1933-02-07

[Stage Direction]
Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved:
That the orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 17th day of December, 1931, and the 9th day of September, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 113, R.S. 1927, and which were laid on the table on the 7th day of October, 1932, be approved.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star of February 6 contained an article to the effect that G. G. Serkau had said that his syndicate, strengthened by the addition of much capital, was now prepared to go ahead on its own, financing the Russian barter by itself and asking nothing of the government except a guarantee that once the barter was arranged the duties and regulations would be kept stable. I should like to inquire of the government whether or not such an offer has been received from the syndicate, and, if so, what they propose to do about it.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I think I can state definitely that no such offer has been received.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): In connection with the Russian deal, did the government or any member thereof have knowledge last October of the proposed deal

Tariff Board-Appointments
of the Serkau-McDonald syndicate with Russia, and if so, was the subject matter of same communicated to the Prime Minister?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member should put his question upon the order paper.


Mr. McPHEE:: Could I not have an answer to my question?


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member will place his question upon the order paper it will be answered.



TARIFF BOARD-APPOINTMENTS MR. JUSTICE SEDGEWICK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MITCHELL F. HEPBURN (West Elgin): Mr. Speaker, the morning papers contain the personnel of the newly appointed tariff board, naming Mr. Justice Sedgewick as chairman at a salary of $12,000. I should like to know if this is the same Mr. Justice Sedgewick who as an appointee of the Ontario government was the chairman of a commission which investigated the Ontario Hydro Commission and gave that body a complete whitewash.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I have not received an answer to my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I should like to know if this is the gentleman who acted as commissioner to investigate the conduct of the Ontario Hydro Commission? I think I am entitled to an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it was the hon. member's intention to ask a question but rather to make a smart remark. I do not think the government is called upon to answer frivolous questions.



MR. MILTON NEIL CAMPBELL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the acting leader of the
government whether the appointment of Mr. Milton Neil Campbell to the tariff board may be regarded as a non-partisan appointment or as a recommendation of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it will be regarded throughout Canada as a very excellent appointment.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Speaking for the opposition, I might say to the Minister of Justice, that we feel no more partisan appointment could possibly have been made.



DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will be more
fortunate in having an answer to my question. I should like to know who are the representatives of Canada at the disarmament conference which has just entered upon the more important part of its work. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have signed a petition asking the government to send the strongest men possible to this conference; the government sent two members to attend at the first part of the conference, but at the present time they are sitting in this house. Is Canada taking any part in this disarmament conference and, if so, who is representing this country?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not here to-day I think it would be better that this question stand in order that he may answer it as Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I remind my hon. friend that the date of the meeting of the commission has been uncertain from day to day and from week to week because of various reasons which my hon. friend can readily understand. There has been the difficulty in the far east and certain changes which have occurred in the governments of France and Germany, all of which have brought about an uncertainty as to the date of meeting. If my memory serves me right the disarmament commission itself is not sitting, the only body now carrying on is the bureau of the commission upon which Canada is not represented.



PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Timiskaming):	I should like to ask the
Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), a question concerning a persistent rumour which is circulating in northern Ontario that the passenger train service will be provided in that section by trains Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 via Montreal, North Bay, Cochrane and Winnipeg. I should like to know if there is any truth in this rumour.
New Zealand Butter
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Such matters as running trains
are not discussed in any shape or form with the government. This is entirely a question of railway management. We are not asked our opinion any more than my hon. friend is asked his.
i,	TREATY WITH FRANCE
On the orders of the day:


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I am sure we are all desirous of welcoming the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) on his return to the house. May I ask him when we are to expect an official pronouncement on the trade treaty between France and Canada?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: It is true I have had some conversations with two French governments, one succeeding the other, regarding trade relations between Canada and France. This morning I made to the Prime Minister a full report with regard to the conversations and negotiations in which I have taken part. It will rest with the Prime Minister to make any subsequent pronouncement to the house.



ANYOX, B.C., DISTURBANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
'Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena): I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has been instructed or asked by the British Columbia government to send armed boats and mounted police to Anyox, B.C.
Hugh Guthrie: I might say that on Sunday a communication came from the attorney general of British Columbia informing this government that there was some trouble at that [DOT]time at Anyox, and stating that on account *of weather conditions he had been unable to place provincial police in that district. He had attempted to do so by aeroplane. He also suggested that as there was a government fishery cruiser at Prince Rupert, it might be sent down to Anyox with, I think, four provincial police. I believe that was arranged. I have no particulars as to the nature of the trouble.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Has any further news been received since yesterday?


Hugh Guthrie: None since Sunday.
(Mr. Bradette.]



NEW ZEALAND BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
hold in my hand letters from farmers' organizations of Water Glen and Calumet, Alberta, complaining of New Zealand butter coming into Canada. Is the government doing anything to safeguard the interests of Canadian farmers in this respect?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Last calendar year, 1932,
there were entered for consumption in Canada 50,000 and some odd pounds of New Zealand butter. There was also entered in bond a quantity amounting to about 400,000 pounds. The total production in Canada of dairy and creamery butter was over 300,000,000 pounds. I simply submit these figures to my hon. friend as an answer to his question as to the necessity at this time of extraordinary action on the part of this or any other government in the premises.



DEPORTATION OF PETER VERIGIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of
Immigration whether there is any reason for the very great haste and secrecy in connection with the deportation of Peter Verigin?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: The hon. member, usually well
informed, is entirely ignorant of the facts so far a's the deportation of this man is concerned. There is no secrecy, no haste about it. Verigin knew months ago that he would be deported. His solicitor was so advised. Months ago this same solicitor, who is one of Verigin's followers, came before me and argued his appeal. This solicitor and counsel admitted that he should be deported and wanted only time to fix up his affairs. Months were given him to fix up his affairs and if I have anything to do with the matter, he, as an undesirable alien, as the record clearly discloses, certainly shall be returned to his country of origin as the law contemplates.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house resolve itself into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to continue in force until March 31, 1934, the provisions of an act to amend the Income War Tax Act, chapter 44 of the statutes of 1932, and to provide that the

Salary Deduction Act
persons therein described shall be liable to pay the tax thereby imposed in respect of salaries or pay paid to them by the Dominion of Canada during or in respect of the fiscal year 1933-34, in accordance with the provisions of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to continue in force the provisions of the Salary Deduction Act 1932. until the 31st day of March, 1934, and to provide that the provisions of the said act shall apply to the indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons for the session of parliament which commenced on the 6th day of October, 1932.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance lie good enough to give the house an explanation of what this resolution means?


Mr. RHODES:: If it is agreeable to my hon. friend I think we would do well to go into committee first, and have the explanation at that time. Otherwise our discussion would be limited.


William Duff: I am quite agreeable to that procedure, but I want to protest again against the introduction of this resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough has asked the reason for the resolution before us. I believe it is self-explanatory. It is intended to be the basis of a bill which will have for its object the continuance for one more year of the salary deductions of last year. With one exception the bill, if it is approved by the house, will be precisely the same as that of last year. The only difference is that it will contain a clause making it clear that the indemnity for the present session of parliament will be taxable for income tax purposes
in the taxation period of 1933. The object of that provision will be readily apparent to hon. members. Otherwise an injustice would arise in the case of any members whose indemnities would be increased out of proper proportion to the amount of income tax which they ought properly to pay in any one income tax period.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I gave last year, I do not wish to be taken as in any way approving the passing of this resolution. At this stage it is not my intention to repeat my former arguments. The statements I made to the house last year will be made even more forcibly again this year. I am absolutely and irrevocably opposed to the adoption of this measure and any bill which miay be founded upon it, or any bill which may be founded upon a similar resolution. I reserve mly right to protest on every occasion the matter may be brought before the house, namely when the bill may be introduced, and when it appears for second reading.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some observations concerning the resolution now before us. Last year and the year before there were no very strong protests against the reductions, because we wanted to give the government a chance. However during the first part of this session hon. members of the opposition have proved that the-high tariff policy of the government has: caused the external trade of our country to decrease. We maintain that the worries obtaining in many homes may be traced directly to the salary cuts and that they affect internal trade. The resolution before us constitutes one of the silly policies inaugurated by the provincial government of Ontario. Without inquiry this government has followed the example set by the Ontario legislature. I should like to offer a few suggestions before the government make any definite decision in this matter; there is still time for them to change their minds.
First of all, there are eight vacancies in the Senate. The government have a majority in the Senate, and they are sure to carry their legislation through that body, whenever they think fit. What is the necessity of spending [DOT]S32.000 per annum in order to fill those vacancies? The government could wait until a time immediately preceding the next general elections, whether they take place this year or next. If they take place this year the government would save $32,000 and if next year; $64,000. In this particular I offer another-suggestion to the leader of the government:
Salary Deduction Act

There might be some applications for senator-ships. Quite so. I suggest the government should notify all the applicants that only one application should be sent, and when a second application is sent, the government should take the stand that the applicant would not get the job. They should post notices, or in some other way notify those who want to be appointed to the Senate that if they come twice to get the appointment they will get nothing. They should be notified that if a man, after having applied to the Senate, sends his friend or any one else, or canvasses any ministers of the crown, he will be sure not to get the job. This is a very practical and timely suggestion, and will give the Prime Minister and other members of the government a chance to enjoy more peace and rest. I suggest that before cutting salaries the decision should be made that no other Senator should be appointed before the next general election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank hon. members very much for carrying my first suggestion and I hope anything further I have to say will be received in the same spirit. In our confederation there are nine provinces. Citizens of the province of Ontario as well as those of the province of Quebec are interested in the welfare of the seven other provinces of our dominion, from sea to sea-but not farther than that. We are not interested in the situation obtaining in Newfoundland. What happens in Newfoundland is of no particular interest to us, since it took a slice from Labrador, thanks to the indulgence or diplomacy of the Privy Council. I leam from the press that the government has loaned $700,000 to Newfoundland ; that is a large amount of money. I learn, further, from the press, Mr. Speaker, that on two previous occasions the Canadian government saved Newfoundland from bankruptcy.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a question. I should like to know to whom the hon. member is speaking; Mr. Speaker is not in the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: True, Mr. Speaker is not in the chair but-


Vincent Dupuis: And the hon. member
addresses his remarks to Mr. Speaker. He does not say "Mr. Chairman."


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall continue by arguments. I feel I should thank the committee for their kindness in listening to my remarks with such great attention. But may I say that what I am telling you is

most important? I see that this government has loaned $700,000 to Newfoundland; has saved that dominion twice from bankruptcy. These are large sums of money. We are not interested in the welfare of Newfoundland any more than that there are human beings there; we are not more interested in their affairs than we are in the welfare of Germans, French, Spaniards or Roumanians.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Oh, yes, we are.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know my hon. friend
from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) will go to Fort Saskatchewan and console his friend Maloney.


Olof Hanson: Hon. gentlemen will please keep
order and allow the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) to continue his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is only proper that the government, before thinking of making another cut in salaries, should ask Great Britain to restore the money which has been advanced to the Newfoundland government. I ask my good friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes):	Where did he get that
money? He should get back that money. If it was loaned on the advice of the Prime Minister the Prime Minister was wrong, I am sure if my good friend the Minister of Finance had been left to his own judgment he would never have done it. There are perhaps millions of dollars that should come back from there into the Canadian exchequer to fill the hole that should not be filled by cutting the salaries of the civil servants.
Besides that, I saw in the papers some time ago that a gentleman by the name of Kenneth G. Rea, had sailed on the Empress of Britain to begin the construction of a Canadian legation in Tokio. Is that work undertaken for the relief of unemployment in Canada? Will Canadian materials be used? Will Canadian workmen be employed? Before such work is begun, or before any payment is made on account of it, would it not be better to obtain the assurance that a Japanese legation will be built in Ottawa at the same time?
There is something else, something extraordinary. It is this, that the government has seen fit to make a loan of SI,500,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway without interest, and at the same time the Canadian Pacific Railway has enough money to buy $2,000,000 worth of dominion bonds bearing interest at four per cent, which means that the government is paying four per cent on 81,500,000 of Canadian money, something very extraordinary-inconceivable. If the government

Salary Deduction Act
forced the Canadian Pacific Railway to pay four per cent on that $1,500,000 it would mean $60,000; in other words that 600 poor little civil servants who will have to suffer a cut of $100 would be exempt, and that the company would have to act in accordance with what is done in business circles, namely that people who have money can pay interest when money is loaned to them.
Another suggestion that I would make, not to the Minister of Finance but to his leader, would be to stop the gambling in wheat. When the matter came before the house the Prime Minister said it would serve no good purpose to give us full details although not only each member as representing the constituency that sent him here was interested but Canada at large. I asked him to clear the galleries in order to take the house into his confidence, but got no answer from him. It is time for him to stop that extravagance, which serves no good purpose but is rather an embarrassment.
There is another thing. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden-


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us about Eve.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, there is no question
about women. Some day there may be a lady in the cabinet, but to-day as there are only men, I will speak about the first man. After he ate the apple he was ashamed-


An hon. MEMBER:: Maybe it was an
onion.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was not an onion,
because at that time there was no culture of onions. Onions grew wild in Egypt then. After he had eaten the forbidden fruit he clothed himself in a fig leaf, but the Prime Minister, the apostle of "Canada first," is riding in an American car, and instead of a fig leaf we find him using a silver maple leaf to hide the American origin of his car. Now here is a most important point. The members of the government get $2,000 a year for 'their cars. I see a car here every day at the door of the east block bearing the number BB-1 or something like that, I have no objection to the number, but I have an objection to Canada's coat of arms being on this car. If the car belongs to the country I do not see why the country has bought for the Prime Minister, the apostle of "Canada first," an American made car. If it is privately owned by that gentleman, he has no right to put the coat of arms of Canada on his car.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Jean-François Pouliot: Everyone knows, if they
don't they are ignorant. That is the point
I make; first I do not subscribe to paying $400 of my salary to keep that American automobile for the Canadian Prime Minister. Perhaps he does not know, perhaps that car was sold to him under the pretence that it was Canadian made. But if you look at the list of Canadian automobile manufacturers, I defy any hon. member from the other side of the house to say that the Stearns-Knight Company has a factory in Canada. Where is it? No one answers. I say there is none. Well, that is strange. Charity begins at home; why not buy a Canadian made car? Canadian made cars were good enough for Mr. Baldwin, they were good enough for members of the delegations from other parts of the empire who came here last July. But the Prime Minister of Canada has an American car. Canada first!


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: But there is something
else. If my hon. friend will not keep silence I will tell him some very unpleasant things.
Mr. Chairman, I am a poor man. Most of us are poor men. The indemnity is not a salary. We come here at great sacrifice. During the time I have been here I have heard members from the province of Quebec as well as members of the Progressive party asking for some concession in this matter. Certainly there is not a single member of moderate means who does not attend the sessions of parliament at great sacrifice to his business or his practice, whatever may be his trade or profession. We are here to fulfil a duty. Some people do not agree with the views I express, but I can say that when members are polite to me I am equally polite to them and I treat them just as well as they treat me-some times much better. I must repeat that we come here at a great sacrifice, many members of parliament, gentlemen of culture who have done well in their profession and who have done well for the community, men from every part of the country, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. These gentlemen realize that there is such a thing as public spirit in this country and we do not come here merely for the honour of it, which means very little. Indeed, it is troublesome rather than honourable to be a member of parliament, although everyone appreciates the fact that the members of this house have enjoyed the confidence of those who have sent them here. Still, I say, the government must realize that an indemnity of $4,000 does not go very far.
We have to give more to charity to-day than anyone else. It is all very well to quote
Salary Deduction Act

scripture and to say that a cup of cold water given in the Lord's name will not be forgotten, and so on. We have to be charitable not onlly as members of parliament but as private citizens. The fact remains, however, that members of parliament are called upon to make greater sacrifices than the ordinary citizen has to make. The Prime Minister himself has appealed on several occasions to private charity on behalf of the unemployed; he has asked the .'Canadian people to come to the assistance of those who are out of work. The government itself cannot do anything. I do not say that any member of the cabinet is insincere; I believe they are all sincere. But I am sure they realize by now that they are unable to do anything practical for the relief of unemployment.
People speak of the back to the land policy, but that means nothing; it only means that some people are of the opinion that those who are on the land are much better off than the unfortunate people in the city. A good many people who have been in the cities for a considerable length of time are returning now to the paternal shelter because there is no more work for them in the urban centres. Others have therefore to come to their assistance. We find that not only the children, but also the sons in law, the daughters in law and the grandchildren in many cases are coming once more under the paternal roof. According to the last report of the director of unemployment relief, we find that the government gave only three meals on one day to each of the unemployed; they fed these people only one day, and during the other three hundred and sixty-four days these unfortunates had to be fed by private charity. Similarly the government afforded one half of them shelter one night and for the rest of the time private charity was responsible for their accommodation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh no; I am going to say all I have to say; I am going to say it for the benefit of those who, having ears to hear and eyes to see, will neither see nor understand.
I am a poor man, Mr. Chairman; my friend from Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere), is a poor man; so are my friends from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), from Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier), and from Gaspe (Mr. Brasset), and the majority of us. Now each of us has to subscribe $400 from our indemnity for purposes of private charity, and we have to subscribe that money to some millionaire in the cabinet. The five of us-taking us as examples -have to subscribe $400 each as a contribution either to the Prime Minister, to the Minister 
of Customs or to the hon. gentleman who presides at meetings of the council in the absence of the Prime Minister. I say, we have subscribed that money to millionaires. Is it fair? I do not think anyone will suggest that for a moment. Well, here is the automobile proposal, which the government apparently will not consider. I said last year and I repeat this year that I sincerely believe the salaries paid to members of the cabinet are inadequate. In ordinary times I would be in favour of voting a salary of $25,000 at least to each one of the cabinet ministers and I would be willing to vote a salary of $50,000 to the Prime Minister, because I do believe that the Prime Minister has a more arduous task than the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the president of any private concern. At the present time however we are not asking for anything more than what is due to us.
What is improper and indecent is this. The year before the salaries were cut the Prime Minister had sent the then Minister of Labour, Senator Robertson, to the west to get in touch with the people, and that hon. gentleman saw for himself the difficult conditions that existed out there; and after he had been converted he said in answer to my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who was pointing out that the farmers of the west had no money. "Why have they not any money?" Senator Robertson went to the west and when he oame back his report was so unfavourable that the Prime Minister could not help realizing the situation and he wanted to do something to assist these people who were in distress. After that it was decided to cut the salaries of the civil service, to cut the salaries of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate and of everyone else, thus increasing the distress that existed in every home.
People everywhere simply could not believe that a member of parliament was subscribing $400 a year to a millionaire like the Prime Minister or a millionaire like the hon. member who replaces that gentleman when he goes away, or a millionaire like the Minister of National Revenue, or for that matter any one of the millionaires in the cabinet. They cannot understand it. They do not realize that so many of us have to subscribe so much each for this purpose. The Prime Minister subscribed to the charity drive in Ottawa $250 of the $400 he is taking from my indemnity.
No one oan justify the discrimination of the cut in the eyes of the people. Only two members besides myself had the courage to speak of this matter in the House of Com-

Salary Deduction Act
mons-my hon. friend from Reauhamois (Mr. Raymond) and my hon. friend from Labelie (Mr. Rourassa). I fancy that there must be remorse among the members of the cabinet.
Do hon members realize that S2.000 is too much to pay for automobile service in these times? You can hire a taxi for a quarter and if you add ten cents to that by way of tip, that makes thirty-five cents; use the taxi four times a day, and does that amount to S2,000? We have simply got to practise economy, and ministers of the government would do well if they would give back to the state the amount that they have received in respect of automobiles during the past two years.


Mr. GOTT:: The hon. member mentioned the garden of Eden and I am sure the people of South Essex will appreciate his comparing their country to the garden of Eden.


