1933-03-30

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 30, 1933.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice, acting as the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James. F. Crowdy,
Secretary.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) presented the first report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as follows:
Your committee has considered Bill No. 41, an act to incorporate The Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
With regard to the said Bill No. 41, the proposed capital stock is 100,000 shares of no par value. As no provision exists in standing order 93 (3) for a charge being made when the capital stock has no par value, your committee recommends that, for taxing purposes, the capital stock be considered as worth $5 per share, and that, therefore, a capital stock fee of $200 be charged.
Your committee has ordered that Bill No. 41 be reprinted, a3 amended.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
[Stage Direction]
Civil Servants Receiving Pensions
Mr. HARRIS moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present
to the house a petition largely signed by citizens of the city of Winnipeg and its suburbs, to the extent of over fifty thousand names, and largely signed also by other citizens of Canada outside of Winnipeg. It relates to a certain inquiry recently conducted into the conduct and capacity of His Honour Lewis St. George Stubbs, senior judge of the county court of Winnipeg. The purport of this prayer is-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can
present the petition and it will be received by the clerk and referred to the proper authority, but it is not competent for the hon. member to make a speech in connection with it.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I do not
propose to, Mr. Speaker, but under the rules I am permitted to state the purport of the petition.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the hon.
member to have already stated the purport of the petition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the petition addressed
to the house or to the government?


William Walker Kennedy: To the House of Commons.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That remains to be seen. It will be dealt with by the proper authority. It may or may not be in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let us hear it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Certainly.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Under rule 731.
Every member offering to present a petition to the house, not being a petition for a private bill, or relating to a private bill before the house, shall confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, of the number of signatures attached to it, and of the material allegations contained in it,

and, Mr. Speaker:
-to the reading of the prayer of suih petition.

I ask leave merely to state the nature of the prayer without reading the petition.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Did I understand the hon. member to quote what he called a rule?
Mr.	KENNEDY	(Winnipeg):	Yes,	Mr. Speaker, rule 731 of Beauchesnes's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a rule. It is merely the number of a paragraph in a book.	'
Mr.	KENNEDY	(Winnipeg):	Am	I to
understand, Mr. Speaker, that it has no force in this house. I wish merely to state that the purport of the petition is that His Honour Judge Stubbs be left secure in his office.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Very well.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ontario) moved	concurrence	in the recommendation
contained in the third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, respecting Bill No. 51, to incorporate the Devonshire Jockey Club.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20, a question was passed as an order for return on the motion of the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Girouard) asking how many persons employed by the government of Canada receive a pension from the pension board, in addition to their salary. The hon, member has inquired why this return has not been brought down. The reason is that it requires reference to persons employed by the government throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific and involves making hundreds, perhaps thousands of inquiries. I am informed by the various departments that it is impossible to prepare this return from departmental records, and that if the inquiry is to be proceeded with several weeks may elapse before it is finished.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Were the following recently dismissed by the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners: W. D. N. Eckringill, D. McIntyre, E. ,T. Dougherty, W. McCullough, T. Payne, W. Wright?

Questions
2.	In each case (a) how long bad he served at the Ballantyne pier, Vancouver; (b) what was the length of his overseas service; (c) what was the reason for dismissal; (d) was his place filled by another appointee; (e) did such appointee have overseas service?


Mr. BENNETT:: That question, in the
nature of things would be very difficult, in fact impossible for the government to answer. At e will have to communicate with the officials. A number of the questions I am informed are not questions that the officials are in a position to answer without making definite inquiry, because they are not questions they ask employees as they are employed.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I asked
similar questions last year, and received quite satisfactory answers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It took a long time to
get them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Three or four weeks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


TBACADIE, NI, LAZARETTO
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many tenders were submitted for repairs. improA'ements and alterations to the Tracadie lazaretto in 1932?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Who was the contract awarded to, and for what amount?
4.	How much, if any, did the contractor get In extras, over the amount of his tender?
5.	What was the department engineer's estimate for the above work?
6.	Was there an inspector on the work as specification No. 4312 called for?
7.	\A' as the work not begun for some time after the tender was accepted, and why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Seven.
2.	J. S. Parker, $3,S66; Geo. Eddy Company, Limited, $4,750; Somers & Ramsay, $4,780; J. A. Pinault, $5,150; J. and D. A. Harquail Co., Limited, $5,500; Sylvain Arsenault, $5,650; E. J. M. Bourgeois, $6,137.
3.	(a) J. S. Parker; (b) $3,866.
4.	$24.20 for new steps.
5.	$5,500.
6.	Work was inspected by AV. W. Ailing-ham, resident architect, Saint John.
7.	Tender was accepted on September 10, 1932, and according to specification was to be finished in two months. The final estimate was forwarded by the resident architect on November 7.


TRADE WITH FRANCE
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	What was the value of the imports from France for the years 1930-1931-1932?
2.	What Avas the value of the exports from Canada to Prance for the same years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's imports from France for the calendar years 1930, 1931 and 1932 were;
Calendar
Years
1930		$21,285,389
1931		 14,155,421
1932		 9,514,215
2. Canada's	exports to France	for thecalendar years	1930, 1931 and 1932,	were:Calendar	Canadian	ForeignYears	Produce	Produce1930	$13,668,955	$127,5271931	
17,335,095	96,9051932	
14,468,798	63,752


WOODSTOCK, N.B., MOUNTED POLICE BUILDING
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Who owns the building under rental to the Iloyal Canadian Mounted Police, at AVood-stock, New Brunswick?
2.	What rental is paid, and to whom?
3.	AVhat is the term of rental in months or year?
4.	What agreement has been made between the province of New Brunswick and the federal government for policing the province, and will the gOA'ernment show a copy of agreement along with their reply to this question?
5.	What amount was agreed upon between the government of New Brunsrvick and the federal government to be paid for the equipment taken by the latter government from the former in 1932?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Mr. R. P. Hartley, Fredericton, N.B.
2.	$50 per month to Mr. R. P. Hartley.
3.	On a month to month basis.
4.	Agreement as per orders in council of March 31, 1932 (P.C. 721).
5.	An offer of $40,000 has been made by the R.C.M. Police, but up to the present this has not been accepted by the government of New Brunswick.


RADIO COMMISSION-MR. E. C. BUCHANAN
Mr. GRAY:: Did Mr. E. C. Buchanan, recently appointed director of public relations to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, receive any money by way of compensation for services rendered to the government in connection with the Imperial economic conference held in Ottawa, 1932?
Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: No payment by way of compensation was made to Mr. E. C. Buchanan from the Imperial economic conference vote, 1932, or by the Department of External Affairs.


COFFEE IMPORTS
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1. How many pounds of coffee were imported into Canada during each of the years 1931 and 1932?
_ 2. What was the value of the coffee so imported during each of the above years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2. Canada's imports of green coffee (entered for consumption in Canada) for the calendar years 1931 and 1932 were:
(a) Coffee, green, imported direct from the
country of growth	and	production,	or purchased in bond in	the United Kingdom:	Imports from	1931	1932United Kingdom..	Lb.	2,614,778	2,617,440$	463,130	439,902Aden	.Lb.	7.718	18,689S	1,803	3,771Africa, Br. East.. .	.Lb.	1,531,643	4,352,990$	128,334	401,636Africa, Br. South..	.Lb.	22,080	-$	1,373	-British India.. ..	.Lb.	112,308	78,456S	21,664	14,901Ceylon	.Lb.	11,044	-S	2,823	-British Guiana.. .	.Lb.	27,500	175,705S	1,770	13,910Jamaica	.Lb.	6,858,740	7,907,620Trinidad and	$	691,467	891,126Tobago.. .	.Lb.	570,939	683,650Other Br. W.	$	53,118	70,597Indies.. .	.Lb.	24,265	-S	2,778	-Abyssinia	.Lb.	206,465	65,481$	27,147	9,434Brazil	.Lb.	11,322,374	7,122,998S	917,130	669,017Colombia	.Lb.	5,676.717	5,650,871$	882,484	698,420Costa Rica	.Lb.	87,270	44,610$	18,163	8,074French Africa.. .	.Lb.	10,572	8,818$	1,527	1.031Guatemala	.Lb.	130,447	71,809$	19,697	10,981Hayti	.Lb.	-	2,114S	-	325Mexico	.Lb.	1,484,718	729.036$	243,017	110,767Netherlands	.Lb.	200	. 	S	34	-


TEA IMPORTS
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	How many pounds of tea were imported into Canada during each of the years 1931 and 1932?
2.	What was the value of the tea so imported in each of the above years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1 and 2. Canada's imports of tea (entered for consumption in Canada) for the calendar years 1931 and 1932, were:
Imports from	1931	1932United Kingdom. .	.Lb.	12,472,585	13,468,731S	2,796,486	2,575,629British India. . .	.Lb.	10,739,135	17,049,280$	1.876,828	1,938,478Ceylon	.Lb.	6,579,077	7,027,120S	1,371,135	1,028.930Hong Kong. . . .	.Lb.	132,819	119,543S	18,894	18,695Palestine	.Lb.	-	61S	-	21Argentina	.Lb.	590	3.722S	115	715China	.Lb.	119,038	80,497S	23,214	16,223Dutch East Indies.	.Lb.	39.655	15,085S	3,865	1,135Germany'	.Lb.	75	-$	60	-Japan	.Lb.	2.989.899	2,635,788St. Pierre and	S	373,650	292,756Miquelon. . . .	.Lb.	-	48$	-	21United States. . .	.Lb.	42,609	17,872$	14,397	5,674Total	.Lb.	33,115,482	40,417.747S	6,478,644	5,878,277British countries. .	.Lb.	29,923,616	37,664,735S	6,063,343	5,561,753Foreign countries. .	.Lb.	3,191,866	2,753,012S	415,301	316,524


GROSS WEEKLY REVENUE OF RAILWAYS
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	What was the weekly gross revenue for the Canadian National Railways since January 1, 1932?
2.	What was the weekly gross revenue of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the same period?


