more than half of it will be used. At the time these estimates were prepared we were maintaining offices in the United States, and also some on the continent. Some have been discontinued, but on the other hand there will be an increase of publicity within Canada. That is following the plan that was adopted by the government last fall to try out something that I think has not been given a trial, namely colonization at home. We have plenty of people to work on who have come into the country in the last few years, ostensibly to go on the land, but who have drifted into industry. Now they are finding themselves cast adrift from industry and the effort of the government is to give those people who can carry on farming operations in such a way as to sustain themselves an opportunity, at the least possible expense to the government, to go on the land. Any publicity this year and possibly next year will be confined to such as is necessary within Canada itself, in the hope that that effort will contribute to relieving distress in industrial and mining sections. No publicity of a major kind will be carried on in Great Britain, and none at all in Europe. By that I mean the kind of publicity that is calculated to bring into Canada at the present time people who are not equipped to take care of themselves financially and otherwise. We cannot, of course, dissociate ourselves entirely from contact with Great Britain with respect to the migration of people, but the British government and the Overseas Settlement Department know very well-we have had many communications on the subject with them-that the time is not opportune to encourage any considerable movement of people. For myself, and I speak probably for every member of this house, I hope the time will very shortly come when conditions will improve and we shall be able to absorb British and other desirable peoples in larger numbers. I can assure hon. members that when that time does come it will be my most earnest effort to see that that movement of people takes place under some disciplined plan where there will be fewer failures than there have been in the past, and under which people will be placed in Canada where they are best able to get along

Supply-Immigration


Alfred Speakman: Information was given some weeks ago-I am speaking from memory -as to a plan which had been worked out between the two great railway companies and the head of the department to place people on the land in order to relieve the unemployment situation. I think it was stated that some thousands of single men and over one thousand families had been placed in that way and that the movement had been quite successful in that a very small percentage of the men had gone back to the cities. I would ask the minister just what was the basis of that plan. Were families placed on the farms with the object of purchasing them eventually, or were they simply placed on abandoned farms to relieve them for the time being, perhaps with a garden or something of that sort to help them carry along?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The operation of the plan commenced last fall, after several interviews with the colonization departments of the railways and after it had been approved by the presidents of the two roads. It was generally agreed between the government and the railways that the combined colonization effort should be directed first towards taking desirable single men out of the ranks of the unemployed and placing them with farmers who could give them work and probably some pay. Well qualified men, of course, got more pay than those less qualified. Instructions were given by the railways to their agents to survey the various districts throughout Canada and ascertain the number of men the farmers could absorb, and the same instructions were given to the land settlement branch and the field supervisors of the soldier settlement board. They were instructed to survey the situation with care so that men who were taken from the ranks of the unemployed would be of a type likely to give satisfaction to the farmers who employed them. That plan is now being worked out; it is being pressed with a good deal of vigour, and it is meeting, I think, with a very large measure of success. The figures are returned to me monthly. I have not under my hand the latest figures, but if I remember aright somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten thousand single men have been placed on the farms with farmers. I was rather surprised to note how many farmers like to have a good hired man around the place. It was extremely encouraging from our standpoint to find that there were quite a large number of farmers in Canada who were doing pretty well. They are absorbing a great
number of the unemployed and this, remember, without any extra cost to the government, for we are using the same staff which heretofore had been engaged in outside immigration work taking care of the men coming into this country.
With respect to the families, this picture presented itself to the railways and to myself. There were many families who, during the last few years, attracted no doubt by the apparently prosperous position of industry, had come into the industrial centres seeking jobs in industry. They had accumulated some hundreds, and in some cases some thousands of dollars, and then they found themselves out of work, with their savings gradually dwindling for rent and taxes. We found a desire among them to go back to the land if they could get a farm suited to their purpose and within their means. We have found that many families, just such as I have described, are very anxious to go back to the land and to be sure at least that they have something to support them. The last figure I got as to the number of families placed upon the land in that way-I am speaking from memory-was in the neighbourhood of 2,700. I intend, in conjunction with the railways-and I hope as time goe3 on to be able to enlist other organizations which heretofore have been engaged solely in bringing people outside of Canada into this country-to concentrate our efforts in a way best calculated to ensure success in that work until the time shall have arrived, and I hope it will not be so very long, when Canada will be able to take a more comprehensive view of inducing people to come here. But when they do come, it will be my effort to see that they come under some disciplined plan so that there will be the least possible number of failures.