Jean-François Pouliot: But my hon. friend has been expelled from the garden. I do not intend to speak much longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will continue. I can imagine a meeting of the council. At that meeting will be certain ministers who are in touch with the people, while there are others who are not; there will be those who know of the hardships, the poverty and the misery which exists in so many homes, and there will be others who are quite satisfied so long as they themselves are not hungry or thirsty. A discussion arises as to a cut in salaries and I can see someone saying, "Ontario has given us a lead, we must follow." Probably other ministers stated their objections, but the thing was done.
I appreciate the fact that hon. members on both sides of the house are so courteous in listening to what I say. They are all supporting the stand wdiich some of us took last year and the year before. It is to be hoped that there will be no cut this year in the salaries of the civil servants or anyone receiving moneys from the exchequer. So much the better.
I know that hon. members of this house are not hard hearted; they are compassionate and they suffer from the bottom of their hearts when they see a man who has not enough to eat, who cannot clothe his children in order to send them to school to receive an education. If we had 84,000 per year, if the ministers were allowed only 8400 in lieu of private motor cars, conditions would be different because we could do much with that extra $400 to relieve those in distress. That is what should be done.
Private charity has done a lot in this regard. The Prime Minister has made an appeal to private charity, but he then goes ahead and cuts it by ten per cent. Many people have charitable obligations. I met a man who works here in the building, receiving a salary of 880 or $90 per month. He told me that his priest had said that he should support the unemployed, that the civil service had been asking him to subscribe to the Ottawa drive, and yet he was supporting two of his children with their families. I told that man he was already doing enough, that it was not necessary for him to subscribe to church charities or to the Ottawa drive. I told him that if he continued to do what he had been doing he could be cited as an example to anyone. Private charities are doing considerable to relieve conditions; the work of the St. Vincent de Paul society, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross has been marvellous.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Gott) wants to be decent, he will listen to me.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member for Essex didn't utter a sound.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I take the hon.
member's word and I apologize. It must have been the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan).


Walter Davy Cowan: I have not
said a word.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am satisfied with the
hon. members' explanation.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member is crosseyed.


Jean-François Pouliot: My eyes are good enough to see the hon. member for South Essex and the hon. member for Long Lake.
I ask the support of every hon. member in this house in trying to persuade the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to cut salaries. They have decreased the purchasing power of a great many families and this example has been followed by a number of public and private concerns. The purchasing power of nearly every head of a family has been reduced. I remember distinctly that when the Prime Minister was coming from England two years ago he gave an interview in which he advocated the support of private charity. Hon. members of this house do their duty by subscribing to such private charities, to the best of their ability they endeavour to improve the conditions of the poor who surround them, and for these reasons I ask every
Salary Deduction Act

hon. member on both sides of the house to do his best to induce the leader of the government and his colleagues to reconsider this matter. If the government give to all of us the opportunity to help more than we can do now, our constituents, relatives, friends, and those who are in need, I have no objection to their keeping the two thousand dollars for cars provided they continue to do what I am sure they have already done, namely, give out of that sum a helping hand to private charity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has such a ready gift of speech, such an extensive vocabulary, that I am rather surprised that even he should deem it necessary to practise upon a committee of this house, thereby taking up its time for upwards of forty minutes, one of the speeches which he intends to make at the next election down in the constituency of Temiscouata. Without desiring to be in the least disrespectful, I may say to the hon. member that much of what he said had far better been said upon the hustings or another occasion. It had little or no bearing on the resolution which is now before the house.
But my hon. friend made certain specific statements to which I feel it my duty to refer at once, lest my silence might be taken as consent to the accuracy of his statements with respect to either the facts in question or his deduction from the premises which he laid down himself. In the first place my hon. friend said that this government had lent some 8700,000 odd to Newfoundland. This government has done nothing of the kind; it has not lent one cent to Newfoundland either now, recently, or at any time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have listened in patience -to my hon. friend for forty minutes and I think I have a right not to be interrupted while I occupy the time of the house for such few moments as may be necessary while I reply to the statements which he has made, following which I shall submit to any questions which my hon. friend may wish to put to me.
My hon. friend has said that Newfoundland means no more to Canada than does some foreign country. I do not think he will have many other members in the house or people in the country who will subscribe to that kind of view. Newfoundland is the oldest dominion under the crown. It has been, and quite properly so, one of the boasts of the British people that they have always met .their obligations. There has never been a

default. When it was open to us in cooperation with the mother country, to lend a hand to the oldest dominion, a sister dominion,
I claim we are entitled to consideration for having come to her assistance under those circumstances. What we did was to say to the banks who came to the assistance of Newfoundland at that time, that we would stand behind them in cooperation with the mother country in case eventually Newfoundland found it impossible to meet her just obligations. So far from being criticized, I think we have every reason to take credit for having lent that helping hand under those circumstances. I do not need to place it on the ground of patriotic consideration. If, as has been the case in times past, we 'have come to the assistance of those who have met with disaster in foreign countries, surely we are entitled to come to the assistance of our sister dominion, Newfoundland, in the circumstances.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that we have sent money to Tokyo to build a legation. We have done nothing of the bind. We have not sent a dollar. That arrangement in detail will, I have no doubt, be discussed when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are under review. When it is discussed, I have every reason to believe the arrangement which was entered into because of the patriotic action of the Minister to Japan will be approved by this house and by the country. It is fortunate that we have in the public service of Canada a man with such high ideals of the public service as has the Minister to Japan.
My hon. friend used an argument which I know rolls like a sweet morsel upon the tongues of some hon. gentlemen, especially when they are discussing before a popular audience the shortcomings of the administration, when he referred to the faet that the government had lent $1,500,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That is one way of putting the situation. As a matter of fact, whether the advance was right or not, what we did was not to give the money to the Canadian Pacific Railway because it was the Canadian Pacific Railway. We had decided that inasmuch as the shops of that railway would not be opened and there would be poverty and want on the part of those who had hitherto been employed, rather than have those people go upon relief, it would be not only humane but fitting to provide a sum of money which would enable the shops to be opened, thereby affording employment to those people. All that will come as an ultimate loss to the treasury is the interest upon that sum between the time it was advanced and the time when it is repaid as I

Salary Deduction Act
believe it will be by the Canadian Pacific. If the payment is not made for a period of years, tihe cost to the exchequer will not be greater or will be very little more than would have been the case if money had had to be handed out by way of relief.
My hon. friend has said by way of criticism -and I have heard this argument before-at the same time as this government gave SI,- 500,000 to the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Pacific bought $2,000,000 worth of bonds upon which the dominion is paying interest at 44 per cent. That statement is absolutely untrue. In the first place the Canadian Pacific Railway did not buy one dollar's worth of bonds. That is the fact to start with, but even if we asume it had done so, there would be nothing inconsistent in the two positions because the Canadian Pacific Railway is the custodian of trust funds, pension funds, sinking funds, which have to be invested, and it would be quite fitting and proper under those circumstances for the Canadian Pacific Railway to make truslt funds and invest them in trustee securities which would be the securities of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in that position.
My hon. friend harps upon a familiar chord, which I have not any doubt affords sweet music in the ears of those who want to indulge in the old political pastime of spellbinding, when he deals with the question of $2,000 to ministers in lieu of motor cars. In the first place this has not been $2,000 for the last two years. It has been $1,800, because it has been subject to a deduction of ten per cent. Let me say to my hon. friend that under previous administrations these sums of money did not more than pay for the gasoline, repairs and extra tires of cars of ministers. It barely would pay for the salaries of the chauffeurs, every one of whom was provided by the government and not one of whom, if my memory serves me rightly, received less than $1,440 a year. It did not take account of depreciation of cars, some of which cost as much as $5,000 and $6,000, and most of which were imported cars at that, I may tell my hon. friend. The reason the cars were taken away from ministers and an allowance given in lieu of them was to save the public treasury some tens of thousands of dollars. I have not the figures before me, but I have perused them in times past and I may say to my hon. friend that this allowance to ministers to-day in lieu of motor cars means that that service costs the public treasury not much if any more than one-third the cost under the old arrangement sanctioned by previous administrations. I am not going to defend the amount of emoluments ministers may receive. I have
had some experience in public life, and I may say to my hon. friend that any minister who is devoted to his duties leaves the service of his country poorer than when he entered it. When I say that I include as well the allowance for motor cars. It might be good politics for the ministers to say, "No allowance, we will walk." But I say that would cost this country more than the allowance of $1,800, because ten or fifteen minutes in the time of a minister on a busy day is of the utmost importance to the country, if the country's business is to be run expeditiously.
I submit my hon. friend went a little too far when he brought the name of the Prime Minister into the discussion in connection with a matter which, after all, is his personal and private affair. I say to my hon. friend that the car owned by the Prime Minister was purchased by him in Canada as a second hand car, from a man in needy circumstances who wanted money. I am not going to stress that angle of it, but I know that idea was in the mind of the Prime Minister when he made the purchase. He had to have a car of some sort and he purchased it with his own funds. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned I say I have not the slightest doubt that not only does he give away his $1,800 but much more besides. And when my hon. friend suggests that his only contribution to charity was $250-


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am glad to hear the
hon. member say he did not make that statement, because my interpretation of his remarks was that it was his impression the Prime Minister's benefactions were limited to that small sum of money. I am glad the Prime Minister is not here. Even although he may be absent I do not purpose going as far as I might go, but I feel obliged to say that the Prime Minister in his generosity towards his fellowmen is second to no man with whom I have ever come in contact in my lifetime. His modesty in connection with his benefactions, which I know to be numerous, is in marked contrast to the character which hon. gentlemen in this house would give him when they accuse him of being a Mussolini and a dictator.
The hon. member states that members of the government do not realize that there is hardship and poverty and misery in many homes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say that that
statement applied to all ministers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Well, I shall take the hon. member's remarks in their most restricted
Salary Deduction Act

form. When my hon. friend gave utterance to that sentiment I was thinking of those conditions, when families in Canada who have hitherto known comfort and some of them luxury are to-day in distress and in receipt of public charity, but have accepted it only as a last resort. I have been wondering what they will think of the hon. member for Temis-couata when, from his remarks, they must readily realize that he begrudges making his contribution along with the contributions which must be made through the sacrifice of all the people of Canada, if we are to get over the period through which we are passing to-day.
I know about the demands made upon members of parliament. If my memory serves me correctly, I recall that when I first entered this house the indemnity was only $1,500 a year. I may say I found it hard scratching in the earlier days to make ends meet,-not that I did so, certainly, from my indemnity. Notwithstanding the demands made upon members of parliament the fact is that having regard to the costs of living, leaving aside any other considerations, a member of parliament is as well paid to-day at $3,600 as he was three years ago at $4,000. But apart from that-and I do not place my discussion upon a money basis at all-when in our need we must ask sacrifices on the part, of our people to help us through this period of depression, a condition which we share in common with the whole world, we could not hold up our heads as members of this House of Commons if we asked everybody in Canada to make sacrifices but refused to make them ourselves. Let me say to the hon. member for Temis-couata that I know something of conditions in Ottawa. I know of no city in Canada where there is less distress and want than is to be found in this very city. I shall go a little farther and say that I have great admiration for the civil servants of Canada. I have seen much of them, and I know that no more loyal service could be given by any individual than is given by many civil servants to this dominion. Many of them who are serving the crown to-day are doing so at a sacrifice, because to my certain knowledge some of them are in receipt of salaries much smaller than they could receive from private employers. But the type of patriotism found in the civil service goes all down the line. I say to hon. members opposite that the great majority of the civil servants of Ottawa realize the necessity for this sacrifice, and are prepared to make their contribution. I say particularly to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), that there was a feeling of

delight on the part of civil servants when they learned that we proposed to ask for a contribution of only ten per cent this year; many of them expected it would be much higher. We are not seeking any undue sacrifice by asking the civil servants to make a ten per cent contribution. I know of no country where it is not being done. In Australia, instead of ten per cent they are taking from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. In the great republic to the south of us, with all their wealth, last year they called upon the civil servants to take a month's holidays without pay. There is a further proposal which may or may not go through, that there should be a cut of 11 per cent on top of that.
Mr. Chairman, I do not purpose further to labour this discussion. I do not wish to be accused of lecturing; I do not wish the hon. member for Temiscouata to think that I am censorious of his rights in this committee. I do submit however that at a time like the present if we cannot forget party we ought at least realize that there are serious problems confronting this country, and that we would be better employed in devoting ourselves to the consideration of the matter in hand rather than indulging in political spell-binding such as we used to indulge in on the hustings on the back concessions in the piping times of prosperity.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Finance has said, we have had in the last few minutes two political speeches intended for consumption on the hustings. Onet he said, was delivered by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and I suggest one was delivered by himself. Perhaps I may be allowed to go back to the resolution before us, which appears as follows:
That it is expedient to continue in force the provisions of the Salary Deduction Act 1932, until the 31st day of March, 1934, and to provide that the provisions of the said act shall apply to the indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons for the session of parliament which commenced on the 6th day of October, 1932.
As the minister tried to argue, it may be necessary that there should be a continuation of the legislation of last year. But I should like to ask him why in this resolution he deliberately singles out members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Why does he find it necessary to add the words:
That the provisions of the said act shall apply to the indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons for the session, of parliament which commenced on the 6th day of October, 1932.
Are they an entirely different class of people? Why are we singled out? Why did the min-

Salary Deduction Act
ister say a few moments ago that we should be glad to give $400 from our indemnities? Sure, we are glad to give more. How much did my hon. friend give to charity last year? I have no doubt he gave three times $400. Then why should the Minister of Finance come and say we should give this $400 towards charity or poor relief? I say our salaries as members of parliament have nothing to do with our subscriptions to charity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this resolution was hurriedly drawn, the Minister of Finance yesterday had to rise in this house and ask the indulgence of the house because he did not put his resolution on the order paper.	Of	course	we	decided unanimouslyto let	the	matter	go	through without the
regular notice. But let us see what actually is going to continue under this resolution. In 1932 this house and Senate passed chapter 52, an act to provide for a deduction from compensation in the public service. In clause 2, subsection (b), it says:
"Member of the public service of Canada" means every officer,	clerk and employee in any
branch	or	portion	of	the public service of
Canada, to whom any compensation is paid, either directly or indirectly, out of the revenue of His Majesty in respect of his government of Canada, other than the Governor General of Canada, the lieutenant-governors of the several provinces of Canada, the members of the judicial'}', and the members of the military, naval and air forces of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,-
Now, Mr. Chairman, the exemptions start from the Governor General and go down to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These exemptions are going to be asked again under this resolution which we are now considering. I wish emphatically to protest, as a member of this parliament and as a citizen of Canada. If there is going to be a reduction, whether 10 or 20 or 50 per cent, in my indemnity as a member of the House of Commons, or if there is going to be a reduction in the salaries of light-keepers, there should be a reduction all round. For instance, my hon. friend must have noticed a few days ago that in his constituency a poor light-keeper, a returned soldier, was fired from his position on Green island and a new man appointed, not a returned soldier, and this new man has to take a reduction of ten per cent, while the Governor General and the lieutenant-governors and the military and naval forces and the judges are going to get their whole salary. I say that is not right. It may be all right for the Minister of Justice to see that the judges get 100 per cent while the light-keeper on Green island get3 only 90 per cent, but
the people of this country believe in fair treatment for every one, and I for one protest against this resolution, and before I conclude I am going to ask that the committee rise to enable the finance minister to redraft the resolution so that every one gets the same cut as the light-keeper and the poor charwomen and the elevator men and the $100 postmasters and everybody else.
Now let us consider this matter. The finance minister said that the civ:l servants were delighted to accept this ten per cent cut. Well, the Minister of Finance may move in different company from what I do. I have never met one oivil servant who accepted this cut with good grace. Why? If we are going to fix the salaries of civil servants every year as conditions may warrant, give them $1,000 this year and $1,200 next and $2,000 when the Grits get back in power and we have prosperous times, and then when the Tories get back in the next fifty years cut them down to $500, then I say, it is all right to make this deduction this year. But it must not be forgotten that the civil servants, whether times are good or bad, whether the cost of living is high or low, get only the same salary. Consequently I say it is not fair to these civil servants, who have made plans and commitments thinking they were going to get a certain sum, to have to take a cut of ten per cent. I know that if my hon. friend goes on the hustings at the next election and tries to defend the policies of this government by saying it was the right thing to do to cut these civil servants, who in any case we could perhaps do without, there will be certain people who will applaud. It will be fairly good stuff on the public platform. But after all is said and done the people of this country are sane. A great many shibboleths have been discussed on the public platform, but I have confidence in the sanity of the people of Canada, and in spite of the quack remedies that are offered them I say they are sane and sensible and are going to agree that if they require a postmaster he is worth $100 if he is worth anything; if they require a customs officer he is worth the amount which was agreed to be paid him under the Civil Service Act. And, coming back to the matter of salaries of members of parliament, last year I went back to my constituency and the province of Nova Scotia and I have yet to hear one criticism because I stood up in this parliament and said I was worth $4,000 and had a contract with the people of Canada to pay me that amount. I say to every hon. member of this house or the Senate that he is worth the money which the people of this country contracted to pay him. This is not a salary,
Salary Deduction Act

it is only an indemnity, and every hon. member knows that we do not get enough to half meet our expenses, we leave our businesses and give our time and any ability we possess and do our duty as far as in us lies for the people of the country. No right thinking man in this country grudges the member of parliament $4,000, because he knows that instead of having $4,000 at the end of the year he has nothing or less than nothing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the idea of these exemptions? Why are we asked to pass this act? Have we again to fight the battle we fought last year, when members of the militja and the navy, the judiciary and the lieutenant-governors were to get their full salaries, while the page boys and the charwomen were to take a ten per cent cut from their widow's mite that the people of the country are paying them. What have we seen in the last twenty-four hours? Look what these poor charwomen met this morning. My hon. friend the finance minister talks about economy; he says expenses have to be cut. Think of these poor charwomen coming here at six o'clock in the morning, picking up the newspaper and reading that they are going to lose ten per cent of the pay the government gives them, and on the other page that the government has appointed Milton N. Campbell at a salary of $10,000 to the tariff board. Is that the kind of economy my hon. friend professes, taking from the charwomen and the elevator men and giving Milton N. Campbell $10,000-


An hon. MEMBER:: And pay him a pension too.


William Duff: Yes, pay him a pension. If my hon. friend wants to economize I will be glad to help him, I will show him where it is not necessary to take ten per cent from the charwomen and the elevatormen and the lighthouse keepers. Someone mentioned Tokyo this afternoon. The gentleman who is the ambassador or commissioner or whatever he is, Mr. Marler, is a personal friend of mine, but since this government in their wisdom have settled the question that Japanese oranges are not oranges but tangerines there is no further necessity to have Mr. Marler in Japan. This government raised the tariff in 1931, putting a duty on oranges from foreign countries. The Japanese government at once protested, and taking a leaf out of the Prime Minister's book they said, "If you put an embargo on coal from Russia we will put an embargo on goods coming from Canada to Japan." They were asked by Mr. Marler why they took this attitude and he was told that rMr. Duff.]
it was because this government put a high duty on Japanese oranges. The result was that there was consternation in Japan and Canada. Well, the governor in council solemnly gathered his ministers around him and after some length of time, consulting Webster's dictionary they saw that tangerines were oranges; it said, "Tangerine-see oranges." Then they looked up oranges and they found that one variety of oranges was known as tangerines and another as margarines. And this government, which is so busy that a minister cannot waste fifteen minutes to walk from one department to another, passed an order in council declaring that oranges from Japan were not oranges at all but tangerines.
Now why not let us economize? Here we are going to be asked to vote $70,900 for the Tokyo legation. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the last two or three years our trade has fallen off more than fifty per cent and I say that if the government would take this amount which they intend to spend in Tokyo-not for business, because they do not want business from Japan-and would use it for the purpose I am going to suggest, they would be able to avoid this ten per cent cut in the salaries of lighthouse keepers and others in Canada, including the salary of the man on Green island in the county of Richmond, Nova Scotia. They have also cut the salary of the lighthouse keeper on Cranberry island. Perhaps the Minister of Finance read the Halifax papers a day or two ago; if so he will have noticed that in the terriffic storm that occurred on the Atlantic coast last week the situation was so grave that the lighthouse keeper and his family at that point could not get outside the light for thirty-six hours. The breakwater as well as the oribwork surrounding the island was washed away; the light was shaking back and forth and it was expected to be hurled into the sea. Yet my hon. friend and the government solemnly propose a vote of $70,900 towards the Japanese legation, while they are taking ten peir cent off the salary of the lighthouse keeper and his poor wife on Cranberry island. Is that fair? Is it decent? If they want to save the country, if my hon. friends opposite want to save the government, surely they can do better than taking ten per cent from the lighthouse keepers and the page boys, the elevator men and the ordinary postmasters throughout this country. If they cannot do better than that then I suggest with all deference that they should resign and let someone else take charge.