Mr. MANION:: Estimated Railway Earnings.
Weekly gross revenues of both railways as reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics were as follows, from January 1, 1933, contrasted with corresponding weekly periods in 1932:-

Canada Shipping Bill
Canadian	Pacific	Canadian	NationalPeriod ended	1933	1932	1933	1932January 7	. .. $1,598,000	$2,052,000	$2,000,014	$2,743,417January 14	.. 1,551,000	2,049,000	2,166,365	2,849,712January 21	. . 1.922,000	2,139,000	2,278,143	3,008,121January 31	. . 2,605.000	2.964,000	3,279,067	3,955,535February 7	. .. 1,777,000	2,178,000	2,234,868	3,064.001February 14	. .. 1,711,000	2,120,000	2,316,046	3,078,251Februarv 21	. .. 1,772,000	2,129.000	2,338,347	3,077,593Februarv 28	. .. 1,837,000	2,617,000	2,565,962	3,623,169March 7	. . 1,984,000	2.377,000	2,416,746	3,176,741March 14	.. 2,011,000	2,276.000	2,415,539	2,982,264March 21	.. 2,003,000	2,298,000	2,470.961	3,208,584
Canadian National figures are for the com plete system in Canada and the United States.


ADVANCE TO CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	On what date was the sum of $2,447,000 advanced to the Canadian Pacific Railway?
2.	Did the Canadian Pacific Railway subscribe to the national service loan of 1932, and if so, for what amount?
3.	On what date was said subscription made?
4.	When was it paid?


Mr. MANION (for Mr. Rhodes):: 1.	$1,447,222.71 was paid on October 17, 1932. The advance of $1,000,000 which has been authorized has not yet been paid.
2,	3 and 4. There is no complete departmental record of loan subscriptions as bonds are taken up directly by clients through their banks.
A statement was made on this matter in the House of Commons on February 7 (see page 2009 of unrevised Hansard).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	From whom was the vessel, C.G.S. Labrador purchased?
2.	When was it purchased?
3.	What amount was paid for it?
4.	To whom was this amount paid and in what way?
5.	What repairs and additions have been made to this vessel since the government
purchased it?
6.	What was the cost of such repairs and
additions?
7.	Who performed such repairs and additions?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: This return is now
tabled.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-DISMISSALS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1. Were the following recently dismissed by the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners: W. D. N. Eckringill, D. McIntyre, E. J. Dougherty, W. McCullough, T. Payne, W. Wright?
2. In each case (a) how long had he served at the Bailantyne pier, Vancouver; (b) what was the length of his overseas service; (c) what was the reason for dismissal; (d) was his place filled by another appointee; (e) did such appointee have overseas service?



CANADA SHIPPING BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox^Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine if he has received a communication from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild of Vancouver representing shipping interests urging him that the bill respecting the Canada Shipping Act be not put through this house this session, in order that they may have an opportunity of looking into it. What is the minister's attitude in that regard?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, from memory I
cannot answer my hon. friend as to whether or not the body to which he has referred has sent representations to my department. We have received some representations urging the passage of the bill, and others urging delay. However, I think the public interest would be best served if we proceeded at this session. I am told proceedings are going on fairly well in the Senate and I hope we will be able to proceed at this session in this chamber.


Alan Webster Neill: We will be here until September, then.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine if the evidence before the Senate committee taken on the shipping bill will be printed?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that up
until this date the sittings of the committee have not been reported.
Mr. GRAY': Will they be?
3536	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot speak for the Senate, but it may be that when hearings begin next week the testimony will be reported. I am not sure.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 53, to amend the criminal code (offensive weapons)-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur):: How far had we gone?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: When section 118 was
under discussion yesterday it was permitted to stand in order that some amendment might be drafted to cover the case of concealed pistols and revolvers and other weapons in motor cars or other vehicles. After consultation with officials of the department I submit the following amendment:
That section 118 be amended by adding after the word "concealed" in the 12th line the words:-
"upon his person or in any vehicle under his control or of which he is an occupant."


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What about an airplane?


Mr. HANBURY:: I think the word vehicle should be defined.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Does it include a boat or airplane?


Hugh Guthrie: "Vehicle" is a comprehensive -word, including all land transport on our highways.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That would not cover an airplane.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any objection to covering an airplane.
Mr. HANBLTRYr: Would that also cover the case of a person who happened to be in an automobile where a concealed weapon was, whether he knew it or not?


Hugh Guthrie: It would apply to the man who had knowledge of it or who was concealing it.


Albert Joseph Brown: Might not that phrase "of which he is an occupant" make it apply to an innocent man?


Hugh Guthrie: No. The word "occupant" is to distinguish from the man who is in control. The occupant may be the man who conceals it; without this wording he might get out by saying, "I am not the man in control of the car."


Albert Joseph Brown: But if it is concealed in the car without his knowledge?


Hugh Guthrie: If he did not do it he i3 not liable.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does this also cover the sawed-off shotgun of which we spoke yesterday?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.
Mr. YrOUNG: Will you read the whole section as amended?


Donald James Cowan: Section 118 will read as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than five years who, not having a permit in form 76, has upon his persou elsewhere than in his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house, or premises, or is carrying concealed upon his person or in any vehicle under his control or of which he is an occupant, a pistol or revolver-


Mr. YDUNG:: That does not cover the sawed-off shotgun.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another amendment. I think I can read it as amended:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years who, not having a permit in form 76, has upon his person elsewhere than in his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house, or premises, or is carrying concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, or in any vehicle under his control or of which he is an occupant.
Mr. MA'RCIL: Supposing a taxi-driver has a pistol, the mere fact of being a passenger might make one liable.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless the taxi man conceals a weapon he is not liable, and unless the occupant conceals it he is not liable.
Section as amended agreed to.
On sections 123, 124 and 127.


Hugh Guthrie: Then there was an amendment which we made yesterday which is unnecessary. I overlooked the Interpretation Act, which defines the word justice. We added the words, "of the peace" in four instances yesterday, but under the Interpretation Act "justice" means "justice of the peace" or two "justices of the peace," so it is unnecessary to use anything more than the word "justice." So in those four cases where we put in Yesterday the words "of the peace" they can be struck out. I move that they be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. CHEVRIER:: At the risk of asking an unnecessary question I wish to ask this, because I have had a number of inquiries, so I hope the minister will forgive me asking the question in order that it may be clear on the record.
As I understand it, this act is directed only towards such weapons as pistols, revolvers and other offensive weapons that may be concealed on the person. The question I have been asked repeatedly is, What about a man who leaves his home with a rifle or shotgun and takes the train for a hunting expedition? Is there any formality incumbent upon this person in order to be protected? If the minister would say as to that it would remove a lot of difficulty.


Hugh Guthrie: No, a man who is carrying a shotgun or rifle going shooting is not involved in this in any way at all.
On section 119 (d).


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection (d) of section 119 was not passed because it was said that there might be an amendment. I have decided not to offer any amendment, to allow it to go as it is printed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that money paid by the provinces for services of the force may be utilized for its maintenance; and for the disposition of moneys earned by any member of the force over and above his regular salary, pay and allowances; and to authorize the governor in council to determine by regulation the amount of allowance for pension purposes; and to make further provision respecting the counting of service in South Africa by officers and constables for the purposes of pension.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask the minister a question with respect to the clause in the resolution which sets forth that money paid by the provinces for services of the force may be utilized for its maintenance. Does that mean that the moneys that are paid by the provinces for the services of the force will not go into the consolidated revenue fund
but will be available immediately for the purpose of paying the force? If such is the case it might create confusion and misunderstanding in the accounts of the force as to the total amount paid out; in other words, the cost of the force to the country.