Alfred Speakman: Is it hoped that these family settlements will be permanent, that they will purchase farms?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: Are these abandoned farms held by the soldier settlement board, or by the railways, or by both?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Both.


Alfred Speakman: I notice an item for loans to boys. Is there anything being done in that respect now? Is free passage still being given to boys, and are many taking advantage of it?
Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We are not carrying on that work now.
Mr. (LUCAS: Do I understand the minister to say that free pasage is not being given to boys of from 14 to 19 years of age, from the old land at the present time?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None now. Some boys were coming out to the provinces under agreement with us, but they have already arrived, and no more boys are being brought out.


William Thomas Lucas: When was that discontinued?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Some of the provinces discontinued it at the beginning of last year. Others brought out a few this year-Ontario, for instance. Saskatchewan brought out about forty, and Nova Scotia about fifty.


William Thomas Lucas: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: No; that matter was
brought to my attention some time ago and in communication with the railways I learned that such advertising had been discontinued. Boys coming out under various schemes by agreement with the provinces have already arrived, and no more are coming.


Mr. SPENCER:: When were such advertisements discontinued? Only last week I received a letter from the old country informing me that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is still advertising for people to come out to go on farms in the maritime provinces


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member is not referring to boys?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No.
[Mr. Speakman.l


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, so far as I know, have always maintained that they could take care of selected families. Nova Scotia asked for one hundred families, and New Brunswick for a similar number. Requests were made particularly for British and Scandinavian races. We agreed to admit that number of people, and I believe it was stipulated that each family must have $1,000. Undoubtedly the railroads knew about the coming of those families, and the fact that they were keen for business accounts for the advertisements. I expect however that this year only about one-quarter the number will come out to the maritime provinces.
Mr. LUCAS Does the minister think it advisable under present conditions to spend large sums of money in repatriation work?
Mr. GORDON The only money spent at the present time for repatriation is $50,000 to the province of Quebec, and that province is spending an equal amount. While it may seem rather paradoxical to spend money on repatriation at this time, I think there is justification for it. We ought to be pleased to know that a large number of Canadians are returning. Although in the past we had hoped for their return we did not expect that it would be for the reasons which prompt some of them to come. Under any circumstances, however, they are welcome.


William Thomas Lucas: Surely we should not have to pay for their coming.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That may be the view of the hon. member, but I am inclined to think that this money is being very well spent by the province of Quebec, and I should be reluctant to see such expenditures disturbed.


Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if that statement applies to the repatriation of orientals in British Columbia? Would the minister spend $50,000 for the repatriation of orientals from British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Where to?


Alan Webster Neill: To the orient.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the hon. member has his gears in reverse, has he not?


Alan Webster Neill: No, it would be highly desirable to repatriate them to the orient on the condition that they stayed away.
In vote No. 124 there is provision "for loans for stock, equipment, etc., for Canadians boys." I have always been in favour of such loans rather than bringing people from overseas. Do

Supply-I mmigra tion
those boys have to have money to begin with? Are they given land, or what are the general conditions?
While the minister is getting that information I might save time by asking another simple question. Under an order in council regarding immigration there is a clause that Americans may come in provided they have sufficient funds to maintain them until they secure work, or words to that effect. I should like to have an idea from the minister as to what sum might reasonably be expected to keep such an immigrant until he obtained work, especially under present conditions when work is very much at a premium. A man out of work at present may be in a similar position twelve months from now, and under such circumstances I am wondering what sum might be considered sufficient.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is no fixed sum.