Salary Deduction Act


An hon. MEMBER:: When was Mr. Marler appointed?


William Duff: I do not care when he was appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: By what government?


William Duff: He must have been a pretty good Tory when this government continued him in his official position.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What was the cost of the Tokyo office in 1923?


William Duff: It does not make any difference what the Tokyo office cost in 1923, because conditions in this country under the Liberals were so good that there was no necessity for us to reduce the salaries of lightkeepers, postmasters and everyone else ten per cent. On the contrary, we raised the salaries of the civil service officials twice in our period, or whilst we were in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: You borrowed the money.


William Duff: An hon. member says that we borrowed the money to pay for the increased salaries we gave the civil service commissioners.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!
I do not want to use the language used by the hon. member for Temiscouata, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that every man and woman who reads must know that during that time while the Liberal government. was in power we reduced the public debt of the country to an enormous extent. Perhaps we are not entitled to all the credit for it, but everyone knows, and my hon. friend must know-the hon. member for North Grey says that he does not know, but I cannot believe that-the hon. member must know that from 1922 to 1930 the Liberal government reduced the public debt of Canada to the extent of some 8285,000,000.


Eccles James Gott: You increased it many millions in railways.
Mr, DUFF: I am glad we have two financiers on your right, Mr. Chairman, although they occupy the farthest desks in the chamber towards the ' Speaker. I will not mention any names because it might embarrass them.
If we want to economize we must do so in the proper way and not take money from deserving people. So far as I am concerned, although I cannot afford it, if it is a matter
of saving the country, or even saving the government, I am willing to have them take fifty per cent of my indemnity.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not to save the government.


William Duff: Yes, even to save the government. I do say that if the government want to economize they must cut down expenses that can be done without. Let us take, for instance, the amount which it is proposed to spend in connection with our representation at Washington-$92,900. I am not going to be personal at all. This office was created and opened by the Liberal government, and I am criticizing neither the office nor the individual; but I do say that in this time of stress and strain, when it is necessary for the country to practise economy in every direction, and when the government is taking ten per cent from the $100 received by the postmaster, or $10, and when we are talking about cooperation all the time and even amalgamation, we should pay some attention to a matter of this sort. I say, close the Washington office until we get back to better times and let the British ambassador do our work over there. That would result in a saving of $92,000. The Liberal party established the office and we are proud of it, but we could afford to close it for the present. What my hon. friends opposite are doing is not building up but tearing down; they are even tearing up the page boy's little cheque every fortnight.
There are further items in the estimates to which I might refer; some of them we could veiy well do without. For instance, here is an item of $38,500 to provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with St. Lawrence ship canal surveys investigation. It seems to me that, especially after Mr. Roosevelt's election as president of the United States, there is no hope in the near future of this canal being built by Canada or the United States, and consequently there is no need of surveys. Let us wait until the country is in a position to build a canal or to make some arrangement regarding it. At any rate, there is an amount which would make up the ten per cent on certain salaries which the minister thinks he is obliged to reduce. And I might go on to deal with other items.
While I am willing if necessary, and if it is in the interests of the country, to have salaries reduced, I do think that it is poor policy, it is bad business to economize in the way this government is doing, because it is
Salary Deduction Act

simply withdrawing from circulation in the country millions of dollars. Financiers who know more about money matters than I do have told me that one dollar goes around seventeen times; so that if you multiply the amount which the Minister of Finance thinks he will save by means of this resolution and the act which he proposes to introduce, you can readily see that if that money were put to work in Canada there would not be as much unemployment as there is at the present time. This is following a penny wise and pound foolish policy, because every person who has had to take this reduction has had to reduce his budget. Expenditures have been reduced and for every dollar Which a civil servant does not spend, hundreds of other people suffer. As I said a moment ago, there is a class which is being exempted, and this should not be. We are being solemnly asked to adopt this resolution, we will be asked to pass a bill similar to the one passed last year under which lighthouse keepers, postmasters and other civil servants will be cut ten per cent, but I think the minister should amend his resolution and strike out the reference to members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate. In the act passed last year and in the present resolution it is stated definitely that members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate have to take this ten per cent reduction. Why trot them out to the public gaze, why not leave the poor devils alone? It is bad enough that they should lose $400 without deliberately singling them out for mention. No mention is made of the high hats in the militia, no mention is made of the cocked hats in the navy, but the poor members of parliament are trotted out for mention. Subsection (b) of section 2 of the act states:
-and includes members of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, and members, officers, clerks and employees of every commission, board or corporate body.
The minister should move that this committee rise and report progress in order that he may have an opportunity to redraft his resolution. He could come back with a new bill based upon his new resolution, and we could then consider the matter. If the lighthouse keepers, the postmasters and other civil servants are to take a ten per cent reduction-a twenty per cent reduction if necessary-the judges, the lieutenant-governors, the members of the militia and the navy and everybody else should take the same reduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has been

consistent during the last year or more in his opposition to the ten per cent salary deduction. But when he states that by making this deduction we are saying that hon. members should receive only $3,600, he is putting an interpretation upon it entirely different from-


William Duff: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend did not
say that in so many words, he said it by imputation. He said that he took the same attitude before his people as he did in this house, that hon. members are worth $4,000 per year. I do not quarrel with my hon. friend when he takes that point of view; if conditions were good in this country I believe hon. members ought to get $5,000 per year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or $6,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Or $6,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or $10,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe it would be more in the public interest to overpay than to underpay a member of parliament, but that is another question. The indemnity has been fixed at $4,000, and therefore we ask that a contribution be made from that indemnity as it stands. I just wanted to make that point clear.
My hon. friend has taken exception to the wording of the resolution, but I would inform the committee that this resolution is in strict conformity with the one of last year.


William Duff: That does not make it right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has been drawn up with the utmost care by the law officers not only of the house but of the Department of Justice, and I submit that from the point of view of procedure and legality it could not be drawn in any other way. Members of parliament have to be mentioned because they have a statutory indemnity, otherwise the salary deduction would be applicable only to civil servants. My hon. friend in referring to the high hats of the army, the cocked hats of the navy, and the judges, has overlooked the fact that just this afternoon we passed a resolution upon which is to be based a bill amending the Income War Tax Act. This bill is designed to continue the same deduction to the very people about whom he has complained.


William Duff: Will my hon. friend explain
that?

Salary Deduction Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We assumed that my hon. friend, along with other hon. members of the house, knew what the resolution was for, otherwise he would not have consented to its going through without discussion.


William Duff: No one has seen the bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was done last year.


William Duff: We did not see this present
bill and consequently we could not know what was in it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry my hon. friend did not raise the question when the resolution was before the house. Apparently it was understood by his leader and by those who sit around him.
I should be quite willing to have a discussion with my hon. friend in connection with the proposition which he laid down, and which, I submit, has no bearing whatsoever upon the resolution, in respect to the golden era under the Liberals and the hard times under the Conservatives. I would be very happy to discuss that with my hon. friend.


William Duff: I did not start it. One of your own members started it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not hear it started. However, I am not going to be drawn aside in a discussion of that proposition, although I am quite prepared to do so at the proper time.


William Duff: So am I.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should be very happy indeed to do so, and I should hope to be able to present an argument which would have some merit. I say that with all modesty.


William Duff: Let us go to Arichat and have a meeting.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite prepared to do that. If my hon. friend is no more fortunate there in the accuracy of his statements than he is here-


William Duff: That is not quite fair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am going to show the thing up by chapter and verse in order to make it clear to every hon. member. When my hon. friend made the statement that I had dismissed a lighthouse keeper-


William Duff: I did not say that at all.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I leave it to Hansard and to the judgment of this committee. If my hon. friend did not say so in so many words, he left a clear imputation; otherwise why refer to it?


William Duff: Because a returned man was dismissed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is wrong there again.


William Duff: I am not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He is quite wrong.


William Duff: I am not wrong.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will not take my word, I will ask the chairman to rule that he be compelled to take it.


William Duff: You have to take mine. I made the statement that he was a returned soldier. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; the Minister of Finance has no right to rise in his place and say that I did not know what I was talking about and that I was not ' telling the truth. I ask that he withdraw.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has again misquoted my words. I did not say that he was not telling the truth. I never used that phrase or anything of that character.


William Duff: What did you say?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I said that if my hon. friend was no more fortunate-


William Duff: What is the difference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -at Arichat than he is in this committee, then it would be unfortunate for him. That is practically what I said. Then my hon. friend took the omnipotent position that he is never in error.


William Duff: Then my hon. friend also took the omnipotent position that he is never in error.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say that I am the first to admit when I am in error. I have made many mistakes, but to admit that is not to admit that one has made a false statement. That is an entirely different thing.


William Duff: Take it back and play ball.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am taking nothing back, because I am absolutely within my rights. I think I am placing a correct interpretation upon the remarks of my hon. friend.


William Duff: Then I am not taking anything back either.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if you cannot have order in the committee possibly the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough will realize that we are not lightly discussing matters in a smoking room; we are dealing with public affairs in a committee of the high court of parliament.

Salary Deduction Act


William Duff: Then the Minister of Finance should set an example.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When my hon. friend
started out to roughhouse the discussion in committee-


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. The Minister of Finance used the term "rough house." I am going to ask him to withdraw that.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: The term "rough house" is possibly not quite parliamentary.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the expression 'Tough
house" is offensive to my hon. friend, or if the chairman rules that it is unparliamentary, . I should be happy to withdraw it. When my hon. friend proceeded to mix up the discussion and to draw me away from the main point of the discussion which I proposed and still propose to carry on, he was not helping out the general tenor of discussion in this committee. I started out by saying that my hon. friend left the imputation upon this committee that I had been responsible for the dismissal of a lighthouse keeper on Green island-


William Duff: On a point of order-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not necessary-


William Duff: I am speaking to a point of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend should at
least do me the courtesy of listening until I complete a sentence. There is no point of order, I submit. I shall be the first to withdraw any imputation if my hon. friend says I ought to withdraw it. I say that the clear impression he left was that I was responsible for the dismissal of a lighthouse keeper on Green island. If my hon. friend says that that is not the position he took, I accept his word at once.


William Duff: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Finance says that I imputed to him the responsibility of dismissing a lighthouse keeper on Green island, which is in the strait of Canso, and some miles from Petit-de-Grat. When the minister first made that statement I immediately rose and said that I did not make it. That should have been sufficient for any hon. gentleman to accept. I stated that I did not say it. I know exactly what I said, and I was very careful of what I said. All I was trying to say to the minister was that this returned soldier had been dismissed lately and another man put in his place. I did not say that the Minister of 
Finance dismissed him, but the Minister of Finance will agree that this government of which he is a member had to pass an order in council dismissing that man.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope, Mr. Chairman,
you have the point of order. I may say very frankly I did not understand it. I had started cut from the point of departure in this discussion. I accept at once the statement of my hon. friend that he did not wish to leave on the committee the impression that I was responsible for the dismissal of a lighthouse keeper on Green island. I merely said at the start that that was the inference I drew. Let me say to my hon. friend that the lighthouse keeper on Green island was dismissed for neglect of duty. There was nothing political with respect to his dismissal, neither was I a party to it in any way, shape, manner or form. It may or may not have been necessary for an order in council to be passed. If one was passed, I have no cognizance of it, although I may have been present when it was passed, or it may have been passed in my absence. I set no store on that, because many pro forma orders in council are passed. But my hon. friend, if I mistake not, said in his earlier remarks that this was a returned soldier and that he was replaced by a man who was not a returned soldier. Am I right in that?


William Duff: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My information is that the man who replaced the one who was dismissed was a returned soldier with a record at least as good as that of the one who was dismissed for cause.


William Duff: The minister admits that the man who was dismissed was a returned soldier.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances. I am quite prepared to take my hon. friend's word for that.


William Duff: The man was away for one
night, and his wife, who is just as good a man as he is, was there in charge of the light.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My information is that
the man who now occupies the position is a returned soldier.


William Duff: If' my hon. friend says of his
own knowledge the gentleman who was lately appointed was a returned soldier, I shall take his word for it and retract my statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not ask for any
retraction.


William Duff: The minister does not know
whether he is a returned soldier or not.

Salary Deduction Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has been my endeavour at all times in the house to conduct myself with reasonable decorum and, I hope, with courtesy to hon. gentlemen. I must submit that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough is not fair either to me or to the committee in his frequent and unnecessary interruptions.


William Duff: I do not want any lecture.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend also said
-and I wrote down his words-that I made the statement that the civil service was delighted to accept the ten per cent salary cut. Hansard will bear me out that I said nothing of the kind. AVhat I said was that many civil servants were delighted when they found out that the out had not been greater.


William Duff: What is the difference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All I can say is that now I can understand by that mere question how it is my hon. friend has fotmd himself unable to follow me in this discussion.


William Duff: My hon. friend has been unable to follow me for the same reason.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me say a further word. When I made reference, in dealing at an earlier stage in the proceedings with the question of the allowance for motor cars, to the fact that members of the government were busy, I was not referring particularly to members of this government; I used the term "ministers" in a broad sense as applicable to ministers of different governments at different times, and my statement had no personal reference at all.
My hon. friend made one other statement which has no bearing on the resolution, but I should like to reply to it briefly because it has been so often stated by hon. gentlemen opposite that they have come to believe it. They have frequently asserted in the house that under the Liberal administration led by the present leader of the opposition they reduced the national debt by so many million dollars. I have the figures taken from the official records, and they show that beginning in the year 1922-23 there was an increase in the national debt of $31,641,067. Following that came a series of decreases in the national debt, as follows:
Year	Decrease
1923-	24	
$35,993,5941924-	25	
345,5891925-	26	
27,706,5861926-	27	
41.896,7291927-	28	
50,984,1371928-	29	
71,345.5281929-	30	
47,740,746
This makes, according to the records, a net decrease in the national debt during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite from 1922 to 1930 inclusive of no less a sum than 8244,371,842. But they forgot to tell the country that because of the practice which they inaugurated, instead of paying the Canadian National deficits out of the treasury of this country, of putting their endorsement on the back of Canadian National Railway notes, during that period of time the debt of the Canadian National Railways, which is guaranteed by this country, increased by no less a sum than $371,838,622, so that instead of their decreasing the national debt by $244,371,842, they increased it during their regime by no less a sum than $127,466,789.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend dispute the figures apart from those with regard to the national railway?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite agree with the figures. I stated in the first instance the direct national debt was decreased under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite by the sum I mentioned, but at the same time the debt of the Canadian National Railways, which is guaranteed by this government and which is just as much an obligation of this country as is the national debt, increased by $371,000,000, so that instead of hon. gentlemen opposite decreasing, as they say, the national debt, they increased it in the sum of $127,000,000 while they were in office.


Mr. EULER:: Would the Minister of
Finance answer this-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: I think I should have an
opportunity to speak; I have not taken much time of the committee. Would it be fair to say that when the government took over the national railways, together with a liability of a billion dollars or more, the national debt was to that extent increased under a Conservative government? Would that be a fair description?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may be, but I do not think it is germane to the point I now make. It may or may not have been good policy for the government to guarantee the securities of the Canadian National Railways. That is not the point about which I am complaining, but is a different matter entirely. What I say is that when hon. members opposite say that the late government decreased the national debt by that sum, they are not making an accurate statement. To make myself clear I shall use an illustration. If a farmer who had a mortgage of $2,000 on his
Salary Deduction Act

farm went to the bank, borrowed $2,000, and paid off $1,000 of the mortgage, it would be just as truthful for him to say he had reduced his debt by $1,000. In fact he would be $1,000 more in debt than before he went to the bank. It would be just as truthful for him to say that as for us to say that we decreased the national debt while we are guarantors of a sum of money which we owe and must pay.


William Daum Euler: They have assets to counterbalance the situation.


Mr. HANBURY:: The minister has referred to an increase of the national debt by virtue of the guarantee of the bonds of the Canadian National Railways. Will he at the same time tell the committee what the increase of the assets of the Canadian National Railways has been?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I submit, with all due
deference to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, that his question has no bearing upon the matter at all.


Wilfred Hanbury: It certainly has.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It might have a bearing
if the assets were revenue producing, but we have not had that experience in this country for many years.


Wilfred Hanbury: And we do not expect to have it under a government with a trade policy such as that of the present one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a result of that guarantee we had to pay out some $70,000,000, and we will not be very far from that sum this year.


Wilfred Hanbury: And you will have to
pay out more every year, so long as you continue your present trade policy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suggest that is another
matter, and I am prepared to discuss it at the proper time.


Wilfred Hanbury: Let us discuss it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I submit a resolution such as the one now before us, upon which it is proposed to found a bill, is not the proper place to discuss the government's policy.


William Duff: I did not begin this discussion. It was an hon. member in a back seat who started it. I have enough sins to answer for, but not that one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, this discussion has taken a wider range than I think it properly should take. In justice to the administration I think I ought to say it was necessary for me to deal with some statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I Mr. Rhodes.]


Mr. RALSTON:: Why did the minister
not deal with just the deficits of the last two years? Why did he not inform the committee that taking all the guarantees of the Canadian National Railways for the last ten years against the reduction of the national debt, the present government has in the last two years increased the national debt more than the Liberal government did in its whole ten years in office?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, that
observation is typical of the hon. member for Shelburne-Y armouth.


Mr. YOUNG:: It is right to the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is typical of the hon. member, of the astute lawyer who can get away from the point at issue, but I suggest it has no bearing upon the discussion, nor would it have had any bearing if this government had increased the debt by a thousand million dollars. I simply dealt with statements repeatedly made by hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that during their tenure of office they had decreased the national debt by so much, and I have confined my discussion to that point. The question of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth has no bearing upon the discussion at all.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: No doubt we will have an opportunity for further discussion at a later time.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The discussion has gone far afield, and I intend to trespass on the time of the committee for only a moment or two. I do not want the impression to go abroad that all hon. members on this side of the house are opposed to the Minister of Finance. I do not wish it to go abroad, either, that I am advocating a national policy. I am opposed to this government, and would be equally opposed to a national government. But I think in the present instance the government is taking a step in the right direction. Whether we like it or not there will have to be some measures of retrenchment, because the government of the country costs sums out of all proportion to the capacity of the people to pay. Costs of municipal, provincial and federal governments to-day total something like a billion dollars. The value of Canadian field crops to-day is something like $450,000,000, so that we readily see that it takes more than twice as much than the value of the Canadian field crop to pay for the cost of government. These extreme costs reflect themselves in trade conditions. The world is suffering from overproduction.