Hugh Guthrie: At present agreements
have been made with six of the provinces of Canada whereby the provincial police forces which formerly existed have been merged with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. Under these formal agreements, which were authorized by a statute of this parliament, there is payable to the consolidated revenue fund annually the following amounts:
Alberta	 $225,000
Saskatchewan	 175,000
Manitoba	 125,000
Nova Scotia	 150,000
Neiv Brunsiviek	 100,000
Prince Edward Island	 15,000
Out of these moneys the mounted police maintain an establishment in each of these provinces for the enforcement of law, doing the work formerly done by provincial police. Heretofore these moneys have been paid into the consolidated revenue fund and have stayed there, and this is to make these moneys available as they are paid-I believe they are paid half yearly-to carry on the work of the mounted police. The proposal in the bill which I will submit if this resolution is passed is to this effect:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act 1931, the governor in council may, ivhenever in his discretion he deems it necessary or advisable so to do, direct that moneys payable by the provinces under the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, be utilized for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
During the present session, as the house is aware, it has been necessary to utilize about S350,000 of this money in order to carry on the work in these provinces, and about two weeks ago a supplementary estimate was authorized by this house to enable us to get that money from the consolidated revenue fund. As in the past the money will be paid into that fund, but it will be paid out on order of the governor in council if it is found necessary that this should be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
the minister if the effect of this method will not be to conceal from parliament the real or total expense of the force as a whole. If the money for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is appropriated in full in the regular manner this house and the country will know exactly what the force is costing, but if moneys are paid in to some fund by the provinces, and then made available for use at the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
discretion of the minister in order to meet part of the expenses of the force, that cost will hardly be apparent. It may be covered up altogether.


Hugh Guthrie: But the money cannot be paid out except for purposes authorized in the vote of parliament. Here we authorize the expenditure of sufficient money to carry on the work of the force, but of that money there is some $819,000 which comes to us from the various provinces. No money can be paid unless it is first authorized by a vote of parliament.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I fail to get the drift of the minister's remarks. He says the money will be paid into the consolidated .*evenue fund as usual and that it will be paid Dut of that fund by order in council. Is it aot available while it is in that fund for the ixpenses of the police force or for any other impose?


Hugh Guthrie: The difficulty seems to be to get it out of the fund. During this past year, for instance, we were short $350,000 by reason of the fact that we could not get it out of the fund. This is money paid by the provinces into that fund; I suppose the agreement might have provided that the money should be paid to the mounted police, but that was not done.


Charles A. Stewart: I fail to understand the difficulty. The money is in the consolidated revenue fund and is available for payment; it is not tied up there so that you cannot use it. You can pay it out from time to time, from month to month if necessary; you must be drawing upon it now for the support of the force. Surely the minister does not suggest that because it goes into the consolidated revenue fund it must remain there for any definite length of time. It belongs to the revenue fund of Canada, in common with every other payment that is made.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I can see no objection to the money being paid out by order in council as it may be required.


Charles A. Stewart: Is this money transferred into a separate fund for the particular purpose of taking care of the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: That is what we want to do with it. We want to take that money as it comes in and apply it to the expenses of the mounted police in carrying on the work in those provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: Was the money paid by those six provinces last year sufficient to meet the expenditures made in those provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it covered all the extra work we did in those provinces. Of course before the agreements were signed at all we carried on work in the western provinces which is still being carried on, but in all the provinces the amount paid in has been sufficient to meet the extra expense necessary to carry on the work.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister explain what is meant by these words in the resolution:
-and for the disposition of moneys earned by any member of the force over and above his regular salary, pay and allowances;
What does that mean?


Hugh Guthrie: There are various commissions, payments and rewards which come into the hands of constables in the performance of their duties, such as seizures for the customs department and so on. The idea is to create a central fund, a trust fund, into which all these moneys shall be paid. The officers, non-commissioned officers or constables are not to be allowed to use those moneys for their own purposes. There has been such a fund established for some time, and it is only proposed now to vary the conditions which apply to such moneys. That fund has been established under section 21 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; under that act it is provided that the moneys in the fund shall be paid to the minister and shall be paid out by him as follows:
(a)	for the benefit of members of the force and their families and the families of deceased members of the force; or
(b)	to such benefit fund established or as may hereafter be established in the interests of the members of the force or their dependents.
It is proposed to amend that section as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any act inconsistent herewith, all fines and the proceeds of all forfeitures and seizures and all portions of any fine and of any forfeiture or seizure that may be awarded or adjudged to any member of the force in connection with the performance of his duties shall be paid to the minister.
There is no change in that. Here is where the change takes place:
All fees or costs which are ordinarily paid to any member of the force and any remuneration granted to or awarded him by way of salary, commission or fee for duties performed for any department of the federal, provincial or territorial governments or any other organization, or any money whatsoever earned.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
awarded or granted to him in connection with the performance of his duties over and above his regular salary or pay and allowances as a member of the force, shall be paid to _ the minister, except oases in which the minister may from time to time otherwise direct, and this subsection shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of June, 1932.
The change in this section is .set out in the explanation submitted by the commissioner of the force and printed with the bill. It reads:
It will be observed from the above quoted section that there is no provision making it obligatory that all amounts of remuneration, commissions or fees such as those granted in the enforcement of provincial or territorial game laws, salaries or commissions to members of the force acting as collectors of customs at remote points and similar moneys granted to other members of the force, such as costs and so forth, shall be paid to the minister for deposit to the benefit trust fund.
It is now considered that all moneys, fees, costs and any remuneration or commission granted to members of the force of whatever nature, over and above their regular salaries or pay and allowances as members of the force should be paid to the minister for deposit to the benefit trust fund and the new section 21 is intended to accomplish this.
The new section is intended to accomplish this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
present practice with respect to fixing the amount for pension? Is it not done by parliament?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, to some extent. The question of allowances is one that has caused some difficulty. Allowances include house rent where an officer or non-commissioned officer is not living in barracks, and the difference in the value of house rent and barrack accommodation has given rise to considerable confusion 'and a good many inequalities. The old section 44 provided that an officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after ten years' service, shall be entitled to a pension for life not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or permanent appointment at the time of his retirement for each completed year of service. It may so happen that on account of the exigencies of service two officers of equal rank may be receiving different values in connection with allowances. For example, one officer may be living in government quarters in barracks, rent free, and another in a rented house outside barracks and the value of the accommodation may be entirely different. Again, rations for one officer living in a remote region are naturally more costly than those of an officer living in a comparatively thickly populated 53719-224
section. UndeT 'these circumstances, ever since officers of the force were granted the privilege of pensions in 1902, it has been customary for the governor in council to determine from time to 'time what 'amounts shall be authorized for allowances. Notwithstanding this, the question recently arose as to whether the police act permitted such a procedure, and the intention of the proposed amendment is to legalize past practice and to remove any doubt in regard to the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of
what the minister says, it seems that the clause as drafted is misleading. Reading it, one would assume that the governor in council hereafter was to fix the pensions for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The resolution authorizes the governor in council "'to determine by regulation the amount of allowance for pension purposes." I understand from the minister now that this is intended to relate only to the matter of allowances apart from or in relation to or in addition to pensions. ,In other words, it remains with parliament to determine pensions, but the governor in council may determine the allowance in relation to pensions^


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
meaning?


Hugh Guthrie: There are some other
pension clauses in the bill to which perhaps it has reference. There is provision respecting the counting of service in South Africa by officers and constables for the purposes of pension. That may be what it has reference to.
Mr. VfiNIOT:	I would direct to the
attention of the minister the agreement entered into between the provinces and the federal government with respect to the administration of provincial laws by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In a case where the provincial government decides to hand over the administration of the Game Act to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police instead of to the game wardens, the expenses incurred in serving summonses and in connection with travelling will go into the federal fund that is to be established. Under the agreement with the provinces I understand that such amounts go into the provincial and not into the federal fund. If that is the case, this act contravenes the agreement.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it contravenes the agreement in any respect; I cannot see how it does. If the moneys are not payable to the police then the police will not get



Royal Canadian Mounted Police
the gratuities or rewards or whatever they may be; if they are payable, they will get them and the moneys will go into the trust fund. But there are certain classes of -cases where I know that the fines do go to the provinces, and over that we have no control.


Mr. VENIOT:: I am not talking about fines, but about the expense involved in the service of summonses and in travelling expenses to serve the documents. Under this agreement, instead of going to the official himself it will go into the fund. But under the agreement with the provinces I contend that the money should go to the provinces and not into this fund.


Hugh Guthrie: I should not care to decide the matter inasmuch as I have not the agreement before me, but I understand that this has been drawn with strict regard to the agreements.


Mr. MacLEAN:: What is the number of men on the force in each of the six provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry I have the figures only for New Brunswick. The question was asked the other day. However, the agreement fixes it in tach case and I can get the information for the hon. member when the bill comes down.


