1931-06-24

CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Did the government receive from the Quebec government a request conforming to a resolution adopted by the Quebec legislature on March 25. 1930, and reading as follows: "This house invites the government to approach the competent authorities of the federal government in order to obtain a reduction of the interest rate on loans to be made under the Canadian Farm Loan Act"?
2.	If so, on what date was said request received?
3.	Did the government receive, since March, 1930, other requests or representations from the same government regarding the amending *of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, this question, which has been standing for a long time, asks whether or not a resolution that was adopted by the Quebec legislature in March, 1930, was brought to the attention of this government. The officials have not been able to locate any communication indicating that it had been sent to the government, but sometimes in the moving of offices papers are mislaid, as this communication may have been. I had intended to ask the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to inquire of his former colleagues whether any such communication had been received. That is how the matter stands at the present moment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.
wheat exports in 1917 and 1918


Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	What was the total number of bushels of wheat disposed of for export for the years 1917 and 1918, under the authority and supervision of the board of grain supervisors of Canada?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid by the allied purchasing commission or other overseas purchasing body for such wheat?
3.	What was the average price paid for such wheat abroad by the purchaser or purchasers thereof during each year?
4.	Was the price paid by the allied purchasing commission for Canada's wheat during these two years, $2.21 and $2.24 respectively, per bushel, basis one northern Fort William or Port Arthur plus all delivery costs including land and water freight rates, insurance, interest, etc., or were the usual fluctuating wheat prices on the world's markets also determining factors in establishing the ultimate price the allied purchasing commission paid for this wheat ?

Questions
5.	Were there any changes in the railway, ocean or insurance rates during these two years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be said that
number 2 is answered by the inquiry that took place before the committee on agriculture.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.



DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed since March 1, 1931?
2.	What were the reasons assigned for each dismissal, tile name of each postmaster and the location of each post office?
3.	How many dismissals were made after investigations were held on charges of political partisanship, and what are the names of those dismissed?
4.	What postmasters were dismissed on recommendations of the sitting member of the constituency, on the charge of political activity?


Mr. VENIOT:: I understand the Postmaster General's estimates are to come up to-day or to-morrow, and therefore I should like to have this question answered.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It rests with the Postmaster General.
^RELIEF EXPENDITURE IN MONTREAL


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What sum of money has been spent in the city of Montreal by the federal government out of the twenty million dollars voted at the special session of 1930: (a) on works as a relief for unemployment; (b) as direct assistance?
2.	How many workingmen are at present employed by the harbour commission at Montreal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I indicated the day before yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that part of this information was no more in the possession of this government than it was in the possession of the hon. gentleman himself. If he refers entirely to the works for relief, then we could give him the information that has always been supplied.


Mr. RINFRET:: The Prime Minister will
notice that I have amended my question and I believe there is no objection to it in its present form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REVENUES FROM CERTAIN STATIONS

Mr. POULIOT:: What was the total revenue:	(a) for
passenger traffic; (b) for freight traffic of the Canadian National Railways during each of
the last ten years at the following stations: Riviere du Loup, Vegreville, Parry Sound, Wainwright, Salvus, B.C., Redbank, Ont., Creek des Prairies, P.Q., Levis, P.Q.?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question and the
notice of motion for production of papers standing in the name of another hon. gentleman involve the disclosing by the railway company of its revenues at stations and the sources of those revenues from two classes of traffic. It is a long and tedious return. But apart from that, the railway company advises the department, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) indicated the other day, that they do not regard it as being in the public interest to make known through parliament the earnings at various stations. I think the hon. gentleman would be well advised to drop his question in the public interest.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 19 dropped.



OTTAWA CENSUS ENUMERATORS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	What is the total population of the city of Ottawa ?
2.	What is the French Canadian population of the city of Ottawa?
3.	How many French Canadian census enumerators were appointed for the taking of the present census in the city of Ottawa?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Total population of Ottawa city according to the census of 1921 was 107,843.
2.	French Canadian population of Ottawa city according to the census of 1921 was 30,422.
3.	Twelve.



MONTMAGNY PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Who was appointed foreman of the repair and extension works to the post office building, in the town of Montmagny, Quebec?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Were applications invited by the Civil Service Commission for this position?
4.	If not, why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	L. Coulombe.
2.	A Pouliot, clerk of works.
3.	Yes.
4.	As the advertising of this position failed to attract any applicants, the Civil Service Commission requested the department to secure the services of a suitable employee locally. This was done by the local clerk of works and the appointment made by the Civil Service Commission.
Questions



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF REPAIRS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Included in the vote of 1930-1931 for repairs to the wharf of Riviere du Loup, what repairs were mentioned in the original report of the engineers?
2.	What repairs were executed in 1930?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Repairing the headblock by placing a sheet pile protection along its outer face on the front and west side, repairing the flooring and stringers on part of the headblock and on a section adjoining headblock, and renewing the coping on the shore end of the wharf.
2.	Work done consisted in driving twenty 12" x 12" x 40-foot piles on the west side of the headblock, and securing same to crib-work; renewing flooring and stringers on part of the headblock, also on main wharf near headblock and at the angle towards shore on a surface of 8,700 square feet. The 12-by-12-inch railing was renewed for 100 feet, and repairs were made to the gravel surface at the shore end on an area of 600 square feet. A tower was built to locate the light on the headblock for the marine department.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many train services were curtailed or discontinued on the Canadian National Railways during the: (a) first six months of calendar year 1930; (b) second six months of calendar year 1930?
2.	How many men were dismissed or laid off from the Canadian National Railways during the: (a) first half of the calendar year 1930; (b) second half of the calendar year 1930?
3.	What was the number of employees in: (a) the first half of the calendar year 1930; (b) the second half of the calendar year 1930?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If, Mr. Speaker, it is intended that details should be given, this question wi/ll have to stand as an order for return. If it is merely to be an answer by numerals, it can be answered as a question after the information is received.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the question stand
as an order for return?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


YEARLY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total yearly production of: (a) milk; (b) cream; (c) butter; (d) cheese; (e) powdered milk; (f) ice cream, in Canada since 1925?

2.	What was the total yearly consumption of: (a) milk; (b) cream; (c) butter; (d) cheese; (e) powdered milk; (f) ice cream, in Canada since 1925?


BRITISH IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Is the British Immigration and Colonization Association now operating under the administration of the Department of Immigration?
2.	Who are the officials?
3.	Are the railways represented on the board?
4.	Is the policy to bring more British boys to Canada?
5.	What is the number of boys brought out by this organization?
6.	What is the number of these returned?
7.	Where are the others now located, by provinces ?
8.	What financial assistance has the government contributed to the British Immigration and Colonization Association?
9.	On what financial basis is this organization now operated?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a oopy of all documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, including reports of engineers of the said department at Ottawa and Quebec, specifications, plans and estimates prepared, in connection with extension of the protection works at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this order standing in my name being dropped now. Following the acceptance by the Prime Minister of the suggestion I made, I have had occasion to see some of these records in the Public Works department, and I hope next year that I shall be afforded a similar opportunity if necessary.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 1 dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STATION REVENUES

Mr. BUCKLEY:: For a return showing the revenues collected by the Canadian National Railways for the fiscal years of 1928, 1929, 1930, for the following services at each of the stations hereunder mentioned:
1.	Passenger service in and out-going;
2.	Freight service in and out-going;
3.	Express services, in and out-bound;
4.	Telegraph services out-bound;
Spedden, Ashmount, Owl's _ Eye, St. Paul, Elk Point, Lyndberg and Heinsburg, all in the province of Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is the order I referred to a moment ago when dealing with the question standing in the name of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. JUNE 24, 1931
Motions for Papers
Pouliot). It is not regarded as being in the public interest that a question of that kind should be answered. The attitude steadily taken is that unless the matter were before the railway commission on an application dealing with the character of the services rendered, the information is not made known, for reasons that I think must be apparent to the hon. member.


John Francis Buckley: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for the return was that I noticed that a similar return was passed on April 22 last as appears at page 866 of Hansard. If I could obtain the information from the railway company I should be quite satisfied to let the motion drop.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent of the promoter of the motion it is dropped.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The matter is not debatable. The motion has been withdrawn. To begin with, the resolution was an improper one. It was objected to, and the hon. member in whose name it stood consented to its withdrawal. In any event, I have ruled that it is improperly before the house and should be stricken from the order paper.


Peter John Veniot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the motion cannot be stricken from the order paper except by unanimous consent.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is at
liberty to appeal from the Speaker's ruling.


Peter John Veniot: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that the motion cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have given my ruling.
Is it the hon. member's wish to appeal from that ruling?


Peter John Veniot: No, Mr. Speaker. I have
t/oo much respect for the chair. I do submit, however, that the ruling is not right.
Motion dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


Mr. BRADETTE:: For a copy of all papers, reports and correspondence in connection with the placing of 7,600 unemployed single men, and also 1,500 families, on farms, as stated in the House of Commons by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization on June 9, 1931. Also a return showing the names of each person so placed on farms, with location of farms and conditions and terms of such placements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This motion cannot be
complied with as it stands without the consent of the railways and, I should say, the people affected. Their correspondence was largely with the railways and not with the government.


Peter John Veniot: The announcement was made in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. The minister
got into touch with the presidents* of the railways and they directed certain officials to cooperate in the work that has been done. The railways now advise that it would take several weeks for them to prepare their part of the return, and we know of no reason why they should be asked to do this. What is more, we certainly do not think it is in the public interest that people's names should be disclosed in a return. The correspondence took place on that assumption.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the indulgence of the house, may I point out that the statement to which reference is made in this motion was made by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon) himself, on Tuesday, June 9. The minister said:
In addition to that we have been able, with the joint help of the railroads and my department, to place on selected locations some 1,500 families-
And so forth. So that the matter was primarily a federal one. As representing a constituency which is very much interested in matters affecting agriculture and colonization, I submit that the motion should be agreed to. It was distinctly stated by the minister that the work had been done in conjunction with the railway companies.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member press his motion?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. St-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Peek). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FONTAINE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



BOARD OP PENSION COMMISSIONERS

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: For a return showing:
1.	Number of cases (not including cases of commuted pension) allowed by the Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930. and June 15, 1931.
2.	Number of cases of pensions previously commuted, dealt with by Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and June 15. 1931.
3.	Amount of money paid to pensioners under 2.
4.	Number of eases rejected by said board and allowed by the pensions tribunals in the same period.
5.	Number of cases rejected by the pensions tribunals and allowed by the pensions appeal court in the same period.
6.	Number of cases allowed by the pensions tribunals and rejected by the appeal court in the same period.
7.	Cost during the same period of (a) The Board of Pension Commissioners and their administration as such; (b) the pensions tribunals and their staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (c) pension advocates and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (d) commission counsel and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (e) pensions appeal coui't and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses.
8.	Monetary value of all pensions paid during same period, (a) by Board of Pension Commissioners, (b) by decisions of pensions tribunals and not appealed, (c) by decisions of the appeal court.
9.	Number of cases (outside the decisions of the pensions board) finally disposed of during the same period.


Murray MacLaren: In the absence of the hon. member, I would ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.
Business oj the House



CENSUS COMMISSIONERS


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a return showing:
1.	The names and addresses of census commissioners appointed for the North Battleford federal constituency in taking the present census.
2.	The area allotted to each.
3.	The names and addresses of enumerators appointed in each district and, generally speaking, the territory covered by each.
4.	The salaries and other remuneration of commissioners and enumerators, how many of these commissioners and enumerators are returned men, their names and addresses, who recommended these appointments, and the correspondence dealing therewith.



OYSTER CULTURE

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Fisheries and any person or persons since January I, 1930, including any officials or ministers of the provincial government of British Columbia, with reference to oyster, oyster culture or oyster leases on the Serpentine and Nicomelk rivers, in the municipality of Surrey, British Columbia.



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of reports of the district engineer to the chief engineer, and the latter's reports to the Deputy Minister of Public Works, particularizing the vote of 1931-1932 for repairs to the wharf of Riviere du Loup.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the hon member, the resolution will stand.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to bring forward this session legislation in addition to that which appears on the order paper, or of which notice has been given in the votes and proceedings. If so, will the right hon. gentleman tell us at this time what that legislation will be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not in a position to answer the question at the moment, but as soon as I am I will advise the right hon. gentleman at once.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the Prime Minister in a position to advise us whether
Business oj the House

the house will have an opportunity of considering to-morrow, in committee of ways and means, the budget resolutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This affords me an opportunity to say that there is some delay in getting the resolutions before committee of ways and means, by reason of a cable communication with Australia. Several items of the tariff wild be modified in the light of a trade agreement we propose to make with that dominion, an'd we have been asked not to proceed with these matters until we receive the original of the trade agreement executed in Australia. The matter is under consideration, and if we proceed with the tariff items we should have to reserve the items to which the Australian agreement relates until such time as we receive further information. We had some cable communication this morning and I hope to be able to make a statement before eleven o'clock to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will, I am sure, appreciate the reasons that make it desirable that an opportunity be afforded the house at as early a date as possible to discuss the budget resolutions in committee of ways and means. He was somewhat late in bringing down the budget, and we are now at a late stage of the session. At the special session we had no opportunity to discuss tariff matters. If my right hon. friend could see his way to letting us proceed with the resolutions, in so far as he is in a position to permit discussion, reserving particular items, I should think that would be the preferable course in the long run. It would facilitate bringing to an early conclusion the proceedings of the house-something which I fancy all hon. members are anxious to see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is not on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be on the order paper in the morning; it appears in the votes and proceedings.


Ernest Lapointe: That is short notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it is short notice but if my hon. friend thinks it should not be proceeded with to-morrow, it can stand until another day. I will suit my hon. friend's convenience in that regard. I think those are the only contentious matters which still remain on the order paper. All departments with the exception of four have been in supply, and it is proposed to put two of these departments in this afternoon or this evening and then we shall be able perhaps to get some sort of finality writh respect to supply discussion. There has been and there will be no endeavour on the part of the government to limit discussion; if the house desires to stay here another month the government will accommodate it as far as that is concerned.


Peter John Veniot: What two departments will go into supply?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One will be the Department of Pensions and National Health. The other was to have been the Post Office Department, but the minister has gone to Montreal. There will be the Department of Justice and the Department of Immigration, if possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due respect to my right hon. friend, I hope he will not think I am unduly critical when I ask him to look at the answers given every evening in connection with the business of the house. He will there discover that what

Business of the House
he is now saying in connection with the estimates is apparently an afterthought. Each day he has led the house to believe, that on the day following we would get into consideration of the budget resolutions by committee of ways and means. I quite agree with my right hon. friend that the country does not desire to have the estimates run through all in a heap, so to speak, and there is no likelihood of anything of that kind occurring, but what the country is most interested in at the present time is a full discussion of the resolutions which my right hon. friend introduced at the close of his budget address. Unless he gives an immediate opportunity for the discussion of those resolutions he knows that we will not reach them until the middle of summer, a time when it is most inconvenient for hon. members to be spending morning, afternoon and night of each day in this house. My right hon. friend owes it to the house to endeavour to accommodate its members by bringing forward first the most important legislation. We on this side of the house have done all we can to accommodate him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my right
hon. friend has no warrant at all for saying lhat I led this house to believe other than just what appears on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not come into the
house last evening at eleven o'clock; I started to come in but the bell rang just at the time. My hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Guthrie) stated what it was proposed to go on with to-day, and the right hon. gentleman said: Then, we will have to wait another day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was referring to Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us look at this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While my right hon. friend is looking that up, perhaps he will allow me to quote what he said on Friday night last, June 19. After my right hon. friend had announced the business of the house, I replied as follows:
We all realize, of course, that the Prime Minister must arrange the business as he thinks desirable. I hope, however, that he will not too long delay consideration of the ways and means resolutions. At the special session, as my right hon. friend remembers, matters were rushed through rapidly, and it would be helpful to bring on the resolutions fairly early.
My right hon. friend replied:
As there are two or three departments which have not yet been in supply, the purpose of proceeding on Monday is to get them into
supply. I will expedite as far as possible the bringing in of the resolutions, but I desire to see that every department has been in _supply so that we may call them whenever- there is an opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I
say now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To get those
departments into supply so that there would be an opportunity of going on with them at any time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not in yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assured my
right hon. friend that he would be assisted in getting on with his estimates if he would help us out in the other particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I did say was
that I was going to get all the departments into supply, and we are proceeding to do exactly what I said. The following appears on pages 2915 and 2916 of Hansard, under the heading Business of the House:
Mr. Mackenzie King: What business is proposed for to-morrow?
Mr. Guthrie: We will take up items numbers 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30. 16 and 17. If we go into supply, as we hope to. it will be in connection -with any of the departments already considered, and also Post Office, Secretary of State, Immigration and Justice, in that order.
Mr. Mackenzie King: That is a pretty good order. Would my hon. friend remind the Prime Minister of our anxiety to proceed with some of the resolutions in committee of ways and means ?
Mr. Guthrie: I think the Prime Minister is endeavouring to start on Wednesday; in the meantime wre are dealing with other matters.
That is all that has been said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On each day
it was being put off until the next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question at all of it being put off. Speeches have been repeated as often as three times on the same subject matter, and, what is more, I have taken the trouble to have prepared a list of the number of pages of Hansard taken up by hon. gentlemen opposite in repeating the same speeches in different form.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. The right hon. gentleman thinks that he speaks for the country, but I think I can say that this country is getting a little weary of the repetition of speeches. If hon. members will take the trouble to count the pages of Hansard they will see the time which has been taken up in making the same speeches on agricultural depression and unemployment, with a resultant
Business of the House

injury to the country's credit in connection with the western provinces. Hon. members will then understand that we are proceeding with the business of the country in the best way possible.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What has the Minister of Labour got to say about it?


Peter John Veniot: In connection with the
repetition of speeches and taking up the time of the house, has the right hon. the Prime Minister taken note of the time his own followers took in discussing national defence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to give
hon. gentlemen particulars in this connection


Peter John Veniot: The right hon. gentleman's own followers took tip all the time the other night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my right
hon. friend in a position to give the house the comparative tables in connection with the tariff schedules which were asked for two weeks ago, and which he said last Friday night he hoped to have almost immediately?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not able to give
them to the house as they are not prepared. I asked to have them prepared and I am told that it will take two or three weeks.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Surely my
right hon. friend does not believe any such thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This work was never
done until about three years ago, and on that occasion it was completed after an effort extending over several weeks. I made careful inquiry as to why this work could not be done promptly, and I was told by the gentleman who did the work that on that occasion it took two or three weeks. This gentleman told me the reason why it took that length of time. The officials have been working on this matter.


Mr. HOWARD:: How long did it take last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is in a better position to answer that question than am I, but I was told by the same gentleman that it took over three weeks.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has been over
three weeks now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The budget was presented to the house on June 1, and after its presentation the suggestion was made that this work should be done. I left instructions that same evening that it should be done and I arranged also that 245 copies of the complete tariff of

this country should be available for distribution in this house. I spoke to the right hon. gentleman opposite and he said that he would like to have further comparisons. He wanted the items as they appeared in the Dunning budget, as they appeared last year at the short session and as they appear now. I know only this, that the officers who are very much overworked told me that it would be impossible to get this work completed for some days. That is one of the reasons why I have not presented these resolutions, because if I had the right hon. gentleman would have urged at once that these comparative tables had not been prepared. They will be prepared as soon as possible. I can only say that I did ask that these things be done with as much speed as is reasonable, but men cannot carry on the work of very busy departments and do the impossible at the same time.