Salary Deduction Act
I have no doubt that in the main we will do irreparable damage if we insist in keeping government costs where they are at the present time. So far as I am concerned, I know I have less of this world's goods now than when I entered politics some years ago. However, the penalty I personally have to pay for keeping a Tory government in office is $400 a year. I am willing to make that sacrifice in the anticipation that some time in the near future we will have a Liberal government back in office and again enjoy prosperity.
While we are on this point I should like to assure the government that I would be prepared to support it if it were inclined to make searching inquiries along some lines. Public accounts show that we are paying $9,000 to a lieutenant-governor in Nova Scotia, $10,000 to one in Ontario, and supporting nine in all Canada. We could cut down that expense very considerably. Further, I do not think there is any necessity for 245 members in this House of Commons, and now that when we have an opportunity we should reduce the number regardless of constitutional barriers. We do not need that number of members any miore than does the city of Ottawa need 245 mayors to run its municipal offices. There are too many cabinet ministers; there is too much duplication between provincial and federal services. For instance, we have provincial departments of labour and a federal Department of Labour. I am suggesting if the government is prepared to cut down expenditures I am prepared to support it, and that is going a long way for a Liberal. We could make many savings all along the line in eliminating federal and provincial duplication. We wonder, however, what the feelings of the charwoman will be when she finds her salary is again being cut and learns from the press that Milton N. Campbell, a member of this house will sit on the tariff board at a salary of $10,000 a year. I do not know what qualifications he has, except that he has been pretty consistent in his support of the Tories. We learn, further, that Judge Sedgewick of Ontario is being appointed chairman at a salary of $12,000 a year. In terms of wheat at western values it would take 60,000 bushels to pay the salary of Judge Sedgewick as tariff board chairman, and about 50,000 bushels to pay the salary of our friend and late departed member of the house.
Then, only a short time ago the personnel of the radio commission was selected. Heading the organization we find Hector Charlesworth, whose particular qualification seemed to be that in the years 1925 and 1926 he was
publicity man for the Tory party in Ontario. Aside from that I do not know what further qualifications he may have to act as chairman of the radio commission. May I add that I heard him make a speech over the radio from Montreal and I can truthfully state I never heard such a terrible exhibition in my life.


An hon. MEMBER:: Of course you are a judge.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: To use his own expression, he said there were no damned comedians in Canada. I believe if he could have listened to his own speech he would have changed his views. One further remark. The Minister of Finance said that the debt of Canada had been increased during the regime of the Liberal government. That statement is rather misleading. True, we did guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National Railways, but we got value in return. We had assets to show for it. Following his own argument by way of explanation of the guarantee of the banks for the loan to Newfoundland, he said the government of Canada did not lend the money but backed the note. By the same kind of argument will he agree that the debt of Canada has been increased $700,000 in virtue of the guarantee to the banks by the dominion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly there is an indirect liability; there is no question of that.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Then you admit that the national debt has been increased?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When I discuss how much we have increased the national debt I am prepared to discuss it along that line.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Well, as far as I am personally concerned I am prepared to support the Minister of Finance in this resolution. I do not think there is any need to waste the time of the house any longer-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: We discussed it fully last year; it is the same thing again, exactly. 1 hope those on this side will let it go through without further discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, last year I opposed this legislation, and must maintain the same position this year. I can sympathize with the desire of the Minister of Finance to balance his budget, but it seems to me there are other ways in which this can be done than by cutting down the salaries of the civil servants. There is undoubtedly a good deal in what the member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) has just said, that there are a great many places where economies
Salary Deduction Act

might be effected. I think undoubtedly the government of Canada costs more than it should, but I do not believe that the economy should be effected by cutting down the salaries especially of the poorer paid civil servants. The largest item that we have in our expenditures is that recognized generally as uncontrollable expenditure, most of it interest on bonded debt. It seems to me that the finance minister might very well consider the possibility of cutting down that item. During this time of depression almost everyone has taken his loss except those who hold bonds. The finance minister said a little while ago that he thought possibly a member of parliament receiving $3,600 now is as well off as he was a few years ago when he received $4,000. I think that is probably true. But if it is true it means that the man who has a bond for $4,000 should be receiving only $3,600. I think that is drawing it very mild indeed. On the minister's own argument, that money has increased in purchasing power, he must recognize that bondholders to-day are drawing a larger amount than that to which they are justly entitled, regard being paid to the altered buying power of the dollar. It would seem to me that the government ought to take into consideration some form of conversion by which the present bonded indebtedness would be reduced so that it could be handled. I suppose the easiest and simplest way to do that would be by a form of inflation. It might possibly be done, of course, by a cutting down of the interest charges in one way or another. It seems to me we cannot maintain the policy of paying interest on our enormous debts, and especially trying to do it by means of reductions in salaries.
Again let me point out that legislation of this kind savours of class legislation, because it bears directly upon one class of citizens, namely, the civil servants, and others who draw their salaries from the government. Why should not the extra amount be raised by a steeply graduated tax on all incomes, not selecting the civil servants, but putting a tax-an extra tax-on all salaries?
I would point out that this so-called "economy" of this kind is no way of solving the economic problem that confronts Canada at the present time. I think it is recognized by all economists that what we need to-day is increased purchasing power, but legislation of this kind leads to decreased purchasing power. When the ten per cent cut was first made I think the merchants of Ottawa received a very salutary lesson in economics, because most of them experienced in their decreased sales the effect of the cut. The great majority 
of people spend what is coming to them, so if they have ten per cent less to buy with, that means ten per cent less business. I cannot see that for the sake of saving a few dollars we are justified in adding to the general depression.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The same money to-day
will buy twenty per cent more than two years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. I admitted that a moment ago. But I say that this cut means a decrease in the general purchasing power, hence a decrease in the general volume of business, and my point was that we are taking that out of the earnings of people and are not making corresponding decreases in the amounts that are being paid to the holders of bonds.


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask a question?
Suppose for the sake of argument you keep the civil servants' salaries where they are, what about the workmen throughout the country who have to pay the same tax on one-quarter or one-half the salaries they had previously?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite admit that a good many workers throughout the country are having their earnings cut down and are placed in a very awkward position. That is one reason I would advocate a measure of inflation, as the only way in which this burden can be at all equitably spread over the entire population.


Peter McGibbon: You have not answered my question. I say if you are going to keep the civil servants' salaries at the same rate as before, what about the man who has to pay that salary with half his former income?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have
answered it; that we should raise the general price level and cut down the debts, as we undoubtedly would by a measure of deflation.


Peter McGibbon: You do not answer the question. The point is his tax would be doubled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it would not
be doubled. It might be increased. My suggestion is that if we cut down the interest on the bonded debt it would not be increased.


Peter McGibbon: That is another question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But that is the
important question. I venture to submit to the finance minister that he might take into consideration that method of balancing his budget.

Salary Deduction Act
Then another point. A flat rate of ten per cent is far from equitable. As we pointed out last year, it is comparatively easy for the men receiving $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 a year, as some civil servants do, to pay ten per cent of their salaries. It is an altogether different thing for the civil servants who receive perhaps less than $100 a month, some of them around $90 a month. To those not receiving their statutory increases it means an even heavier burden than ten per cent. That does not seem at all like equal sacrifice. I remember seeing a cartoon in an English paper months ago; I do not remember whether I called attention to it here before or not, but it seemed to me to hit the situation off very well. There was a pool of water, a ladder reached up from it, and men were stationed on different rungs of the ladder in accordance with the various grades of salary they were receiving. The man receiving the lowest salary was on the lowest rung of the ladder, his bead just above the water line. Other men were up on the higher rungs. The politician comes along:	Now, he says, we
want equality of sacrifice, everybody one rung down. That is about the situation. Ten per cent is not equal for all. If we are going to oarry out a rating of salary reductions it should be a graded percentage, giving exemption to certain people, who are receiving today less than a living allowance, and steeply grading it up for those receiving the mudh higher amounts.
I do not intend to develop again the points which we argued last year, but I wish to state that we must oppose legislation of this kind.


Walter Davy Cowan: As was his
custom, the hon. member for T'emiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), flung many taunts at the member for Long Lake. He has been doing that constantly ever since the special session some time ago. I have paid no attention to him whatever and do not intend to waste time on him to-day. He amuses me so much that I get increasing enjoyment out of the things he throws at me. But I might point out to the hon. member that while he is objecting to the economy which this government is practising, the forty minute speech he made today has cost this dominion no less than $2,000; and those who have figured up the cost of his speeches during the last session of parliament have arrived at the conclusion that in the past year those speeches cost the dominion no less a sum than $68,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Walter Davy Cowan: I shall come
to him later on. I suggest to my hon. friend across the way and to several others that if they would cut down their speeches so as to enable us to get through the session in a shorter time and get back to our homes and business, we could save the money which those same speeches cost, and we could make this cut at the same time.
My real purpose in rising to object to the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata is to answer a statement he made with regard to the fact that Canada had loaned Newfoundland $700,000. In this connection he said, "Newfoundland is no more to me than Germany." Is that the extent of his loyalty to the British Empire? The French Canadian is said to be the race in Canada most loyal to the empire, but if the hon. gentleman's utterance represents French Canadian sentiment then I say that loyalty is merely lip loyalty. But I refuse to accept what the hon. gentleman says as representing the feeling of the French Canadian people. I have more faith in our French Canadians than to believe his statement. I have no objection to the Germans as such; we have thousands of them in our part of the country and they make the very best citizens. But they were recently our enemies at war, and what happened in that war? Did Newfoundland respond? Did Canada respond? Did New Zealand respond? Wherever the British flag flew we found citizens of the British Empire responding to the call to arms; and to-day if the island of Newfoundland is in trouble and needs support, I do not care whether it is twice $700,000, if we have it I think we are all prepared and willing to give it to them. More than that, if Canada is ever in trouble, I am sure the British Empire as a whole will come to her support as in days gone by. For that reason I resent the statement made by the hon. member, that he had no more interest in Newfoundland than in Germany. A fellow-Britisher is a fellow-Britisher no matter where he is, and he will get my backing and support so far as I can give it; he will get the support of the empire in every corner of the world. The sooner the hon. member realizes that the better.
The hon. gentleman went on, however, to indulge in the discussion of a racial question. What has that to do with the subject which is before us this afternoon? I am sorry that the hon. member who sits right opposite me is not here, but I want to say this here and now. I have been in this house a good many years and I have never raised any religious or racial question, and my hon. friend has done so deliberately. I do not care who knows it,
Salary Deduction Act

I am a Protestant; I presume the hon. gentleman is a Catholic. Well, that is his business, just as my religion is my business. The hon. gentleman suggested that the reason I have not defended myself in various attacks that have been made upon me was that I was afraid. Look here, my dear sir, I say to him: you think I am afraid. Well, just change your notion, for you will get it after this every time. Don't make any mistake about that. Don't defy me, because you will find me right on the offensive every time. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he cannot persecute thousands of people in this country without the inevitable reaction, and he will get that reaction mighty quick. That is my only answer to him.
Now, as to this deduction, I have no objection to the cut of $400, but I am glad that the government has decided not to make any further reduction in salaries. We as members of parliament and leaders in Canada must set the example; otherwise where shall we find ourselves? I accept the present reduction as a necessity, but I would ask the Minister of Finance to note this. We must not balance our budget too rapidly. We are balancing our budget and the provinces and municipalities are endeavouring to do the same, a proper thing to do. But let us remember that in balancing our budgets, the budgets of a million homes in Canada are being drawn upon. Out of that million homes you have to draw the money to enable you to balance your own budget, and we must bear that in mind. The wastefulness and extravagance of hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in office, were such that it will take twenty years to undo the wrong they did. It will take that length of time. I say therefore to the Minister of Finance, "Take your time and balance your budget, but be conservative."
One more word and I am through. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and,
I believe, someone else on the other side made reference, rather in bitterness, to the appointment of Mr. Milton Campbell to the tariff board. I thought their remarks were somewhat nasty. Let me say that I am in thorough accord with the government in putting a representative of the farmers on the board; yet hon. gentlemen oppose it. I say there is no class in the country more entitled to representation on that board than the farmers, and I am glad-


An hon. MEMBER:: Put Brown on; he would be non-partisan.


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon. gentleman can have the representative of Lisgar if he wishes; I prefer Mackenzie. Mr. 
Campbell and I have lived in the same province for many years. The Tories could never lick him, the Grits could never lick him. His personality alone has been the secret of his success in his constituency. He has always been independent, he has always done what he thought was right. In this house at times he voted with this party, at times with that. I want to say to hon. members that the appointment of Mr. Milton Campbell as a member of this board will receive the approval of the people of my province. I cannot speak for Manitoba, although I feel sure that his appointment will be acceptable to that province as well. As a representative of an agricultural constituency I think I know something about the needs of the farmer, at least I ought to. Hon. gentlemen opposite, no matter what is before the house, attempt to drag in the tariff. According to them, there is nothing else but the tariff to be talked about. It is an obsession with them. But when they get a man who is an actual dirt farmer appointed to a tariff board, they turn around and sneer at him. I only hope that all the actions of the government will be as good as this one has been.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, my taking part in this debate at this moment is inspired by the views just expressed by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). I would not like the country to believe that there is ,a lack of sentiment in this house in favour of the principle underlying this resolution. I know that many Liberals, both in and out of the house, favour economy, and it is but fair, not only to the country generally but to the party I represent, that we be given an opportunity to express our side of the case.
I do not think it is a good argument against this resolution to point out that the government should have practised economy in other fields. If that is any argument at all, it is one in favour of the resolution. I do agree with my ihon. friends on this side that further economies might be practised in connection with other items in the estimates, but the proper time to point that out is when these estimates are before us. If we want further economy in the general expenditures of the government, we should be ready ourselves to give an example. We should accept this deduction with grace and dignity. I believe in this contribution-1 prefer calling it a contribution rather than a deduction-first, because of the material advantages it will give to the government in the expedition of business, and, second, because of the moral example given to the country in that, realizing

Salary Deduction Act
the serious plight of the country, realizing the position in which thousands of men, women and children are placed in this period of crisis and depression, we are willing not merely to talk about it, to multiply words and speeches about it, but to contribute some of our own indemnities to help the government solve this great problem.
It has been said that the indemnity is in the nature of a fixed obligation on the part of the government. I do not agree with that statement, because the amount of the indemnity has been changed from time to time. Some years ago it was increased; times were prosperous and it was thought that members might be given a little more for their work and the expenses of their stay in Ottawa. The same principle should work the other way: when times are hard, when money is scarce and everybody is making sacrifices, members of parliament should be willing to agree to a reduction in their indemnities.
All public bodies are making similar deductions. We will have to do it in Montreal, if I may be permitted to cite that as an example. When I first took part in the administration of the city of Montreal, my colleagues and myself were hoping that we might be able to carry on without reducing salaries. But we found that that would be impossible. There was not only the financial burden of the salaries, but there was also the pressure from public opinion which demanded that the municipal employees should do their share. We have 40,000 unemployed heads of families in Montreal, which means a very large population of unemployed. I hope I will be understood when I say that I think anyone who to-day has a position and is in receipt of a salary is in a preferred position, especially when compared to those heads of families who although willing to work are unable to find anything to do. This applies not only to the higher salaried people, but even to the charwomen who were mentioned a moment ago. With all due respect to this class of people, I think that even a charwoman who to-day is employed and is receiving a salary is in a preferred position when compared to the many mothers of families who are willing to work but who are unable to find employment. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask these people to contribute their small part to the general welfare of the country.
Another argument advanced is that members of the house, being public men, are asked to contribute heavily to private charity. We all know that these demands have grown with the increased difficulties of the times, but the committee must realize that in times
of stress like these we cannot rely on private charity alone. Private charity is absolutely unable to meet the demands made upon it, and must be assisted by the immense contributions of the federal, the provincial and municipal governments. I say without hesitation that I would rather see every hon. member of this house reduce his contributions to private charity by S400 and contribute that amount to be used in a public way for the dispensation of relief. It would be absolutely impossible for a city like Montreal to rely upon private donations alone. I would rather see this extra amount expended through the federal government and used in a public way in order to meet the extraordinary demands of the day.
I am in favour of this resolution. I do not oare what its phraseology may be so long as it says what it means. I am quite sure that when the government asks parliament, through its members, to contribute to the general need of the day it will receive a happy reply, not only from the government side but from all sides of the house. I do not think this question should be approached either with levity or with the idea of taking a bitter stand against the resolution; it should not be contended that simply because our indemnities are being reduced by ten per cent the whole fabric of the country is going to fall to pieces. On the contrary, I say in all modesty that we should accept this reduction with grace and dignity. That is my stand upon the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have great respect for the toon, member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) and I like him, but I am sorry to have to disagree with him to-day, because I earnestly and sincerely believe the worry will not disappear from any home until the head of the family is sure of getting his full pay at the end of the week or of the month as was the case in good times. This is the principal argument for which I am against the cut in salaries. I also sincerely and earnestly believe conditions in Canada will not improve until people have no worry about the day after, and the only way to give them a chance to recover from the worry that exists everywhere is to return to the people the salaries that were paid two years ago.
I have listened with attention and very politely to my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). He knows I have a great regard for him, and I would do nothing that would be unpleasant to him, but toe must admit that the Prime Minister is not the only public servant in the house ; we are all alike; he is only the first amongst equals.
Salary Deduction Act

I admit he works hard; I give him credit for his sincerity, but from the other side they must admit that we on this side also work hard and they must give us credit for our sincerity and the sacrifices we make. Might I say to my horn, friend that we can discuss the policies and the public acts of the Prime Minister without being personal. If he leaves his car outside the east block; if I see it there and if it is an American-made cair, there is nothing to prevent me from saying that he has an American-made oar. It is the first thing that one sees. If I cannot say that, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance or to the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) that they have legislation enacted in order to make the person of the Prime Minister sacred in accordance with Roman law, or have it enacted that he is a god and that it is a sin to contradict him or to mention his name in a debate. I have never been personal to any member in the house. The only thing I have done has been to defend my rights as a member.
While I mentioned many matters in connection with the senators, the Minister of Finance said nothing in answer to my suggestion. I hope be will accept it, because it was made in all earnestness.
As regards the Canadian Pacific, we have seen in the press that the government has lent money without interest to that railway company. The Minister of Finance says that this has been done in order to give an opportunity to the Canadian Pacific to open the Angus shops. Well, this was a hold-up of the government on the part of the Canadian Pacific. They had the money to employ the men, but they wanted it without interest. As to their subscription afterwards to the dominion loan, what I have said is exactly what has been reported in the press.
As regards Newfoundland, a matter of sentiment, which I understand, arises; people may have friends or relatives there. That is all very well. The hon. member for Long Lake will understand my point as well as anyone. What I say is that this country of ours extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, including Prince Edward Island. I am more interested in Canada than in Newfoundland, and Newfoundland being outside the boundaries of Canada is no more to me than is the United States or any other country which is outside -the boundaries of this dorninian. The people in my county will be ready to do anything for those in any other province within those limits, but we are interested in Newfoundland only inasmuch as our people here are all free from care. We have first to look 
after our own people in Long Lake or in St. Peters or Temiscoua-ta, wherever they are in C-ainada. As long as there is in this country one man who is not looked -after, we cannot do anything outside. That is my view abou-t the matter. I may be wrong; I may be right. I respect the opinion -of others on that point-. The question is not one of sentiment; it is one of helping first the Canadian who lives in this country or anyone who has been living here for years. It is the same Canada first policy.
As regards the legation at Tokyo, there is no smoke without fire. I do not know what happened, but what I said was after having read a dispatch in the press about the trip of a Montreal architect to Tokyo in connection with the matter. Mr. Marler might be the most wonderful minister since Metternich and Talleyrand, and he must be very popular with His Imperial Highness and the royal family, and so forth. The Japanese people are good people; they are very well represented in Canada, but my point is that it is absurd to start a Canadian building in Japan until she builds a legation building in Canada and gives the same chance to Canadian workmen in Canada as Canada gives to Japanese workmen there.
In the -morning papers I have seen something in the way of educational pictures, "-the spice of the program," something from the ginger group. There was the picture of Mr. Milton Campbell, the newly appointed tariff commissioner. I was glad to learn this afternoon that he -has been highly recommended by the KIu Klux Kl-an. It is fair that he has been appointed in lieu of Conservative members who could do better. Mr. Milton Campbell has w'on the race over his illustrious namesake, Sir Malcolm Campbell, the speed king, and made a new record. I wonder if his accomplishments on the tariff board will be just as notable as those of Sir Malcolm Campbell at Daytona Beach. May I suggest to the government that they retain another five per cent from his salary, if the ten per cent is to apply, in order to supply the newly appointed commissioner with an encyclopedia of general knowledge, because the Minister of Finance knows that there is a great love of books in the far corner, and if he looks back at the speeches delivered by the new commissioner while a member of parliament, he will see there are many quotations. If he does not want the new commissioner to build a shrine in the basement of some printing office, he must supply him with books-and what would be better for him than a nice encyclopedia of general knowledge, the speeches delivered during the election and afterwards by the Prime Minister.