Edward James Young: The minister spoke about the difficulty of getting moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund for purposes of the police force. What are these difficulties, and how do other departments obtain revenue for their purposes?


Hugh Guthrie: This revenue comes in at certain fixed periods but the expense goes on all the time, and it is very convenient when you need money for upkeep to have it there. Under existing circumstances, it seems that we are not entitled to get it out, just as the other day we had to come for a supplementary amount of $350,000 which had been paid into the consolidated revenue fund. It is all subject to order of the governor in council and cannot be got out otherwise. The expenditure is all accounted for and appears in the Auditor General's report just the same as any other account. It is purely a matter of convenience in financing.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is there any arrangement whereby the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police receive part of their salary in the way of informers' fees?


Hugh Guthrie: No; if they get anything in that respect it goes into the benefit fund. No man is allowed to accept money for his own use. There are, however, certain cases, 
such as custom's seizures and liquor infractions, where there are payments in the way of rewards, and all such money received by any member of the force must go into the fund.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the member of the force credited in some cases with part of the informer's fees?


Hugh Guthrie: He cannot keep it for
himself but must transfer it to the fund.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then he gets no fees?


Hugh Guthrie: No fees himself.


Mr. SPENCER:: The minister gave us the amount of money being paid in the different provinces. He mentioned $225,000 in the case of Alberta and $175,000 in Saskatchewan. What are the reasons for the $50,000 extra for Alberta?


Hugh Guthrie: In Saskatchewan there is an additional payment of $64,000 for the cost of escort and maintenance of prisoners. The amount paid is $175,000, and for the cost of escort and maintenance of prisoners, S64.1S1.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Will the minister explain the purpose of the last part of the resolution which makes provision respecting the counting of service in South Africa by officers and constables for the purposes of pension? I should think this would come more properly as an amendment to the Pension Act rather than as part of the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The first clause of the resolution provides for the transfer of money from the consolidated revenue fund and the second part deals with fees. The last part seems to me an extraordinary provision to incorporate in a bill of this kind.


Hugh Guthrie: The clause is quite simple. A certain number of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did serve in South Africa and the provision now is that if a man served there a year or two, that time should be counted as service in the police force for purposes of pension.


Eugène Fiset: I quite understand that, but I do not see why that is not introduced as an amendment to the Pension Act instead of being embodied in this resolution. When this matter came up in connection with the Militia Act and it was intended that service in South Africa should be counted in computing pensions, this was provided for by an amendment to the Militia Pension Act. I believe the same thing was done as far as the police were concerned. It would be rather awkward to find different provisions in different acts.

Royal Canadian Mounted bolice
Mr. GUTHRIE': It is not under the Militia
Act or the Militia Pension Act, it is under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The provision is that a police officer or police constable who served in South Africa may count such service when applying for pension under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


Eugène Fiset: Would it not be better to have it as an amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


Hugh Guthrie: That is what it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the total amount paid by the provinces as their contributions?


Hugh Guthrie: I gave the figures by provinces, but I have not the total figure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could I have an approximate figure?


Hugh Guthrie: About 8790,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to
the Minister of Finance as set forth in his budget speech of some days ago, the cost of the mounted police force is going up very rapidly. The yearly costs as given by the minister have been as follows:
1928-29	 $2,800,000
1929-	30	
3,100,0001930-	31	
3,192,0001931-	32	
3,444,0001932-	33 (estimated)	
6,245,000
The last figure is almost double the figure of any previous year. Assuming that the provinces contribute about one million dollars, that contribution would not, if I understand the proposal aright, appear in the estimates presented to the house; all the house would be asked to vote would be an appropriation of 85,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: We would ask for the full amount which would have to be spent. There is no doubt that the cost of the force has been increasing but the greatest source of increase has been the fact that we have taken over the preventive service of the customs department. Previously the cost of this service was included in the vote for the customs department. We are doing all that work as well as other work under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The total strength is ninety-eight officers and 2,402 of other ranks, making a total of exactly 2,500. In former years the total strength was between 1,400 and 1,500. The per capita charge this year for all estimates is 82,250 per man. A marine service is carried on in connection with the preventive work, in which are engaged 192 special con-53719- 224J
stables who were taken over from the customs department. Vessels are maintained in this service which were not maintained previously. There are a total of 101 vessels, both sea going and for inland waters. The number of motor cars has been increased to 359, the number of motorcycles to 27, the number of trucks to 13, the number of dogs to 445 while the number of horses is only 256. There are 13 officers and 337 of other ranks engaged in preventive work which with the 192 special constables taken over in the marine section, make a total of 542 men engaged in this service. The total cost of this particular branch of the service is $1,504,104 which should be taken off the total which my right hon. friend quoted.


Eugène Fiset: I understood the
minister to say that the estimates provide for the full maintenance of the force including pay and allowances, and everything else. If that is so, what is the use of asking parliament to enact legislation whereby the money paid by the provinces into consolidated revenue shall be made available for the estimates for the police. The minister is asking parliament to authorize him to take out of consolidated revenue whatever sums of money may be paid in by the provinces over and above the ordinary departmental estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: But not in addition; it
will be part of the money as voted by parliament.


Eugène Fiset: I asked if the full
expenses of the force including pay and allowances, maintenance and everything else were provided for by parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: We are not getting it
both ways. It will form part of the money voted by parliament. It is purely a matter of convenience in book-keeping and is not intended to increase the amount in any way.


Mr.   MARGIE@: Are the mounted police in Quebec engaged solely in the enforcement of federal laws or is there some arrangement with the provincial government?


Hugh Guthrie: Solely in the enforcement of federal laws unless their services are requested by the provincial government or any municipal authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When voting
money for the Canadian National Railways, parliament votes only what is required in addition to what the railways have derived from their own revenues. Is it intended that this shall be a similar course of action, namely, that parliament will be asked to vote a cer-

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
tain amount for the mounted police but that anything which may come in from the provinces will be available in addition?


Hugh Guthrie: Not in addition; the whole amount required will be submitted to parliament in the estimates.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Does the minister propose that he will not draw upon the whole amount voted by parliament if the payments by the provinces make it unnecessary for him to do so?


Hugh Guthrie: I propose that the amount submitted in the estimates will be the total of everything that will be spent.


James Malcolm: But that amount would not be used if there were sufficient payments by the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I will not use it if I can
get it out of consolidated revenue or from any other source. No expenditure will be made which has not been authorized by parliament. It has been represented to me, both by officers in my department and in the Department of Finance, that this is the best way to arrange matters.


Eugène Fiset: When the minister prepares his estimates for the mounted police he must take into consideration the amount of money paid into consolidated revenue by the provinces. He would not be providing for the total amount to be expended for the mounted police. If he should provide for the total amount necessary for the administration of the mounted police he will also be entitled to draw by order in council out of consolidated revenue whatever sums mays have been paid in by the provinces. I assume that if the minister when preparing his estimates takes into consideration the money paid by the provinces, he obtains this from consolidated revenue and then deducts it from the total amount to be provided for in the estimates. He has double authority.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not right.


Hugh Guthrie: But it does not increase the amount.


Eugène Fiset: If you provide in the estimates for the full amount necessary for the administration of the mounted police, you have that money available for expenditure during the fiscal year, and then, by this act, you have over and above that the authority to draw from consolidated revenue the amount paid to any province.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be correct. It was not my view, but I shall have to make inquiries and find out if it is so.


James Malcolm: I would submit that the circumstances are somewhat comparable to thbse concerning the vote for the Board of Grain Commissioners. The house votes the total requirements for the board, and then the board collects in the form of fees practically all the money voted, and at the end of the year, if they have a surplus, it is returned to the Receiver General. If the minister has available the total requirements for the force, if he has available $6,000,000 and also $2,000,000 paid by the provinces, he would have to return to the Receiver General at the end of the year the amount he received from the provinces. I can see no other conclusion if the legislation is as represented by the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: It may be that I was in error in the way I put it; in fact, my hon. friend from Argenteuil says he thinks I was too. The amount of $5,615,000 in the estimates does not include the amount that we are to receive from the provinces.


James Malcolm: That is different.


Hugh Guthrie: But in order to make certain I shall make inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the intention is not to bring before parliament the total appropriation necessary for the mounted police, I think it would be a mistake to have the resolution carry, but if the minister's view as stated at the outset is correct, then in this particular the matter is merely a matter of bookkeeping or convenience in some direction and exception need not necessarily be taken. But it is important, so far as the mounted police force is concerned, that parliament should have disclosed to it very clearly and fully in discussing matters pertaining to the force and especially proposed appropriations, the full amount that is necessary to be expended. Perhaps we can get these details after the bill is introduced?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I can give any details on section 1 of the bill when it is under consideration.
Mr. 1'OUNG: Why is a South African veteran on the mounted police force entitled to a pension for his South African service, while a South African veteran who has not secured a position on the force is not entitled to such a pension? I do not see the justice in it.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: One man is continued in the service and the other is not; that is the only difference.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The latter part of the resolution is not very clear to me. It says:
*-and to make further provision respecting the counting of service in South Africa by officers and constables for the purposes of pension.
May I ask the minister if this provision which is to be applicable in future with respect to calculating the pension of officers and constables who served in the South African war was ever applicable before, or is this something entirely new in the way of pension legislation for South African veterans who now are serving or have served on the mounted police force?