Mr. YOUNG:: Cannot they increase their staffs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, they have not done so. I may say for the information of the house, although I have not before me at the moment the exact number, nearly 450 motions have been made and orders passed for returns this year, or more than twice the number that have been passed in any session during the last ten years. I am in the judgment of the house and the country, when they read the character of the returns moved for by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) during the course of this session, whether or not they think that is what officials should be busy doing instead of endeavouring to discharge the business of the country as they have been doing.


Peter John Veniot: In 1929 there were more than 100 returns in connection with one department alone, and twenty-five extra stenographers had to be kept working in that department to prepare those returns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with the comparative tables of customs schedules to which my right hon. friend has just referred, may I remind him of the fact that the schedules with regard to the Dunning budget were all printed at the time the budget was introduced? The comparative tables showing the changes made at the last special session as compared with the customs schedules in the Dunning budget were prepared and printed over eight months ago, so that all that has to be done is to place beside those two columns a third column showing the changes that are proposed this year. This can be done with scissors and paste inside an afternoon if the officials wish to do it.

Root Vegetables Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would judge from the noise it is not scissors and paste that would be used in making the return. The right hon. gentleman is in error in respect to the matter. As perhaps will be recalled, the comparative tables were printed lengthwise of the sheet. The gentleman who had the matter in charge at the time of the Dunning budget informed me only last night in the presence of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) that it would take several weeks to get the whole matter complete.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was preparing the material for the budget at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, preparing the comparative tables, which are printed lengthwise of the sheet. This occasioned much more trouble. What is wanted now apparently is, first of all, three columns of the existing budget resolutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which are already printed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in that form. They have to be shifted and reset in type. Then there are three more columns of"the resolutions of the September session and three more of the resolutions of June 1. That makes nine columns and the items are not the same


Mr. RALSTON:: We want only the items which are dealt with in the present resolutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The items are not in the same words. Items have been split up.


James Layton Ralston: I know that. That is why we need the parallel columns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the difficulty in preparing them.


James Layton Ralston: There is no trouble at all in comparing the numbers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only take the word of the officials who have to do the work, and who are men with high reputations for hard work. They certainly work early and very late. The next day after the right hon. gentleman spoke to me, I requested that the matter be attended to.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Vallance: When may we expect that some opportunity will be given to the house to consider the report of the Stamp commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not thought of providing any
facilities for its discussion. I do not doubt that it can be discussed when the agricultural estimates are before us; that will be an opportunity that will be afforded. It is usual at that time to discuss matters pertaining to agriculture. Or perhaps it might be discussed when the Trade and Commerce estimates are brought on; that is probably the department to which it belongs.



ROOT VEGETABLES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 87, to amend the Root Vegetables Act.-Mr. Weir (Melfort).-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 2-Vegetables excepted from operation of act.
An hon. MEMBER:: What about clause 1?


The CHAIRMAN:: Clause 1 was passed.


Mr. NEILL:: What clause are we considering?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Clause 2.


Alan Webster Neill: Have we passed clause 1?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Clause 1 was passed on June 19.


Alan Webster Neill: It should not have been; it was not in correct form. Would the minister be kind enough to explain what influenced him in deciding that new potatoes must be graded? It would appear to be rather a new departure. New potatoes are, as the word implies, essentially immature and of small size. Consequently they command a higher price on account of people being willing to pay for a new article, so to speak. If these new potatoes are to come under the inspection provisions, they will have to be of a certain size and reasonably mature. Why was it deemed necessary to bring them under this measure?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: We have received a number of requests from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick that all potatoes there be graded; that, as a matter of fact, grading be made compulsory and the potatoes covered by a certificate of inspection. In addition to that we have these resolutions: resolution by the Canadian Horticultural Council asking that new potatoes be .brought under the same regulations as other potatoes; resolution by the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association; also resolutions by the South Essex Growers' Cooperative and the Central Ontario Potato Growers' Association.


Mr. BROWN:: I think this is another way of getting at something which the government
Root Vegetables Act

attempted to do some time ago. It will be recalled that the government passed an order in council fixing a price, for duty purposes, on potatoes. There was a great deal of protest against that order in council, and the government, instead of rescinding it when the evils of it were pointed out, passed another order in council. Like the laws of the Medes and Persians, I suppose their orders are unchangeable. So they passed another order in council substituting radishes for potatoes. The effect of the first order in council was to put a heavy impost on new potatoes coming into this country. Objections were raised by American shippers, and these objections were endorsed by the potato growers of the maritime provinces, who were accustomed to sell large quantities of seed potatoes to the United States, which trade was going to be endangered. By bringing down this amendment the government is seeking to do in another way what they were prevented from doing in the first place. Now they are going to apply grading regulations in such a way that the small potatoes that come in in the early spring will be excluded because they will not come up to the grading regulations. As a matter of fact, that is the purpose of this bill. Instead of calling it a bill to amend the Root Vegetables Act, we might as well call it an act to exclude new potatoes coming in from the United States.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that is why the Horticultural Council and these other associations have requested this legislation?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, absolutely, and nothing else.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand from the minister that a number of bodies have asked for this legislation. I am not particularly opposing the legislation in that regard, but I should like some further information. Under chapter 181 of the revised statutes, the various grades of potato are defined, such as Canada A, Canada B, Canada C, and so on, and I think in all cases the potatoes are required to be reasonably mature, and even the lowest grade, grade C, is required to be I think not less than li inches in diameter. Subsequently it appears-I have not the act before me-that the ex-Minister of Agriculture, in 1929 I think it was, changed that definition section of the act and did away with direct definitions of the various grades. Instead he made regulations which allowed his department, with the advice of certain bodies therein indicated, to make new definitions each year of what constituted the different grades, based apparently

upon what has 'been done in the matter of grading wheat every year. I do not think that idea was a sound one because potatoes are of a more stable character than wheat, and the same grade or the same size should apply every year, one would suppose. Nevertheless that is what was done. In the event of the grades not being defined in any act, I presume that we shall have to fall back on the order in council or the definition which the minister or his department will give every year. What I am trying to get at is this: Under the present definition-it may be changed in a few weeks or a few months-what will be the smallest size of potato that will be allowed in now that they have to be graded?


Robert Weir: If this section passes. I take it that the new potatoes will be subject to the grades as set out now for the old potatoes, but if there is sufficient evidence that the potato growers wish to have new grades or the exemption of certain grades of new potatoes, that can be put into effect by a ministerial order at their request.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alfoerni (Mr. Neill), there is a very great necessity at times of the department having the power to change the grades. For instance, two years ago we found in the potato business that potatoes for certified seed had to be graded up to a certain size, 21 inches and upwards, while table stock of the same type rvould be graded down to 1J inches for No. 1 grade. Certain seed growers shipped out all their potatoes over inches for certified seed, and then they could take the balance of that stock between 2| and 1| inches and make a full carload of No. 1 table stock, according to the regulations as they existed at the time. You can see how necessary it was to change those regulations, because a carload of potatoes consisting wholly of potatoes from 1J to 2J inches is of very inferior calibre, and nobody would accept it. That just shows the necessity of having the power to change the regulations according to the needs of the situation as it may arise from time to time.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), while I was sitting on that side of the house for a number of years I consistently advocated a change in the grading regulations which would stop the importation of such trash as we see exhibited particularly in the months of April and May in the city of Ottawa and practically every other city in the country. This small stuff coming in is absolute trash, immature, not fit for anything. During those months this country has an abundance of splendid old

Root Vegetables Act
stock, and a market for it is urgently required. I think it is certainly a step in the right direction to establish regulations under which this stuff that is coming into the country can be shut out under grading regulations.
Mr. \OUNG:	A few minutes ago the
Prime Minister complained that speeches on this side of the house were being repeated from time to time. I think we have before us a good illustration of a case where speeches such as the one just made by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) should be repeated again and again by every member on this side of the house, not with the hope of impressing the government very much, but at least to let the country know what is being done and what are the motives behind it. I remember some years ago when the tariff board was sitting, a gentleman appeared before that board and told them he had a cellar full of old carrots that he could not sell, and he wanted such tariff regulations enacted as would make it impossible for people in this country to buy new carrots until he had disposed of his old ones. The object of this legislation is identically the same. At the time these new potatoes are coming into the country there are no new Canadian potatoes, but certain Canadian growers have old potatoes which they want to sell, and so they want regulations enacted making it impossible for anyone in this country to buy new potatoes until they have disposed of their old ones. My hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Macdonald) says that these imported potatoes are trash. The people of this country can be depended on to judge whether they are trash or not. They do not need to be protected in that regard. If the old home-grown potatoes are so very much better, the people will buy them and leave the new potatoes alone. But the very fact that the growers are asking for this legislation is proof that the imported potatoes are not trash. It proves that they are more palatable to our people than the old potatoes. Who is asking for this legislation? The potato growers of Prince Edward Island, who never can supply the whole market of Canada with their potatoes. The Horticultural Council also asks for this legislation. Who are they? An organization composed of dealers, for the growers withdrew from the organization last year.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is not correct.


Edward James Young: Part of them withdrew, in
Ontario, at all events. The people who want this legislation are those who are interested
in trying to get extra prices out of the people of Canada for stuff which the people of Canada do not want to buy, and they want to exclude new potatoes coming in from the United States. A short time ago the government shut out by regulation American potatoes. Then it discovered that the Americans could hit back, that as a result of that order in council we were likely to lose the sale of many more potatoes to the United States than they were going to sell here. So the government decided to change their regulations and determined to exclude radishes instead of potatoes. When my hon. friend said that they were not going to allow these new potatoes to come in, I thought perhaps it was so that they could be distinguished from radishes, but apparently there is no danger on that account. It is the new potatoes they are afraid of. When it was discovered that the United States could hit back and that we were likely to lose the sale of six bushels in their country for every bushel that we shut out of our country, this government tried to achieve their object in another way, by bringing down this amendment. Do they think that they can deceive the American government and the American people in that way? The Americans will say: You have shut out American potatoes from Canada, and we will retaliate and shut out Canadian potatoes from the United States. The result will be that those who have asked for this legislation will find themselves in a worse plight than they are in now.


Alan Webster Neill: The remarks of my hon.
friend from Kings that the regulations as to grades works out in an unjust way would tend to suggest that the grades were not properly drawn in the first instance, but the principal objection that I have is to giving the government power to change the grades overnight. The agricultural department-I am not referring to the present minister particularly, because it has always been the case with that department-is particularly apt to arrogate the power of legislating for itself, and generally their regulations are pretty strict and impose severe penalties. Here is the situation. As I said before, if the grades are not right as defined by the act, chapter 181 of the revised statutes of 1927, why not change them? That is what we are here for. But the late minister took power to change those grades at any time he liked, subject to taking advice from somebody. Therefore we today are in this position, that we do not know -at least I do not know, and the minister does not appear to be able to tell me-under what restrictions of size these new potatoes
Root Vegetables Act

must come. He says if the act passes they will come under the ordinary grades. But the ordinary grades are not defined by law; they are left to be defined by his department. What those grades were last year or will be to-day or to-morrow is quite unknown. Going back to the act, it says that potatoes to pass the number 3 grade must be li inches in diameter and reasonably matured. The ordinary new potato would not qualify; if it were reasonably matured it would not be a new potato under the ordinary acceptation of the word; and if you cut out those under li inches in size you would not have many new potatoes at all. Even taking the regulations as they are to-day, what standard, we will say, of size alone will these new potatoes have to comply with? If the minister could tell me that I might be more agreeable to passing the bill.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: 
Alan Webster Neill: Where do I find those grades defined?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: In the
Department of Agriculture.	[DOT]


Alan Webster Neill: I do not carry the Department of Agriculture around with me.


Robert Weir: Page 10.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: My hon. friend can find other things when he wants them. Why cannot he find the grades now?


Alan Webster Neill: I am trying to.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I am
carrying them in my head, I know them very well.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not carry potatoes in
my head.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I am
very much surprised at the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) or any other hon. member attempting to frustrate those who are desirous of having this legislation passed. It does not refer to the grading of seed potatoes such as my hon. friend from Lisgar referred

to. He will see that in the new tariff bil certified seed potatoes from the United States are admitted free of duty.


John Livingstone Brown: I never spoke of certified
seed potatoes coming in here at all.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: My hon. friend spoke of seed potatoes.


John Livingstone Brown: My observations had to do with seed potatoes shipped from Canada to the United States.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: They
carry the same duty as table potatoes, 75 cents per hundred pounds. The same tariff applied to seed potatoes coming from the United States into Canada until the recent tariff bill was brought down, when they were made free.


John Livingstone Brown: I was not discussing that
at all.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It must
be clear to eveiy hon. member that when at Detroit, Boston or New York, there accumulates a number of carloads of undergrade-size potatoes which the growers cannot sell in their own market, it is very unfair indeed to have those potatoes dumped into the Canadian market free of duty.


Edward James Young: Unfair to whom?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: To the
Canadian growers.


Edward James Young: How about the Canadian
consumer?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It is also unfair to the Canadian consumer because he is getting an inferior article.


Edward James Young: Does the hon. member
think the consumer does not know what to buy?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I presume he does know what to buy. I am sure he would be quite willing to buy good, Canadian grown stock if he could get number 1 instead of the number 3 potatoes that are imported.


Edward James Young: Why don't you sell him
number 1?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I remember two or three years ago I came up to Ottawa with a deputation and had a sympathetic hearing from the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the ex-Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) and the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), who introduced me to the members of the Liberal

Root Vegetables Act
government. I told them the situation along the St. John river and in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, where potatoes were rotting in the cellars of the farmers. They gave me to understand they would put a seasonal duty on American potatoes to encourage the Canadian grower along the St. John river and in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. When I speak of these farmers in the maritime provinces I am thinking also of the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, for what affects us in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island certainly [DOT]affects in the very same way the potato growers in Quebec and Ontario. I am sure potato growers in the central provinces will tell you that they do not want this inferior stuff to come in when they are trying to clear off their old stock in Toronto, Montreal and our other Canadian markets. Surely the committee must misunderstand the situation or there would not be a single voice raised against this bill. There ought not to be a single protest against the passing of this measure, which has been asked for by our potato growers for a number of years past. I think the ex-Minister of Agriculture will remember that when I saw him three years ago I told him the farmers in New Brunswick were getting 10 cents a bushel for their potatoes. The farmers of Ontario. Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island would like to sell the balance of their old stock before their new stock comes on the market. I know the ex-Minister of Agriculture was sympathetic towards my proposal, and I do not know why a seasonal duty was not imposed at that time. We went home on that occasion and had to dump thousands of bushels of our potatoes into the river or take them out into the fields and let them rot.


Mr. MAROIL:: Was any request received
from the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: From the cooperative associations. In reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I did not try to evade answering his question.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, no.


Robert Weir: I thought he would
have the information. If it is the wish of the committee 1 will give the different grades. One and a half inches in diameter-that is the Canadian number 3.


Alan Webster Neill: And reasonably matured?


Mr. JONES:: No, that applies to 1 and 2.


Robert Weir: This is Canada
number 3:
Canada No. 3 shall consist of potatoes which do not conform to any of the foregoing grades but the minimum diameter shall be not less than 1) inches.


Alan Webster Neill: Which of the grades will new potatoes come under?


Robert Weir: They will be graded in this way unless there is a special request from the growers to do otherwise.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not intend to continue my opposition to this bill. I spoke as I did in order to call attention to the real nature of the bill which was being introduced under one name when the intention was in a measure hidden. I thought it well also to call the attention of the house and the country to the exact position in which we on both sides of the house stand to-day in regard to some of these matters. I called attention to it also in order to furnish another illustration of the kind of policy the government are pursuing. If it is our intention absolutely to exclude American goods-and there can be no question that is the intention of this bill- in order that the old stock may be cleaned up, do not let us beat about the bush. We tried one method, by passing certain orders in council, and found that it did not work; there were many protests against it. Now we are trying this other method, and probably there will be protests against it as well. If we want to exclude foreign goods, let us put an embargo against them and be done with it.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I do not see anything very alarming about this bill. Some of us are so sensitive on tariff matters that we can see them in every woodpile. This bill is simply an evolution of the grading system, as I understand it, as applied to potatoes. If I were to oppose the bill I would be opposing the policy we have followed as a government for the last seven or eight years.
Formerly these new potatoes were exempt from grading, the reason being that we thought we were applying the principle of grading just about as fast as the people would accept it. Many a raking over I received in this house, when I was on the other side, for shoving the grading policy of the government ahead with regard to all kinds of farm products including vegetables. We did not think we crowded it, but we kept well up to public sentiment in the matter. We thought public sentiment was not sufficiently crystallized to approve of the grading of new potatoes at that time, but perhaps public sentiment has developed since then and it has been found that the departmental regulations we were authorized to make under the

Root Vegetables Act

amending act of 1929 should be extended to cover new potatoes. The departmental officials and the growers, after sizing up the situation and getting suggestions from their organizations, have been setting the grades during the last two years for vegetables such as carrots, turnips, parsnips and so on, and they have been working out splendidly. There has not been a single complaint, so far as I know, with regard to the grades which have been worked out between the departmental officials and the organizations of growers throughout the country. The intention here is to apply the same style of grading and the same principle of cooperation between departmental officials and organizations of growers to new potatoes, which formerly were exempt from grading.
I think that is right. We cannot very well say exactly, as my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton indicated, what the grades will be until the regulations have been agreed upon. I presume the departmental officials and the growers already have in mind the regulations which will be adopted as soon as this bill is put through. That is my anticipation, so I would not think the minister could say now exactly what they will be. They may be approximately the same as they were before; they will be the same until the growers and the departmental officials get together and evolve such regulations and grades as are applicable to conditions which exist to-day. That will not be done until this act passes, as I understand it. After that is done, then new potatoes will be graded exactly as other vegetables have been graded for the last two years.


John Livingstone Brown: I should like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture if these grades will apply to potatoes which the farmer may bring to the market in open containers.


Robert Weir: That is one question which will be decided between the producers ond the departmental officials, as the former Minister of Agriculture has said.


John Livingstone Brown: There are too many things up in the air, as far as this bill is concerned; there are too many things which are to be settled at some future date. I think we have had too much of that legislation already.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think
it is only fair to enlighten the hon. member a little on that point.


John Livingstone Brown: You do not know; how
can you enlighten me when the minister cannot?	-


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I presume the minister could enlighten you more than I can, but I suppose I have the same privilege the hon. member has.