Alan Webster Neill: How is it arrived at? The
order in council says that such men shall have sufficient money to keep them until they get work. Is it possible to tell by looking at a man, by knowing his name or by any other external evidence when he may expect work?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Such decisions are left to the judgment of the officers at the ports of entry. They have to size up the men and make decisions. Some men may have $10,000 in their pockets and I might refuse to let them in; other men may have only 50 cents and might be allowed in. A great deal depends on the judgment of the officers at the border ports of entry.


Alan Webster Neill: Such practice is not without
some merit. We all know that a man's character is his best asset. At the same time, however, to tell all subordinate officers simply to use their judgment is not a good system. An officer may say, "Oh yes, come in" to almost any person. In these days when we are asked to pay large sums to relieve unemployment we Should have a most definite plan. Such men ought at least to have $200 in their pockets.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They have to have more
than that.


Alan Webster Neill: A minute ago the minister
said only 50 cents might be required.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A man would not be
allowed to come in here with any amount of money and simply look around until he secured work we are trying to provide for our own people. He would have to assure the officer at the port of entry that he had means sufficient to provide for himself for
some time. I have taken the stand that a man should have funds sufficient to carry him over the next winter. That attitude has been passed on to the officers at the ports of entry and has been adopted as a principle. The officers are instructed always to use their own judgment, leaning slightly towards rigidity in the enforcement of the law.


Alan Webster Neill: Those are the instructions
sent out, are they?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, instructions very
much along that line.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I think those instructions are enforced on the other side of the line and not when the immigrant gets to Canada.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: Reverting to the matter of the families who at the present time are going on land, some of whom are purchasing land in the hands of the soldier settlement board, may I ask upon what principle the price of that land is based? Is it based upon the amount against a particular farm, or is the land appraised quite regardless of any debts which may have been accumulated against it by its former occupant?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If my hon. friend will
let the matter stand until we come to the soldier and general land settlement votes I shall be pleased to answer him.


Alfred Speakman: Very well.


Alan Webster Neill: Have you any information
about the Canadian boys?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is about $30,000 in
that item but we do not anticipate we will spend any of it this year.


Alan Webster Neill: You are not encouraging the Canadian boys to go on the land any more!


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The provinces at the conference did not care to join with us in that effort this year; therefore we are advancing no money.


Alan Webster Neill: Why the vote if you are
not going to spend it? I do not think it could be better spent than in encouraging our own boys to go on the land.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We are not advancing the money this year because we are directing our whole effort in another direction, that is, to getting people who are able to go on the land themselves with their families without expense to the government. I am of opinion that a halt must be made on advances by this government to people to go on the land until at
Supply-Immigration

[east I have had a further opportunity of considering the policy. Sometimes I doubt the wisdom of making advances to put people on the land, because in my judgment at least it has not been a very great success.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a matter of policy
for consideration by the minister. If he is not going to spend the money why put it in the estimates?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is a small amount. Item agreed to.
Empire settlement scheme, including grants to immigration societies, provinces, women's hostels, etc., as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $200,000.


Alfred Speakman: What is the difference between the women's hostels mentioned in this item and the women's hostels mentioned in the preceding item? There seems to be a duplication of phraseology, if not of activity.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The words "women's
hostels" should not be in the previous item at all, because no grants are made to institutions of that kind. I expect the wording has been carried forward from other years. The hostels under the British empire settlement agreement do get some grants.


William Thomas Lucas: What societies are getting
assistance under this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None; but the grants will be continued to the women's hostels.


Alan Webster Neill: They will not get the $200,000, will they?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the total amount


Alan Webster Neill: It seems to me we are passing these votes just because they were passed last year.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is a reduction of


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but we have discontinued the empire settlement scheme, yet we are continuing the grants. The empire settlement scheme is at an end, is it not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Are people still coming out
under it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are a few people
coming out.


Peter John Veniot: In New Brunswick there are some.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Alan Webster Neill: That is where the provinces take care of it, is it not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The empire settlement
takes care of it under the agreement.


Alan Webster Neill: I think if that vote were
cut in half the minister would have sufficient so far as he can explain.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We will not spend that
amount.