Hugh Guthrie: It is new so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned, but the same provision was adopted in regard to the pensions of the permanent force in Canada some years ago, by chapter 133 of the revised statutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Take the case of a Royal Canadian Mounted policeman who has spent his life in the service, and has been retired on a small pension. Will this clause apply to him so that his pension will be increased?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we have not decided to do that yet. There is an application before us from the veterans of the mounted police force in which they make some four requests. These are all being considered, but up to the present time it has not been decided to include them. They have many requests to make in respect of pensions. We have changed the rate of pension once or twice in the last ten years, and each time it has been changed they say that they have an equitable claim for increased pensions though they are retired from the force, but up to the present time it has not been found possible to meet their demands in that respect. However, as recently as last week a committee was sitting to consider that question. These men are out of the force and they have received their pension according to the scale to which they were entitled at the time they retired. Now they claim that they should have the benefit of all subsequent amending legislation, but up to the present time that view has not prevailed.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are there not many cases where service in South Africa has not been included at all in calculating the pension of those who have retired from the mounted police force?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there would be very
few such cases.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have in mind one or two examples in my own riding where this question has been a live one for many years, and one of my purposes in taking part in this debate is to impress upon the minister the importance of considering these cases. The question has been brought up many times, but no action has been taken by the government.


Hugh Guthrie: In their most recent
memorial I do not see any reference to South African service. They do refer to service in the civil service which they say should be counted in calculating pension, and they refer to a number of other matters. There may be a few such cases as the hon. member mentions, but I think the number would be very small.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the minister give consideration to those few cases?


Hugh Guthrie: The matter is being considered now by a special committee.


James Malcolm: What relation is there between the benefit fund and the pension fund?


Hugh Guthrie: The benefit fund is a trust fund purely for the relief of those who need relief, and it is so distributed. At Christmas time payments are made from it to the various detachments. Widows are sometimes granted an allowance, and children likewise. The fund is managed by the mounted police force itself, but payments are subject to the approval of the minister before being made.


James Malcolm: The money is not used to supplement the pension fund?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister said that there would have to be some $64,000 added with respect to the expenditure in Saskatchewan. Does the $225,000 paid by Alberta cover all the charges there?
Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 58 to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Penitentiary Act



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Penitentiary Act to provide that the governor in council may appoint a superintendent of penitentiaries; and may appoint such inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officer's as may be required, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and that the superintendent, upon the recommendation of the warden, may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers and employees as are necessary, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and to make further provisions in respect to gratuities paid to officers on retirement and the widows or dependents of officers who die in the service.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
this resolution involves the introduction of a bill which means a departure from the merit system and a return to the discredited patronage system with respect to appointments in connection with the penitentiaries of our country. In a word, it will make political machines out of the penitentiaries, and I want therefore to take very strong exception, at the very outset, to the passage of this resolution.
To begin with it will have an unsettling effect upon the whole civil service of Canada. If this important branch of the civil service is to be withdrawn from the operation of the Civil Service Act, and the control of the Civil Service Commission, it will be but the thin edge of the wedge, the introduction, in other words, of a policy on the part of the administration to withdraw other services from the control of the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, I believe, at the time provisions of the Civil Service Act were extended to cover some of the outside services, and they will recollect the difficulty there was in getting the measure through the house and the necessity of backing up their efforts by strong public opinion throughout Canada. However, when the act was extended; it was proclaimed as being a distinct reform and very much in the public interest. Although there are certain distinct limitations with respect to the manner in which the Civil Service Commission has operated, nevertheless if we weigh the advantages against the disadvantages, particularly in regard to the great majority of appointments, the argument would be wholly in favour of retaining the merit

system and promotion under it, rather than returning to the old system of patronage.
I am informed that if this measure carries it will affect about a thousand individuals in the public service in Canada connected with the penitentiaries. I imagine the number is larger than that, but at least a thousand will be affected. The expenditure in salaries for these individuals runs considerably over a million dollars, according to figures already given to the house. It would be a grave misfortune if we were to permit this retrograde step, especially in the form suggested in the resolution. In the first place, not only does the Civil Service Commission lose control, but to a very considerable extent the government loses control over appointments. As I read the resolution, the superintendent of penitentiaries, upon recommendation of the wardens, makes appointments of guards and other officers, without the government having anything to do with it. There is nothing to prevent a warden bringing all his poor relations to the penitentiary and making them guards under his control. No one knows better than the Minister of Justice that when it comes to matters of patronage it is not so much the minister as the patronage committee in the locality which determines the persons who are to be appointed.
Then there is a very special and strong reason why this departure from the control of the Civil Service Commission should not take place with regard to penitentiaries. The reason is that the penitentiaries themselves are institutions existing for the purpose of reform, and the introduction of a patronage system in regard to appointments generally would be certain to have a very serious effect upon discipline and reforms in the penitentiaries.
With respect to one or two of the senior appointments, for example the appointment of a superintendent or wardens, I believe there may be some good reason why the government itself should take the responsibility for such appointments. I do not believe the Civil Service Commission, operating the way in which our commission has operated in the past with respect to the appointment of some wardens, are doing the work as efficiently as it would be done by the minister himself. I said that before, some time ago, and what has happened since bears out the truth of my statement. That a group of gentlemen, none of whom has any special training or the expert knowledge required in determining the qualifications of a warden of a penitentiary, should undertake such appointments, is a course of procedure certainly open to question. All things considered I be-

Penitentiary Act
lieve that concerning important technical positions requiring certain special personal and other qualifications, the minister himself is perhaps better able than the commission to make appointments. But when it comes to the appointment of clerks and guards and other administrative and executive officers as well as those filling minor positions in a penitentiary, I cannot see how the warden is any better qualified than the Civil Service Commission. I should think he might well and should advise the commission with regard to the qualifications of the men under his authority but to leave the making of appointments in his hands is, I believe, a mistake.
I just wish to stress at the outset what has been recognized by the press of all political parties since the resolution appeared on the order paper to be a distinct step backwards and a great misfortune. I was hoping the minister was going to allow the resolution to remain on the order paper until the close of the session, since it had been there already for so long a time. I thought he was paying attention to what seems to be the universal voice of the press with respect to this particular measure. Before we proceed much farther I hope he will be able to give us some reason why he has introduced it at all, let alone why he wishes it to go to the length to which it would appear to go.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the
house that this measure has been brought forward only after very serious consideration not only on the part of myself and officers in my department, but on the part of my colleagues and the senior officers of the penitentiary staff. I am not opposed to the merit system which is recognized under the Civil Service Act of Canada. I supported that measure when it was brought into the house, and I am still prepared to support it. But in my view, and with my perhaps limited experience in penitentiary management I have come to the conclusion that the penitentiary staff is not a civil service staff at all. It is no more a civil service staff than is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the militia force of Canada. Ninety per cent of the penitentiary staff should be considered as a semimilitary or semi-police staff, and not a civil service staff at all.
In his remarks my right hon. friend has intimated that he would not be greatly opposed to, or perhaps would approve of, the appointment of the higher officials on the penitentiary staff, notably the superintendent and wardens, by the minister or by His Excellency the Governor General in council. I am glad he made that statement. But from information I have been able to gather, and experience I have had, and advice that has been given to me, it is far more important in regard to the administration of penitentiaries that the guards and minor officials, who have actual contact all the time with the prisoners, should be selected by some authority other than the Civil Service Commission under which they are now appointed. These men, guards in particular, not only have the actual contact with the prisoners, but they are there for the protection of life, not only their own lives and the lives of the staff but the lives of the prisoners as well, and far greater care should be taken in the selection of guards in our penitentiaries than has been exercised under the system that has been in vogue for the past ten or fifteen years. I have been informed that in Great Britain guards are specially selected by a prison commission, not the Civil Service Commission, a prison commission, operating under the Department of Home Affairs I believe. In England they are for the most part military men or men of military experience. Great care is taken in their selection, and they are given a course of training of about six months before they are trusted in penitentiaries with the full status of guards.
In this country under the Civil Service Commission the system which has been adopted in regard to the appointment of guards is entirely different. Application is made to the warden of the penitentiary by any man who desires to become a guard. If the warden is in need of new guards or is likely to be, he can send application forms to the man and notify him to appear before him at the penitentiary, and if the man is able to measure up to the physical requirements as to health, physique and the like, and has a reasonable amount of education, his name is then submitted to the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa. I presume they go over the particulars in the application as they receive it. They never see the applicant, they are never in contact with the applicant at all, but if on the written application he appears to be all right they simply place his name upon an eligible list, saying John Brown stands 92, John Smith 88, someone else 85 and so on according to merit as the Civil Service Commission view it, having never seen the man. That list is returned to the warden, and as vacancies arise on the staff of guards he picks the names according to the rating on the eligible list by the Civil Service Commission.
Now the warden does not feel very much concerned in the original selection. He is not
Penitentiary Act

the one who makes the appointment, and he knows it. He simply submits names to the Civil Service Commission. They, without much information other than the written statements on their blanks, make the eligible list and submit it to the warden with instructions to take men as the names appear on that list. I do not exactly understand how these eligible lists are prepared, or how long they are supposed to be in force, but I am told that as many as fifteen or twenty eligible lists have been in force in some of the penitentiaries. The result is that while you may pick two or three from the top of the first list you have to go on down to the inferiors before you can start on the second.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Is it not a fact that the eligible list only stands for one year?