Edward James Young: Are you speaking for the
government?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I am
not speaking for the government; I am trying to enlighten the hon. member for Lisgar. The first potatoes which are dug out of the field are not quite mature enough to be placed in bags or packages, and under the old regulations of the Department of Agriculture farmers were allowed to ship those potatoes in bulk for a certain time. After that we were compelled to put them in bags, or at least during a portion of last year we were compelled to do so. There is a very strong movement on foot to-day, which was voiced very strongly at the meeting last summer of the Eastern Canada Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, held in St. John, that all potatoes should be shipped in packages. I am not so sure that this should be done as far as it applies to the very early shipments, and I think the matter is left in that way so that the very early shipments we make might be shipped in bulk rather than in packages or bags or barrels.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I just want
to say a few words in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), who seems so partial to United States potatoes and so much opposed to Canadian potatoes. I made a remark a little while ago about the class of potatoes being sold in Canada coming from the United States, and called them trash. I should like to exhibit one potato. It is less than an inch in size and full of disease of all kinds. It has powdery scab and other diseases. I picked it out of a barrel exhibited for sale on Bank street a few days ago, coming from the United States. Is this committee satisfied?


Alan Webster Neill: Is that an average?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: No, I will
say it is not an average, but it was exhibited for sale. There were a number of others equally bad, and there was some better stuff in the barrel as well.


Edward James Young: Do you think anybody would buy it?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: A few
moments ago the hon. member for Weyburn said the people had discretion enough to buy or not buy as they saw fit. That stuff is coming into Canada and is being placed on

Root Vegetables Act
the market for sale, and I presume that would not be done unless there were buyers. My point is that stuff like this should be shut out.


John Livingstone Brown: I should like to direct attention to a point which I think is of some importance in connection with our procedure. When the house went into committee on this bill the deputy speaker, who was then in the chair, insisted very strongly that section 1 had been carried. Some of us protested that it had not been carried at the previous sitting, and there was good reason why that was not done; the Minister of Agriculture was not in his place at the time. All that is recorded in the votes and proceedings is this:
The bill No. 87, an act to amend the Root Vegetable Act. was considered in committee of the whole, and progress having been made and reported, the committee obtained leave to consider it again at the next sitting of the house.
That is a contradiction of the statement of the deputy speaker that section 1 was carried at the last sitting.


Alan Webster Neill: There is no doubt that was
the case; further than that, section 1 is not in correct form. It should read:
Section 6 of the Root Vegetables Act, chapter 181, revised statutes of Canada, as amended by act of 1929-
I do not think it is good law as it reads now. We are repealing a section which already has been repealed by a subsequent enactment, so this section should begin with the words I have indicated.
I am not opposing this particular matter; possibly there is some merit in the suggestion, but I think we are overdoing the whole thing as a governing body. We are overdoing this principle of grading in these hard times; we are interfering with business by grading this and grading the other thing. I anticipate that the day will come, Mr. Chairman, when we will be grading babies; those under a certain size and length will be excluded, I presume.


Mr. CAHAN:: In regard to the suggestion
last made, as to the form of the bill, I looked into this matter after the last sitting, at the request of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I think there is no doubt but that this amending act is drafted in proper form. It is an amendment to chapter 181 of the revised statutes, and section 6 is repealed. Section 6 in the revised statutes, which is now repealed, was not changed by the amending act of 1929; but with regard to section 19, one clause was amended though it remained as a part of section 19 of the Root Vegetables Act, chapter 181 of the revised 22110-1891
statutes of Canada. The whole section is now repealed and certainly the bill is in proper form.


Alan Webster Neill: It is always the custom to
say "as amended by" and then to cite the later act. That is all I know about it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There may be differences
in different acts, but I am sure this is drafted in proper form to carry out the intention. I looked into it very carefully after the last debate.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman,
since we are being permitted to discuss section 1 might I ask the Secretary of State if he does not think this is rather confusing. It refers to an act which has nothing whatever to do with the amended section. All that is necessary is to say "as amended by" and then state the act of 1929. That would solve the problem so that we laymen would not be worrying about something which is not here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For the information of those who may study the bill it is marked on the margin, "revised statutes, chapter 181; acts of 1929, chapter 7." This is an amendment to chapter 181 of the revised statutes, and one section is repealed that was not amended in 1929. Another section, No. 19, is repealed in its entirety, so there need be no confusion about it.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid there is some confusion, but it is on the other side of the house. If you look up the chapter mentioned you will find it does not refer to this business of potatoes at all. If you look up the amended act of 1929, you will find that section 3, subsection
(d)	states:
. Prescribing brands or marks and the manner m which same shall be placed on vegetable containers.
All we have to do in order to avoid confusion is to say "as amended by chapter 7 of the acts of 1929." Why not mention that in the bill, and not have us hunting all over creation for it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It may be necessary for the information of the hon. gentleman, but if he will look in the index to any one of the annual statutes he always will be able to see what amendments to the revised statutes have been made. If I am looking at a revised statute I always look at the index to see what amendments have been made since those statutes were brought into force, but I am speaking now of the legal effect of the draft-
Root Vegetables Act

ing of this bill. It is in proper form, and it effects the object which the Minister of Agriculture has in view. That is all.


William Richard Motherwell: That may be so, but I have had some experience with the way the law officers here maul bills sent from the Department of Agriculture. As I understand it, this bill originally contained the words "as amended in 1929" but it went through the hands of the law officers here, and they have their own notions as to draftsmanship. Very often they fix bills up so delightfully that they mean something altogether different from what was meant by the department in the first place. I have had to withdraw bills from the order paper after they had gone through the hands of the law officers, so if the minister wants to keep out of the trouble caused by the law officers of the crown mutilating his bills, of course with the best intentions in the world, I suggest that, before they go on the order paper, he or his officers look them over and see if they can recognize them as the same bills which were sent from the department. If they are not the same, or if they do not mean the same thing, they should be corrected before going on the order paper. I had to do that for seven yeans, after having been caught badly. The former leader of the Conservative party, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, certainly went after me for having brought down a bill which had to be withdrawn because it was improperly drafted by the law officers. It meant something entirely different from what was intended by the department. I had to withdraw it and go through that humiliation, and I should like to save the minister the experience I had. It is the only way he can save himself; it is up to him to see that the bill is in the form lie desires it to be, and not as the law officers think it should be.


Alan Webster Neill: I would not for a moment argue with the Secretary of State as to the legality of this bill; that would be very presumptuous on my part, but I do appeal to him from the standpoint of a man who wants to look up the law. We know the statutes are only revised once in ten years. Nine years from now this is what may happen: I may look up this act and find that it reads as it is here; in regard to the section which is being struck out it says:
The section quoted above provides specifically for the marking of packages which contain potatoes and onions. Provisions for this are already made under section 3 (d) of the act.
So I will turn to this act and look for section 3 (d), but there is no section 3 (d) in it.
(Mr. Cahan.]
If it only said "as amended by the act of 1929'' then I could readily turn up the act of 1929 and put my finger on the amendment. Nine years after it has been amended, however, I may have to reason like this: "There is no section 3 (d) in the original act; therefore it must have been amended by one of the acts passed during the following nine years." Then I will have to look up the acts of each of those nine years, and, as any lawyer would have to do the same, to see when that amendment was made. Would it not be worth while to put in a few extra words in older to make it a little more easily ascertainable, even to legal men?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like a little information from the minister. Is the description of the grades of these new' potatoes fixed by statute or by regulation?


Robert Weir: By regulation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister w'as reading something to the house; was that from the regulations?


Robert Weir: Yes, vegetable
grades and regulations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When were they made?


Robert Weir: June 29 and August 3, 1929.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister tell me under what section of the act these regulations were made? I have consulted the act, perhaps in its original form, and I gather that section 3 fixes the dimensions of the grades absolutely. Has that been changed?


Robert Weir: I was reading from vegetable grades and regulations, published in the Canada Gazette of June 29 and August 3, 1929, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon the minister by subsection 1; section 3 of the Root Vegetables Act, chapter 181 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter 7 of the statutes of 1929.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the size which the minister mentions is found to be too large, can it be changed by the department from time to time? Would the minister mind telling the size again? I should have listened more attentively, I suppose.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. gentleman mean the entire description, or the minimum size?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minimum size.


Robert Weir: The minimum diameter of the lowest grades shall not be less than 1J inches.

Root Vegetables Act
29S1


James Lorimer Ilsley: If that remains without change, will it keep any considerable quantity of potatoes off the market?


Robert Weir: I would say, yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want the minister to understand that I am asking for information only. I am under the impression that the validity of these grading acts is questionable, although I may be entirely mistaken as to that.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is concurrent legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Justice says that there is concurrent legislation; is there to be concurrent legislation, or is there concurrent legislation already?


Hugh Guthrie: There is already.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In all provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If that is so, all right, but
if not then there should be such legislation.


Mr. MYERS:: So far as the grading regulations are concerned they cannot be fixed by statute. It is necessary that they be changed from time to time as occasion warrants.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the case up until a year or two ago.


John Howard Myers: Then the change was made, and rightly so. In the ease of the crop of 1929 the minimum size for No. 1 certified seed was 2J- inches, but it was found that there was a scarcity of potatoes in the United States. There was a greater demand for this No. 1 certified seed than could be supplied, so'much so that the buyers from the southern states were willing to accept the smaller grade, down to two inches and even as low as 1J inches. Several steamer loads of potatoes with a minimum size of 1| inches were exported that year, although these potatoes were grown from certified stock in inspected fields. Before our inspectors could give a certificate covering these potatoes smaller than 2J inches they had to receive the sanction of the Department of Agriculture. We could not have waited until parliament was in session in order to have this change made.


Mr. McMILLAN:: (Huron): What regulation or order in council was passed on April 22, 1931, with respect to potatoes?


Robert Weir: I could not answer
that question offhand.


Thomas McMillan: My information is that that order in council was rescinded
eight days afterward and in the interval the farmers of southwestern Ontario had planted thousands of acres of potatoes with the expectation of having a market therefor. My information is that this present change is for the purpose of getting the government out of a difficulty.


Mr. ERNST:: Is the hon. member speaking of the dumping duty?


Thomas McMillan: (Huron): For the year ended December 31, 1930, we exported to the United States five times as many potatoes as we imported.


William Gordon Ernst: What has that got to do with this bill?


Thomas McMillan: I have no doubt that this is being done at the instance of the secretary of the Horticultural Council, who has been going around the country to find out what can be done in order to save the potato growers of western Ontario from the importation of early potatoes from the United States.
I think the whole thing is a farce and it should be left alone.


John Livingstone Brown: Has my point of order been sustained?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cotnam):: Clause 1 is passed, but it will not be recorded in the votes and proceedings until the bill is passed.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I do not know whether or not I understood correctly the hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) when he referred to a number of cars of small potatoes accumulating on the other side of the line and which were dumped in here almost free.


Mr. SMITH (Vietoria-Carleton):: They
charged only a low price.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member did not mean free of duty, but at a low price, which is a different matter. What should be guarded against is doing anything to injure the potato industry of the maritime provinces. As I understand this amendment, potatoes grown in the vicinity of the different cities throughout the dominion can be marketed in open containers and will not be subject to grading. Am I correct in that?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Potatoes coming in from the United States come in in closed containers, and the object of this amendment is to shut out importations from the United States. Recently an order in council was passed fixing a value of six cents per pound for duly purposes, but this resulted in a great deal of
29S2
Root Vegetables Act

confusion and misunderstanding throughout the Dominion. The United States shippers of potatoes to Canada went up in the air about it and they got after our friends in Canada and the result was that this government rescinded that order in council and, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has said, substituted the word "radishes" for the word "potatoes." When the Liberal party was in power it was charged that it was under domination from Washington, that it was following out a made-in-Washington policy, but if there ever was domination from Washington, this particular case is an illustration. When that restriction on American potatoes was put on they got after the minister and endeavoured to have it corrected, with the result that it was taken off and American potatoes up until the present time have been allowed to come in at the old rate. Speaking as a Prince Edward Islander, I desire to say that the one thing we should guard against at the present time is the jeopardizing of this industry. If this present proposal is similar, in effect) to the one which put a six cents per pound valuation for duty purposes on potatoes, then I think we should be careful in passing it; if this regulation is for the benefit of the industry, then we should support it.


William Gordon Ernst: Does the hon. member know what it is?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What did the hon. member
say?


William Gordon Ernst: I was just wondering if the hon. member knows what it is.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am asking only for information; I want to know what the effect of this legislation will be. My hon. friend is a very esteemed lawyer down in our part of the country and there is no doubt he can give a correct interpretation of this bill, but I find it difficult to discover the exact meaning. The shippers in this vicinity will not be affected because the potatoes will not have to be graded, but potatoes coming in from the United States are subject to grade and my contention is that this bill will exclude those potatoes and possibly have the same effect as had the other regulation. I think it is up to the hon. members from the maritime provinces to express their views on this matter. We should be sure that we are doing something for the benefit of the industry, rather than to injure it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think there is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman has just said. Although it may not be a ground for opposition to this section, it certainly is a ground for a suggestion to the minister and to the

government that they be very careful in framing the regulations. It is quite true that when a high valuation for duty purposes was placed by the government upon potatoes protests were received from our customers in the United States. The exporters to the United States became alarmed and went to the government and prevailed upon them to do away with the high valuation for duty purposes. If this bill does what the Minister of Agriculture says it will do, shut off the market for a considerable quantity of American potatoes, you will have similar protests, and if the government acts upon the same principle as it did before, I anticipate it will change the regulations so as to let in smaller potatoes. Whether it is desirable to have this excessive instability in such matters, is questionable. I do not think anything has caused more unfavourable criticism in the maritime provinces than the great instability of the government's tariff policy, their habit of one day fixing valuations which they take off the next day, their habit of imposing dumping duties and tariffs which are later removed. My suggestion to the minister is that possibly under this legislation or under the regulations made under it we shall have that unsatisfactory condition of instability continued; we shall have rapid changes and fluctuations in the regulations with regard to the size of these new potatoes. If the size is made too large, a considerable quantity of importations will be shut off. This will cause protests from our foreign customers and delegations from friends of the government asking the government to change the regulations. I should like to have the minister's view whether that is not a very real danger in what is contemplated under this legislation.


Robert Weir: The information
given me is that the strongest requests for grading to include all potatoes have come from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, from the maritimes. To show the thoroughness with which grading has been done. I am informed that out of 6.623 cars inspected last year in Prince Edward Island, the grading was reversed in only one case and that out of 8,455 cars from New Brunswick, 99 were objected to, but the decision of the graders was reversed in only 14 cases. It is only fair to say that the people from the maritimes who sell their seed potatoes at the good prices at which they do sell them, realize that this is on account of the thorough inspection that is made there, which keeps the potatoes free from disease and maintains a very high quality. I took every reasonable care in the matter. The bill was under con-

Supply-Pensions
sideration long before any order in council was passed, and so far as I am concerned was quite free from any connection with it.
I made every inquiry that I could as to how this would be received by the farmers, by the potato growers, and the information given to me is to the effect that little if any objection to grading is raised now by the farmers. Some time ago, as the former Minister of Agriculture said, until the people were educated to grading and realized the benefit of it, there was a good deal of objection, but I believe that has entirely passed away. At one meeting which the commissioner held in Prince Edward Island and which was attended by approximately 700 people, no one voiced any complaint as regards grading.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not want to be understood as objecting to grading from the point of view of improving the quality of the farm product. I believe the quality of farm products can be and has been improved by the system of grading, but I object to the use of this system to accomplish a purpose for which it was not intended, a purpose entirely apart from the question of improving the quality of farm products.


Edward James Young: Can the minister give the
information supplied to- him by those who asked for this legislation?


Robert Weir: The information is
much the same in each communication from both individuals and associations, namely, that they wished the grading to include all potatoes.


Edward James Young: Did they say why?


Thomas Reid: Were any representations
made from British Columbia to maintain the duty in view of the fact that potatoes had entered British Columbia from China while thousands of tons were stored in British Columbia?


An hon. MEMBER:: We are not discussing tariffs.


John Howard Myers: This is merely a matter
of extending to new potatoes the system of grading as already applied to old potatoes. This will not prevent any man in the United States from shipping to Canada No. 2 or No. 3 potatoes, but it will make him grade and classify his potatoes and make him ship No. 3 as No. 3, No. 2 as No. 2 and No. 1 as No. 1. He will not be able to jumble them all together and put them on the market in Canada as No. 1. I do not think we are imposing anything against the United States that we are not imposing on ourselves.


William Richard Motherwell: The government is just putting new potatoes on a parity with other potatoes.


John Howard Myers: That is all.


William Richard Motherwell: This has nothing
to do with duties or valuations.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The only difference I see is that local potatoes will come in bulk ungraded, whereas potatoes entering in closed containers will certainly have to be graded, so that if the people of the United States look at it in that light, they will feel there is quite a preference in favour of local shippers. As regards the minister's remarks in connection with grading, I quite agree with him that the farmers and the people generally of Prince Edward Island arc 100 per cent for grading. In fact, we were, I think, one of the first provinces to ask for compulsory grading of potatoes, and not a carload is shipped out of that province ungraded. The benefits to the growers have been great. I am not opposing the bill at all if it is going to be of benefit to the industry, but if there is any possibility of its resulting in injury we should proceed carefully and look into every phase of the legislation before it is adopted.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Cotnam in the chair.
Pensions payable to militiamen on active service, northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $30,000.
John Francis Buckley: Does this include any
pensions payable to the northwest mounted police?


Murray MacLaren: It is for
those who were disabled in the northwest rebellion, numbering sixty, and the dependents of those who were killed, there being eight dependents. It also includes a certain number of the active militia who incurred disabilities previous to August 4, 1914.


John Francis Buckley: But no northwest
mounted policemen are included in this vote.


Murray MacLaren: No. There is an act
covering them.


Mr. CAYLEY:: How many veterans of the rebellion of 1885 are now receiving pensioBs?
Supply-Pensions


Murray MacLaren: The disabled number
sixty and the dependents eight.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I notice there is a decrease of $5,000 in this item. Does that represent a decrease in the number of pensioners?


Murray MacLaren: Yes. Naturally as time goes on the pensioners pass away. The rebellion was in 1885, a good many years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-civil flying, $5,000.
Murray MacLaren: This is to pay compensation or pension for injury resulting directly from a flight undertaken in the course of duty in the public service of Canada by any person employed in the public service of Canada or employed under the direction of the public service of Canada. They are not included under the Department of National Defence. This refers to civilian employees.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Is the compensation in
the form of a pension?


Murray MacLaren: Yes. It applies to
those of the civil service who have been injured or killed in a flight while on duty in the public service. They need not necessarily be aviators. They may be civil servants who have been detailed to go from one part of the country to another.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: They are not members
of the civil service?


Murray MacLaren: That is an exact designation of what they are. They are civil servants, and that is the reason they get this pension. They are not included under National Defence, but they receive a pension as being members of the civil service.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I thought the civil servants were already provided for in the matter of pension. This seems to be something extra. I just want to understand what the situation is.


Hugh Guthrie: This is for injuries.
Superannuation is for long service.