Alan Webster Neill: Then why vote it? Just
because it has always been voted?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. At the time these
estimates were made up we reduced the amount by $350,000, and it was anticipated that it would be spent this year. It is quite true that we will not spend this amount, but nobody will be hurt by the passing of the item so far as I can see.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I take the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the minister the unsatisfactory condition of the empire settlers in western Canada. Frequently we make a reduction of the indebtedness of our soldier settlers to the extent of 30 per cent of their land and equipment. If you make inquiry among the empire settlers you will find that usually they have paid for their land a price equal to the price paid by the original settler. The situation is simply this, -under present conditions the empire settlers carrying that load of liability find it impossible to succeed. I suggest to the minister that he take into consideration in cases where the prices paid were excessive the question of reducing those prices.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The situation of the empire settlers in western Canada-that is the three thousand family scheme?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That has given me a great deal of concern. There is no doubt those men bought land at prices very much higher than they are to-day, and having regard to the setback in connection with the crop failures, it is obvious that many of them are not only unable to pay their instalments, but are having great difficulty in holding their farms. I do not propose to see any of those men have their contracts rescinded. The whole situation in respect to those settlers is under consideration, and I hope some equitable adjustment may be arrived at, although it is going to be very difficult because so many other people are in the same position with the mortgage and trust companies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Immigration
Chinese immigration-salaries and contingencies, $50,000.
Mr. REID:: Will the minister furnish
particulars of this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These are the particulars:
This amount is to provide for salaries and expenses of officers and employees engaged in connection with the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act. These expenses consist of:
(1) Salaries, permanent staff.. ..	28,560
Temporary employees	 3,500

(2) Travelling expenses of officers doing Chinese investigation work and inspection of boats carrying Chinese crews; legal expenses re prosecution and deportation of Chinese;
printing and stationery; uniforms; telegrams; telephone, cablegrams, etc	$13,850
(3) Hong Kong office contingencies:
Living expenses of D. F,	Warren.	$	2,000
Office rent	 1,500
Travelling expenses	 100
Printing and stationery	 100
Cables, postage, light	 200
Miscellaneous office expenses..	..	100

Item agreed to.
Soldier and general land settlement, $1,960,000.


Alfred Speakman: In view of the fact
that this service is to be reorganized and that the cost of administration will be reduced, would the minister explain the decrease in this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is a total decrease
of $657,000, with an increase on the other side of the ledger of $302,000 leaving a general decrease of $355,000. That is purely a change of bookkeeping. Farms which were administered formerly under the general land settlement vote now will be administered under the soldier land settlement vote, which shows an apparent increase of $302,000 for that reason. On the other hand, the administration of general land settlement is decreased by $657,000, showing a net decrease of $355,000 for the year.


Alfred Speakman: Could the minister tell me in a general way how the price now arrived at compares with the price for which the land was sold originally?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I imagine a great deal
would depend upon the year in which it was sold. I think it would be a fair statement to say that to-day valuations are considerably decreased from the original price; there will be a loss in almost every case.


Alan Webster Neill: I agree with the minister
that it is right and proper that the land should be sold to-day at its actual value, but that puts us in this position:	What about
the empire settlers who are on the land; can you justly refuse them a revaluation? You cannot put yourself in the position of forcing off these men and then selling the land to someone else at a much lower price. If you are willing to take your loss, as you must, and sell to the newcomer at 50 per cent less than the other man paid, why not do justice and keep the empire settler on the land and give him a rebate?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It does seem an anomaly.


Alan Webster Neill: You cannot get out of that position once you do the proper thing and sell the land at its present value; why should you turn off the man originally put there?


William Thomas Lucas: I think something will have to be done with regard to the British empire settlers. As I understand it, most of these men were settled on abandoned soldier settlement land without a reduction. The soldier settlers proper were granted a reduction of 30 per cent last year, and some of these people coming out at the present time are being placed on these lands at their present value. Under present conditions it is hopeless to expect these empire settlers to pay for their lands at the prices for which they were sold a few years ago, and in order to keep them on the land some revaluation will have to be made. I trust that the minister will give this matter his very serious consideration. I have had a number of representations made to me by these men, and I promised to bring the matter to the attention of the minister. Then there is another point with regard to which I should like to ask a question. I refer to what is known as the tripartite agreement.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The New Brunswick
agreement?