Hugh Guthrie: I thought that, but I found it is not so. At least it does not obtain in all the penitentiaries.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There is a statement on the forms to that effect.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Unless it is renewed.


Hugh Guthrie: There seems to be some power of renewal, because I know of more than that in existence to-day. However, what I complain of is that there is no proper scrutiny or examination of guards who are appointed and have been appointed to positions in our penitentiaries for many years back. I am inclined to think that a guard should be more than an ordinary caretaker or anything in that line. In the first place he must have the necessary physique, must be a strong, robust man. He must be a man of some education. We have some guards whose education is so slight that I believe all they can do is sign their own name. He must be a man of intelligence and discretion. He must be a man of courage, that is very essential, because he has to deal with many very daring, reckless prisoners. There is a large proportion of very daring prisoners in our institutions at this time. Above all a guard should be a man possessed of an average amount of human sympathy. I do not mean maudlin sentimentality, but human sympathy and discretion. Another thing that I think a man should have to be a good guard is some idea of military training or military discipline. The experience in England has been that the best penitentiary guards are intelligent men who have had military experience. I do not say they are all good, even at that, because they are not.
It has been represented to me in very definite form by the superintendent that the

present system of appointment is not satisfactory, and he does not think it can be made satisfactory. He is very insistent that some new method be adopted. In order to avoid the charge that I was returning to political patronage by suggesting such a thing, I framed this resolution in a way that would give the responsibility for appointment to the two men most concerned, that is the warden, who has to look out for the safety of the institution, and above him the superintendent who has to supervise and inspect that institution. Let me give what I think is a parallel case, I refer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Nominally I am at the head of the administration of that force. Only nominally, for the purpose of bringing measures to parliament, arranging the finances and the like. I never interfere in any W'ay with appointments to the force, with promotions in the force, with the interior working of the force. I have never interfered in any way in the two and a half or three years that I have been in charge of it. I believe that is an ideal system. The officers at the head of that force absolutely control it in every respect so far as appointments, promotions and the like are concerned. And I would like the same system to prevail in regard to the guards and minor officials in the penitentiaries. I think that all instructors, keepers and attendants, as well as guards, should be appointed directly on the recommendation of the warden, approved by the superintendent. The warden then is responsible for his selections. He knows that his own safety, his own life, may some day depend on the courage and discretion of that man whom he is selecting. Within at the most two months that man will also be inspected by the superintendent. But he does not have to wait two months, under the scheme which t.he superintendent has laid before me. He says, "If the warden certifies that he has examined the man and he is satisfied, then I will let him remain there temporarily until I have a chance of interviewing him myself, which would be on my first visit to the institution in question." Between the two I believe they would select satisfactory men. I think, of course, the inclination would be to carry out the Civil Service Act in regard to returned men, because I know that the superintendent has the view, and I would have the view myself, that returned men who are now entitled to preference, will probably in most cases .make the most satisfactory guards and attendants in our penitentiaries.

Penitentiary Act
Having asked in this resolution and in the bill which will be presented to this house that the immediate staffs in the peniteniaries be appointed by the warden or superintendent without let, hindrance or approval from myself or anyone else, I think we will establish a far better system, will obtain far more efficient and trustworthy guards and will -meet any criticism that might be offered with regard to political partisanship, and we will adopt in every essential the -merit system. We will only take men who are capable of fulfilling all the requirements I have mentioned, and their promotion will depend upon their own efforts.
In regard to the higher appointments, the inspectors and the superintendent, I agree with my right hon. friend; I believe that I or my successor would be just as well qualified to appoint a superintendent, after having looked over the field, as would the Civil Service Commission. I do not feel so much concerned about those appointments as I do about tile guards and minor members of the staff, but I agree with my right -hon. friend that the minister in charge can make just as good a selection of the higher officials as can the Civil Service Commission. One great difficulty which I think every department experiences in regard to civil service appointments is the delay, the correspondence, and what some people describe as the red tape. It takes months to get a position filled. The advertisement must be current for four or five weeks; then a committee is appointed to examine the applicants. They meet and adjourn, meet and adjourn, meet and adjourn; it becomes intolerable. It is true that in the Penitentiary Act there is a provision for emergency appointments for thirty days when an emergency arises, and acting under that provision last fall the superintendent appointed a temporary warden at Kingston penitentiary. That position since has been -made permanent by the Civil Service Commission. Then it became important to appoint two inspectors to take the places of inspectors who had been retired for the improvement of the service; perhaps one appointment has been -made, but up to the present time the other certainly has not been filled. The advertisements have been current; the examinations have been held; the committee of examiners has been appointed. They have -met and adjourned, met and adjourned, and this morning I was told they had made selections.
This is all very inconvenient in connection with penitentiaries and in dealing with the class of people confined therein. I believe my right hon. friend was quite correct when he stated that in his opinion the higher positions might be filled on the recommendation of the minister, or by his excellency the governor general in council. However, I do feel that the pronouncements of the wardens and of the superintendent are so definite in regard to the question of guards that hereafter the guards should be appointed in the manner set forth in this resolution. I do not ask for any power in this matter for myself or my department, but I do ask that the power be conferred upon the superintendent and the wardens of the various institutions, and that is practically all that is contained in this resolution.
Mr. E. R. E. CH-EVRIER (Ottawa):	I
will reserve any extended remarks until the bill is introduced, so that we may know exactly what is before us, but let me say at the outset that I am absolutely and irrevocably opposed to any resolution or any bill that may be based thereon.


Hugh Guthrie: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I thought I closed the debate, though perhaps I did not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister did not
speak on the introduction of the resolution.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thank the hon. minister for his courtesy in not pressing his point, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely opposed to any departure from the merit system. The minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) may not feel that this is such a departure, but. I feel very strongly that it is. The minister says this resolution is introduced after having been given very serious consideration by the officials of the penitentiaries branch and of the Department of Justice. That may be so, but the minister proceeded to say that the penitentiaries staff is not a civil service staff but is of a quasi-military nature. Well, what about the militia department and the naval department? We might go into some other lines of activity in the various departments that are of a similar character. For instance, if the wardens protect life and the property of the government what about the life guards, who also protect life on our coasts? For such a difficult position as a life guard or a light-keeper the Civil Service Commission still has jurisdiction, and I think quite properly so.
I have stated in- this house time and again, that the blame for the administration of the law is not to be placed on the commissioners; the blame must be placed upon the members of this house for having framed a civil service law that is far from adapted to the ends it was designed to serve, and the absolute reluctance of this and former houses to amend that law in accordance with prevailing conditions.
Penitentiary Act

Every time some of us have stood up and advocated amendments to the civil service law in order to make it more pliable, better to meet the exigencies of the situation we have been accused of wanting to return to patronage. As the minister has said, there have been delays, but after all those who are charged with the administration of a law can only discharge their duties according to the terms of that law. If we give to the civil service commissioners, whoever they may be, a proper law, then if they do not administer it to our satisfaction we can blame them.
It may be quite true that the selection of wardens and guards is carried on to-day in a very cumbersome manner, but let me point out some of the difficulties under which the commission must labour. I have before me this joke book, the classification of 1919, under which most of the appointments complained of by the minister were made. Let us see what are the qualifications set out for the superintendent of penitentiaries, and let me remind the house that the Civil Service Commission cannot appoint anyone to that position unless he possesses the qualifications here contained, which are as follows:
Superintendent of penitentiaries; qualifications:	Education equivalent to graduation
from a university of recognized standing; several years of administrative experience in reformatory work