Murray MacLaren: Order in council 1165
reads:
If any person employed in the public service, or employed under the direction of any department of the public service of Canada, is killed or injured as a direct result of a flight undertaken by such person, under.due authority and in the course of duty in the public service of Canada, compensation will be paid in the same manner and to the same extent as provided for in the Pension Act, chapter 43 of the statutes of 1919, and amendments thereto, in the case of death or injury under similar circumstances of a member of the forces," as defined in the [Mr. Cayley.l
said act; provided, however, that such compensation shall not be paid for any death or injury in respect of which provision for the payment of compensation, or a gratuity or pension, is made by any other act, unless the claimant elects to accept the compensation provided by these regulations instead of the compensation, gratuity or pension under any such other act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State-salaries, $366,670; contingencies, $74,000.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: We discussed this vote last night, when I gave a good deal of latitude, although the discussion was out of order. I do not desire to be too strict in my rulings, but the discussion should not be too general.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think both the minister and the members of the opposition have made their stand clear, Mr. Chairman, and I do not intend to press the matter further, especially if, as you say, it would not be in order. I may add that I have before me now the bill that I referred to yesterday, and as it is within every hon. member's reach, I am quite willing that the item carry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives-salaries, $119,300; contingencies, $20,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have made no change in the policy of this department and the personnel remains the same. One or two regradings have been made by the Civil Service Commission. It will be seen that altogether there is an increase of $1,020.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The chairman of the board of publication, Professor Adam Shortt, is deceased. Is it the intention of the minister to fill the vacancy caused by his death?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The office which the late Professor Shortt occupied, while paid in connection with the archives appropriation, was filled on the representation of the Prime Minister. It is quite possible that some readjustment may be made whereby it may not be necessary to appoint a successor to Professor Shortt. It was a very special appointment. Professor Shortt had rendered very great public service, and this was the position to which, I think, all parties were agreeable that he should be appointed.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think that statement is pretty much what was to be expected from the minister. The minister is aware that there are branches of the archives in Montreal,

Supply-Secretary oj State
also in the maritime provinces. While I was in charge of the department there was a demand to establish a branch in the western provinces. I admit that this would necessitate the voting of additional moneys, but perhaps the minister would state whether the matter is still under consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Representations have been made, and I met a delegation from the west, but at present it seems inopportune to make any definite decision about the matter, and it remains as it was when my hon. friend left office.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Of course, this matter should come up under vote 345.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I notice that recently there has been published, apparently by the authority of the Secretary of State, under the direction of the keeper of the records, a book entitled: A Collection of Documents Relating to Jacques Cartier and the Sieur de Roberval by H. P. Biggar, D. Litt., chief archivist for Canada in Europe. I have not seen the book, but from a notice that appears in Le Devoir, it seems that it contains an English translation of certain Spanish documents, but no French translation. Both the introduction and the table of contents are also in the English language. I am sure the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) desires to have the two languages recognized in all our official publications, particularly in those of his department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. friend's position, but I may say that the work to which he refers was commenced a considerable time ago under the regime of my hon. friend the late Secretary of State. I know the book was carried almost to completion in October, when I first saw a printed proof in London. The greater part of the book, if I remember correctly, contains copies of the original French and Spanish documents, but a translation of the latter into English is included. I presume that those who had charge of the work felt that this course might serve the purposes of historical research, because Spanish is so easy to those who read French. The book was issued a short time after I assumed office, but I have had no responsibility beyond that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think there should be an edition in French as well as in English.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I remember correctly, my hon. predecessor arranged for the printing of this book in England, because of the facilities there for printing in Spanish, and there the proof had to be read and compared with the
original Spanish documents. It is a most interesting book and I recommend it to those members who take an interest in the archives of Canada. If my hon. friend thinks it necessary that another edition should be put out-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think there should be a French edition.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will consider the matter with the officials of the department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Seeing that both languages are official, I would ask the government to give instructions as soon as possible to have a French edition issued.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My recollection is that this is not exactly a publication of the department, but a book published by Mr. Biggar. On account of its special interest, the department contributed a certain sum to ensure publication, very much in the same way as we subscribe for a certain number of copies to help an author publish his book, but by so doing we take no responsibility for the publication. I endorse the stand taken by the hon. member (Mr. Casgrain), but it being Mr. Biggar's book, I think the committee will understand the responsibility of the archives department stops where Mr. Biggar's begins.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I made this request because the book apparently is published by the authority of the Secretary of State under the direction of the keeper of the records. Therefore it would appear to be an official publication.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will see what arrangements can be made to meet the views of my hon. friend. I have done nothing with regard to the publication, the arrangements for which were made under the regime of my hon. friend still continue.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I make this general statement in regard to the archives department? When I was in charge, it was represented to me very often by Doctor Doughty- who everybody knows is a very capable deputy -that the department has not enough money at its disposal. When the department has disposed of the money voted for these purposes, that is, keeping up the branches I have referred to, and certain special work which is done during the summer, there is very little money left with which the department can acquire documents, books and things of that kind. It is true that they may ask for a special credit or estimate for that purpose, but it has been my experience and probably will be the experience of my successor that this is not easily available.
Supply-Secretary of State

I think it would be worth while considering, perhaps not this year because of the economies being practised in many directions, but in coming years, if the amount placed at the disposal of the dominion archivist should not be increased very materially. Every month there are libraries, books, paintings or documents offered on the public market, for which this government cannot compete through lack of funds. Only recently it was brought to my attention that Mr. Victor Morin of Montreal had disposed of many valuable books having to do with the history of Canada, some of them unique in their contents and general importance and interest. I do not think the archives branch was able to compete for any of them. Most of those books were sold to the United States.
Again I say this is not a criticism. I know the conditions and I am merely making a statement, which perhaps I should have made when I was minister, in all good faith. I hope that in future estimates, when the prosperity predicted by the Prime Minister has come back, it will be possible for my hon. friend to ask for an increased amount for the archives branch, which will enable the archivist to compete in the purchase of such documents and books as I have mentioned. I do not think $25,000 would be too much, and I can assure my hon. friend that if he asks for such an increase in an}1 coming year he will have my very frank support.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act,
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is a contingent vote,
which is always made. One or two counties remain under the Canada Temperance Act, and in case a vote is taken to bring them out from under that act-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend know which counties are under the act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe they are in the
provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. If an election should be held during the ensuing year, we need such a contingent vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend mean a federal election?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, an election with regard to the Canada Temperance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Naturalization Act,
.$20,000.
Mr. R1NFRET: Will the minister explain the increase of $3,210 in this item?
(Mr. Rinfret.]
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When I came into office in
August last I found that a number of representations had been made with regard to the fraudulent issue of certificates of naturalization. A further inquiry was made by the officers of the department, who subsequently asked for the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Judge Wallace of the county court of Woodstock, Ontario, was appointed a commissioner to conduct this investigation. Some expense was incurred, and more will be incurred in connection with that investigation, which is not yet complete.
The additional reason is that under the old age pensions act, only those who are naturalized British subjects can receive pensions, and in whichever province the pensions act is brought into force a large number of applications are made for naturalization, many of them by very old settlers, in order that they may come under the terms of that act. The result is that there has been and is likely to be during this ensuing year a further additional expense under the Naturalization Act, and therefore we have increased the appropriation. The habit has been, as I think my hon. friend will bear witness, rather to exceed the appropriation in recent years. This has left a debit balance, which naturally has had to be carried over to the ensuing fiscal year. This increase is to straighten out the accounts and to provide for some slight increase in the cost of administering that act during the ensuing year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand Judge Wallace has found irregularities in connection with some 150 cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Some 170, I think.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the
minister tell us what has been done in connection with those cases? Have any deportations been effected as a result of the findings?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is but one penalty
under the act. In each one of these cases the naturalization has been revoked. Judge Wallace is preparing a report which I hope to submit to the Department of Justice, to obtain advice as to whether in certain cases criminal prosecution should be proceeded with. But we have not yet reached that stage. From a personal conversation with Judge Wallace I inferred that he thought in many instances that those who had received naturalization certificates fraudulently had been imposed upon by others who wished to obtain fees for procuring the certificates. In several instances he thought the applicants

Supply-Secretary oj State
had been perfectly innocent. Foreigners coming in and residing here had been imposed upon, thinking that they were applying for naturalization certificates in the regular way. As to whether those who deceived them should be prosecuted or not, that is a matter for the Department of Justice to decide.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Has Judge Wallace been
appointed to deal only with fraudulent cases, or has he been appointed to act in some other capacity as well? Earlier in the session I placed on the order paper certain questions with respect to naturalization, and Hansard showed that there appeared to be some confusion. I thought I would wait until this occasion to bring the matter to the attention of the minister. The minister is aware that his department will recommend the revocation of certificates of naturalization for certain deficiencies in respect to the residence qualification. That is done by order in council. Such certificates are revoked not because they have been fraudulently obtained but because the subject has not resided in this country, or for some other reason. Those certificates are revoked by order in council. But I understand that the subject has the right to appeal, and if he does appeal, the case should go before a commissioner. Now, such a commissioner does not exist. The question I put to the Secretary of State earlier in the session was whether he had appointed a commissioner to deal with these ases, and his reply was that Judge Wallace had been appointed. I understand, however, that Judge Wallace is dealing only with fraudulent cases in a special inquiry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are two classes of
cases. There is one class, a very limited one, in respect of which the Secretary of State may rescind certificates previously granted. But in respect of these 170 cases which have been reported adversely upon-I am speaking from memory; the number may be more or less-they could be acted upon under the statute only after an inquiry had been conducted by one having judicial experience. Upon the report of such a commissioner hay-mg judicial experience, the matter is brought, and in each case has been brought, to the attention of the governor in council, and orders in council have been passed carrying into effect the findings of the judge sitting as *ommissioner.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thank the minister for
his reply. When Judge Wallace is through dealing with these fraudulent Cases, will he be retained as commissioner on naturalization
cases?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. I do not know what
section of the act my hon. friend has in mind.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will let me have the act I will point out to him later on what I mean.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may be mistaken, but I
do not think there is any appeal from the findings of this commissioner. He makes a finding, and the matter is then brought to the governor in council, and the governor in council by order in council revokes the naturalization certificate previously granted. And that procedure has been followed quite closely. Section 9 of the Naturalization Act, subsection 4, provides:
An inquiry under this section shall be held by a commission constituted for the purpose by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the minister, presided over by a person appointed by the governor in council, who holds or has held high judicial office, and shall be conducted in such manner as the governor in council shall direct, provided that any such inquiry may, if the governor in council thinks fit, instead of being held as aforesaid, be held by the superior court of the province in which the case arises, and the practice and procedure on any inquiry so held shall be regulated hy rules of court.
As evidence in these cases had to be taken in Ottawa as well as Montreal and Toronto, it was deemed best to appoint a special commissioner having judicial qualifications for the purpose. And that is the procedure that has been followed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is no doubt desirable to prevent people from obtaining naturalization certificates by fraudulent means. But I should like to inquire with regard to the possibility of some people being prevented from obtaining naturalization who really ought to have it. As I understand it, the recommendation for naturalization is made by the judge, whose decision the Secretary of State follows. It seems to me there ought to be some appeal against the decision of some of our judges in order that people who are desirable should be assured of receiving naturalization. I have in mind two classes. First of all, there are some elderly people who have been living in remote districts and who have not been able to acquire a good knowledge of English. I think particularly of one old woman who is now almost destitute. She has never had an opportunity of learning English, having resided in a very remote district. She ought to come under the Old Age Pensions Act, but she is not eligible because she has not a knowledge of the language. Possibly the judge is only carrying out his duty when he insists that she
29S8
Supply-Secretary of State

should have a good knowledge of English or French. But it seems to me that the act ought to be somewhat liberally interpreted, and if a local judge is very rigid in his interpretation of it there should be an appeal, so that such a person might obtain naturalization and so come under the Old Age Pensions Act.
Then there is a second class, in connection with which a great many cases have been referred to me. I refer to labouring men of foreign extraction who have been adversely reported upon by some of the police. They may have been reported upon years ago, and this stands against them. We hope to make them good citizens, but in the meantime they are absolutely disfranchised. There is no opportunity for them to participate in the citizenship of the country. In certain instances I am sure that the adverse report of the judge has been based upon local prejudices, and in these cases there ought to be an appeal. If necessary, some other judge should hear the case. While we ought to stand guard over our citizenship, we ought, on the other hand, to welcome to that citizenship everyone who is likely to become a good citizen. I do not know just what provision should be made but I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the matter. Possibly he may know of some way in which this matter can be adjusted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A ruling was made during
the time of the Hon. Mr. Doherty, and I think was thereafter adhered to by the Department of Justice during the last regime, under which an instruction was given to the judges that as long as an applicant could make himself or herself understood in either the French or the English language it was not necessary in order to comply with the law, that he or she could speak and write the English or French language. That widened the scope of the inquiry before the judge in favour of many applicants, especially in the provinces of the northwest. Nevertheless, as to character and general qualification for citizenship the judge presiding at the court of the district must, under the act as at present construed, give the final decision as to qualification. Since I have been in office I have not overruled the decision of any judge in such a case and I think that that was the experience of my hon. predecessor in office.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can give a very
good illustration of that regulation with regard to the knowledge of English. This case was brought to my attention several years ago by one of the charity organizations in a western city. The judge asked some question,

I think it was as to who the governor general was, and the applicant for naturalization did not know the answer. The judge took th : stand that if a matter which seemed to him to be so simple was not known to the applicant that he was not eligible for citizenship. That to me is perfectly absurd, and it seems to me that when a judge takes that stand there should be some appeal. It is not fair to those who are in every other way qualified for citizenship to be barred because they have not had any wide reading.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: During a former session my
hon. friend the member for St. James (Mr Rinfret), then Secretary of State, introduced a bill giving to the office of the Secretary of State a very much wider scope and discretion in the matter of naturalization. I opposed it at the time upon the ground that it might open the way to political intrigue and that sort of thing. As I have gone into this matter and studied the material which was before my hon. friend when he introduced that bill, I have come to the conclusion that there were much stronger grounds in its favour than I had anticipated.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Why did the hon. member oppose it?


Mr. POWER:: There would be no question of political intrigue now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am simply saying quite
frankly that when one sits in the house and hears merely the discussion on a particular bill he may place a certain interpretation upon it, but when he has had experience in the administration of an office-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When one is in possession of full information as to the documents on file and has knowledge of the representations which have been made and discussions which have ensued, a certain effect is made upon one's judgment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am delighted to hear
the Secretary of State make the statement which he has. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember that in a former session, I think it was 1928, the house sat for five or six days discussing a bill tn do away with the requirement that an applicant for naturalization should have to go before a judge. That bill passed this house but unfortunately was repealed by the Senate. I do not think it is desirable to reopen that discussion, although I am not trying to preclude my hon. friend from doing so. I should like to go back to the point I raised a moment

Supply-Secretary of State
ago. I have the statute before me, and I would refer the committee to section 9 of the Naturalization Act. That section deals with ihe revocation of certificates of naturalization by governor in council on report of the Secretary of State, and subsection 2 covers the oases wherein the certificates may be revoked, as follows:
(a)	trading with an enemy,
(b)	serving a term of imprisonment,
(c)	bad character,
fd) non-residence for seven years,
(e)	an enemy subject.
My experience has been that the Secretary of State recommends to the governor in council the revocation'of a certain number of certificates under the non-residence clause, but I would refer my hon. friend to subsection 3, which reads:
The minister may if he thinks fit before making a report under this section refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified, and in any case to which subsection one, or paragraphs (a), (c) or (e) of subsection two of this section applies, the minister shall by notice given to or sent to the last known address of the holder of the certificate give him an opportunity of claiming that the case be referred for such inquiry, and if the holder so claims in accordance with the notice, the minister shall refer the case for inquiry accordingly.
That is what I had in mind when I spoke of appeal. That may not have been the proper word to use, but I think the meaning is there. In certain cases, before the minister can revoke a certificate, he must give notice to the candidate and if the candidate desires an inquiry he must hold one. Subsection 4 reads as follows:
An inquiry under this section shall be held by a commission constituted for the purpose by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the minister, presided over by a person appointed by the governor in council who holds or has held high judicial office.
While I was at the head of the department there was some difficulty in finding a commissioner who could qualify under subsection 4, because it was not passible to offer any remuneration to a judge in office, and it was hard to find a man having judicial qualifications who could act under this section and who would perhaps have to travel from one end of the country to the other. I asked the minister a moment ago if Judge Wallace had been appointed merely to deal with fraudulent cases in a special inquiry or whether he was to act as a commissioner to pass on cases such as are mentioned in this section of the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Judge Wallace was appointed to consider any case which I might refer to
him under the act. His appointment is during pleasure and is not permanent. It is not anticipated that for a year or more I will refer to him all cases which may arise. He is a judge of the county court, possessing wide experience and holding a high reputation, and was willing to accept this task. I hope to have included in the supplementary estimates a small solatium to Judge Wallace because he has performed excellent work at very great expense to himself.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would mean if Mr. Justice Wallace carries on for three years more, perhaps we on this side will appoint his successor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should think Judge Wallace would not carry on beyond the year. There is no intention to make this a permanent or semi-permanent employment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government 

 public printing and stationery-salaries, including $500 to Fred Cook as secretary to the government printing and stationery committee, notwithstanding any-think to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, and contingencies, $94,090.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I notice my hon. friend last Christmas effected an economy in doing away with the printing of Christmas cards for ministers and different officials. Did the printing bureau print that famous creed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce sent all over the country, or was it printed by a private firm?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking simply from memory, but my recollection is it was not printed at the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, or what is known as the printing bureau.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suppose it would be indiscreet to ask the Secretary of State whether, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had asked him to print that document, he would have acceded to the request?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it came in the ordinary way as an order from one of the departments, I am simply a civil servant in that respect and I give my O.K. to the carrying out of printing orders which are received from the several departments.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I shall not press the matter with my hon. friend.


Charles Gavan Power: Can the Secretary of State give us the cost of printing that document?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot. My hon,. friend will have to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the estimates of that department come before the committee.
2990	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any possibility of putting the material of the Canada Gazette in a more convenient form? It is almost impossible for the ordinary man to find out what is in it. Apparently a number of old forms are followed. I had occasion once bo try to find out when parliament would meet, and apparently the date was put over from week to week; I do not know just the underlying reason but I got quite excited when I saw that it would meet in about a week or two, until I discovered that the notice was inserted only as a matter of form to be changed later. Why do we need these lengthy proclamations with all the titles and everything else inserted only to discover that what is being announced is a matter of very minor importance.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a change from potatoes to radishes-a miracle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all. I cannot see why all this preliminary material could not be inserted in the gazette once-if that is essential-and after that the statement could be made in a form in which we could readily find it. I have under my hand a page of the gazette; I do not think I need take up the time of the committee in reading it, but it is an astonishing production. I cannot understand why we must have pages and pages and pages of titles in order to say that some quarantine district is to be created. It seems to me these notices could be put in a more businesslike form. Perhaps the Secretary of State might consider the simplification of this huge document which comes to us every few weeks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Civil Service Commission 

salaries and contingencies, $313,740.
Charles Gavan Power: For reasons which I have very frequently stated to the house and which I shall not have time to discuss before six o'clock, I would move that this item be reduced to one dollar.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the hon. gentleman should state his reasons for such a radical reduction.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Would the minister kindly explain the item?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is simply the usual vote of salaries and contingencies for the Civil Service Commission. The appropriation this year is practically the same as before. The contingencies I have reduced by $26,000, which is a very considerable reduction. The salaries, owing to the annual statutory increases, are increased $4,020 so that the total vote is

practically $22,000 less this year than it was last year. I am not responsible for the Civil Service Commission. I have no influence with it whatsoever. In fact, I do not think since I have been in the house any recommendation that I have made with regard to the appointment of an official by the Civil Service Commission has ever been carried out.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the act the hon. member's recommendation should not be heeded.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But I notice some hon.
gentlemen in times past have made recommendations. Whether they were complied with or not I do not know, but evidently their anticipations were realized.