Salary Deduction Act


Mr. MacINNIS:: In saying a few words in connection with this resolution I shall try to confine myself to the subject matter before us. In the first place I am rigidly opposed to the principle of the resolution itself, and when I say the principle of the resolution I mean the horizontal cut of ten per cent. I am not opposed to a reduction in salaries, a reduction in members' indemnities if such be necessary, but I am absolutely opposed to any reduction in the salaries of those who are getting too little now on which to live. If I gathered his words correctly, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) stated that even a charwoman getting a very small salary should feel privileged to make a contribution at this time. I believe, however, she would feel more privileged if it were not for the fact that some of the contribution she makes goes into the pockets of people who have more money than they know what to do with.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister some facts with which I am familiar, and I believe that some of the circumstances I shall outline are typical of the conditions in which many civil servants find themselves. I refer to a man in the city of Vancouver who was a full time employee of the government. Because of lack of work in his department he was put on part time, with the result that he is engaged two and one-half hours a day at forty cents an hour, giving him a daily wage of SI. From that dollar there is a ten per cent reduction. Although he receives only S5.40 a week, yet he is working and is not eligible for relief, although he is a married man with a wife and one child. How can a married man support his wife and family on $5.40 a week? I should much rather see a greater percentage deducted from my indemnity, and from the indemnities of hon. members, in order that the salaries of these men might be left as they are. It is all very well to talk about making our contributions, but when from a wage of $1 per day there is a deduction of ten cents I do not think we would urge that conditions are at all equitable, particularly when we know that others of us are getting enough to live decently on, under present standards of living. I am convinced the Minister of Finance is not unmindful of existing conditions, and I should be very happy if he could see his way clear to bring in an amendment to the present legislation which would relieve from the proposed reduction those receiving salaries under a certain amount. I leave that suggestion with the Minister of Finance and with the government. I suggest the minimum should not be lower than $1,000. The loss to
the country would not be great, and the feeling of goodwill would be worth far more than any inconvenience the loss of revenue might cause. I ask the Minister of Finance to consider my suggestion, and if it meets with the approval of the government I should like to see an amendment to that effect.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief in my remarks. It is admitted by all that we are undergoing a very serious crisis. Our governments request the co-operation of all citizens, rich and poor. It strikes me that this resolution might have been less exacting from those who are in poor circumstances or in receipt of small wages, and demand larger contributions from those who receive large salaries. When our soldiers were fighting for their country on the battlefield, even sacrificing their life, the large financiers remained at home taking advantage of the war to pile up immense wealth. To-day, the crisis we are undergoing calls for the co-operation of all. I am ready to do my share and to accept a cut in my indemnity; on the other hand I think it reasonable and just to exact a larger contribution from those who receive salaries of $3,000, $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, than from those who are in receipt of $1,500 to $1,800. On behalf of my constituents, my province, and the whole country, I request that the government compel those who have wealth to contribute on a larger scale and collect a smaller contribution from those who receive wages hardly sufficient to give bread to their dependents. We have in this country a large number of millionaires who contribute nothing to the revenues of the State. They have loaned their millions to the government, at 6 per cent; they own no property and pay no taxes; therefore, I deem it only just to request them to contribute their quota in order to help the country to extricate itself from the straits we are in.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
The house resumed consideration in committee of the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), that it is expedient to continue in force until March 31, 1934, the provisions of the Salary Deduction Act, 1932, Mr. Pickel in chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the minister stated he thought that the mem-
Salary Deduction Act

bers of the civil service had a feeling of delight that the reduction had not been more than ten per cent. I should like to ask the minister if he had any consultation with any representative body of the civil service before making this extension of the ten per cent reduction for another year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not wish to be
misunderstood in the statement I made that the members of the civil service were delighted that the salary cut had not been greater. That statement was made in private conversations I have had with members of the civil service. It has no reference whatsoever to the main portion of the question of my right hon. friend. Last autumn-I had forgotten the exact date-I asked for a conference with representatives of the various civil service organizations. We met and took some considerable time discussing the whole question of possible salary cuts for this year. There were present at that meeting, Y. C. Phelan, of the Civil Service Federation; V. L. Lawson, of the Civil Service Association; L. S. McLaine and J. L. Rannie, of the Professional Institute of the Civil Service; Fred Knowles, of the Amalgamated civil servants; J. J. Reeves, of the Letter Carriers; G. M. Donnehy, of the Railway Mail Clerks; W. N. Duncan, of the United Postal Employees, T. H. Burns, of the Customs and Excise Association, and A. H. MacDonald, of the Printing Bureau Association. Our discussion was along general lines, and the meeting concluded in this form; that if it were felt that a larger cut than ten per cent would be called for I would reconvene them and confer with them further. While I did not say so in terms at that time, the clear inference from the nature of my discussion with them was that the probabilities were that it would be necessary to make a ten per cent cut this year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
the minister, was any reference made at that conference to the-implication I will call it- of the Prime Minister at the last session to the effect that this deduction would be for only one year? I remember at the time the matter was being discussed the Prime Minister made it quite clear that the intention of the government at that time was that the cut should be only for the period of one year, and I asked specifically whether it was felt that that assurance could be lived up to. My hon. friend will find in Hansard of February 26, at page 564, the following statement by the Prime Minister:
In this instance the bill which will be founded upon this resolution has force for one 
year only. As the resolution itself indicates, the bill will expire on the 31st day of March, 1933. It has no vigour or life beyond that date, . . .
Of course that was perfectly true of the bill. But what was in the mind of the house at the time the matter was being discussed was the possible continuance of the provisions of the bill. I know such was the case in my own mind, because I said at the time, as reported on page 568 of Hansard.
If it is a measure to effect economy in the public service, that would imply that these salaries are being reduced with a view to having them permanently maintained at a lower level. I say the ministry cannot be too emphatic or too clear in making its exact position known in that regard.
I then stated that I gathered the Prime Minister was giving that assurance, and continued :
... I take that from his statement that this measure would have effect only until March 31 of next year. The Prime Minister says it will have no vigour of life beyond that date. Again I should like to accept the prime minister's word, but I am not too sure of what may happen at the end of that time, and I refer to it at this moment in order that there may be some record of this aspect having been considered at this time.
After pointing out that we were being asked to extend the provisions of another measure for a period longer than was understood at the time of its enactment, I concluded by saying:
So I say, with that motion on the order paper, indicating a position diametrically opposite to that which my right hon. friend took at the time of the introduction of the measure, we must be particularly cautious in accepting my right hon. friend's words as to the length of time for which the present measure will be in force. However, I do accept them, and I hope my right hon. friend will see to it that what he has said in that regard will be given full value when the time comes.
I think it is quite clear that at that time the government was giving an assurance to the service that this cut would not be continued beyond a single year. I mention it as one more promise, which, I am afraid, has gone into the discard. I might ask my hon. friend whether he contemplates that at the end of another year there may have to be a renewal of this year's bill, or whether he hopes or believes that the reduction may not be continued for more than another year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In reply to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I cannot agree with him in his point of view that a promise was broken by our having brought this measure in this year. The deduction was made last year for a period of one year. There

Salary Deduction Act
1S93
was no undertaking with respect to what might or might not have to be done in the future With respect to the question whether this point was raised in the discussion I had with the representatives of the various organizations,
I speak from recollection, but I think with accuracy, in saying that point was not raised at all.
My right hon. friend asks what will happen another year. I can only say that I would rejoice if the government were in a position not to calll upon the civil servants for a similar sacrifice another year. The answer as to what may happen at that time will depend upon the stress of conditions, which alone is responsible for the circumstance that we appear before the house to-day again asking for a deduction for this one year. I do not know that I can say anything further than to assure my right hon. friend that as far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for the government as well, we shall rejoice if no further sacrifice along this line has to ibe called for. But I may say to my right hon. friend, lest there be any misunderstanding, that if conditions next year should happen to be as serious as they are at the present, and sacifices are called for, another bill of a similar character may be introduced. But I sincerely hope that will not be necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just one further
question. The Civil Service Commission, I believe, has iby statute the duty of fixing salaries and classifications. Has my hon. friend had any conference with members of the Civil Service Commission regarding the effect of the deduction of last year, and with respect to the possible effects of the continuance of that deduction upon members of the Civil Service for another year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, we covered the ground very fully in the conference to which I made reference. I think there was hardly a phase of the various enactments and measures which have been taken with respect to promotions, salary increases, appointments and so on, which was not very fully discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I mean with the Civil Service Commission as a body.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps I did not get the full import of my right hon. friend's question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the first conference was with representatives of the civil service organizations, that is a conference with a group of civil servants. I am asking about a conference with the Civil Service Commission itself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; as far as I am concerned and as far as I am aware, there was no conference with the Civil Service Commission with respect to the matters in question.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose at six o'clock, I was stating that it is the workmen and labourers who have suffered the most during the war. In the present crisis, it is the same people who suffer the most, and governments have failed to understand their responsibility and duties when, instead of helping this class in weathering the crisis, they have contributed in increasing the number of unemployed by dismissing a considerable number of employees.
In requesting civil servants, members, and senators to contribute in relieving the distress,
I think the government is wrong because in cutting down the salaries of civil servants they simply decrease their purchasing power. We must, in order to remedy the financial crisis take effective means, create this purchasing power which at present is lacking. All our financial and industrial institutions have contributed largely to spread the crisis by diminishing the purchasing power of the people and dismissing a large number of employees.
If there be a class of society which should contribute to relieve the present day distress, it is certainly the one that profited the most and even disregarded the laws of this country by overcapitalizing its enterprises and taking more than reasonable profits. It strikes me that these industrialists and financiers, instead of sitting on their capital, should have placed it at the disposal of the-ir employees so as to afford work or at least help to those who assisted them in amassing this enormous wealth.
Mr. Chairman, it is more than time that this government seriously considered the enactment of social laws to restrain the ambition of financiers. I recall a few years ago an act was passed by this House to prevent trade coalitions. However, daily, we witness certain corporations absorbing other companies and organizing coalitions which greatly contribute to increase the hardships of those who suffer and to maintain the cost of production at a high level. It would be necessary, to-day, that laws be enacted to force these over-capitalized corporations to revert to their original capital so as to out down the cost of production. Is it reasonable, is it rational, that a government which needs revenues should apply to financial companies and offer them a rate of interest as high as and per cent, such as those that were granted by the government, not on the last loan but on previous loans. I think that the
Salary Deduction Act

country is quite solvent and if there is a borrower who should pay the lowest rate, it is certainly the government; a rate of 3J or 4 per cent would have been sufficient. The administration boasts of having done a great deal for the unemployed. The government had blank cheques voted to them so as to help the unemployed and distribute doles-[DOT] an entirely false and immoral principle. Our frienids, sir, on the extreme left have charged the present regime with favouring capitalists. Our governmental regime is not one of capitalism. If to-day, it seems to be so, it is because the members who compose it are inclined to favour financial interests to the detriment of the other classes of society. A free hand was allowed to these financiers thus fostering their inclination and ambition. When in the future we grant powers to certain companies who solicit the government, it should be stipulated that their capital can no further be increased, and that over-capitalization be prohibited in order to forestall coalitions as they exist to-day. We have mergers in lumber, water powers, gasoline, and coal etc. etc. These abuses should cease and we should not allow that the people be thus exploited. Speeches delivered by our friends on the extreme left are purely academic. They are the kind of people who wish to appear in the limelight, besides being extremists. What is needed is not a change but a reform of the present regime. A sound and wise administration must be given to the country in keeping with the interests and needs of the people. What is especially wanted at the moment, is work. It is absolutely impossible for governments, either federal, provincial or municipal to supply work to all. Corporations will be compelled to carry on their operations and it will be necessary for the government to permit them, through a moderate tariff policy, to sell their products with advantage on the world markets. Tariff barriers have had no other result than to paralyze industry and bring hardship upon us. What is needed is not a change in the administrative regime, but a reform; tariffs must be reduced and our products must find a market abroad in order to give work to our people.
We must be on the alert; the storm is on the horizon; we must not rest on laurels won by false and sham promises; we must return to a sound policy, one profitable not only to some but to all. The weak point of the present administration is to ignore such a policy. I think, if the government adopted higher ideals, we could easily weather this crisis by giving work to those who have none, creating this absolutely necessary purchasing power, and this aim will not be reached by

thanking employees for their services, and cutting down their salaries, or allowing higher officials to enjoy large salaries and preventing the lower classes in the public service earning a decent livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated a short while ago, the time has come not to change our economic regime but to reform it and return to a sound policy, one of patriotism, and not one of sham as advocated in order to capture the popular vote and later on favor friends, increase the number of large financiers and drive the people to greater distress.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I listened attentively to the last speaker but I must confess that I could not tell whether he was expressing the same views as I shall put forward. Prior to the dinner hour, however, there were two spokesmen from this corner representing, as they would suggest, labour particularly. I do not admit that myself because I also represent labour; in fact my whole constituency is a labouring constituency. The point of view of the direct labour representatives as expressed more particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) does not indicate the feelings of the farmer representatives; at least it is not my own point of view. When we consider that the farmer's revenue has diminished to almost the vanishing point, so that he is scarcely able to make his living, a mere reduction of ten per cent in our sessional indemnity does not look very big to him. Indeed, I think the average agriculturist would suggest that we should be reduced considerably more than ten per cent.
So far as the wages are concerned, which the farmer pays to labour directly employed by him, they have been considerably reduced compared to what they were a few years ago; they have been reduced far more than ten per cent. It is only a matter of three or four years ago that the farmers were paying fifty and sixty dollars a month wages for the summer in my own district. This last year, or for the last two years in fact, they have been paying twenty, twenty-five and thirty dollars for the same work. The day wage a few years ago was five, six, seven and even eight dollars, whereas during the past two years it has been only a dollar and a half and two dollars.
The farmer cannot adopt the point of view which the labour representatives hold, of increasing wages in order to start a boom. He simply cannot do that; he has not the wherewithal to do it. Think of the young ladies and gentlemen engaged in the teaching profession. In the western country a few years

Salary Deduction Act
ago they were drawing from a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a year and they have been reduced more than twenty per cent, many of them having had their salaries cut in half. Indeed, I heard of one young man who went out teaching for a salary of fifteen dollars a month plus board rather than be idle, and in many cases rural schools are closed because they cannot afford the salaries.


Peter McGibbon: One school in my riding advertised for teachers and they got an offer from one who was prepared to teach for his board.


Archibald M. Carmichael: That is going one
better. Knowing these conditions in our agricultural areas, the representative of an agricultural constituency would be very nervy indeed to oppose a ten per cent reduction in his own indemnity. Last session I took a similar point of view, that it was the only fair thing to do for us to contribute something towards meeting the financial needs of the country, and I think that in general the house contributed their ten per cent without very much objection. I should like, however, to point out here a certain inequality in the way members are treated this session compared with the session of a year ago. A year ago we came here on February 4 and continued until the 26th of May and then went home, and I do not think anyone minded the ten per cent reduction; at least we were all able to come back for the fall session. But this session, I would point out, has been divided into two sections. We met on October 6 and continued in session until November 26 and then we had the option of going back home and remaining there for two months, then coming back to Ottawa, or continuing to reside in this city, paying the high rents asked and the other additional living expenses for the two months. Those of us who live four or five days' journey from Ottawa, and some who live still farther away, find it quite expensive coming to this city and returning home. Those who live close to Ottawa, in Quebec or in Ontario, may not see this point quite so forcefully as those of us who live in the west or in the maritimes, but it costs us a good deal of money to travel.
Now, we are allowed an expense account for one trip down here and back, that is, supposing the session to start on a certain date and we continue in session until the business of the house is concluded, when we return home. But this session there has been a break of two months so that there has been a double expense coming here and going back. I think in fairness to hon. members
who live a considerable distance from Ottawa, the government-perhaps the Minister of Finance will advise us whether he thinks the government could take this into consideration-possibly by way of an expense account, could reimburse us our expenses. I have no objection to the $400 deduction, but if we are to be subjected to additional inconvenience and double expenses, I think it is only fair that we should be given some consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point raised by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) is a good one. There is no doubt a hardship is imposed upon hon. members who have had to pay double travelling expenses through no fault of their own because of the division of this session. This matter has received the consideration of the government. I find that under the act only one railway fare is allowed per session, but the same point arose, I think during the session of 1926-27, and the extra expenses were covered by a supplementary estimate; there was a vote to provide an additional allowance for travelling expenses. It is my anticipation that when the supplementary estimates are brought down this year, they will contain a vote to meet the objection raised by my hon. friend.


William Duff: For once my hon. friend and myself agree. I agree with him that we who come from the far ends of this country are entitled to special consideration. For instance, I spent thirty-four hours on the train in one place between Moncton and Newcastle, cut off from telephonic and telegraphic communication of any kind. Perhaps that may have been a good thing in these days when most any news is bad news. I assure the Minister of Finance that if he brings down an item to pay our additional expenses for this session, I will support it.
My hon. friend and I both come from fishing constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia. We have in our constituency a number of lighthouse keepers, and in the discussion this afternoon we apparently misunderstood one another's language. I do not belong to the Oxford movement, I was not bom with a silver spoon in my mouth, and consequently my English is not quite as good as it might be. If an apology is necessary, I apologize to the committee for using language which could not be understood. Apparently my good friend the Minister of Finance either took my English literally, or did not quite understand it, because he said that I had accused him of being a party to the dismissal of a lighthouse keeper in the county of Richmond in his constituency. I am sure
Salary Deduction Act

that upon reflection he will agree with me when 1 say that he is the last man in Canada with whom I would want to have a difference of opinion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Duff: For several reasons which I
shall be glad to explain in camera. I am sure the minister will be just as anxious as I am to have this matter cleared up, so that we may start anew. The Minister of Finance in replying to what I had said in connection with the lighthouse keeper on Green island, made the statement that I had accused him of being responsible for the dismissal of that lighthouse keeper. He said at page 1881:
When my hon. friend made the statement that I had dismissed a lighthouse keeper-
I then replied that I did not say that at all, and the minister continued:
1 leave it to Hansard and to the judgment of this committee. If my hon. friend did not say so in so many words, he left a clear imputation; otherwise, why refer to it?
Let me refer back to what I am reported as having said. Hansard reports me as foillowis at page 1877:

for instance, my hon. friend must have noticed a few days ago that in bis constituency, a poor lightkeeper, a returned soldier, was fired from his position on Green island, and a new man appointed, not a returned soldier, and this new man has to take a reduction of ten per cent.
I think the committee will agree with me that there is no inference in that statement that I accused the Minister of Finance of dismissing this (lighthouse keeper. My language this afternoon may not have been as clear as it should have been, and I want the committee to know exactly what I said. I was accused by the Minister of Finance of making the statement that he had fired this lighthouse keeper.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not say that; I said that the inference in what my hon. friend said was that I was guilty of having dismissed him. I did not go quite as far as my hon. friend now says I did. I may say to my hon. friend that I am prepared to accept his statement that that is what he said.