You would think the superintendent of a penitentiary would have to have been a convict at one time.
-thorough familiarity with criminology and the administration of penal institutions; executive ability.
Where will the minister or the Civil Service Commission find a suitable man while they are bound by these qualifications? I think it was silly to include qualifications of this kind, but the minister and this parliament only have to change these qualifications and say what they think should be the type of man appointed to this position. Then the Civil Service Commission can find such a man. What are the qualifications of wardens? The Civil Service Commission cannot appoint anyone unless he has the qualifications set out here, and he would probably be worthless as a warden if appointed under these conditions. But do not blame the commission for trying to find men. who have these qualifications. Let me quote the qualifications;
Education equivalent to high school graduation and preferably university training.
University training! If the best qualified man happened to appear before the board as constituted by the Civil Service Commission under the regulations and he did not have

university training or high school education, though he might be the best warden in the world, they would not appoint him. In addition to that, it is provided that he shall have:
Five years of prison experience-
Fortunately they add these words:
-in a supervisory capacity or experience of similar character and standard; familiarity with criminology and prison problems; administrative ability.
You cannot blame the Civil Service Commission for appointing men who may not be fitted for their position if you insist upon their demanding these qualifications, and tell them that this is the yardstick by which applicants must be measured, the rule by which they shall be appointed. I think it is unfair to say that the commission is unable to make proper appointments so long as we do not provide them with the means whereby to make the best selections. Such criticism cannot be justified. I shall not read the whole of the qualifications for the various kinds of guards, but they are all set out, beginning at page 394 of this joke book for which the Civil Service Commission itself is not at all responsible, because the responsiblity lies with the Griffenhagens and their satellites. This book was forced upon the civil service in 1919 by hon. gentlemen opposite. The act was passed in 1918 to abolish patronage and in 1919, after the Griffenhagens had compiled this joke book, these classifications came into force-classifications absolutely unnatural and not adapted: to the civil service.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who were the Griffenhagens?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Ask the civil servants
who they were. They were American experts, so-called, who at that time ruined the civil service. May I say in passing, that if there are so many difficulties to-day in connection with the civil service in the way of classification it is because the whole system of classifying the service was placed at the outset on a most unnatural basis by men who should never have been called in. The whole trouble to-day with the classification of the civil service lies in the fact that it was placed on that false basis, and government after government has been endeavouring to offset the harm done. The whole thing having been placed on an utterly improper basis, however, it is fearfully difficult to remedy the situation.
What do we find so far as guards are concerned? Let us take the industrial guard-baker. These are his qualifications:
Primary school education; at least two years of experience as a baker and ability to instruct others in bakery work;

Penitentiary Act
Two years of experience as a baker-that
is probably the best qualification set out in the whole book. The other qualifications are these:
ability to understand and manage prisoners; strength and agility; honesty and sobriety.
You have the same sort of qualifications all through in the case of each of these positions: Industrial guard-blacksmith; industrial guard-briekmaker; industrial guard-carpenter; industrial guard-cook; industrial guard-farmer; industrial guard-housekeeper (female); industrial guard (mail bag repairs); industrial guard-mason; industrial guard-miner; industrial guard-plumber, and so on.
Is it to be wondered that there may have been appointed, as no doubt there were, men who have not given satisfaction in the discharge of their duties? But again I say, you must not blame the Civil Service Commission. An hon. gentleman says that it might be well for the superintendent and warden to be appointed by the minister himself. There is a good deal in that, and I have very often given matters of this kind serious consideration. But if it applies to a high officer, the superintendent of penitentiaries, and to wardens, why not apply it also to all other departments in the case of technical men? That question is as old as the Civil Service Act itself-the suggestion that the minister or deputy minister should have discretion in the appointment of technical men. With that I have not very much quarrel; indeed, I have a good deal of sympathy with that proposition. At the same time however I do think that the best method is to give the Civil Service Commission the power _ of selecting these men and to give them working capacity. If the commission were granted these powers they could fill such positions just as well as the minister himself.
There is another feature of this resolution which I do not like:
. . . may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers and employees as are necessary, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council.
That is not a fair proposition, that the governor in council should determine the rates of pay, because they might discriminate here and there, whereas under the Civil Service Act the rates are uniform and everyone knows exactly how much he is going to get, so that there is no favouritism. But here is another objectionable proposal:
And to make further provisions in respect to gratuities paid to officers on retirement and the widows or dependents of officers who die in the service.
After long years of toil we have been able to insert in the statute books of this country
an excellent superannuation law for the civil service, a law which is not yet perfect but which has been of great benefit to civil servants. With a few more modifications it will be probably one of the best superannuation laws in the world. Why not bring these officers under that superannuation law? Let them be civil servants within the terms of the Civil Service Act and let the civil service law apply to them.
When the bill comes up for second reading and when it is in committee of the whole,
I shall have a few more observations to make on the subject.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I rise to oppose the passing of the resolution. I suggest that though the Minister of Justice made an excellent and plausible speech on introducing it, he has not yet shown the house full justification for this measure rather than for an intelligent and rational amendment of the Civil Service Act and the appointment of a strong and effective commission. The minister closed his speech on a note of petulance with regard to the alleged delays of the commission in making appointments. They met, he said, and adjourned, and met and adjourned, and the country waited. I submit to him that this government is emulating only too well this dilatory characteristic of the Civil Service Commission. It would, I think, have been proper for the administration to appoint a new commission long before this late date. If the commission itself be at fault from the point of view of delays, this government is certainly setting it no good example.
I regret the introduction of this resolution because it is just one more of the many steps that I have seen governments of both parties take since I have come to parliament. Sometimes it is in the form of estimates and at other times it is in the form of legislation. Now it is a direct amendment of the Civil Service Act, still further emasculating the act, vitiating it, and destroying its influence in the country. It is not good enough for the minister to tell the house that he is in favour of the merit principle. That does not justify the resolution which is the opposite to the merit principle in so far as the civil service is concerned. There is no question in my mind that the passing of this resolution will lead to an amendment which will result in the restoration of the old type of patronage in penitentiaries. Nay, it will go even further than that; as has been pointed- out already this afternoon, it will place the power of appointment in the hands of the warden or the superintendent. Step by step we see the Civil
Penitentiary Act

Service Act being destroyed. I wonder how many more governments there will have to be before it finally passes upon its sad way.


Mr. McGIBBON:: It should have passed long ago.


Edward Joseph Garland: Both parties are to blame, for in both parties, as in the case of the hon. gentleman who has just interjected, there are those who have never believed in the Civil Service Act or in the merit principle as applied to political appointments. There has always been the frank philosophy that to the victor belongs the spoils.
In 1919 this country definitely changed that principle when it placed upon the statute books what I regard as perhaps one of the greatest contributing and constructive efforts ever made by any Conservative government, but this year, as well as last year, the present government is attempting to destroy the effectiveness of the Civil Service Act. It may be true that the act itself has not been wholly successful, but that is due largely to the fact that the administration of the act has not received at the hands of succeeding governments the full understanding and support of the principles upon which the act is supposed to be based. The minister who introduced this resolution has given to the house a general statement of the objections which have been raised to the methods of appointment. This is the first time I knew that the character of the men nominated under the present method has not been up to the mark. Warden Ponsford of Kingston penitentiary has remarked that the substitution of the merit for the patronage system in penitentiary appointments has been the great single step yet taken to effect improvements in the present system in Canada. If improvements are necessary, they should be made but they should not be made by destroying the machinery which a previous parliament has set up and Which requires only the necessary enlargement or modification to make it work adequately. The fault in the administration of the act lies not in the principle underlying the act but in the way in which that principle has been modified, qualified, submerged and crushed out of existence by the politicians of both parties. I do not place the blame in this regard upon any one party. I have mentioned Warden Ponsford but I wonder if the minister has studied the evidence given by General Hughes before a civil service committee of this house. In reply to a query by a then cabinet minister as to whether he would prefer to select men for prison guard 
work or have the selection made by the Civil Service Commission, General Hughes said, "I would prefer they would do it, very much". The evidence continues:
Q. Why?
A. Under the system in which they appoint them it gives our warden practically full control over them, because it gives our warden an opportunity to see whether they are satisfactory to him or not, and if they are not he has only to let them go. Under the old system if we were saddled with a bad man, we would have to keep him.
General Hughes stated that if they were saddled with a bad man, they had to keep him because otherwise they would offend the committees of political patronagemongers who were involved in the appointment. The evidence continues?
Q. Under the system none of the officials of the government has power to dismiss him?
A. I would not say that.
Q. What would you say?
A. You could not dismiss a man unless you had something on him.
And again:
Q. Is it the policy and the purpose that men shall join the penitentiary service at the bottom and that thereafter as far as possible all higher positions shall be filled from the men in the penitentiary service?
A. That is the only sensible policy.
Q. Do you support it?
A. es, and we are able to pretty well work that out in so far as our discipline of the staff is concerned under the Civil Service Commission, but we never were before. May I tell you something? Some years ago we had a deputy wardenship vacant in one penitentiary.
Q. Where?
A. Please don't ask me where. And the Minister of Justice who was then in charge, is now dead. He sent for me to ask me something or another about the duties of the position. I was taken here to his red room in the Senate where I had an hour or so private conversation with him, and he said to me: "They ask me for a commission to make some vacancies in order to give them an opportunity to let some of their political followers get a job. They got a commission and they made eleven (if I think correctly) vacancies, and the first thing the executive, the political executive of the town in which the penitentiary was situated, did was to recommend me a greengrocer for the position of deputy warden?'
Q. A grocer in the business of selling vegetables?
A. I am repeating exactly as he made the statement to me.
That is the kind of thing which happened under the old patronage system but no complaint of a similar character has been lodged since the enactment of the Civil Service Act. At the present time I think there are six penitentiaries in Canada with about 965 employed. At the time General Hughes was giving evidence there were seven penitentiaries with 416 employees. Those employees

The Royal Assent
took care of 2,340 inmates while the present 965 employees take care of 4,164 inmates. The type of guard employed should be of the highest possible quality and this resolution proposes that the superintendent upon the recommendation of the warden shall have the appointment of guards and those to fill other minor positions. At the present time the warden recommends the appointment of a guard in which the Civil Service Commission concurs. We are simply supplanting the Civil Service Commission with a politically appointed superintendent.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not right.