Charles Gavan Power: Mine were certainly not complied with.
At six o'clock the committee book recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is a motion before the chair to reduce the item to the amount of one dollar.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain the motion.
Mr. POW'ER: I do not know that there is any particular necessity to explain it, because I think it speaks for itself. My views are well known to former members of tha house. My motion is to reduce the estimate for the salaries of the Civil Service Commission, amounting to $239,000 odd, to one dollar. In so moving I am animated partly by my own convictions on the matter, which, as I have already said, are well known to the house, and partly because of my ardent desire to assist some of my hon. friends opposite in what I know is a project they have greatly at heart. In my own constituency there is a large number, perhaps sometimes too large, of very staunch supporters of the polities of hon. gentlemen opposite. Some of them have been kind enough on occasions to vote for me. Others did not do so, but I respect them for the views which they hold and for the tenacity with which they hold them. A great many of these people deserve much from the party which is now in power, and no one would be more pleased than myself-I am absolutely sincere and quite serious when I say this-to see these men who year in and year out have rendered stalwart service to the Conservative party now obtain some kind of reward therefor. But they are being debarred from the recognition to which they are entitled by an iniqui-

Supply-Civil Service Commission
tous piece of legislation known as the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite know this perhaps far better than I do, that the newspapers would support them in abolishing the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite themselves in public addresses on numerous occasions have said that whenever the opportunity presented itself they would do whatever lay in their power to abolish the Civil Service Act and do away with the Civil Service Commission. It would perhaps not be possible for me to quote at any great length some of the addresses which have been made on this subject, but I have before me a copy of a letter which appeared in a newspaper, Le Journal, published in the city of Quebec, in its edition of May 2, 1931. As hon. gentlemen opposite know, Le Journal is the official organ of the Conservative party and of the government in the city and district of Quebec. In case the hon. members who sit on the front benches opposite may not have seen this letter, which is addressed to them, parhaps I may be permitted to translate a few paragraphs.


Onésime Gagnon: What is the date of the letter?


Charles Gavan Power: It appears in Le Journal of May 2, 1931. The letter is signed "A.G." I have no doubt that "A.G." is well known to a number of my hon. friends opposite.


An hon, MEMBER :: Perhaps it is Gagnon.


Charles Gavan Power: No, because the initials of my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) are O.G. It is an open letter addressed to the federal ministers. I shall endeavour to translate it as I go along.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: You may qualify for a position as translator.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps if some of the members of the commission hear me, they may give me a position as a translator here in parliament, and I shall have the pleasure not only of listening to but of translating some of the remarks of my hon. friends opposite, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it would be no mean task in many cases. The letter reads:
I take the liberty of drawing your earnest attention to a state of affairs which I think is most serious. I do it with all the deference which is due to you, but with all the insistence which the serious nature of the subject demands. The people of this province were for a long time under the impression that the exercise of authority in this country had been confided only to members, senators and the representatives of the crown, acting separately or together, as is provided in the British North America Act, but for several years past, and especially for several months past, the people have been asking themselves if the so-called democratic regime is in force in this country.
This is addressed to the federal ministers on May 2, 1931.
Manifestly the influence of the representatives of the people chosen in each electoral division no longer counts in the councils of the nation-councils which the constitution did not provide for and of which the people are ignorant, of whose jurisdiction the people are ignorant, and who for a reason of which the people have not been informed administer this or that service with a lack of intelligence and a stupidity known only to glorified plutocrats in all their power and glory. More often than not they are worn out politicians. These irresponsible commissions decide, settle, name, dismiss, legislate and administer as if they were appointed by divine right. The elected of the people have no right to control, no right to reprimand, no right to advise, no right to blame them. These oligarchic bodies have become the dispenser of the administrative authority-
And so on. The article continues:
The Civil Service Commission nominated to public employment your opponent in the last election and you have not a word to say about it.
I do not know that that really happened; I think that probably the newspaper has been exaggerating. I continue my translation:
It pays no attention to your recommendations. It and its sister commission, the railway commission, know more, or are assumed to know more, than you and all the other members of parliament representing the province of Quebec through its urban and rural constituencies. You cannot advise those commissions, you cannot make representations to them. But the people do not understand the situation, because that which is absurd is repugnant to their ordinary common sense.
Addressing the minister the article continues:
You cannot eternally ignore popular discontent. No regime, no party, can live very long if it has to carry with it cannon balls such as are these anti-democratic commissions. The province of Quebec, particularly the district of Quebec, complaints, and rightly so. of these commissions and does not understand why you do not bring order out of this present absurd situation. Your own electors are displeased and discontented and do not hesitate to tell it to you. Do you wish to commit suicide?
That sounds very much like "perishing in the attempt."
Do you wish to leave to your successors-
This from a Tory paper!
Do you wish to leave to your successors the great merit of having rid the country of these dictators who irritate it so much? Perhaps you do not quite understand the situation. Go through the constituencies, interrogate your electors, ask your leaders in the parishes what they think of it, and you will soon learn what the situation is. Do not forget that on Quebec your future depends. Do not allow these irresponsible adversaries to take Quebec away from you.
2992	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
And so on. This is only one of the articles which has appeared recently in Quebec newspapers friendly to the government. L'Even-ement of April 22, in an article entitled "Mr. Bennett on Patronage," uses language scarcely less strong than that -which I have already read to the committee. Another newspaper called Le Franc Parler carries an article entitled "Quelles s'en aille" which I think the deputy speaker could translate for me, but my rendering would be "Kick it out." It is signed by a gentleman called Jacques Hertel, whom I do not know. Another article in Le Journal of April, 1931, describes in glowing terms the services rendered the country by Mr. Gagnon of Dorchester and Mr. Power of Quebec South. It is not often I receive words of praise from a newspaper such as Le Journal, but on this occasion perhaps it is on account of my intimate association with my hon. friend from Dorchester. I see he is ready and I hope he will give me his hearty support.


Onésime Gagnon: With pleasure.


Charles Gavan Power: I am glad to hear him say so. It will not be necessary for him to mention, as he did in the observations which he made in his own county last Sunday, that he had made a speech of forty minutes and it had taken the leader of the opposition four and a half hours to answer it.


Onésime Gagnon: I deny absolutely having uttered such words, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Gavan Power: I am awfully sorry to hear the denial, for the statement was so good.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw his statement. [DOT]	.


Charles Gavan Power: I withdraw the statement
with great pleasure, and accept the denial of the hon. member for Dorchester that he did not say it had taken the leader of the opposition four and a half hours to answer his forty minute speech. I do that gladly and with all deference to my hon. friend from Dorchester. Now I think he owes it to his electors, and at any rate to his colleagues on the government side-for I know he is ready to fulfil his obligations and promises,- to join me in an endeavour to rid the country of this infamous and nefarious institution.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I did not
think this question would be raised this evening because yesterday I understood that other business would occupy our attention today, and therefore I am not prepared to speak at length on this matter. I think my hon. friend from Quebec South will pay me the compliment-although I do not deserve many

-that I do not lack courage. Therefore I am absolutely pleased to say that I share his views about the Civil Service Commission. However I cannot vote for his amendment, because I think by its adoption that we should arrive at no practical results, but deprive the civil servants of their wages. My hon. friend and myself are certainly not antagonistic to civil servants, as civil servants, but we are to a certain degree opposed to the present system. I have been described, justly or unjustly, as being an enemy of the Civil Service Commission. I am not an enemy of the Civil Service Commission so far as the principle of promotion by merit is concerned, but I am against the actual organization and administration of the commission. Those who in 1917 proposed the creation of a Civil Service Commission stated that its purpose was to apply the merit system in making appointments to the civil service; but, as has been said so often in this house and outside, the activities of the commission appear to be based on an entirely different principle. May I quote to the committee an interesting article which appeared shortly after the July election in the Mail and Empire? It is signed by a very distinguished educationist, Doctor W. L. Grant, principal of Upper Canada College, Toronto. He suggests that the act should be amended and refers to what has taken place since 1917, and he mentions that my hon. friend from Quebec South wished to have the Civil Service Commission abolished. If I recollect rightly, the hon. member moved a motion for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission. Unfortunately for him this motion was referred to a special committee, which sat for about fifteen days. I have before me the long report which was printed later, and I do not see that any practical results were attained. Nevertheless I will refer to it, because some interesting expressions of opinion were given. A great number of distinguished men who appeared as witnesses before the committee stated that the Civil Service Commission ought to be reorganized, and among those witnesses was Mr. New-combe, at that time deputy minister of justice, and now one of the most eminent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure a great many members of the house will attach much importance to what he said, so I would refer hon. members to the report of the proceedings of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of chapter 12, 8-9, George V, reading from page 678. Mr. Drummond put the following question:

Supply-Civil Service Commission
While improvements could be made in the working of the Civil Service Commission, do you approve of the Civil Service Commission as a means to that end, or to the desired end?
And Mr. Newcombe answered:
What I said was that I thought the Civil Service Commission could serve a useful purpose in ascertaining qualifications for clerical positions, so that there would be a body to whom we could refer, who would be able to certify to employees who had capacity in one line or another, according to the nature of the work required. But when you go above that and ask them to make selections for professional, technical or special positions, I say that that service could be performed better, with more economy, and produce better efficiency without the assistance of a commission.
I think a great many members of the house will agree with that gentleman; what he said is absolutely correct. If the Civil Service Commission were only a body having as its principal objective the organizing of examinations to make applicants qualify, it would be all right, but the powers which were given that commission in 1917 and which have been continued by the Liberal government are absolutely extraordinary. They are tantamount to the destruction of responsible government because, as the hon. member has .said with more eloquence than I have at my command, they deprive the ministers and the members from making appointments. I would not be so much against the commission if at least it had power to make appointments, but they do not always do so. Sometimes they hold examinations and the gentleman who succeeds is not appointed; in many instances the commissioners, after having established an eligible list, send that list to an official in the department and ask this official to make the appointment. Why, Mr. Chairman, I cannot conceive that a more ridiculous system might exist, because if a minister cannot judge the merits of a candidate, why should a subordinate official, who sometimes holds an unimportant position, be entitled to make an appointment? It is absolutely ridiculous.
Therefore I suggest that this commission should be reorganized. Really I do not want to be looked upon as desiring publicity in the matter, because everything I could say was said in 1922 by my hon. friend from Quebec South. I am only repeating what he said, in less eloquent terms, but I ask this house why they did not go the limit in 1923.
I sincerely regret, Mr. Chairman, that a moment ago the hon. member for Quebec South deemed it wise to put a little political flavour into his words, because I think this matter should be considered from a nonpolitical standpoint. However, since he thought it well to bring politics into his expressions, 22110-190
I might quote what Doctor Grant said with regard to what the Liberal party did in 1923, after the hon. member had brought his motion before the house. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee, so I will only say that Doctor Grant said that all that the Liberal party did was to appoint two men, one a second hand journalist from Toronto and the other a shop-worn secretary to the former Minister of Justice. I do not want to say anything about those gentlemen; I have nothing against them, but justly or unjustly they are looked upon in the province of Quebec as being the agents of the Liberal party. I do not want to be unjust; I only repeat what is said in and out of the house, and I think the members of the Civil Service Commission should be absolutely above suspicion.
Therefore I think, Mr. Chairman, that an inquiry should be held. There is a further reason, which is well known to all hon. members of this house. During January of this year complaints were laid in the criminal courts of Ontario against two inspectors of the Civil Service Commission. These complaints were to the effect that a great many employees in the post office at Montreal had been given positions because they had handed sums of money, in some cases amounting to over $500, to these inspectors. Although the charges have been dismissed by the criminal courts of Ontario, other charges are pending. When those charges were made against Bouchard and Chartrand there was a great outcry not only in the province of Quebec but in the province of Ontario as well, and public opinion demands that an investigation takes place immediately. As the hon. member for La-belle stated a few days ago, I have more or less confidence in parliamentary inquiries, and I think a royal commission should be appointed for this purpose.
I do not think I would serve any useful purpose if I spoke at greater length, but I will vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec South because, as I have said, no good result would be obtained. I say this, however, Mr. Chairman:	I will
certainly continue to hold the view that the Civil Service Commission should be, if not abolished, at least reorganized on a different footing. I know that at this stage of the session it is rather late to make a motion to that effect, but I promise the hon. member for Quebec South that if nothing is done in the meantime, next year-and I hope he will support my humble remarks-I will make a motion calling for an investigation and the reorganisation of the commission.

2S94	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can quite sympathize
with the hon. member whom we have just heard. He is a newcomer to this house, and I have no doubt he went through his election in the ordinary way. When he found that his party had been returned to power he expected that probably he would get more in the way of patronage than apparently he has been able to secure so far. However, I am surprised at some of his remarks; I refer especially to the statement that in certain cases, after examinations were Reid, the names of the candidates were submitted to minor officials in some departments and that these officials were asked to pass upon them. The hon. member said that was a ridiculous system. I I agree with him; that is a ridiculous system, but it never obtained under former governments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I mean what I say. I
do not think hon. members opposite can quote one instance where an appointment has been referred by the commission to a minor official in any department in this city. If that has happened since my hon. friend was elected, then he should direct his criticism not against the act, which does not allow any such thing, but against whatever department or whatever minister has allowed that to take place. Under the act, when an appointment is made the department may reject the candidate who has been appointed; but it then becomes the duty of the commission to suggest another. And the decision always rests with the commission. If it has come to the attention of my hon. friend that some minor official in one of the departments has taken upon himself the responsibility of making an appointment, surely he should give the particulars to the house, for that is contrary to the act and it should be dealt with accordingly.
My hon. friend made reference to an inquiry held some ten years ago, I believe, by a special committee of the house, on a motion of the hon. member for Quebec South. I was one of the members of the committee and, as I distinctly recall, the evidence given was of a very diversified character. It is true that, as my hon. friend indicated a moment ago, Mr. Newcombe expressed an opinion to a certain purport. But the evidence was so conflicting-perhaps my hon. friend has read some of it-as to make it a very difficult task for the committee to accept any decisions based upon it. I remember in a general way that the deputy ministers objected to the commission having any influence in the matter of promotions, while the evidence that came from outside indicated an objection to
fMr. Gagnon]
the commission having any definite influence with respect to appointments. In other words, there was considerable opposition from the witnesses on both sides, both in regard to appointments and in regard to the promotion system. I must say, in all fairness, that the report of that committee was rather in the nature of a compromise. I will not admit that it did reflect to the fullest degree the evidence that was submitted.
As for the commissioners, I am sure my hon. friend opposite will not emphasize the remarks he has made-or rather the implication-without endorsing that statement with reference to either Dr. MacTavish or Mr. Tremblay. We might with equal propriety remind the committee that the chairman of the commission is a former Conservative minister. But we do not find fault with Dr. Roche, and I think hon. members opposite should show the same consideration and refrain from casting any aspersions on men of such high and distinguished character as Dr. MacTavish and Mr. Tremblay. Those gentlemen have a very difficult task to perform. On certain matters the commission decides by unanimous vote, and it never oocurred to any of us in such cases to insinuate that the chairman of the commission, as a former Conservative, had been led astray by his previous principles.


Onésime Gagnon: I did not in any way attack either Dr. MacTavish or Mr. Tremblay. I said that Mr. Grant had made, in an article in the Mail and Empire, the statement to which I referred.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend did not make the statement direct, but he left an inference. It would have been more frank for him to have made the statement himself if he did not see fit to ignore it. It seems to me that if we get into a debate of that kind we can just as properly find fault with the chairman of the commission. But we are not trying to do anything of the sort.
I agree with my hon. friend that the charges brought against certain examiners under the commission are very grave, and I am not satisfied myself with the decision arrived at so far. I am certainly strongly in favour of a full inquiry in cases of that kind. I know that when we were in power candidates were told time and time again that they must subject themselves to examination, inasmuch as the system was based on merit; and when they fail to qualify in examinations they must certainly have a feeling of resentment when they find out that in certain cases the examinations, possibly, have not been on the level.
.JUNE 24, 1931
Supply-Civil Service Commission
I suggest that it would be well for us to have in this house some time a non-partisan discussion with reference to the commission. Frankly, I congratulate my hon. friend from Quebec South on the stand he has taken. No attempt on the part of ministers to amend the Civil Service Aot to serve their own purposes has ever met with much favour from an opposition, whether Conservative or Liberal. That has been the experience of the house in the past. When a member gets into opposition he is not so anxious to have the Civil Service Act properly amended as he is to see the newcomers in the same position in which he found himself when his party was in power. For that reason I congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South. He has nothing to expect-I hope he has not made a compact with them-