William Duff: My conscience has been sort
of bothering me. I was accused of making a statement that the Minister of Finance had fired this lighthouse keeper. A little further on the minister evidently had it in mind that I was accusing him of doing something which I know he would not do, that is, fire a poor lighthouse keeper.

The Hansard report says at page 1882:
-my hon. friend left the imputation upon this committee that I had been responsible for the dismissal of a lighthouse keeper on Green island.
The statement I made was as reported on page 1877:

for instance, my hon. friend must have noticed a few days ago that in his constituency, a poor lightkeeper, a returned soldier, was fired from his position on Green island, and a new man appointed, not a returned soldier, and this new man has to take a reduction of ten per cent.
There is nothing in that language to support the contention of the minister that I accused him, either inferentialiy or otherwise, of dismissing that lighthouse keeper. I may have said what I should not have said, but I think my hon. friend will agree that I was very careful in my statement in regard to this dismissal. However, the fact remains that a returned soldier was dismissed, and another man put in his place.
Before I sit down I should like to refer to one or two other matters which the Minister of Finance mentioned this afternoon. I want again of course to be careful in my language. When my hon. friend says, as he did this afternoon, that in Ottawa the civil servants were rather pleased or delighted that they did not receive a reduction of more than ten per cent and that this city was in a better position than any other city in Canada, he evidently is not quite in touch with conditions in Ottawa. There must be some reason for old Knox church being now the headquarters for the relief committee from the city. As the Ottawa newspapers stated yesterday, they are looking after four thousand families, the heads of which are out of employment. Surely if the heads of four thousand families in Ottawa are out of employment, the condition in this city is not as good as we would like it to be. Consequently, when my hon. friend says that Ottawa above all other cities can afford to take this ten per cent cut, he is not in touch with conditions here. Ottawa benefits more from the salaries of civil servants than does any other city in Canada. It is made up mostly of people in the employ of the government, and any reduction in their salaries has a detrimental effect upon the city. This is evident from the fact that in old Knox church a committee is at work looking after four thousand families the heads of which are out of employment. Consequently, I say again, as I said this afternoon, it is poor policy for this government to make a reduction of ten per cent in the salaries of civil servants or of anybody else.
What was the result last year? Is my hon. friend's position as Minister of Finance any

Salary Deduction Act
better than it was before the reduction took place last year? He was compelled then to come to the house with his budget in which, if my memoiy serves me rightly, as Minister of Finance he showed a deficit of some
350.000.	000. Is he in any better financial position to-day because of the fact that he has reduced the salaries of civil servants in Ottawa and, indeed, all over Canada? Oh, no, because even with that amount in the coffers of the government, I have no hesitation in saying that when the budget is brought down this year, instead of the deficit being $50,000,000, it will be almost double that amount. It is penny wise and pound foolish policy to reduce the earning power of our workers-because our civil servants are workers. What is the result of the government in their wisdom deciding to reduce the salaries of civil servants? Alm/ost every business firm in tine country said to its employees: We must reduce your wages; the government has set us the example; the government says that in order to carry on the
[DOT] affairs of the country, in order to balance the budget, it must reduce the salaries of civil servants all over this country by ten per cent, and we as business men must follow its lead and take ten per cent off your salaries. What has been the consequence? Not a saving of 32,000,000 or 33,000,000, which the government thought to save by this reduction, but throughout this country the purchasing power of the people has been reduced not
35.000.	000 but 350,000,000. I say to the Minister of Finance and to the government that it is poor, foolish policy to take ten per cent off the salaries of civil servants or anybody else if they are giving good value, because there is bound to be a reaction and this policy will have a bad effect in all parts of Canada. I appeal to my hon. friend, who is a reasonable man on most occasions. It is not good policy to make this reduction. What will it miean? It will mean a mere bagatelle in the affairs of the country. What difference does it make in his budget whether the deficit is
3100.000.	000 or 3102,000,000, especially when the 32,000,000 would be circulated from the Atlantic to the Pacific? My hon. friend can never save the country by this reduction of ten per cent, because as Minister of Finance he is setting a bad example to the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and every other business in Canada to reduce wages and consequently restrict the purchasing power of the people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me at once assure my hon. friend that I accept without question his statement as to what he said, and as to the 53719-120
interpretation that was placed on what he said this afternoon I hope he will appreciate the fact that I took in perfectly good faith what I thought was a proper interpretation under the circumstances.
Just one other word. Whatever the merits may be as to the principle whether we ought or ought not to make a reduction of ten per cent in the salaries of civil servants, I should like to point out that the reduction is not a mere bagatelle.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will the minister say what
the saving is?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year it amounted to
38,300,000.	It will be approximately the same this year, except that vacancies have arisen in the public service and the service has not absolutely required that those positions should be filled. There will therefore be a contraction in the service this year, so that the sum will not be quite as large, but it will be something over eight million dollars for the ensuing fiscal year.
At this stage of the session, except by consent, we cannot get into supply, on departments not previously taken up, on a day other than Monday or Tuesday, and this is the only opportunity we shall have of moving into supply. It would appear that this resolution will not speedily pass, so in these circumstances I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. CHEYRIER:: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether the statutory increases and promotions will be restored this year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, they remain as they
were last year, excepting this:	that the
treasury board will do this year as it did last-in cases of an exceptional character where upon the merits there ought to be promotions and increases, those individual oases will be dealt with on their merits.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of
the hon. gentleman?


The CHAIRMAN:: There is a motion to report progress.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is just a question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The rule is that the
moment a motion is put that the committee rise and report progress, I must put it to the committee. If the committee consents, I have no objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection.


Jean-François Pouliot: This afternoon I said that the government had lent without interest

189S
Supply-Justice

$1,500,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and that on the other hand the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had bought Dominion government bonds to the value of $2,000,000 bearing interest at 4 per cent, or practically that. In regard to that the minister said: It is untrue. I wonder what part of my statement is untrue-because it is based on facts reported in the press.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I made that very clear this afternoon. As regards the first portion of the statement with respect to the matter of $1,500,000, I pointed out, while it was lent to the Canadian Pacific, the purposes for which it was really advanced. As to the second portion of that statement, I pointed out that the Canadian Pacific did not subscribe to a single bond.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even indirectly?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Even indirectly, so far as I am informed.


Jean-François Pouliot: But it appeared in the
press.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Exchequer Court of Canada
Contingencies-judges and court officials' travelling expenses, remuneration to sheriffs, etc., printing, stationery, etc., and $150 for judges' books, $7,500.
Printing, binding and distributing court reports, $3,000.
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Harbours and Rivers
Saint John-channel improvements, $350,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask the
minister who paid for that most illuminating booklet we have just received from the Saint John Harbour Commission, which contains such a beautiful portrait of the Minister of Marine, a neighbour of the Minister of Public Works. I have received this publication, one of great size, containing extensive propaganda about imperial trade and the last Imperial economic conference. I should like to know who pays for such propaganda.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I can understand the hon. member's curiosity, but unfortunately I cannot satisfy it. The matter to which he has referred does not come within the jurisdiction of my department.


Jean-François Pouliot: I suppose it was printed
in camera?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: What was the expenditure last year? Was all but $12,000 of the total amount spent? I see there is a revote of $12,000. Further, I should like to know the work proposed to be done during the coming year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item is to
provide for the continuation of work in Saint John harbour, contract for which was signed in the year 1930 pursuant to order in council dated July 14. It is expected that the work will be completed during either the current or the coming fiscal year. The work is extensive, involving an expenditure of about $1,250,000, and payments are made from year to year. For the current year the estimated expenditure will be $338,100.


John Campbell Elliott: Will that amount complete the work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The construction is being carried on on a unit basis, but it is not expected that the appropriation this year will be sufficient to effect completion.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister give
us any idea as to what amount will likely be required for the completion of the work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The total
estimated cost is $1,249,532.19. The estimated total expenditure to the end of the present fiscal year will be S749,532.19, leaving an estimated balance to complete the work of $500,000, of which we are asking this year for $350,000. A further sum of about $150,000 will be left for next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Beebe-building for immigration and customs purposes, $1,500.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $120,000.
Montreal armoury-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, $15,140.
Montreal-postal terminal building, $500,000.
Quebec citadel-improvements and maintenance, $15,000.
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-public building- under contract, $2,000.
Trout River-building for immigration and customs purposes, $14,500.
Westmount-armoury-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, $13,000.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: I notice in the estimate that there is an appropriation of $500,000 for a postal terminal building at Montreal. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with that work this year?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
to my hon. friend that this is simply a repetition of an item which we have had for the current fiscal year and possibly for the year before. I am in hopes that circumstances will permit the awarding of the contracts and commencement of the works this year. However, as the hon. member knows, these expenditures are made from revenue, and when revenues contract the expenditures of the Department of Public Works, which are perhaps more controllable than those of other departments, are sometimes curtailed. There are occasions when we are not in a position to proceed with works provided for in our estimates. I do hope, however, that we will be in a position to proceed this year with the work. The building is needed, our plans are well prepared, and I am looking forward to some action.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We have had the vote for a good many years but we have not the building, and the people in Montreal are asking that work be started and employment given. I think it would help unemployment a great deal if the government would go on with this building; it is greatly needed in Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $125,000.
London-tractor for postal purposes, $2,600.
Port Arthur examining warehouse

renovation of heating plant, $8,500.
Toronto-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury-under contract, $29,500.
Toronto armoury-government's share of cost of local improvements, $1,730.
Toronto -[DOT] postal station "A" - mechanical equipment and improvements-under contract, $11,000.
Windsor - public building 

 under construction, $500,000.
Mr. SANDERSON:: What public buildings are included in these improvements and repairs, -and where are they?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand it, my hon. friend is inquiring as to where we propose to make the expenditures from this vote. That of course, will depend upon what we find the requirements to be. It is a general vote for improvements and repairs found necessary upon examination by the district architect, and reports from him. There is no specific allocation of it in advance.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not for any part of it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. I can tell my hon. friend where we have sipent in prior years, but it does not follow that there will
53719-120$
be expenditures on the same buildings in succeeding years-heating and plumbing repairs, painting, roofing, lighting, general repairs such as buildings require from time to time. Some of them we have had to delay somewhat. It will depend upon how urgent they are; the most urgent will be taken care of.


Frederick George Sanderson: How does the minister arrive at the estimate? Is it just a bulk amount covering the province?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From our experience over a period of years it is found that an average can be arrived at. We are taking the same amount we had last year, which I think is smaller than we have had in some other years.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to ask my hon. friend in regard to the renovation of the heating plant in the Port Arthur examining warehouse. That is a repair matter, but I assume it will be done by contract. Am I correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is requested by the chief architect. The district resident engineer recommended that two bailers be replaced, as they are in a bad state of repair. It was late in the season, and it was decided to make temporary repairs and carry them through to the next year. It is a matter certainly that would be done by tender.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta - Calgary-armoury - repairs and alterations, $30,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $5,000.
John Campbell Elliott: What is the nature of the repairs and alterations to the armoury, and are they to be done by public tender?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assure my hon. friend the former Minister of Public Works that the practice of the department adopted by him and by my predecessors of inviting tenders for works of this kind will be continued.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say to my hon. friend, I do not know of any better example.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $45,000.
EsquimaU-repairs and improvements at R.CJST. barracks and H.M.C. dock yard, $10,600.
Vancouver armoury-payment of instalment on purchase of armoury, and installation of fittings, $18,000.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
Olof Hanson: A question that has been before this house on former occasions, the public building at Prince Rupert. It has been promised consideration, and that is all. Some time last year the lease expired on the building in which the federal offices are situated. I understand that the government renewed the lease for one year, and that they were going to make an appropriation at least to start a building in the city of Prince Rupert this year. It is needed, as the minister knows very well; it has been brought to his attention, by boards of trade and by representatives of the different political parties, and it is not a political question. It is mot necessary for me to repeat what has already been said in this bouse on several occasions in regard to this building, but as I notice there is nothing in the estimates I would ask the minister again if he would give this his consideration and if it would be possible to have it in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend who has from time to time mentioned the construction of a public building at Prince Rupert, a.nd who has by correspondence and otherwise set forth the requirements of that city, I can only say that we have a site, but that the construction of the building would involve an expenditure of approximately $100,000; we have many requests to which unfortunately at this time we cannot accede, and this is simply one of many of the same character. I cannot promise my hon. friend that in view of the condition of the revenue I can hold out much hope of providing for it in the supplementary estimates.


Olof Hanson: Is it then the intention of the government again to lease the building now occupied? Because I understand the lease is expiring shortly; it was renewed for only one year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As no building will be constructed, of course we shall have to continue accommodation in ranted quarters. Whether the lease will be renewed or not will depend upon the suitability of the quarters and whether more desirable quarters are available at a lesser rent.


Mr. REID:: What is the Vancouver public building on which the minister has to meet one year's interest at five per cent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a building upon which there is a mortgage, which building was acquired by the Dominion of Canada. This provides for payment of interest on the mortgage.


Mr. NEILL:: Is that the Winch building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Winch building.


John Campbell Elliott: For how many more years will that interest be payable?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The mortgage is past due, und until we are in a position to pay off the principal we must continue to paiy interest on it.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As the minister
doubtless knows, the Indian school at Labret was destroyed by fire last falll, and everyone was expecting it would be rebuilt in the spring. As that item is not here, I presume we may look for it in the supplementaries.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is under the control not of the public works department, but of the Department of Indian Affairs, and they have their own estimates. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the information he requires.


William Richard Motherwell: That will be satisfactory.


John Campbell Elliott: With regard to the $4,500
for alterations and improvements to the old post office building at Saskatoon, for what purpose is it proposed to use that building now? What are the proposed alterations?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The alterations
proposed are to make it suitable for accommodating the mounted police. That force has been augmented and has taken over police duties for the province and consequently it requires the additional accommodation.


John Campbell Elliott: Will that be let by tender?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think so. If
the work is such that specifications can be prepared and it can be done by tender, that course will be followed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, etc. Ottawa public buildings and grounds-
Elevator attendants, $109,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $135 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $420,500.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $435,000.
Light and power-including roads and bridges, $225,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $397,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $40,700.
Telephone service, $82,500.
Water, $75,500.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, etc.-Con. Dominion public buildings-
Dominion immigration buildings - repairs, improvements, additions and furniture, $25,000.
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, $15,000.
Fittings, general supplies and furniture, $80,000.
Heating, $445,000.
Light and power, $333,000.
Rents, $1,720,000.
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $1,062,000.
Supplies for caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $60,000.
Waiter, $80,000.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service and caretakers' salaries, $27,300.
Victoria, B.C. - astrophysical observatory (Little Saanich mountain) - maintenance, repairs, and improvements, $4,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: How much cement was
bought under this item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that information. This provides for our requirements for the coming year; we have not bought any yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers Nova Scotia
Under contract-
East ferry-wharf and shed. $700.
Lunenburg-dredging, $24,500.
Yarmouth harbour-dredging, $90,000. Essential undertakings-
Cow bay (Port Morien)-to repair breakwater and complete extension, $4,500.
Devil's island-breakwater repairs, $10,500.
Digby-dredging, $34,000.
Finlay point-improvements, $3,000.
Grand desert-harbour protection, $2,600.
Lower L'Ardoise-breakwater reconstruction, $14,400.
Little Judique Ponds-Groyne, $1,500.
Little River-mooring piers, $5,000.
Meat Cove-breakwater extension. $1,800.
Sandy Cove-breakwater repairs, $11,900.
Seaside (Harbourview) *-wharf extension, $4,900.
Seaforth-breakwater extension, $5,000.
Spencer's Point-wharf improvements, $3,600.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.
James Layton Ralston: I want to make a representation to the minister with regard to the blanket item of $200,000 for harbours and rivers generally, for maintenance of services, "no new works to be undertaken." As the minister probably knows, a very severe storm has swept the coast of Nova Scotia recently and it has done a great deal of damage to a number of small wharves and breakwaters there. Reports are coming to me and, I have no doubt, to the minister with regard to the matter. I was hoping that this vote could be so broadened that it might be possible for
essential work in the way of renewals to be undertaken-I am not speaking of neiw works. These small wharves and breakwaters are very essential in order that the fishing industry may be carried on. They provide shelter for the fishing boats and harbours which are not naturally available, and they make it possible for the fishermen to have their boats lie afloat so that they can go out at a comparatively reasonable hour instead of having to go out on the tide, as would be the ease if their boats were aground. It is not a matter of luxury but of absolute necessity; it is essential to the carrying on of their business. It affords employment and enables the fishermen through that to give assistance to the community. Does the minister consider this vote wide enough, assuming the amount were large enough, to undertake essential renewals of that kind in connection with small wharves and breakwaters seriously damaged by the storm?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can understand my hon. friend's anxiety about this class of wharf, particularly in Nova Scotia where for the past two or three years there have been experiences similar to the one which he now relates. This vote is calculated to take care of just such improvements as he has mentioned, and the reference in the vote to the fact that no new works are to be undertaken means simply that we cannot start anything new, any new wharf out of the vote, but that it is intended to repair, rebuild or renew any existing structure, which I understand is what my hon. friend is urging. The report of the engineer comes in from time to time setting out the conditions and recommending those structures most in need of repair.


James Layton Ralston: I may tell the minister that I addressed a letter to him to-day with reference to one particular structure, the partial demolition of which has come to my attention, a structure at the Hawk off Cape Sable island and another at Port La Tour where a part of the wharf has been rendered unusable. I want to commend these to the favourable consideration of the minister, and I shall bring to his attention others that are in need of repair.
Mr. STEM'ART (Leeds) : The whole of our vote last year was expended in this way and I am sure that this amount will not be found too large for our requirements. I shall certainly take my hon. friend's representations into very serious consideration.


James Layton Ralston: I hope the vote will not be found too small.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours


William Duff: I think the minister will agree that this vote is for repairs whieh do not necessarily involve a great deal of money. It has been put in the estimates every year for a great many years to cover repairs costing a thousand dollars or five hundred or two hundred dollars, and seldom has it exceeded five thousand. I agree with my hon. friend from, Shelbume-Yarmouth, although I do not think he has gone far enough. In my opinion this item will be required for the ordinary repairs that have to be made every year, but it will not cover the extraordinary circumstances as outlined by my hon. friend. The minister will no doubt get the engineer's reports short!}' showing what has happened in Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces in the last fortnight, and he will find that 8200,000 will certainly not cover the requirements. In my own constituency, I have so far heard of several places where there will have to be repairs to existing wharves and breakwaters, and from the information that has come to me the cost will be at least
8100,000.	These repairs are absolutely necessary if the fishermen are to prosecute their vocation, and consequently I would urge on the minister that, while this vote is essential to take care of small repairs to wharves and breakwaters, it will not fill the bill presented both by myself and my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth.