William Thomas Lucas: No, it applies in the west.
Here is the situation; A soldier settler takes over land from another soldier settler; that transfer is endorsed by the board, but since the second man was not originally a bona-fide soldier settler, to-day he does not get that 30 per cent reduction. I have in mind the case of a soldier settler who was settled in 1921 by the board. Later on, because of ill health, he was advised to give up farming, so he sold his farm to another soldier settler. After being away for a couple of years he
Supply-Labour

came back again and repurchased the land. Now he is refused the 30 per cent reduction, whereas had he remained on the land continually he would have been entitled to it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That would require a
change in the statute.


William Thomas Lucas: I understand so, but I
should like to ask the minister to give this matter his careful consideration.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am aware of some
cases such as the hon. member has described. There is an apparent hardship, and I have the matter under consideration to see if some method cannot be evolved which will overcome that hardship. Fortunately there are not many of those cases.


Alfred Speakman: As a matter of fact,
Mr. Chairman, both when the revaluation was permitted and the 30 per cent reduction was granted it was in the mind of the committee that those genuine eases of tripartite agreements were covered by the act. That was the intention of the committee, but it turns out that according to the phraseology of the act they are not covered.
Then I should like to say just one word in support of what has been said already as to the position of empire settlers and other civilian purchasers of soldier settlement lands. I am not going to bring forward any individual cases, because I think that is more or less a waste of time since they cannot be considered at a time like this. But I have a case in mind which is typical of a great many cases. It is the case of a man who moved from the dry area of southern Alberta into my riding in central Alberta, and who purchased an abandoned farm through the board. Up to about 1930 he did keep up his payments, but of course he is utterly unable to do so this year. I appreciate, and most of the settlers are begininng to appreciate, the fact that the minister has no intention of either putting them off the land or permitting them to be forced off at the present time. Naturally however, their debt is accumulating, the arrears becoming quite a burden; and while they are confident that the minister intends to safeguard them at the moment, they are looking to the future without much hope. The suggestion made by a number of them was that during this year, at least at a time when they do not expect payments to be made on a number of these farms, current interest be cancelled so that their arrears may not increase to a hopeless point. I realize that the minister has just taken charge of his department and is now reorganizing it, but I have no doubt he has the whole

situation in mind. As regards these empire settlers; the soldiers who became settlers, not having been originally soldier settlers; and those civilians who purchased land abandoned by soldiers, none of whom have received the benefit of the reduction, I hope their cases will all be taken into the minister's careful consideration at his leisure, when he is relieved of his responsibilities in connection with the Beauharnois committee. I should like to see something done for these people, not merely from motives of generosity but on a business basis, so that they may be able to pay for the land and retain their self respect.


William Thomas Lucas: Perhaps the minister will make a statement in regard to the Burch case which I have discussed with him privately several times. Is he still prepared to give consideration to this case?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is the ease of the carpenter; I know it very well. I may tell my hon. friend frankly that I have been struggling with the case, because while there is a good deal of equity on the side of the claimant, there is so little that I can do. However, I have it still under review and I hope to find some means whereby he can be compensated legally.


William Thomas Lucas: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because the soldier settlement board has certainly benefited to a considerable extent through this man. He is a carpenter, and returned soldier, and when so much has been done for others I think his case should be given consideration.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is a meritorious case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act, $30,000.
Thomas Reid: Why the reduction in this vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is due to the duties placed upon the tariff board.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Last year's expenditure was abnormal on account of the investigation in Toronto and the appeal to the judicial committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Employment Offices' Coordination Act, $17,000.
Peter John Veniot: Shall we have an opportunity anywhere in the estimates of discussing the expenditures under the Department of Labour of the relief money last year? When can we discuss that matter?

Industrial Relations Report


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is no item in these estimates under which it can be discussed.


Peter John Veniot: There will be an unemployment vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be an opportunity for discussion when the bill is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 21, 1931.