Charles Gavan Power: Not yet.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: He has nothing to expect from the abolition of the Civil Service Commission, but he stands by what he thinks is right. I think, however, that if we were to have a discussion on the Civil Service Commission it would be better to have that discussion on a bill repealing the act than in connection with the estimates. Certainly it is obvious that so long as the commission exists it is necessary to vote the money to enable it to carry on. The amendment moved by my hon. friend affords an opportunity for hon. members to affirm their principles, but personally I should feel embarrassed if I voted to-night against the provision of salaries and contingencies needed by the commission. I will take this course, however-and this may be a way of not pronouncing too strongly on either side. There is certainly ground for this parliament discussing the matter fully, and I hope that, if not in this debate, then on some other occasion, the whole subject will be taken into consideration in an entirely nonpartisan spirit. In the meantime, the amendment is before the committee and it may receive support from either side. And for Once,-while I am not a strong partisan of the commission, at the same time I feel that if they are to live they must be paid their salaries and contingencies-I will avail myself of the privilege claimed earlier in the session by the hon. member for Labelle and refrain from voting on the amendment either way.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The hon. member has
made an excellent speech but I must confess that he has not shed very much light on the subject. Perhaps I lack intelligence, but I do not know yet whether the hon. gentleman is
22110-190J
or is not in favour of the commission; I do not know whether his opinion has changed since he has crossed the floor or whether he still holds to the views he held when in power.
I am not supposed to be a frenzied democrat, but I will put this question frankly to my hon. friend from St. James, who is an experienced member and was at one time a distinguished minister: Does not the Civil Service Commission represent the abolition of responsible government? Does it not represent the abolition of democratic government in Canada? Here is an autocratic body absolutely independent of parliament and of the minister who is responsible. He has to answer to the house. I fail to see-probably it is my old Liberal blood boiling up; it comes to the surface sometimes if only to remind hon. members opposite of Liberal principles-why this Civil Service Commission should exercise so much power without the consent of this parliament, without any responsibility to this parliament. They can take action, they can spend public money and endanger the exchequer of this country without having to answer to anyone. As far as I am concerned I think it is an antiquated theory to believe in a body of this kind. The question is whether or not we in this house are going to support-I was going to say a "Torified" institution, but my hon. friends would not admit that-an antiquated institution very much like the Soviet government. This body is above the people, it spends the people's money and is not responsible to the people. I will not use the word in a political sense, but I am too much of a Conservative to admit a doctrine of that kind. We are here to protect the rights of the people, and for the honour of the country and the good of the people I think that that commission should disappear, and the sooner it disappears the better it will be.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I find myself differing from the hon. member who has moved the motion (Mr. Power). I had nine years' experience in administering a very large department under the workings of the Civil Service Act. I do not for one moment maintain that that act is perfect-I think it could be amended and be made much more beneficial- but what do my hon. friends want to do? They want to abolish the act of parliament which creates the commission. Parliament took full responsibility for passing that act and putting it on the statute book, and the act is the authority under which the commission operates. If the act needs amending, let someone move the amendments so that
2996	COMMONS .
Supply-Civil Service Commission
we can discuss them. I remember quite well that when this matter was up before many hon. members on this side were of the opinion that it would be better to revert to the patronage system. I do not see that there is any disadvantage in a civil service commission choosing and appointing as it does under the provisions of the act, and in having people enter the service approved by regulations. That system is just as good as the one which prevailed previously, under which recommendations were made by hon. members for partisan service to them or to their party. I can see very little difference in the two systems, in fact I see some improvement in the former. I know that many of my hon. friends oppose very vigorously the operation of the Civil Service Act, and I know that many hon. gentlemen opposite would like to be in a position to make recommendations to the ministers of the various departments with respect to appointments, but I do not think the service would be improved by such a practice. In my opinion many changes could be made in the act to make it more workable, but that is not what my hon. friends are after. They are after the control of appointments to the civil service. There is no camouflage about that. I suppose we all would like that power in order to reward those who work hard for us; we would like to do that sort of thing, but on the other hand I do not think the service would be improved.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Has there been a marked improvement in the civil service since the commission came into being?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not have the honour of presiding over a department prior to the advent of the Civil Service Commission, but I did have to deal very largely with civil servants, and I found them in most cases to be very efficient. In many cases those civil servants had not received their appointments through the Civil Service Commission, but they were good civil servants. I have no complaint to make at all; I received the most courteous treatment. Thousands of leases of various kinds were dealt with by the civil servants in the Department of the Interior, and I can say that in the nine years I had charge of that department we did not have a single case in which it could be proved that partisanship was shown in any decision made by a civil servant. As I said before, many of these civil servants were in the service before the commission was formed, but since that time all appointments, with the exception of a few, have been made by the commission. I for one would not wish to revert to the practice

of having appointments made on a partisanship basis, and I take that stand rather firmly. At any time it is proposed to abolish the act in its entirety and revert to partisanship appointments, I wTill oppose such a move, much as I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec South.


Onésime Gagnon: May I refer the committee to the report of the special committee of the Senate on the civil service, which sat in 1924 and was presided over by the Hon. F. L. Beique. The following appears on page 9 of its report:
Your committee therefore recommends-
(1) That when a vacancy occurs in the public service by reason of death, resignation or otherwise, such vacancy be not filled by promotion or otherwise except on report of the Civil Service Commission after consultation with the minister or deputy minister. In case of disagreement the facts should be referred to the governor in council for decision, and a report should be made to parliament respecting all such decisions with the reasons therefor.
I quote this report of that committee to show that some improvement could be made, and I think the suggestion made by .the committee is very reasonable. This house could act upon that suggestion and make some amendments to the act. I make that statement to show that we on this side of the house who appear to be more or less against the Civil Service Commission do not want to return to the partisan system of appointments; we want only to amend the act in order that it may be consistent with the principles of responsible government. This suggestion is that although the Civil Service Commission have the right to fill vacancies it should do so only after conferring with the minister or the deputy minister in order to choose the appointee. As matters now stand, examinations are held and appointments made, and in most cases the commissioners never have an opportunity of seeing the candidates. During the regime of my hon. friends opposite, an ex-convict was appointed last year to a responsible position. I do not blame my hon. friends, they are not responsible for that, neither is the Civil Service Commission; but such an unfortunate thing would not have happened if the commissioners or the inspectors had been allowed to inquire more fully into the character of the appointees. Therefore I hope an investigation will be made very soon.


Peter John Veniot: There is nothing to prevent the inspectors from inquiring into the qualifications of the applicants. That is one of their instructions.

Supply-Civil Service Commission


Sir EUGENE FISET:: When the hon.
member for Dorchester refers to those appointments, does he mean the inside or the outside service?


Onésime Gagnon: I would be satisfied if the Civil Service Commission were kept for the inside service and abolished with respect to outside service. That would be a great improvement. Of course I understand we cannot have perfection in one day.


Mr. HACKETT:: With the possible exception of the hon. member for Rimouski, I think I am the only member of this house who has been a civil servant.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will my hon. friend permit me to state that I was a civil servant in the employ of the Marine department in 1905 and other years.


Peter John Veniot: I was also a civil servant.


Charles Gavan Power: The ex-Postmaster General
was dismissed by the Tories in 1911.


John Thomas Hackett: The company increases
in number as well as in virtue.
It is not my intention to enter into a long discussion of the advantages and disadvantages that accrue from the Civil Service Act. I think we maj7 accept it as a truism that the act can be improved, but the point that I should like to accentuate is this: I think in this regard my experience among the members of the house is unique. I entered the service at a time when a change of government had just taken place. If, Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me the expression, I was a shock absorber for the province of Quebec for the period which succeeded the advent of the Conservative government in 1911. Then to the victor belonged the spoils. I can tell hon. members who would advocate the abolition of the act, possibly without realizing the full responsibility of the result of such a policy were it carried out, that the additional burden that would be thrown upon a member of parliament, especially in these times, did he have to select from his supporters one man for each position for which there might be a thousand applicants, would be such that he should hesitate before going much further in that advocacy. His life would become unbearable. I do not wish to be accused of lecturing the house, as some have been, but even under present conditions the time of members of parliament is largely wasted in bickering about small matters when real and worth while questions are sadly neglected; and if we placed upon the individual member the horrible task of selecting from his supporters those who should fill the civil service, he would have no time to do anything but attempt to square himself with the vast majority who would be dissatisfied.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: He would be in parliament only once.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, and he would not
want to be there more than once. I should like to say just a word about the civil service. There are drones in the service; there are drones everywhere, but-and I am not a member for Ottawa-there is in the civil service a large body of hardworking, competent, capable men and women, who rely upon merit for promotion. I think it is only fair that the merit system should be maintained. The Civil Service Act may at times be imperfectly administered, but in its essence it rests on the merit S37stem. It may be that the merit system is not always followed as rigorously and righteously as it should be, but whose fault is that? It is my fault, your fault and the fault of any hon. member who asks the civil service commissioners to do things which they know they cannot or should not do. I merely ask hon. members to give some consideration to these observations, which are the fruit of experience, before they condemn in its entirety legislation which has been on our statute books for some years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Quebec South is such a good joker that one hardly knows just where his jokes end and his seriousness begins.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not hear what the hon. gentleman said. I hope his remark was complimentary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems rather
remarkable that a discussion of this kind can be precipitated at this stage of the proceedings and after the many years that the Civil Service Act has been in operation. I do not intend to go into a lengthy discussion of the desirability of a civil service commission in this country. I had not thought it was necessary to take part in this debate except that those of us who sit in this corner ought at least to register our protest against anything that would in any w7ay interfere with the Civil Service Commission. I quite understand that there are many abuses connected with its actual operation; it may very well be that the Civil Service Commission needs reorganization. It might be we would be better with one civil service commissioner upon whom greater responsibility could be imposed, but
2998	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
at the same time it would be disastrous if we were to revert to anything like the patronage system. We in this corner protested again and again against the encroachments that took place under the late administration. Many positions were taken from the control of the Civil Service Commission, and others created which were not put under its control. That is a most lamentable tendency.
I cannot at all agree with the idea that in setting up the commission form of administration we are departing from responsible government. The trouble perhaps is that these commissioners are very largely political appointments. We ought to adopt the practice by which parliament itself should be responsible for appointments of this kind and that they should be of a non-partisan character.


Charles A. Stewart: Where would one get the individual who would be nonpartisan?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is quite possible.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is quite possible to get individuals who would be nonpartisan in their administration of a civil service act, just as we believe that in a great majority of cases we have judges who, although they were partisans before their appointment, after their appointment rise above partisanship and are fairly independent in their administration of justice. .


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with the hon. gentleman.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the present commissioners are unfair or partisan?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not make that suggestion. The hon. member for West Edmonton asked where one could get commissioners who are not partisan.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the hon. member :hink the present commissioners are partisan?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think during the ast ten years that I have been in the house there has been growing up a considerable measure of patronage in connection with the Civil Service Commission.


William Richard Motherwell: Patronage by
whom? By the commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: By the commission. That I would like to see changed and, if necessary, now that we have a change of government I would welcome some reorganiza-
tion of the commission. But I do not think we ought to revert to the patronage system. If I understand aright what has been done in Great Britain over a period of many years, there 'has been developed a very high type of civil servant, and there they have extended their civil service to take in a great many branches which with us are still under the patronage system. They have gradually developed a type of people who have given excellent service in the most responsible positions. I do not despair of my own country. I know that in the pasit we have given over to bitter partisan fights, and I know perfectly well that good many people in this country still have the idea that politics is a game and that the winner has a right to the spoils. But I also believe that there is a younger generation coming up that is getting free from that view of politics, and it seems to me that w'e ought to do everything in our power to assist in the process.
I quite agree with the last speaker that it would be a serious mistake to go back to a system under which each individual member would be expected to give some sort of reward for support. That is to degrade politics and to degrade those who enter into politics. I am very sony that we should have a motion of this kind brought forward, unless it has been done, as I said, partly as a joke, partly to emphasize the need for certain changes. Having been brought forward, however, it has served this purpose; it has served notice on the government that some sort of reorganization within the Civil Service Commission itself is necessary.


Peter John Veniot: May I correct a wrong .impression that is entertained by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat? He has referred to appointments that have been taken out of the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and placed in the hands of the government. That cannot be done under the act by the government. It can only be done on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission to the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so.


Peter John Veniot: But the hon. gentleman
left the impression that that was going on as a matter of patronage and was being done by the government. That is not the case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. There are two classes, that I had in mind. Some of us remember that some years ago large blocks of employees of this government were taken out from under the commission. I do not

Supply-Civil Service Commission
know exactly what pressure was brought by i lie government in order that that should be accomplished.


Peter John Veniot: No pressure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have heard rumours to the contrary, and pretty well founded rumours, too. Further, in almost every set of estimates that we have had brought down during the past ten years there have been new appointments created, and it has been stated that the appointment is being made ''notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act." New groups have thus been established which are not under the Civil Service Commission. Those are the two groups to which I referred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has referred to blocks of employees being taken out of the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The classes of employees to which he refers were largely in the nature of day labourers and others receiving very small remuneration, and they were for the most part positions of a character that the Civil Service Commission itself found it inadvisable to attempt to advertise and to select appointees for by process of examination. It was recognized that in engaging day labourers and the like for some of the departmental work, nothing was to be gained by the Civil Service Commission setting up an examination for employees of that class, and the Civil Service Commission itself made a recommendation to the government outlining a list of classes of employees who, in their own opinion, it would be much more in the public interest to have appointed, directly by the government, the government being responsible for the appointments, than for the commission itself to attempt to make such appointments.
With respect to the other group which my hon. friend has just mentioned, where appointments are made through the estimates, which contain now and then the mention of some individual's name and his appointment "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act", in every case where that is done it is on the responsibility of the minister, who gives an explanation to the house why the particular individual should be exempted from the civil service examination, and I think in most cases up to the present the explanation given has been satisfactory. It has been shown that it was in the public interest that the exemption should be made.
I can speak with some degree of certainty of the first class of exemptions because I recollect very well that when the list came to us from the Civil Service Commission at the time we were in office, I was somewhat surprised at its extent, but when I came to look into the class of employees recommended by the commission for exemption from the civil service examination and appointment thereafter by the commission, I began to despair of the Civil Service Commission ever doing anything else if they once began to examine all applicants for those positions.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I should like to inquire from the leader of the opposition if in the finance department whole groups of officers, not one or two at a time, but dozens at a time, were not left outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission-in the income tax branch?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The income tax branch was established when my hon. friends were in office, and his government so arranged matters that these employees would not come under the Civil Service Commission. When we came into office those appointments had already been made, and with respect to the income tax branch we simply continued the practice as it had existed under the former administration.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not saying anything about who did it. But you said it and kept on repeating it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was inevitable, I suppose, that on this vote for salaries for the Civil Service Commission some criticism should be made with respect to its operations. I would suggest to my hon. friend from Quebec South that the amendment having served its purpose as a basis for criticism and argument, it might well now be withdrawn. Parliament having created by statute a Civil Service Commission, and the members of that commission and its employees having been engaged under contract with the government, I cannot conceive that the hon. member for Quebec South would ask this committee by a vote on this item to make an entire breach of contract with the commission and its employees by refusing to make an appropriation exceeding one dollar for their annual services. Parliament, if it is serious at all, cannot take such a position as that.
I wish also to say on behalf of the government that in January last, and from time to time since, it has been represented to the government that some action shoud be taken in view of the alleged revelations made in certain criminal prosecutions now pending, which Concern, possibly, the management, and certainly the operations of the civil service
3000	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
system. As hon. gentlemen have said, merit is the very essence of the civil service system, but if for merit is to be substituted the payment of bribes to examiners and others, the whole civil service system is brought into grave disrepute. The government so far have taken no active step in the matter of an independent investigation of the charges which have been made. These charges were pending at the time in the courts of Ontario and are now pending in the criminal courts of Quebec, and while those charges were under investigation by the courts and the whole matter was sub judice, it did not seem equitable that such action should be taken by the government. But when these criminal prosecutions are ended the government, through their officers, intend to examine with greatest care the nature and extent of that evidence, and, if such evidence warrants, the government will institute a further inquiry as to how far the Civil Service Commission is vitiated by such practices as apparently have been disclosed in the criminal trials. Further than that the government cannot go at present. It would be unfair that we should even take proceedings while these matters are sub judice, but if the charges are sustained I have no doubt the government will feel impelled to make some further independent inquiry, and the results of such inquiry will certainly be brought before parliament for its consideration. In view of that fact I should like to have this vote passed. It mu^t pass. Parliament is in honour bound to pass this vote. It cannot deal with the Civil Service Commission in this indirect, unfair, impassible and impractical way. Therefore I ask that the amendment be defeated and the vote passed.


Charles Gavan Power: Out of deference to my hon. friend the Secretary of State I shall be glad to withdraw my amendment if I have the consent of the committee to do so.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, South Cape Breton):: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I will move another
amendment more in keeping with what the hon. Secretary of State wants. I move that this item be reduced by one dollar.
In this way I am able to meet his wishes. There will not be anything "impractical" or "impossible" about my proposal. The civil servants, that is, those employed by the Civil Service Commission, will be paid. And this amendment will also meet the views of the hon. member for Dorchester. After all, that
[.Mr. Cahan.]
dollar can be made up somewhere else, and I believe I shall be following the proper constitutional practice in seeking to express the views of the house in reference to the principle of any matter which comes before us. Governments have been defeated before now in the old country, if not here, and great principles have been affirmed by a motion to diminish the estimates of any particular branch by one dollar. I believe that any one who is opposed to the principle of a civil service commission should support my amendment. I am prepared here to quote my hon. friend from Dorchester as being absolutely opposed in principle to a civil service commission.


Onésime Gagnon: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Charles Gavan Power: Surely the hon. gentleman
will not repudiate things before I state them. True, we have had frequent repudiations of newspaper reports and so on, but only after they have been quoted.


Onésime Gagnon: I stated my view's a
moment ago and I do not see what purpose my hon. friend can have in quoting other statements of mine.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend will
understand that it is somewhat interesting to the committee to know whether the views he expresses in this house are the same as those he expresses in his constituency.


Onésime Gagnon: Very, very interesting indeed.


Charles Gavan Power: On February 23. 1931, the
hon. gentleman, as reported in another Quebec newspaper, stated:
I denounce in my turn this commission. At the first caucus of the party in Ottawa there will be a question on it. The hon. Mr. Sauve was complaining about it recently and regretted that we, the Conservative members, cannot give any reward to the brave servants of our party.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is the whole thing in a nutshell.


Charles Gavan Power: This is where the matter of
principle is involved:
This law is the negation of the principle of responsible government.
He goes on to say that to-day a minister cannot appoint even a messenger, and so on and so forth. My hon. friend, I think, shares with the hon. member for Montmagny and myself and a number of others in this house, our objection to the principle of a non-responsible body administering any of the affairs of this country. It was on those grounds that in 1923 I moved in this house for the abolition

Supply-Civil Service Commission
of the Civil Service Commission, and afterwards amended the motion to restore the Civil Service Commission to the status it held in the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The matter was referred to a committee, and, as has been well said by the member for Dorchester, nothing came of the committee inquiry. I have some clippings from newspapers of the day. The following from the Montreal Gazette of February 19, 1923, is particularly interesting.
Perhaps the most effective and expeditious remedy for a system of so little value-
Speaking of the Civil Service Commission.
-is to uproot it altogether and throw it aside, which is what Major Power proposes. The Pecksniffs of parliament will receive such a suggestion with hands upraised in pious horror, and they will be quick to impute dubious motives-
I commend that to the Secretary of State.

to those who would lay rude hands upon the sacred ark of civil service reform.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The member for Winnipeg also.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the member for
Winnipeg .might read this, or listen to what I am saying in reference to the question.
The question has always been discussed, more's the pity, in an atmosphere of hypocrisy, although there are many quite sincere men

Including perhaps the member for Winnipeg.
-who think the present act must necessarily be a good thing because it represents what they regard as a good intention. These conditions render a dispassionate discussion of the question almost impossible, and certainly unlikely, yet it is in the last degree desirable that parliament should, in this matter, rid itself of impracticable theories, however exalted, and consider the facts as they are. Those facts stamp the existing system as a failure.
This was in 1923. All down the years since then, although I have not had the same opportunity as to-day, I have continued to oppose the Civil Service Commission because I believe it is the negation of the principle of responsible government. I found it impossible in 1923 to convince the members of the house on my own side, and also members on the other side who then were staunch supporters of the Civil Service Commission because they feared that if there were any loosening in the regulations respecting appointments the party in power would unduly exercise their patronage. But a new house has been created by the last election: there are eighty new members here; the party which was sitting opposite then is now in opposition. That party as a party supported
the Civil Service Commission, although I was one of those who always was opposed to it. I had not the influence, I had not the party standing, I had not the prestige in my party which the hon. member for Dorchester has in his party. He has been on many occasions dubbed the Acting Solicitor General and representative for the district of Quebec.