Mr. QUINN:: I wish to add a word or two to what, the two previous speakers have said on this subject. On January 29 and 30 we had an unusually severe storm along the southeast coast of Nova Scotia, particularly affecting the constituency of my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth, the constituency of Halifax, the constituency of my hon. friend from Antigonish - Guysbocough and other points; and though I appreciate the fact that this vote of $200,000 is for ordinary expenses in connection with repairs, I would point out that there will be an unusually great demand for repairs owing to the destruction caused by the storm of the last two days of January. There are three letters of mine now in the mail addressed to the Minister of Public Works, directing his attention to three breakwaters and wharves in the county of Halifax which need attention, and I am sure others will be added to that list. If the minister cannot enlarge this item in the main estimates, I suggest that some provision be made in the supplementary estimates.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I should like to say
a few words with regard to this vote covering public works in the province of Nova Scotia. I may say that times without number I have

interviewed the minister and I always found him sympathetic regarding my representations. I feel that he has done everything within reason to assist the fishermen in my constituency. I sympathize with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth in the pleas they made for the fishermen of Nova Scotia, but I am rather sorry that hon. gentlemen opposite have not taken advantage of their position as members of the house to go to the minister to ask for estimates for their constituencies. If in making my plea I include the fishermen in the constituencies of Amti-gonieh-Guysborough and Shelbuimie-Yarmouth, I hope my hon. friends will mot hold it against me.
I am mot satisfied with the appropriations made for public works in the province of Nova Scotia. I may say to the minister that I do not hold anything against him personally; I have always found him willing to go out of his way to help the province of Nova Scotia, irrespective of political affiliations. But the fact remains that insufficient appropriations have been provided. The government is contributing direct relief, in many cases to people who do not deserve it, and consideration should be given to these fishermen. I am sure my hon. friends will agree that this matter should be kept entirely out of politics. Without wanting to criticize the minister personally, I may say that if some recognition is not given to the claims of these fishermen, this government or any other government is going to hear from me. I think in taking that stand I will have the support of my horn, friends opposite. I believe that in the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough there are public works which should be provided, and I know that in my own constituency that is the case.
I should like to mention an instance at Broad Cove Marsh. Before giving the particulars, I may say that at the last election the vote in this district was about four to one in favour of my opponent. People in this district have never been in receipt of charity and they do not want charity; they would sooner jump into the sea and drown themselves. Because of inadequate public works these people are forced to go seven miles in order to land their fish. I will not stand for such a condition, whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal government in power.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you stand for the
results of the imperial conference?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I think my hon. friend said enough this afternoon. These people are descendants of old highland Scotch

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
people. They have never asked for charity; all they want is a chance to live. I intend to give them that chance. I realize the difficulty which the government is facing, but, to use a local expression, there is going to be blood on the moon if a wharf is not provided at Broad Cove Marsh. I do not care if I am read out of the party for taking this stand; I do not care what happens, I am going to see that these people who have never looked for charity, who would never take relief or anything, are given a chance to live. They are among the best citizens in the province, and at that many of them are Liberals. The chief engineer of the department was down there to look over the whole situation and his opinion was that a wharf should be provided. It is not provided for in the main estimates, and I am going to do my best to see that it is provided for in the supplementary estimates. Either that, or I am going to get out of politics.


William Duff: There is a seat over here for you.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Nothing doing. These people should be given a chance to earn their living, and I am not confining my remarks just to those in my own constituency.
Again .1 state that the minister has always been very fair in his dealings with me; he has always gone out of his way to do what he thought was right. But I am afraid that these estimates are not the right thing for the people of the province of Nova Scotia. I know the constituency of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough probably as well as he does. I know that appropriations should be made to construct works to enable the fishermen in his county to carry on their vocation. If the government is prepared to give direct relief, not in all cases, but in some cases to bohunks, and in some cases to people who really do not deserve it, why should these old pioneers who have built up this country not be given at least a chance to live?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend, who has made to me privately the representations he has made here tonight, I may say that with regard to Broad Cove Marsh we have had two or three wharves carried away. The engineer is down there endeavouring to find a site where there will be more probability of the wharf remaining, and I hope we shall be able to take more care of it in the future.


James Layton Ralston: The minister and his
officials will bear me out in this, that I have repeatedly made to him and his officials representations privately as well as by letter with
regard to the matters of which I have spoken and also with regard to a number of public works which I regret very much not to see in the estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite
true.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers - New Brunswick - Shippigan-wharf extension and repairs, $25,300.
John Campbell Elliott: What is the nature of the repairs to be done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is required to construct a triangularly shaped extension and to block up the four outer spans of the existing wharf to give greater stability to the extension, and also to effect urgent repairs to the structure.


John Campbell Elliott: Just what proportion of
the expenditure will be extension and what proportion repairs?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The extension is
823,000,	and the estimated repairs, $2,300.


John Campbell Elliott: Therefore it is really a
new structure as to the $23,000. This will be done by public tender, I assume?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Quebec Under contract-
Riviere la Guerre 

 contribution towards dredging, province of Quebec to bear a like amount, $23,000.
Essential undertakings-
Anse au Canard-improvements to training piers, $2,100.
Anse au Griffons-to complete wharf improvements, $3,500.
Anse au Griffons (river)-improvements to jetties, $12,200.
Batiscan-freight shed, $1,350.
Champlain dry dock-keel blocks, $26,000.
Doueet's Landing (Ste. Angele de Laval)-[DOT] wharf improvements, $7,900.
Havre au Maison, M.I.-wharf, $5,200.
Isle Yerte-wharf reconstruction, $13,300.
Matane-repairs to harbour works, $24,100.
New Carlisle-wharf reconstruction, $22,000.
Paspebiac (Robins)-wharf extension, $25,000.
Petit Cap-breakwater reinforcement, $20,000.
Rimouski-wharf repairs and improvements, $47,100.
Ste. Emelie-wharf reconstruction, $18,000.
Timiskaming dam-reconstructing Quebec side, $70,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $400,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see under this item the term "essential undertakings." Does the government mean by that that only those items that are mentioned there are considered
1904	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours
essential in the province of Quebec; that there are no other works just as essential that have been omitted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is the same
wording that has been used in connection with the other items. These are considered essential and that is why we are undertaking them. In these times we are not undertaking anything that we do not consider essential. I quite agree with my hon. friend that this does not include everything that is essential, but we consider these more urgent than others.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to know if the minister has received recently from the authorities of the municipality of Havre St. Pierre on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence certain requests regarding improvements to the wharf at that point.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have received petitions and representations and I think a request by my hon. friend for work there.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the government
undertake to place in the supplementary estimates an item to cover that work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot promise my hon. friend that I shall place any item in the supplementary estimates. I shall give it consideration, have a report secured, and then we shall consider whether an item will be placed in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is that work considered essential?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At this stage I cannot say.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend must have the report and the petition from the municipality. I think it is essential and I have recommended it as such. I should like to find out from the minister whether any new development has taken place with reference to the request that was made last year with regard to improvements at a place called Shelter Bay in connection with a wharf there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very strong representations have been made in connection with additions to that wharf, which is one owned by the Ontario Paper Company, constructed at their own cost, and which is in need of extension or some strengthening. Unfortunately we did not feel we could at this time meet their request for this rather heavy expenditure.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With reference to some other works that were apparently carried on last year at a place called Grande Bergeronnes in the county of Saguenay, I should like to know what amount of money was appro-

priated to enlarge the berthing facilities of that wharf, who was in charge of the work and who recommended it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall the matter, my hon. friend has within the last few days put on the order paper a question and also a motion calling for an order for return of the papers in connection with that. I can assure him that these will be brought down speedily and if they do not contain the information he desires, I shall undertake to give it to him.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: At Tadoussac in the county of Saguenay I understand of late certain works have been carried on by the federal government in cooperation with a gentleman named Imbeau, regarding the construction of a dry dock. I should like to know what arrangements have been made in connection with the construction of that dry dock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall the matter, a small amount, approximately $1,000, was spent in dredging at that point for the purpose of improving a rather natural harbour for the repair of small ships. A request is being made for a further expenditure and a report of the engineers is being secured as to the desirability of the work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With reference to certain works that were carried on last summer at that very same place, Tadoussac, I think it is my duty to read to the committee certain extracts from a letter which I received from the mayor of that place, Mr. Ernest Bour-going, as to the manner in which the works are being carried on under the present administration. If the committee will bear with me for a few minutes I shall read the letter, which is addressed to me. It is as follows:
(Translation):
Ernest Bourgoing,
General Merchant, Tadoussac Co. Saguenay, Que.
Tadoussac, Jan. 3, 1933. Mr. Pierre F. Casgrain, M.P.,
Montreal.
Sir,
You have no doubt received a petition signed by many Tadoussac people as a protest to the way the work in connection with the wharf is distributed.
The government is having some work done to relieve the unemployed and the local conservative leaders distribute the entire work among their families and relatives, including brothers and brothers in law, they do not even give work to people belonging to their party. This petition was first started by discontented conservatives, I signed it myself because the injustice was too flagrant; those who are really in want cannot find work and the municipality is obliged to support them. There are, included

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
in this family circle that is given work, some who have been working the whole summer season on the telegraph line along the Northern coast. One among them was able to save as much as $800 on the men's board and when he returned here he was given work on the wharf, while the heads of large families who are really in need cannot find work. Furthermore, the lumber which enters into the wharf is cut by the farmers to whom they only pay $18 per 1,000 ft. delivered on the wharf; at that price the farmers only earn 75 cents to $1 per day, while these local conservative leaders resell it to the government at $25 per 1,000 feet. Therefore, they are the ones who make large profits without even handling this lumber while those who do the work earn beggarly wages. Would it not be possible to find out the exact price this lumber is sold to the government? The local conservative leaders Arthur Deschenes, Johnny Maher, etc., and Johnny Gagnon, the foreman on the job, contend that the petition will be of no avail; however, take the necessary steps to inform the government that the money granted for the unemployed finds its way into the pockets of those who are the least in need.
Trusting to hear from you shortly,
(signed) Ernest Bourgoing.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that at that particular point some work had been carried on under the authority of the federal government, but the only people who were able to secure work were those who did mot need it. Only a few friends of the people higher utp in the Conservative party, and men in a very limited family circle-we might call it a family compact-have been able to secure work. So that the money provided to assist people who needed work has not gone to them. There is a suggestion that certain timber is being bought and sold to federal government authorities at a huge profit, the proceeds going into the pockets of people who do n-ot need it. The statement is made that these high chiefs of the Tory party in that particular district are not much concerned about what the government may say, because they assert they know how to fix things up so that their little game will not be disturbed. I should like to know if the condition I have described actually obtains. The mayor of this plaice, Mr. Ernest Bourgoing, is a most reliable citizen, and enjoys the respect and confidence of his people. I am sure he would not write such a letter unless conditions were such as he has described.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not
received complaints such as those (the hon. member has described. Had they been received I assure him an investigation would have been launched long ago. Our district engineers have strict instructions to see that value is secured, that no excessive prices are paid, that there is no profiteering, and that in the distribution of work efforts are made to secure competent men
and to have it given to those in greatest need.
I am sorry if any condition such as described by the hon. member exists, and if he will take the responsibility of saying that they are so, or that we are warranted in going to the expense of an investigation, it will be launched to-morrow.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am pleased with the reply of the minister. My only authority is the letter I have read'. Further, I read the letter in the exact terms in which it is couched. It is now on Hansard, and I shall be happy to send a copy of the minister's statement to the people in my district. If they are in a position to substantiate their statement I shall -communicate further with the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister recovers from his surprise and astonishment I shall tell him something more. There is a wonderful spot on the earth called Cacouna, in the province of Quebec. Last year a sum of money was spent on the wharf at that point. Most of the time there were two foremen in charge of two men. One foreman was named Roy and the other Dumont, each having to look after one man. Many men were employed at the wharf, but each for only a short time; they were employed mostly two by two or three by three throughout the summer. The two foremen did not take more men, so that their work would last longer. Roy and Dumont were very busy looking after the two other men. One had a chisel in his hand and -the ether a hammer. On the hammer there was an apparatus for pulling out nails, so that when he hammered a nail he immediately pulled- it out, -because it -had been hammered in the wrong direction. Then he proceeded- to put it in again. All this took place under the vigilant eyes of one foreman. Then, the other one -used his chisel to give a satin finish to the timber in the wharf. All of this, Mr. Chairman, is most ridiculous. Certainly it did not relieve the unemployment situation. I have been told by reliable people that two young men about fifteen -or sixteen years of age were employed fifteen days doing so-me painting which could have been- done by a good man in two days. Another young man was very busy -carrying wood shavings from the wharf to a small building nearby, putting those shavings in bags and taking them to -the home of the foreman. I am informed that some of the paint left over was used to d-ecorate a sailing boat or canoe belonging to a good friend whose home happened to be near the wharf. It was a family affair, and did not -help the unemployed at all.
There are many unemployed at Cacouna. Last year and the year before the minister

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
was fair enough to allow a grant for public works at that place. This year however it would seem that he must have been told by some interested people that Cacouna no longer suffered from unemployment, and probably he has decided that work should no longer be given to the unemployed but only to a small group of special friends. It is pretty hard to tell who are the friends of that small group, because it is only a small family gathering. No doubt the minister has not heard about these circumstances before, and as I have great confidence in his fairness I have no doubt he will see to it that such conditions do not exist in the future.
And yet the Minister of Public Works is very smart. He says, " Here are the essential undertakings; they do not amount to very much." But in the tail is the poison, because I find at the last of item No. 117 the following:
Harbours and rivers generally, for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, 8400,000.
This is for the good of the community. I hope the minister will be good enough to tell me what happened to that general vote last year. I remember that last year there was a vote en bloc like this one, and very few questions were asked. I should like to know what was done with the money then voted, and what has been decided with regard to the $400,000 asked this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This appropriation is a repetition of one that has been in the estimates for a number of years, except that the amount is smaller than in previous years. The appropriation for 1932-33 was $413,800, and we had authorized to January 15th, $391,140.12 and expended to- January 31st of this year, $351,887.91. So we are spending most of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very good, but I would like to have the details-not each bid that has been forwarded to the government, but the amount that has been spent in each place in that general vote of last year. I do not want to impose on the minister; I shall be satisfied if he will put it on Hansard in order that we may have the information. As it stands now we have fog behind and fog ahead of us; we do not know what has happened in the past and do not know what will happen in the future. It is most important to know how that money has been spent. I will not ask the minister to read that information for half an hour or an hour, but I want to have it at hand. May I suggest that he be kind enough to give it to Hansard in order that it may be 
printed to-morrow so that each member can get the information?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
is entitled to the information he asks for, and I appreciate his desire that the time of the committee be not unnecessarily taken up by the reading of fifteen pages with about fifteen items to each page, and a statement of the expenditure at each and every place. My hon. friend will find each year in the Auditor General's report the details of these expenditures.


Jean-François Pouliot: It comes too 'late.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We should have them
before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection, if the house desires, to read these fifteen pages, or put them on Hansard as suggested. If there is any particular place my hon. friend wishes to inquire about I can give that now% or I will put it on the table.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Put it on the table of
the house.


Ernest Lapointe: I submit that this new policy is wrong, to put in the estimates an amount which is twice as large as the rest of the estimates for the province, without giving any particulars or details. The whole amount for Quebec harbours and rivers is $720,750, and of this amount $400,000 is put there generally, without any particulars or details. I agree with the hon. member for Temis-couata that this is wrong. The committee should be given particulars of the work which is to be done by the department under this item. It is all very well to say that in the past there has been a general item of about $400,000, but surely it was not always half of the total amount. I believe parliament is entitled to know specifically what works are to be carried on under that item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I quite agree
with the principle the hon. member has enunciated. Parliament is entitled to the fullest information, and as far as this department is concerned, and I am sure the same is true for every department, it will be given. But my hon. friend must agree that it is impossible now to say what wharves will be damaged by storm, where repairs will be needed. Just as has been pointed out in connection with the province of Nova Scotia, where a storm has occurred, our engineers have not been able to make their investigation and report. It is just to cover conditions of that kind, and unforeseen emergencies, that this vote is asked. My hon. friend is quite

Supply-Public Works-Harbours
right when he says that this amount is larger in proportion to the other items than in past years. That is simply because the program has been curtailed. But these repairs, these unforeseen emergencies that come up, recur about the same in each year; therefore we cannot curtail that vote. Our program has been limited practically to repairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does that amount of $400000 include relief work by the Department of Public Works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have no relief work as such. I think my hon. friend will remember that it was determined as a matter of policy in consultation with the provinces that public works should not be undertaken purely as relief for unemployment.


Jean-François Pouliot: But it was done in the past.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was one year.


Jean-François Pouliot: As I say, I do not wish to impose on the minister by asking him to read those fifteen pages, but I would like to know how I shall take cognizance of that information,. Will the information be laid on the table or published in Hansard?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think the requirements would be met by tabling them, and if my hon. friend wants a copy of them I will send it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to have a copy of them myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: What has already been decided with regard to that item of $400,000 for the coming year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Nothing has been decided, no allotment made, because we have not sufficient information upon which to make an intelligent allotment. But we cannot undertake new work.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister wait until after the storm to decide what is to be done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We certainly do not provide for repairs caused by a storm before the storm takes place.


Jean-François Pouliot: So the hon. gentleman must be in consultation with the weather bureau all the time. You see, Mr. Chairman, I like the minister, but I have to be a little careful. Will the minister be kind enough to tell me when he will table the information referred to?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then will he move that the committee rise in order that we may have an opportunity of glancing at these pages before proceeding further?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I second the motion. '


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think what my hon. friend desires might be accomplished by leaving one item of the estimates open, upon which discussion may take place.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly, no objection. Thank you very much.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to obtain some information in connection with this item of $23,000 to dredge the Guerre river. I understand that this river situated in Gha.teauguay-Huntingdon county, is being dredged to drain the adjacent lands; only the waters of this river will flow into the St. Louis river which is situated in the next county-that of Beauharmois. I fear that in draining the lands along the course of the Guerre river, the adjacent lands of the St. Louis river will be flooded.
Will the hon. Minister inform me whether steps have been taken to prevent the flooding of lands along the course of the St. Louis river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The matter will be called to the attention of the engineer. I am sorry I have not been able to follow the hon. gentleman but my colleague has explained what he is inquiring about and I can assure him that attention will be given it. The engineers will be asked to look info his request.


Donat Raymond: I do not know whether my information is correct, but I am informed that the department has already received a report from the engineer to the effect that there is great danger of flooding the lands in the vicinity of Riviere St. Louis. That is the effect of the dredging of Riviere la Guerre. Although I am not opposed to this item, I think the government should take the necessary steps to protect the proprietors of land situated in the vicinity of the Riviere St. Louis.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work that is being done is calculated to remedy the conditions to which my hon. friend refers. No report such as he mentions has been called to my attention. I shall inquire about the matter to-moirow.


Donat Raymond: Can I have the assurance of the minister that if there is any flooding of land in the vicinity of Riviere St. Louis the government will take care of the situation?
1908	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should not care to go as far as that without further information as to the cause of flooding.
Item stands.
Ontario
Under contract-
Leamington-harbour improvements, $93,000.
Midland-harbour improvements, $73,000. Essential undertakings-
Belleville-dredging, $22,500.
Blind River-dredging, $47,000.
Cobourg-dredging, $17,000.
Depot Harbour-dredging, $15,200.
Fort William-wharf extension, $6,500.
Key Harbour-harbour improvements, $15,000.
Kincardine-harbour repairs and improvements, $18,000.
Oshawa-harbour improvements, $35,000.
Port Hope-dredging, $12,400.
Rockport-wharf, $1,900.
Sault Ste. Marie-diarbour repairs and improvements, $13,000.
Sydenham and Chenal Escarte-dredging, $19,000.
Toronto-harbour improvements, $22,300.
Wallaceburg-wharf and warehouse, $9,500.
Windsor-warehouse extension, $60,000.
Harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.


Mr. LUCAS:: What work is being carried
on at Oshawa?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The development of a harbour, consisting of dredging and the construction of wharves and warehouses. It was undertaken, I think, in the year 1929 or 1930 and is being continued as funds will permit, with very satisfactory results. A great deal of tonnage is being handled with increased payments for wharfage coming in.


William Thomas Lucas: What class of shipping goes
through there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Coal, sugar, automobiles going out and general freight coming in.


John Campbell Elliott: With .regard to harbours
and rivers generally, I want to ask a question similar to that asked by mv hon. friend from Temiisoouata with respect to the other vote. Would the minister tell us what the general vote for harbours and rivers generally was for the year 1930-31?
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): We have not the information for that year but for the last year, which was the same as this. I will get it and give it to my hon. friend.