Onésime Gagnon: I deny that.


Charles Gavan Power: He cannot deny what the
newspapers have said. Will my hon. friend deny that newspapers have on many occasions called him the Acting Solicitor General?


Onésime Gagnon: No paper said that.


Hugh Guthrie: No reputable paper said
that.


Charles Gavan Power: I have read that with my
own eyes and my statement is as good as the hon. gentleman's. I have read on several occasions in the newspapers of Quebec that the hon. gentleman was Acting Solicitor General.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does that make him so?


Charles Gavan Power: The point is he has influence with his party. Even now he is sitting in the seat of the Solicitor General.


Onésime Gagnon: I sit here only for the purpose of being closer to my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: Have you no influence?


Charles Gavan Power: I have no influence whatever with hon. gentlemen on that side of the house. But if my hon. friend thinks I have any influence and wishes to increase that influence in the house, he will vote with me when the vote is taken. I am sure if he did so he would be following his own inclinations far more than would be the case if he voted in the opposite way. I know my hon. friend to be honest, frank and candid, probably more so than most mejnbers of the house.


Mr. HANBURY:: And courageous.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and courageous, and I am sure he will hesitate a good deal before voting against this amendment. The situation is that there are eighty new members in this house, a large number of them on the other side. They are not tied to the old system of blind submission to the Civil Service Commission, and they have this opportunity of expressing their views against the principle of the Civil Service Commission. I have no interest in moving this resolution except that I hope to see better government come out of the abolition or the reform of the commission.
3302	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
I believe we have not improved our civil service; I believe there have been far more people taken into the service because of the commission than otherwise would be the case. I believe the expenses have been heavier, and I believe the appointments have not been so good.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have they been nonpartisan?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps they have been nonpartisan, but they have not been so good. I do not know whether or not they have been non-partisan; with respect to my own constituency, I never was able to appoint anyone, and I know a large number of hon. members of the house, both on this side and on the other side, who could say the same thing. So why not let us have the courage to stand before our electors and say, "We will take the responsibility for appointments in our constituencies." I was willing to do that when I was a member sitting on the government side, and I am willing to let the defeated candidate in my constituency take the patronage there. I believe his appointments will be better than the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission. He will appoint good Conservatives, and there is no reason why they should not fill civil service positions and fill them well. Half the civil service of Canada, or more-those now in the civil service in the higher positions-were appointed by the Conservatives under the patronage system. I will say this for the civil service of this country: it compares favourably with any in the world, particularly that portion which was appointed before, we went crazy during the war with all kinds of reform, for the most part reactionary movements. I do believe that, this opportunity being given hon. members on both sides of the house, they should say how they feel in this matter and vote against the principle of any civil service commission.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is supposed generally to be expressing the opinions of the people whom he represents. Now we see that the hon. gentleman is moving towards very conservative ground. Perhaps I should not say that, but he appears to be championing the cause of democracy and responsible government. However, the hon. gentleman has defeated himself by his own argument. He said the Civil Service Commission should not be appointed by patronage. I do not know whether he suggests that we should appoint

a new civil service commission every so often, but that commission must be appointed by somebody under the patronage system.
My hon. friend quoted as an example the judges of this country. I think our country compares very favourably with any country in the world, and especially with the republic to our south, in the capacity, the integrity and the high character of our judges, but how are they appointed!? They are appointed under a patronage system and not by the Civil Service Commission, thank God-speaking for our lawyers and for those who plead. Leaving aside the judges, is there one business firm or one business man in this house who would appoint a clerk or any employee under the system followed by the Civil Service Commission, which is forced upon the responsible government of this country? Who is responsible for the appointments; who is responsible for the appointee, for the way he will carry out his work, for his integrity and his character? The minister is responsible, but the minister has nothing to say about the appointment. He has to accept the dictation of an independent, foreign body, over which he has no control and which is responsible to no one except themselves, and unfortunately sometimes to the criminal courts of this country.
I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if this is not a denial of responsible government. If it is not, I do not know what responsible government is. I know of no business firm which would act in this way in regard to the appointment of a clerk, a messenger, or any other employee. We force upon this country, as the hon. member for Quebec South has said, a law which was passed during the war when we were crazy with the abolition of democracy, which I admit is not the way to make war if we desire to win it. As long as we have responsible government; as long as we are responsible to the government, so far as I am concerned I am willing to take my responsibility. I denounced the Civil Service Commission duimg the last election, and I do not deny my words now. What I said before the people I am ready to stand for to-day in the house, and I spoke as a man who believes in responsible government. I said that this commission was the denial of responsible government. I think I was right; I do not think anyone can bring facts to contradict that statement. The best evidence that this system has failed is the fact that, since this law has been in existence, at every opportunity every government has put aside the Civil Service Act and made appointments

Supply-Civil Service Commission
out-side of it in order that they might have employees for whom they were responsible. A further proof is that the civil service was just as good before the appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission, if not better.
Air. AlcGIBBON: I just wish to put myself on record in connection with this question. I was in this house when the measure was passed; I was opposed to it then, and spoke against it, and I have been opposed to it ever since. I am opposed to it now. There is this difficulty, however, which I see and which, to me, is a real difficulty. My objection is largely to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission in connection with outside appointments. I know nothing about inside appointments, and consequently am not interested in them. However, I do not see how you could abolish the commission at once and leave an army of civil servants here without any person particularly to look after them. Had the hon. member for Quebec South moved 'to take away from the Civil Service Commission all appointments in the outside service, leaving them to the elected member, that proposal would have received my hearty support. I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is no one more entitled to make appointments than the member elected by the people. The people expect him to do that; he should do it, and I should like to see members of parliament make the appointments no matter upon what side of the house they sit. I do not see how you can do better. It may be said that you will get only .political appointments; that is granted. However, I think along with that you should place this statement, that no matter who the member is, he or she will make the very best appointment possible, according to the judgment of the member. Possibly there might be a better one in some other political ranks; but my claim is this, after many years of public life, that if you can gelt even the second or the third best appointment in your constituency you are doing better than the commission is now doing. AY hat is the commission's procedure? Let us suppose a vacancy occurs in my constituency. If the position involves over $400, I, as a member of the riding, have nothing to do in the matter.


Peter John Veniot: Two hundred.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four hundred.
Air. A'ENIO 1:	That is, if it is a revenue
office-if the revenue is over $400. But as to salaries generally, all through, it is $200 or
under.
Mr. AlcGIBBON:	That only makes it all
the worse. Now, what happens? They use the machinery of a certain department, like the post office. They send officials to my riding. They do not even consult me. They get their information from a man on the street, or from any other source they please, and they make a report back'to the department. That department forwards it to the commission and the appointment is made, I presume, on that recommendation. These appointments are made by persons who are responsible absolutely to no one. It is on that ground that I base my objection to the act. I say frankly that I am willing to support any day a resolution or a bill that will take the outside service away from the commission. And I have never held any different opinion. I opposed it when the bill was passed in 1918, and I am still opposed to it. It was due, I believe, as the hon. member for Quebec South suggested, to the hysterical effort which was being made during the war to abolish responsible government. We seemed to want to get away from everything in respect to which the people's representatives should be consulted.
I should have been glad had this matter come before the house in a different form. I believe that most hon. members, on either side, are opposed to the commission making outside appointments. I do not believe that the commission itself is anxious for the job. More than that, when you go back to your electors and tell them that you have not a thing to do with it, a large number of them will not believe you. And those that do believe you will say, "You are no good, or you would have something to do with it''. That is an honest statement of fact; I believe it is a fair interpretation of the mind of the electorate. The people expect that the man or the woman whom they elect to represent them in the house will make appointments in their riding. And the member should make them. I shall be glad indeed to support any resolution to that effect. I do not know just how the present amendment will affect the inside service. I do not believe it will affect it at all. If it does not affect it, but leaves it under the commission, I am prepared to vote for the amendment.


Air. GOBEIL:: I had not intended taking part in this discussion, but in view of the second amendment proposed by the hon. member for Quebec South, I think I had better put myself on record. I do not believe that a discussion of this kind adds very much to the reputation of the. house for seriousness. For two hours we Have been engaging in a debate that will result in nothing. When the
30Oi	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
hon. member for Quebec South moved the first ameudment to reduce the amount to one dollar, he knew very well that such a motion would have to be voted down, even by his own friends, because no serious member of this house desires to see civil servants going without their pay. And when he withdraws that amendment and submits the second motion he knows equally well that it can serve no purpose.
I am no great lover of the Civil Service Commission, although I have been on friendly terms with them. As a matter of fact, I have practically no patronage in my county. I cannot find fault with the few appointments that have been made in the county of Compton by the Civil Service Commission, but, in common with many other members, I believe that some changes could be effected for the improvement of the system. When, however, my hon. friend from Quebec South says he wishes to have this house vote on the principle of his motion, I must say that I cannot see the principle involved. As a new member, it is possible that I do not understand or grasp the significance of different motions quite so well as the older members do, but I cannot see where the principle is involved in that motion asking the committee to reduce the vote as the hon. gentleman has proposed. I absolutely fail to see any high principle there at all. If the motion meant anything, if it proposed something definite, then I should be in a position to consider what was involved in it and I should be able to vote either for or against it. But it does not mean anything; it is really only a farce. As I said before, I believe that some changes could be made, but I have no hesitation in declaring that I shall vote against the motion. I believe that every serious member will vote against it, without respect to party politics.


Mr. COOTE:: I intend to vote against the amendment. I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South when he moved it. He said it was a negation of the principle of responsible government to hand over to the Civil Service Commission, the engaging of employees. But it seems to me that when he went on to suggest his willingness that the appointments in his constituency should be made by the defeated candidate, that can certainly be regarded as neither more nor less than a negation of responsible government. The hon. gentleman suggests that a man who had been rejected by the people should have the right to make appointments. He might be a man who had failed to obtain the votes of one-fourth of the people living in the constituency, and yet

he would be in a position to make the appointments. That, it seems to me, is too terrible a condition to contemplate at all. The proper way to describe the system which seems to be in favour to-night would be to call it, not the principle of responsible government, but the spoils system.
The deputy speaker said, I believe, that no business concern would think of making appointments of their employees in the way the parliament of Canada makes appointments through the Civil Service Commission. Let me tell him that no business concern would think of running its affairs as we run the business of Canada in this house. They would not think of dividing their forces into two groups corresponding to a government and an opposition. And just because we have this inefficient party system we must resort to the Civil Sendee Commission to make appointments to the. civil service. So far as I am concerned, I do not wish to see even outside appointments removed from the commission. I do not wish to have the responsibility at any time, particularly at a time like this,' of deciding or suggesting who should get appointments. The chief trouble with the Civil Service Commission is that the commissioners are not appointed on the merit system; the appointment is not made because of the fitness or the particular ability of the man to carry out the duties entrusted to him. Such appointments always have been made because of the political affiliations of those who received them. The spoils system starts right at the top. If we want a proper civil service commission and desire to have the civil service properly handled, we. should take care in appointing these commissioners to see that they are fitted for the position. I think that that is all that is needed to ensure a good civil service in Canada.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I cannot vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec South, although I concur in many of the views he has expressed, and support in large measure the position he has taken. If the amendment meant what I presume the hon. member intended it to mean, I might vote for it, but I cannot see that it means anything else than a vote of want of confidence in the government, or at least in the minister who presents these estimates. The hon. member for Montmagny put his finger on the situation when he said that no business organization could be carried on under such a system as that under which the Civil Service Commission operates. I will go as far as to say that no such organization or no

Supply-Civil Service Commission
such business could be carried on unless it had behind it the taxpayers of Canada in order to carry the load.
The minister is responsible to parliament, parliament is responsible to the people. The minister is at the head of an organization in connection with which he has no say whatsoever as to who is or is not to be employed to assist in carrying out the responsibilities imposed upon him. The minister has no disciplinary power, and I doubt very much whether the deputy or the assistant deputy has any' disciplinary power. The information I have gathered in discussions with some of the best civil servants we have in this country is to the effect that the power of the minister is confined to sending someone back to the Civil Service Commission to be put in another position. Am I right or am I wrong? I will leave the answer to those who are in a better position than I am to know the facts. Unless it be for an act almost criminal in nature the minister or the deputy minister cannot dismiss a civil servant without referring such dismissal to the Civil Service Commission.
The commission cannot know of the technical duties which these civil servants are called upon to perform. Let me refer for a moment to what the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario has said with regard to the outside service. For example, someone may be required in British Columbia to act as an inspector on a government job costing, say, $100. The engineer in charge of the job and responsible for the work has no say whatsoever as to who shall be placed on that job as inspector.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is mistaken there.


George Brecken Nicholson: It would be hard to
imagine one of the railway companies endeavouring to carry out a certain work and their engineer being compelled to refer to three civilians in the city of Ottawa before he could obtain an inspector for the job. Under our system the elected member who is responsible to the people, or, as has been stated, the defeated candidate, has no say in the appointment; the engineer has no say, and, as every hon. member of this house knows-


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member allow me to correct a wrong impression? He has stated that the engineer has nothing to say with regard to the appointment. The resident engineer is the one who holds the examination and after such examination is held, he sends
in his report to the Civil Service Commission as to which of the applicants is the most capable, in his opinion, to fulfil the duties of the position.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend may
know what takes place in his constituency, but I know what takes place in mine; I know that the engineer does not hold the examinations in every case.


Peter John Veniot: Who does?


George Brecken Nicholson: Someone named by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: Oh, yes. I know of a postmaster having been asked to conduct an examination for an inspector on a breakwater dock. The engineer in the district had nothing to say in the matter.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Public
Works knows better than that.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is what is being done, and it follows all the way through.


Peter John Veniot: No, it does not.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not blame the
commission; it is the creature of parliament, and I believe it is carrying out its duties and responsibilities as well as it is possible for [DOT] three men situated as they are to do so. I agree with the hon. member for Quebec South that so far as the outside service is concerned the Civil Service Commission is in an impossible position which cannot lead to anything but inefficiency.
So far as the inside service is concerned, it may be all right. I agree that an independent body should make the appointments, but when an appointment is made every promotion, every act of discipline, everything pertaining to the service should be under the control of those responsible for the carrying on of the service. The examining board can say: Jones, Smith or Brown has passed the examination; he has the necessary degree of merit and can fill the position, but those who are responsible for doing the work should say who the appointee is to be, and should be responsible for discipline.
The hon. member for Macleod referred to the spoils system. Perhaps it is a spoils system, but the people expect when they select someone to represent them in the House of Commons, that that individual, whoever he is, or, as the hon. member for Muskoka has said, whoever she is, will represent the opinion of the constituency. If the member does not do that, then, as my hon. friend has said, he is not fit to represent the constituency.
3M6	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
For the sake of his own reputation he will see to it that none but proper persons are appointed He will consult with those who are going to do the work and he will find someone who knows something about it.
Mention was made of the defeated candidate recommending appointments, but that is a negation of responsible government. Responsibility rests upon the ministers of the departments, and they are responsible for accepting recommendations. If they accept a recommendation from a defeated candidate, they are responsible for that recommendation and parliament can hold them responsible.
Reference has been made to the manner of the appointment of the Civil Service Commission. If we retain the commission there is only one way in which it can be appointed. You cannot throw the names of a group of men into parliament to be voted on by hon. members who know nothing about them. The government must make the appointments, unless, as has been said before, you set up a sort of super-commission to appoint the Civil Service Commission, and in that case, who is going to appoint the super-commission? If my hon. friend at some future time will bring in a resolution or a bill, if you will, to amend the Civil Service Act so as to put it on a sound basis so far as an examining body is concerned, I shall support him if I am in the house at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am through with the
estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, and my memorandum which I had at hand last night I have not here now, but if the right hon. member will leave that as a question I shall certainly take advantage of an early opportunity to explain it fully to him, because I am sure there is a fair explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I perhaps
should apologize to my hon. friend for suggesting the question out of the proper order, and he is quite right in saying that the ques-

tion should have been asked last night, but I am asking it now, not in relation to salaries, but rather in regard to the way in which the Civil Service Commission seems to operate on occasions. I have noticed-I am not speaking now of my hon. friend's administration, but in the past when responsibility was more on my shoulders than it is at the moment-that in some way or another one minister seemed to be able to get any number of principal clerks appointed and another minister did not seem able to get any; and also that not infrequently there were relatively many promotions that affected individuals at the top, while the great body of the service continued to remain in pretty much the same position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can assure the hon. member that no one in any branch of the department over which I have the honour to preside has been promoted or demoted at my instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know that,
and that gives point to what I have been saying. The hon. Secretary of State has just borne out the point I was trying to make. My hon. friend says that no one in his department has been promoted or demoted at his instance, yet the estimates before us today, and which the minister has asked the committee to pass, show that in his department last year there were five principal clerks and this year there are eight principal clerks, and those additional three appointments or promotions have been made, not by the minister responsible to parliament but by the Civil Service Commission. That is the kind of thing which I think is irritating a good many who speak in the name of responsible government. Where is the responsibility of the government when you have a minister obliged to accept promotions whether they meet with his own view or not of what is essential in the service of his own particular department?


Eugène Fiset: If the right hon.
leader of the opposition will bear with me, I think he is making a mistake. No promotion can possibly be made in the department unless it has first been requested by the department of the Civil Service Commission. The promotion is made by the Civil Service Commission, but it is first requested by the department itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged to my hon. friend for drawing my attention to that fact. That is an additional feature. There has to be, as I recollect it, some repre-

Supply-Secretary oj State
sentation made by the department to the Civil Service Commission as to the necessity for additional clerks. The recommendation in this Case may have been made to the Civil Service Commission by the deputy minister or someone else in the department, if the law governing the commission has, as I assume it has, been complied with. But one thing is certain from what the minister has told us himself, and that is that he as a minister has not had any knowledge of the fact that three additional principal clerks have been added to the department in the time that he has been in office. That is an illustration of the sort of thing that goes on in connection with the work of the Civil Service Commission, and it is that sort of thing which I believe has exasperated many members who as members feel a certain responsibility which, however they do not enjoy, for appointments that are made, whether they be new appointments or promotions^
Having said that much by way of criticism as to the extent of the application of the principle, and as to the unnecessary lengths to which it seems to me it has gone, I wish again to repeat that as to the principle itself of the Civil Service Commission, I could not support any vote that sought to have the principle denied. I would wish to see the principle maintained but carried out more in accord with the will and wish of the members of the House of Commons.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister of the crown who presents the estimates for the Civil Service Commission is by practice the Secretary of State. The Civil Service Commission itself is very independent. This prevents a minister assuming political responsibility fully with respect to it. The government, however, have presented these estimates, which are the ordinary estimates, and- we must see that this vote is passed if it is possible to pass it. We regard the discussion as very valuable indeed, but the motion to reduce the item by one dollar is a ridiculous motion, it seems to me.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman is too fond of using the term ridiculous in regard to other people. No man has made himself more ridiculous in this house than the hon. gentleman himself yesterday and to-day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking of the motion to reduce the vote. The remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition must have very great weight with the government of the day in connection with any review of the Civil Service Act. The Civil Service Act must not be sustained simply by one party or the other. Amendments to that act must be arrived at,

not by unanimous consent, but by the general consent of the house. That act, if it is to continue, must have the general approval of the house, and therefore it seems to me it must be the bounden duty of the government of the day to take into very serious consideration the representations which the right hon. leader of the opposition and other members of the house have made to-night. But that fact being recognized, I do trust that members of the house will vote down this amendment and support the vote in its original form.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 69.