John Campbell Elliott: I would suggest that the same thing apply to this item 118 so that the matter may be properly discussed, because the question does arise whether or not too great a proportion of the total amount 
expended for harbours and rivers in the province is being left entirely to the discretion of the minister.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will table the same information with respect to this item as with regard to the other so as to enable my hon. friend to see how the expenditures are made. They are very general and widespread.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Can the minister give us an explanation with regard to the vote of 860,000 for warehouse extension at Windsor?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is for the construction of a proposed new warehouse for the accommodation of the Canada Steamships traffic for which they pay rental.


John Campbell Elliott: If my information is correct, and I have glanced through the estimates, the general amount put in in the year 1928 was $50,000; the general amount for harbours and rivers in 1929-30 was $75,000; in 1930-31 it was $85,000. We have now, in these times in which we find ourselves, for the year 1932-33-I do not happen to have the figures for the year 1931-32-the sum of $200,000, and for the year 1933-34 it is also $200,000. Does not my hon. friend think that in an expenditure such as this, amounting to $680,000, $200,000 this year and last, as compared with $50,000 in 1928, for this particular vote, is leaving entirety' too much to his discretion? Does he think that he is putting himself in a proper position?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Only $93,000 was spent- last year, and the object of taking the vote in this way is, as I have said, to meet conditions for which we do not feel justified in making special provision in the estimates. If it becomes absolutely necessary to take care of the situation we shall have the funds, and if it is not necessary the expenditures will not be made.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand exactly the idea of the minister and the object he has in miind, but this is leaving a very large amount entirely in the discretion of the minister; anyone can see that. It does seem to me that in the curtailment of expenditures on public works which has been rendered necessary owing to the circumstances in which the country finds itself at the present timie, the minister's discretionary powers have been greatly enlarged. They have been increased from $50,000 to $200,000, and he is putting himself at the mercy of importunate members who will be asking for expenditures during the year. I happen to know something of the difficulties to which a minister of public works

Supply-Agriculture
is subjected, even when he puts through estimates for nearly everything, but when these matters are left to his discretion, he is putting himself in a very unfortunate position.
I think he should submit to the committee the expenditures which are intended to be made. After all, that is what the estimates are for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: None of it can
be used for anything in the nature of new work, it is only for the maintenance of existing services and repairs. The vote is limited in that way, and the minister has very little discretion. I think the expenditures for last year show that the department has been able to resist those importunities inasmuch as we have expended only 890,000 out of a vote of $200,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently the government has no * faith in its being able to resist these requests nearly as well for the coming year, because the amount is being increased from 890,000 to $200,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is the same
vote as last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Last year the minister
spent only $90,000 out of a vote of $200,000. It seems to me that that is a good argument for limiting it to $100,000 this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The department had the same latitude last year, but in view of the financial stringency, certain works were delayed. I have one case in mind, the dredging at Cobourg. This has usually been done annually; it was not done last year, but there is every possibility that it will have to be done in the coming year. I suggest that this item stand in the meantime.
Item stands.
Department of Agriculture
Contributions to empire bureaux, $21,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: According to the official
publications the exports of agricultural products are not so bad, but the farmer has to ship three times as much of his products in order to obtain the same return as he did a few years ago.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I suggest that we confine the discussion to the item.


Jean-François Pouliot: The item covers contributions to empire bureaux, and I suppose that they are a sort of clearing house for the farmer. I am discussing the exportation of farm products, but if this is not relevant I will not proceed. I have no desire to be disagreeable to the minister, but I think it my
duty as a member of this house to take up this matter which is of such vital importance to the farmer. As I said the other day, there are only two matters which are of interest to the people of Canada, unemployment and agriculture. I do not attach any blame to the government, I am only seeking information which will be satisfactory to the farmer. Last year some time, I forget whether it was in the first part of the year or the first part of our previous session, I asked a question on the orders of the day in connection with the imports of butter from either Australia or New Zealand. My information was that some butter has been imported and no duty had been imposed but the minister said that I was wrong. I should like to know what happened to that butter, in view of the rock-bottom prices which have been prevailing for Canadian butter.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I suggest that any discussion in connection with dairy products be taken up under the proper items.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What are these bureaux and how much goes to each one?


Robert Weir: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When were these various bureaux founded and where are they located?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort. : I am sorry I have not that information before me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are they all located in London?


Robert Weir: I believe they are all located in the United Kingdom with branches throughout the country, such as at Aberdeen.


Mr. VALLANCE:: In view of the lack of information available to the committee, I think that this item should stand. Surely the committee is not going to vote $21,000 as contributions to imperial bureaux when the
Supply-Agriculture

minister cannot tell us where they are. They may be located in South Africa, Australia, the Fiji islands, or even in Canada. We should have accurate information. As the minister does not seem to have his deputy or other officials in front of him to supply this information, I think the item should stand.


Robert Weir: Just where the information is gathered has no bearing upon the value of the work performed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We do
not question that at all. Surely the committee is entitled to the information. We are asking the minister where the bureaux are located, what is their history and what they do. We should not be asked to vote $21,000 for an item which we do not understand and about which we are told nothing.


Robert Weir: I believe this agreement was reached first in 1927 and was for a period of ten years. The centre of accumulation of information is, as I understand the matter, in London, but the information is gathered from various research bureaux, too numerous to mention, throughout the whole empire.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do I
understand that the information that goes through this bureau goes through the Department of Agriculture, and if so, what officials in that department are responsible for cor-*elating the information?


Robert Weir: Through the office of the deputy minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not understand why we should pay one cent to a research bureau situated outside Canada when we have a research bureau of our own where there are people who are just as competent as those who are in those bureaux the location of which the hon. gentleman does not know. In Ottawa on Sussex street, not far from here, there are competent men who do excellent work and in the minister's own department there are excellent cerealists and others who are experts in every branch of agriculture. There was Mr. Mackintosh, the discoverer of the famous apple. I do not see why we should make any contribution to a research bureau outside this country. We might subscribe to publications issued by bureaux that exist outside Canada, and I have no objection to that. We might occasionally have lectures from people who come from outside this country, but what interest have we in supporting these bureaux if they are of no benefit to us ? If the minister tells us what benefit those bureaux are to the Cana-[Mr. Vallance.J
dian farmer, perhaps I may reconsider my opinion in regard to the matter.


Robert Weir: This money is
used not to support research laboratories in any part of the dominion, but as a means of setting up machinery to collect information as to discoveries that are made in various research laboratories throughout the empire so that we shall have the benefit of this without any expense to us other than this small amount.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that not what is done in this country? What are these people doing in our own research bureaux?


Robert Weir: In our own research bureau they carry on certain research work. The result of that research work, when completed and thoroughly substantiated, will be sent to the central bureau, whence it will be disseminated to the various dominions so that they will be able to avail themselves of it without any expense other than that for the support of the bureau.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister has answered me very nicely. I reconsider my opinion.


John Vallance: I have no objection
to the $21,000 being voted. I realize, as the minister says, it is a very good thing for the various dominions and colonies of the empire to have a bureau such as this from which information may be disseminated to all other parts of the empire. The item " contributions to empire bureaux " explains itself, but still I think the minister should be able to say where the bureau is, whether it is in London, the seat of the empire. If there are several of them, we should know where they are. If they are all in the British Isles, I do not think that is good policy. Just as much research in certain lines is done in Canada as is done in the British Isles. Industrial research might be more expeditiously carried on in the British Isles, but so far as agriculture is concerned, we might at least expect to have a bureau located in Canada. We know we have our own dominion bureau. Now we have an empire bureau, and we should like to know where it is.


Robert Weir: When this empire agreement was reached by the dominions, it was decided it would be advisable that the bureau be located in the United Kingdom. The agreement is for ten years, and during that period there would be ample time to bring the matter to the attention of the authorities if it were felt necessary at the end of that time to make a change.

Supply-Agriculture


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the bureau under the supervision of the British Minister of Agriculture?


Robert Weir: I would say yes.


John Vallance: Surely the minister sees the justice of our demand. I do not think we should pass an item amounting to even 121,000 without knowing where the bureau is located and who has control of it. The minister, I think, is rather doubtful. He says that it is located within the United Kingdom. If so, it naturally would come under the administration of the Department of Agriculture of the British government. I do not think this item should pass until we have the information. We do not wish to be insistent, but we are within our rights. I would ask that the item stand.


Robert Weir: I have no objection to the item standing, but so far as the bureau itself is concerned, I think we realize it is merely the machinery for collection and distribution of information, and it makes very little difference where it is located so long as the different dominions have agreed upon the point at which it would be located.


John Vallance: We have this empire bureau. Is there any one specific thing the minister can tell us that has been contributed from the bureau and that has not been developed by research in Canada?


Robert Weir: One item to which they have made a great contribution and that we have not undertaken very extensively in this country has been carried on in the Rowett Institute at Aberdeen under Doctor Orr. It is perhaps the greatest work done in the world on nutrition, the uses, otherwise unknown, that can be made of very cheap feeds, such as potatoes and vegetables that otherwise would be wasted, and that the feeders in Scotland in olden times felt were of such little use that they considered they had to use much more expensive feeds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the minister say that one of the bureaux is located in Aberdeen?


Robert Weir: One of the research laboratories.


Thomas Reid: Has any Canadian been sent over there?


Robert Weir: There is a Canadian now at the Rowett Institute. I think his name is Mackenzie.


John Vallance: I am not making an
effort to delay the committee, but it is through the questions we put to the minister
that the public is able to learn what is happening. That is the only way they have of obtaining knowledge as to why these moneys are voted. I say quite frankly that some of the actions of the government should be advertised, and this matter should be given all the publicity possible. For that reason I suggest that the item stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We may be asked by some of our constituents regarding this matter. I could not give them the information, because the minister has not been able to give it to us. I think it is reasonable to ask that the item stand, so that the information may be brought down later.


Robert Weir: There is a report
covering a good many pages issued by these empire bureaux. If the committee so desires I shall bring down that report and read it from cover to cover, or lay it on the table. I suggest laying it on the table.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are merely giving the minister an opportunity to open his department. Could not the item pass, and the minister bring in the information later on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has opened his department.
Item stands.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Chairman, I
ask you to call item No. 92.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce advised the house as to the departments which would be gone into. At that time he did not mention the Department of National Defence, and I dc not think we ought to consider that department to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If there is any opposition we shall not do so. The right hon. gentleman is quite correct; we did not name that department. The only reason I suggested it was that the Minister of Railways and Canals is ill-not seriously; he has a bad cold and had to go home. He has asked me if the committee will agree to calling an item in railways and canals, and as there are one or two noncontroversial items I think we might comply with his request. With that understanding I would ask the chairman to call item No. 99.
Department of Railways and Canals.
Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, $7,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister give the details of this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Obviously the item is for the ordinary printing of the reports issued by
Supply-A gricvlture

the Department of Railways and Canals from time to time. If it were necessary I think I could name a number of those reports; I am quite sure the hon. member is as familiar with them as I am. This vote provides for the ordinary printing necessary from year to year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
Duff report included?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; I wish it were.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the right hon.
gentleman object to calling item No. 97, concerning the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada? I understand there could not be very great controversy in connection with this item.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, there is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
item should be left for the attention of the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How about item No. 101?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Leave the rest for the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Do not disappoint him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then, I can proceed only with my own department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Go back to the Department of Agriculture,


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the right hon. gentleman. would be content to discuss that item in the Department of Agriculture estimates and pass it to-night, we might proceed. In the meantime however we shall turn to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister did not say anything about Trade and Commerce estimates yesterday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have been opened, of course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
intimated what estimates would be considered to-day, and he did not mention the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman is quite within his rights, if he insists upon them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some of the members would like to have a word concerning these estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I must call another item in Railways and Canals, or move that the committee rise and report progress.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is the best thing to do.
Progress reported.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act-Mr. Murphy-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 2-R. C. M. police to be game officers.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe there was some information the minister wished to give in connection with this matter.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: What information does the right hon. gentleman desire.


James Layton Ralston: I had suggested to the Minister of Justice and to the minister in charge of the bill that this section 'be dropped, in view of the fact that already the minister has power to nominate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or anybody else, so far as that goes, for the purpose of carrying out the duties imposed under the act. The Minister of Justice said he would consider my suggestion. I had pointed out that in the province of Nova Scotia there would be about one hundred and sixty officers 'taking the place of nine or ten. Those one hundred and sixty officers would obviously have no particular knowledge regarding the matters in their care, whereas the nine or ten would understand the nature of the duties with which they were charged, and would have the technical information necessary to enable them properly to enforce the act. I understand very little about this subject, but I believe there is considerable to learn with regard to the habits of birds, and it seems to me that we would do well to have men well fitted for their work rather than by act of parliament provide a group of men who obviously are not acquainted with the duties they have to perform.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I think the hon. member
is under a slight misapprehension in regard to these game officers. There was only one part of Canada in which they were appointed, and that is in the maritime provinces. In the western1 provinces we have one permanent officer m the person of Mr. Mumro. The game laws were enforced in those provinces, under the provincial acts and this dominion act, by the provincial police until their duties were taken over by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under an arrangement made within the

Migratory Birds Convention Act
last year, I think, with the Department of Justice,, whereby the dominion police perform these duties. The same applied to Ontario and to the province of Quebec, with the exception of a small area along the river St. Lawrence. In the maritime provinces we had a permanent officer in the person of Mr. Tufts. Assisting him were five permanent officers known as assistant migratory bird officers, and there were additional men employed seasonally.


James Layton Ralston: How many?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Possibly fifteen to twenty in the three provinces. These men were appointed seasonally, and were chosen from the localities in which the work was to be done. Now in place of employing those men seasonally it is proposed thait their duties be carried on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When the hon. member speaks of replacing nine or ten men with one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty he is in error. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on duty in those provinces now, and we are simply adding these duties to others which they already perform.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I was under a
misapprehension, but that is not what I understood from the Minister of Justice. I understood from him that the idea was possibly to drop all these officers of which my hon. friend has spoken, at least all the assistants, and to substitute the full force of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so that in effect the Migratory Birds Convention Act would be enforced under the direction of the Minister of Justice rather than the Minister of the Interior. From what my hon. friend just says it sounds to me that there is going to be Mr. Tufts, who is a very efficient officer, and I understand chief for the maritime provinces, the five officers of whom the minister has just spoken,, the five, I presume, permanent officers, the fifteen or twenty temporary officers to whom he referred, plus the number of mounted police there are in the maritime provinces; and speaking of Nova Scotia I think I am mot far wrong when I say there a,re about 150. The argument for this was that it was reducing expense. I cannot see that it is reducing expense if we are going to maintain the officers my hon. friend has already appointed and add let us say 150 who have no particular knowledge of the subject but who are members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am afraid I have not
made myself clear. These temporary men who have been appointed seasonally will not in future be appointed at all. Their duties 53719-121
will be performed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who have no experience.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Possibly some of the
temporary men appointed from year to year had not experience either.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Oh yes.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Perhaps my hon. friend is more familiar-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I point out that the men appointed in my district under the supervision of Mr. Lewis, who is a capable official, were nearly always the same men for five or six years, and their knowledge grows.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: New men were appointed from time to time. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, being permanent officers and continuing in their duties from year to year, will become efficient men, because they will be continued in the job. May I point out that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have in recent years taken over the duties of the preventive service, which duties were formerly performed by officials or appointees of the Department of Inland Revenue.


James Layton Ralston: That is a totally different sort of duty, more like police duties.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: These men are to-day protecting the coasts of the maritime provinces from smuggling, they have their boats and are in a splendid position to protect the migratory birds from illegal shooting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not exactly understand the minister's explanation. I understood the Minister of Justice the other evening to give an assurance to my hon. friend the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that the government would consider specifying particular individuals among the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to whom would be delegated the duties assigned to them under this bill. I understand now that all the 150 or so mounted policemen in the maritimes will be potential game officers. That is exactly what we objected to the other day, and the Minister of Justice promised specifically that he would take this situation under advisement. I should like to know now from the Minister of the Interior what conclusion the administration has come to in regard to this question.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The former Section reads as follows:
5.	The minister may appoint game officers for. carrying out this act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace,-

1914	COMMONS
Migratory Birds Convention Act
It is that latter part with which the Minister of Justice was dealing when he said that such game officers might be designated for the exercise of the powers of justices of the peace, not that they would be appointed game officers. I hope my hon. friend follows me. We are proposing under this clause that all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall for the purposes of this act be ex officio game officers. Under the old section the minister had the power to appoint game officers for the carrying out of the act. Action has already been taken transferring to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the carrying out of the provisions of this act, in place of the Minister of the Interior appointing these officers seasonally. Then the further question arises as to whether the mounted police should exercise the powers of justices of the peace, and I agreed with the objection that was made, as expressed by the Minister of Justice, that it is not advisable that a prosecutor should also be a judge sitting on the case. I am very reliably informed that the mounted police themselves do not wish such authority, and do not exercise it when they can secure the services of a magistrate. I fail to see the objection which my hon. friend appears to urge against this clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister is quite correct in what he has stated, but in addition the Minister of Justice gave the assurance to which I refer, that he would consider, probably in collaboration with my hon. friend, whether the government would nominate specific officers to enforce the provisions of this act in the various provinces, or whether blanket authority would be given to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as such. I should like to know now the conclusion they arrived at in regard to the assurance that was given.


James Layton Ralston: Let me refer the minister to Hansard, page 1775, to which my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre refers. I said:
But if the government are determined to have this work turned over to the mounted police, why not designate seven or eight or nine or ten officers who would have power to act, and not have 150 or 160 take the place of the nine men who are doing the work in Nova Scotia? That would obviate this blanketing in of the whole force, and you would be able to carry out exactly the same idea you have in mind if you want to transfer this work to the mounted police. Personally I think the idea is all wrong, and that the work should

remain -where it is, namely, under the responsible officers of the department which is administering the act.
And the Minister of Justice replied:
Mr. Guthrie: I am not at all wedded to the suggestion contained in the act, and if my hon. friend is serious in his suggestion I should be prepared to let this clause stand and discuss the matter with the officials of the mounted police. I think, however, there is a good deal to be said in favour of empowering all the members of the force to do particular acts or administer particular laws, and that is now done nr respect of other laws. ... If my hon. friend thinks there is merit in the suggestion that only a specific number be designated instead of the whole force, I am willing to consider it. I do not disfavour it at all. There is of course the principle that all members of the force should have equal powers. I will ask that the clause stand and we can discuss the matter further.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have no desire to force the clause through in the absence of the Minister of Justice, nor have I any particular desire to have the clause passed in the bill. The minister has power under the present act to name every one of the 150 or 160 and therefore it can be done in any case even if this clause is dropped. If hon. members are very anxious that this clause should not carry we can at least let it stand, or I would be willing to drop it.


James Layton Ralston: My point is that there could be much more efficient administration of the act by a specific naming of nine or ten men to do the work rather than, by act of parliament, blanketing the whole force. The Minister of Justice seemed to have the idea that he would be administering and appointing special men. He said at page 1774:
There may be points where at odd times it may be necessary to name some special officer's for a particular district for certain seasons of the year. I do not however anticipate that will be necessary.
Mr. Ralston: What minister will do that?
Mr. Guthrie: That will be the mounted police.
It sounded to me therefore as if the mounted police were taking the place entirely of the officers to whom the minister referred earlier this evening.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is not a correct interpretation of the situation, because the minister designated to carry out the act is the Minister of the Interior and therefore that responsibility devolves upon him. However-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was not the impression we got the other day. We

Questions
distinctly got the impression that this was another step in the progressive dismemberment of the Department of the Interior and that all these powers would be vested in the Minister of Justice. Now the minister says that it will rest with the Department of the Interior. I should like to let it stand until the Minister of Justice is here so that we shall know just where we are.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Very well.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 8, 1933