Charles Gavan Power: Before the motion carries,
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that a number of members did not vote. For instance, I noticed that the member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) was in his seat and did not vote one way or the other on the resolution; I think the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) did not vote; and a number of other members who have expressed their views on the Civil Service Commission similar to mine did not vote. I am very glad to notice that and I suppose they will have some explanation to give to their electors, to whom they declared they would do their very best when the time came to support their demands for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-printing, binding, etc., the annual statutes, $16,000.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I notice that the statutes passed at the special session last September are available in the form of a small booklet. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that he consider the binding of these statutes with those of the present session in order that they may be kept in regular form.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will make that representation to the printing bureau. My hon. friend will notice that the vote is slightly increased by reason of the printing of the statutes for the special session.


Peter John Veniot: Has the minister particulars of the revenue received for public printing and stationery?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a very considerable revenue, for instance, from the statutes. This vote is simply for the purpose of paying the cost, but the revenue is paid directly into the consolidated revenue fund to the credit of the Receiver General. I have not all the details, but I can give the hon. member some particulars on the next vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3010
Supply-Secretary of State
[Stage Direction]
Canada Gazette, $35,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Last year we paid into the consolidated revenue fund a very considerable profit on the operation of the Canada Gazette of $31,008.46.


Peter John Veniot: On the preceding item
money is collected from every department of the government for printing. That is revenue.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: A distinction must be
made between the revenue derived from the departments and from the public. For instance, we sell a certain number of statutes to the public direct, and the printing bureau gets the money; we also get revenue from the public on account of the Canada Gazette. 1 think the ex-Postmaster General is referring to the amounts paid by every department to the printing bureau for printing work performed for them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That runs up into tens of
thousands of dollars. I have not the particulars at hand to-night.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps the Secretary of
State would undertake to give those particulars to me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With great pleasure.


Peter John Veniot: One of my reasons for asking for these particulars is that the Post Office Department gets no credit for the franking it does for the House of Commons, the Senate and the various departments, amounting to over $1,000,000 a year; but if it wants any printing done it has to pay the printing bureau.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Peter John Veniot: I have always thought that the Post Office Department should get credit for every bit of work done for the other departments. The king's printer gets credit for all the printing he does for the various departments-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Otherwise we would have no money to carry on our work.


Peter John Veniot: -the customs department
gets credit for every dutiable article that comes in for the other departments, the railway department gets credit for all the transportation it does for the other departments; but the Post Office Department gets no credit for the work it does for the other departments amounting, as I have said, to over $1,000,000 a year. I do not think it is fair to that large department that it should not at least get book credit for such work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Printing and binding government publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $40,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Will the minister tell the committee whether there is any revenue under this item?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, last year there was a revenue in excess of expenditure of some $28,000, I believe, but that goes into the consolidated revenue fund. We do not credit the revenue coming from this work; the appropriation is made by parliament and the proceeds coming from the work done goes into the consolidated revenue fund.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister tell the committee whether the expenses involved in these items we are now passing are met by the revenue? What is the total revenue of the department?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot give that at the
moment.


Peter John Veniot: A short time ago I asked that question, and the minister said he would look it up and let me have the information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I promised to give that information. As a matter of fact really the operation of the department costs the treasury less than $80,000 a year. I have discussed this question with the officials, and we think we do some things too cheaply. For instance, we think the rates for advertising in the Canada Gazette should be a little higher in order to keep them in line with other advertising rates. We are hoping during the present year to make some reduction of that cost of $80,000.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: When the minister says the department costs $80,000 a year I suppose he takes into consideration the payments made by the different departments for work done; when all these payments are made and when the revenue is collected from other sources, there is a deficit of about $80,000 with regard to the printing bureau?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Something like that, and if we were paid for everything we did we would show a very considerable surplus, because the amount of work done in various forms for other departments and for parliament itself is very great. I think the service rendered is efficient, and it is rendered at low cost.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Before we pass the last item in connection with the printing bureau I should like to make one remark. It seems that we ex-ministers are rather monopolizing the committee to-night, but it was brought to my attention many times-though I will admit no action resulted-that the estimates of the

Supply-Immigration
printing bureau are submitted in a very peculiar way. If you look at page 101, which contains the details of civil government, you will find only thirty-two employees mentioned. These constitute the executive staff of the printing bureau. It is a well known fact that there are over 800 employees, workmen of different classes, in that bureau, and their salaries, together with the cost of the material used and the general overhead expenses, are paid not from a vote of this house but from the accumulation of votes for printing spread over the different departments. In the archives branch, for instance, you will find a certain amount for printing, and that is so in connection with the Department of Public Works and other departments of the government. These cumulative estimates make up a formidable amount, which goes to pay for the work done by the printing bureau and the salaries of those eight hundred employees. It has been submitted that it might be more proper to have an estimate submitted which would include all those employees actually in the employ of the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sorry my hon. friend did not do that when he was in office.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It was brought to my attention during the course of my administration, and I must say there was something appealing in it, but the objection was that it would mean a considerable departure from what we had done so far. However, I was going to ask the present Secretary of State whether the same matter has been brought to his attention and whether he has not something to say about it.
Mr. CAHAN; My hon. friend knows that the employees are paid the rates of wages current in Montreal and Toronto, and they are paid out of the revenues of the department. We nave now 720 employees in that department, and the salaries last year amounted to $1,276,517, which amount was paid out of the revenues of the department.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is to say, there is a special act governing the printing bureau whereby an advance of $750,000 is made to the king's printer in order to carry on the work for the different departments. Previously it was $500,000, and the amount was increased to $750,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may tell my hon. friend that when I came into the department I found owing, at the time it was brought to my attention sometime in December, some $850,000 by the different departments. Later that amount was reduced to about $5,000, so that I think I am a pretty good bill collector.
22110-191}


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was trying to explain the system under which the printing bureau operates, and I wanted to ask my hon. friend whether representations have been made to him, as they were to me, that the estimates of that department should be brought down in a different way in order to show the full number of workmen and other employees in the bureau instead of having separate amounts voted for printing in the different departments. If, instead of voting $15,000 in one case, $20,000 in another case and so on, without any explanation being available, the printing bureau would submit estimates covering all those working in that department, it would give the house a better picture of what is taking place. If my hon. friend tells me that he has not done it, and I say the preceding government did not do it, that will be the end of it, but I know these representations received consideration by the former government and I take this first opportunity of bringing them to the attention of my hon. friend and asking him if he has given consideration to the suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I have gone very carefully into every detail of expenditure and: revenue in connection with that department.
I am accustomed to accounts, and I brought the matter referred to by my hon. friend to>
the attention of the Prime Minister, who is Minister of Finance of the day. The final decision was delayed pending the reconstruction of a branch of the finance department by a bill which has been brought down. A new system of accounting is to be inaugurated, I believe, for all departments, and when that matter comes up again I shall have great pleasure in renewing that representation with the Prime Minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the minister
tell us the numbers of Hansard that are distributed free and those for which subscription is paid?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will
allow that to stand as a question, I will see that it is answered on the orders of the day.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-salaries, $312,555; contingencies, $40,000.
Thomas Reid: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to a case that occurred ini the municipality of Surrey, on the boundary line, in the constituency I represent. It affects-the officers there. This is the case of a man: who passed the civil service examination with, average marks. He had been on active ser-
Supply-Immigration

vice and his marks were 85 in the written examination. He was employed as a temporary immigration officer last year on the Pacific highway.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The matter to
which the hon. gentleman is referring does not come under this item, but he will have an opportunity to discuss it under item 124.


Thomas Reid: So long as I am given that
opportunity.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh yes.


John Vallance: The hon. member must have some assurance. Why can he not discuss it now?


Mr. STEVENS:: It comes under item 124.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to say
something in regard to deportations. I believe that comes under this item.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member will
have an opportunity to discuss that question under items 124 and 125.


Peter John Veniot: This is for salaries and
contingencies in Ottawa, civil government.
!Mr. BENNETT:	Over which we have
practically no control.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can we not discuss policies under this item? I think it has been customary to do so. .


Finlay MacDonald: These are all statutory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be, but
it has been the custom to discuss policies under this item.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told that has not
been the custom.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my recollection.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as I am concerned, and have authority to say so, I will afford the hon. member every opportunity to discuss the subject when item 124 comes up.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not think the hon. member can proceed under this item.


Charles A. Stewart: I think your position i3 perfectly proper, Mr. Chairman. This is civil government and applies only to statutory positions. Under item 124 we have the outside services, with all the staff attached thereto, and that will give ample opportunity to discuss any matter relating to immigration.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is a reduction of 13 in staff. To what is that due?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The decreases were:
.1 commissioner of colonization.
15 stenographers.
3 clerks.
1 messenger.
Deaths, transfers, etc.

Total, $29,580.
The increases were:
1 departmental accountant, grade 2.
1 woman officer, grade 3.
5 clerks, grade 3.
Provision for statutory annual increases.

Total, $17,925.
This shows a net decrease of 811,655.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think this would be an excellent opportunity for the minister to tell the people and the country what the outlook for his department is for the next three years. What will be the policy of the department in connection with immigration? I ask for a statement in this regard for the reason that, apart from one or two commercial institutions in the United States that seem to be over-optimistic, the general forecast is that the present depression is likely to endure for some time. I assume the minister does not contemplate the reopening of this country to an inflow of immigration, and I should like to know the position he takes in regard to the present personnel of his department. Is he going to maintain the entire overhead required for the carrying on of a full policy or will there 'be a reduction in keeping with the almost total abolition of the immigration service?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to what the hon. member for Bow River has just said, I can assure the members of this committee- probably at the risk of not following the time-honoured course of announcing beforehand what a policy may or may not be-that as long as conditions in this country are as they are to-day there need be no fear that the bars will be let down to immigrants. We have problems enough on our hands because of, let me say, the thoughtless or undisciplined migrations into this country in the past. I am not going to charge those who immet-diately preceded us in government with any delinquency in that regard-that probably could be just as successfully charged against those who in turn preceded them. I think the * hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) and myself are in a measure crusaders so far as the rigidity of the present policy is concerned. He identified the problem before I did, but I identified it some, two or three years ago. As I saw it, we were not taking the care we should take in introducing people into this

Supply-Immigration
country or in encouraging them to come; we were not sure that they were being assimilated. I do not want to charge the late government with that because I think everyone in this country, in government and out of government, has been just a little thoughtless as to what problem was being created with respect to the encouragement of immigration.
The hon. member for Bow River asks about the curtailment of the present vote. This vote is not likely to be reduced in the next two or three years because the experience gained in presiding over the department since last August has taught me that it is a great deal easier to admit people into a country than it is to keep them out. This vote will have to be maintained in a large measure in connection with the preventive service and the survey of those who seek admission into Canada. I can see no immediate hope for any considerable reduction.
So far as this government is concerned, and I think I can speak with a good deal of confidence in connection with the matter, the question of immigration into Canada will not in the future be a matter of politics. If in the past politics has entered into this question, we have learned our lesson and the depression which is at present upon us has made manifest the mistakes which were made in the past. In future immigration will be entirely dissociated from politics and will be dealt with in a detached and dispassionate way with a view only to what is best for Canada. That is the policy I propose to pursue. So long as this government is in power the immigration policy of this country will never again be dictated by transportation companies and booking agencies and those who have very little else but their own material interest at heart.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear the statement the minister has made. I discovered, however, in the reading room what purports to be a reproduction of an advertisement which appeared in the old country papers. It reads as follows:
Canada
New Brunswick Family Settlement Scheme
Agricultural families now being selected.
Farm, stock and equipment provided.
Splendid opportunity for married agricultural workers to have a farm of their own.
Call and discuss it with the Canadian government representative.
George hotel, Easingwold. Monday, March 2, 1931.
Hours: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Rusholme3, printers, Market street, York.
Why should these advertisements be continued in the old country papers if we are
going to close down on immigration during the period of the depression? Why have the immigration agents been given authority to bring still more people to this country? I think these are fair questions in view of the statement first made by the minister.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My hon. friend is quite
right. The advertisement to which he refers was not put in by any agent of the Immigration department.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It says to call and discuss it with the Canadian government representative.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can assure my hon. friend that we did not pay for the advertisement.


Edward Joseph Garland: There must be collaboration of some kind.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I stand corrected with
respect to the New Brunswick families, and I will explain that. The provinces have certain rights under the British North America Act with respect to this matter, and one thing which I endeavoured to clear up and make plain last fall was that I and this government would consult with the provinces with respect to the admission of migrants into any province. I find that there is a tripartite agreement in force called the New Brunswick scheme. The New Brunswick government entered into an agreement a few years ago with the Oversea Settlement Department and the dominion government to bring into the province of New Brunswick some five hundred families. When I came into the department 1 found that about three hundred of those families had come into the province, and I assume that the advertisement to which the hon. member refers must have been directed to that movement of people. The remainder of the five hundred families have not come forward, and there will be no further movement of families this year into New Brunswick. In no case, unless very great pressure is brought to bear by the province itself, and unless the province is able to disclose to the government that it is in need of certain types of settlers, will the government, until the depression through which we are now passing has cleared away, consent to the movement of more people into that province.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am more than pleased to learn the policy of the present administration in regard to immigration. It is a policy which has been consistently, persistently and hopefully urged from this corner of the house for the last nine years. We never ceased year after year to urge upon the former government the necessity of curtailing migra-
Supply-Immigration

tion to Canada, particularly of the agricultural class. Yet that policy was persisted in, inadvisedly in my opinion, but with the complete collaboration and cooperation of the then opposition-during those years, indeed, with their criticism because the government of the day was not bringing in a sufficient number of immigrants. I think the minister was a little discreet when he suggested he was not going to blame particularly the former government or any previous government for that particular policy in regard to immigration because they were all involved in it. He was quite right; they all were. The policy in the past has been guided and motivated principally by the transportation interests and the great land corporations in this country whose principal interest was in getting human tonnage on which to make a profit not only in bringing it here but after it had reached here. Many sad tales have been recounted as a result of that policy in the past. Therefore I am particularly pleased to hear a statement of the present minister's intentions with regard to the future of his department.
The point that puzzles me, however, is why we should have a director of publicity for immigration. If immigration is abolished, why a- commissioner? Why an assistant commissioner? Why a supervisor of juvenile immigration? Why a supervisor, women's division, and a dozen other positions that unquestionably depend upon the flow of migrants to this country? As regards the proper inspection and checking of those who are trying to get through, I have no criticism to offer. I think if anything the policy of governments in the past has been too lax. I have under my hand records of some instances which indicate that the medical inspection at ports of entry as well as at ports of disembarkation has been hopelessly below par and, indeed, reflects very seriously upon the medical end of the Department of Immigration. But since immigration has now been stopped, I should like the minister to explain why he is retaining these persons whose principal interest is m bringing immigrants to Canada? I have particular reference to the director of publicity.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As regards the commissioner of immigration, the hon. member will almost at once agree with me that the name will now be a misnomer; it might almost better be a commissioner of exclusion. But I know the commissioner of immigration very well, having worked with him for longer hours than I was accustomed to work before I entered on the duties of the position I at present hold. His work is probably as important as any that is carried on in the civil service. It is preventive,

of course, but let me assure the hon. member for Bow River-and he as well as all other members will probably get a good deal of satisfaction out of this-that the increasing persistence of people from other lands in trying to get into this country is a pretty fair indication that Canada is a better place than any other in the world and we are having a very difficult time to keep them out. In fact, at times we have to discourage those whom in normal times we would welcome.
But at present we have on our hands a more serious problem, and that is to find gainful occupations and means of livelihood for those who were encouraged to come to Canada in the nearer past years. Those who have been here for some years are, I think, pretty well settled. We have to endeavour to draw people from the cities, from the ranks of labour and other lines of work where they are not getting on because of unemployment and conditions of that sort, and to place them upon farms throughout Canada. It may be said with a good deal of truth, having regard to the difficulties that the agriculturist is meeting with at the present time, that people going on farm land will have a difficult time of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for Bow River says, "hear, hear." But I think the history of hard times is also the history of the back-to-the-land movement. Since last fall, after several long conferences with the presidents of the two railway systems, with their colonization organizations which theretofore had turned their attention to the encouragement of migrants from Europe, they agreed with me that we had in Canada a problem largely in connection with the very people who had been induced to come to this country through the efforts of the railways themselves, and who either had not gone on farms or, if they had done so, had not stayed there. A concerted effort is being made to bring such people back to the land. I hope that effort will continue between the department and the two railways and that it will be participated in by the numerous societies and organizations which, inspired by one purpose or another, in the past sought to bring people to Canada. While many of those efforts were laudable ones, on the other hand in many instances I am afraid once they got the people into this country they thought they had accomplished their purpose and there was nothing more for them to do. The policy lo which I have just referred will be continued.
The gentleman who occupies the position of director of publicity is also misnamed. He

Questions
is working very hard carrying out this policy of finding positions on farms for people. I can assure the hon. member for Bow River I was rather surprised to learn how many farmers like to have a good hired man around and how many of these men we have been able to place. Strange to say, many of the men placed were from Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba. It was also a surprise to me. because I confess I have had no experience at all with respect to farming, to learn how many families who had had a farming background in Canada, had moved into the cities, had saved anywhere from S500 to $1,000, but were now out of employment, continuing to pay rent, seeing that fund dwindle and wondering what was going to happen to them. Hundreds of such families were anxious to take advantage not of financial help, but of a return to the land on locations selected either by the two railway companies or by my department. They are going back to the land of their own volition, courageously, knowing, because of their previous experience on farms, that they can at least maintain themselves in certain sections of Canada, which sections are waiting for them. In that respect, we are achieving a great deal of success.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the house would be good
enough to revert to motions in order that I may move a motion with respect to the estimates for the Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, presented to the house on the 13th of April, which were not included in the motion to-day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent the house
will revert to motions.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the estimates respecting the Canadian National Steamships and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, presented to the house on the 13th April, be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated, and controlled by the government, and that the order referring the same to the committee of supply be discharged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is purely a pro forma motion, I take it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely. I thought it
had been included in the motion to-day, but
I am informed that it was not, and I have been asked to present it.


Eugène Fiset: Does this refer to
the estimates contained in Bill No. 79, presented by the Minister of Railways?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say whether it
does or not. The chairman of the committee came to me this afternoon and said that it had not been included in the motion as made, and asked me if I would bring it to the attention of the house to-night. The bill in any event will be before the committee, of which the hon. member is a member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 25, 1931.