Edward Joseph Garland: Any
appointment made by a government is a political appointment.


Mr. SPENCE:: Try and get one in somewhere.


Hugh Guthrie: The present superintendent was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
talking about the present superintendent, I am talking about what is going to happen if this resolution should pass. We will have a politically appointed superintendent passing upon recommendations for appointment made by the wardens. The thing is perfectly absurd. I believe the minister is sincerely interested in the merit principle but I appeal to him to offset any complaints made as to the administration of the act by the strengthening of the act and by placing upon the commission those men who are best qualified to fill the position.
The records of this house show that in the past we have not been wise in these appointments. We are inclined to blame any maladjustments or misfits in the service on the Civil Service Commission and on the Civil Service Act itself, when we should really blame it on the personnel of the commission. In closing these brief remarks at this stage of the discussion I would draw to the minister's attention the words of his own leader the Prime Minister of Canada, then in opposition, speaking on September 30, 1930.	*



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the roj'al assent to the following bills:
An Act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
An Act respecting the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan and to change its name to "Synod of the Diocese of Saskatoon."
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act. (Special tax.)
An Act to amend The Salary Deduction Act, 1932.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Borham WTillson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Clarence Eldon
Durham.
An Act for the relief, of Maurice Pasklink Simon, otherwise known	as	Maurice Simon
Pashlinski.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Rae Dixon.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Adrien
Desmarteau.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Henry Norman
Bethune.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act (exclusive jurisdiction).
An Act to amend the Dominion Notes Act.
An Act respecting The Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association and to change its name to "Ukrainian Mutual Benefit Association of Saint Nicholas of Canada."
An Act respecting Relief Measures.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration, of the motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Penitentiary Act to provide that the governor in council may appoint a superintendent of penitentiaries; and may appoint such inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers as may be required, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and that the superintendent, upon the recommendation of the warden, may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers and employees as are necessary, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and to make further provisions in respect to gratuities paid to officers on retirement and the widows or dependents of officers who die in the service.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, when I was so rudely interrupted by repre-

Penitentiary Act

sentatives of another place I was just about to quote the words of the Prime Minister. In respect of civil service matters he is reported as having said:
By personal investigation I have come to the conclusion that the fair way to deal with the civil service is, first, to appoint to the Civil Service Commission a member of the civil service;
Well, he has had two whole years to do it -he has really had three, but certainly he has had two since the house decided it was time to get rid of the old commission. Then, to continue the report:
Second, to maintain the merit system and rigidly adhere to it, something the present administration has not done.
I most assuredly say that this bill, and the action of the committee on civil service matters of last year would indicate that the Prime Minister and the government is not at all averse to further despoiling the 'Civil Service Act and disregarding the. merit system in regard to civil service appointments.
I most earnestly urge upon the minister that he reconsider the whole matter and not press the resolution to a vote, much less introduce a bill this year.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising at this time to oppose the passage of the measure. I certainly am opposed to any departure from the merit system. No matter what fault may be found with it, or no matter what fault the minister may see in it it -is still the better system. I maintain if there are any defects in the present civil service appointments, they should be remedied. To leave appointments entirely in the hands of one man would be a retrograde step. I am not sure whether the minister is perfectly correct when he says that in the past the warden had no say regarding appointments. The minister told the house that the list was first selected by the Civil Service Commission, and that from the list, according as the men were rated, appointments were made. I think that is hardly correct, because I know of men who did apply, and although they had the necessary civil service requirements, it had been found by the warden that there was something against them or that they were not suitable. I know that on the advice of the warden those men did not receive appointments. Speaking particularly for British Columbia, I believe the wardens have had a keen eye on the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission. I doubt very much if men were given appointments just because they were the proper height and had the necessary educational qualifications. My inI Mr. E J. Garland.1
formation is that the warden sizes up the men, and that he has been in the habit of sending recommendations along with the list, stating that Jim Jones would be eligible, but that Sam Hill would not and so on. It is easy to see what may happen if the proposed legislation becomes effective. I do not 'believe for a moment that it is the intention of the present minister that this should take place, but it could very well be that a warden could dismiss half or the whole of the men there and then hire others. It may well be that the warden himself could lose his position and a military man be put there, and that he could or would employ all military men. Complete new staffs could be appointed if this resolution went through as proposed by the minister. There might be also wholesale dismissals. Then another point; if there were wholesale dismissals, what about those men who have been paying to the superannuation fund less than ten years? There would be difficulty and hardship regarding that. It might- be possible that military organizations could be put in charge of a penitentiary, and the procedure might even go to the extent of appointing visiting commonwealth forces to take charge. And further, say, a military man was given an appointment in a penitentiary, he might deem it advisable, if one of the commonwealth forces were in this country, to have the force for the time 'being in charge of the penitentiary. That is a possibility. Anything could happen. There is no restriction of any kind as long as it meets with the approval of the minister or of the warden.
Then the minister spoke about the course of training, and mentioned the old country. I think training is very desirable. But the course of training would not amount to much if a new warden were appointed and wanted to dismiss most of the men in the organization. The fact that they had experience would not count for much if they did not meet with the approval of the warden who had been appointed.
There are other requisites besides courage. Courage I know is very important, especially during these times when we are dealing with a class of prisoner which is inclined to be revolutionary, if one should use that expression. But something more than punishment should 'be kept in view in confining men in penitentiaries. There is also the matter of endeavouring to fit them for reestablishment in civil life. A guard or instructor may have courage, he may have military training, but that would not mean that he would have any kindliness towards the prisoner. At this stage I do not intend to say any more but I am

Penitentiary Act
certainly going to oppose this bill because I think it is a retrograde step. Many hon. members on the other side when they were in opposition voiced their objection to anything tending to a return to patronage, but now it seems, according to their "hear, hea-r's," that it would be all right. I do not understand how they can reconcile the two positions.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I rise to say a few words in opposition to this resolution, because it is another step towards taking away from the returned soldiers the preference provided for them in the Civil Service Act. They have had this preference for a number of years, and certainly there is no one who has complained of it. We had evidence a few days ago that this government is prepared to go a long way in cutting down the privileges of returned men, when, in introducing the budget, it announced that those in the civil service drawing pensions would have their pensions stopped. In this resolution we find it carried another stage, the government will be able to appoint whom they will without regard to the preference provided in the Civil Service Act for returned men. It is within my recollection that last year or the year before when certain postmasters were allowed to be appointed outside of the Civil Service Act we retained the preference to returned men. So may I urge upon the minister that when he introduces this bill he insert a clause giving to the returned men the preference provided in the Civil Service Act. I think that is fair and will meet with the approval of this house and the country generally. I urge that upon the favourable consideration of the minister.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to protest against the passing of this resolution and the bill that will be based upon it. There are two methods by which appointments to the civil service of this country can be made, one the patronage system, which we had prior to the appointment of the Civil Service Commission, the other appointment by merit, which has been more or less in effect since the setting up of the commission in 1919. However, every year since that time various groups have been taken from under the control of the Civil Sendee Commission, and this is an attempt to take yet another group away.
We can well understand the position that the Minister of Justice finds himself in at the present time; owing to the difficulties of the times a great strain is being put upon the penitentiaries and those who conduct them. There is no doubt about that. Possibly
they find the situation difficult to cope with. But it does not at all follow that the method of appointment of the staff is the cause of the difficulty, and it does not at all follow that if the appointments are made in some other way the difficulties will be removed. I maintain that if appointments made at the present time are not satisfactory the wardens are to blame, and that the situation will not be improved if more power of selection is put in the hands of the wardens.
When applications are received by the commission they are considered by an advisory board, on which the penitentiary branch is represented. Obviously unqualified applicants are eliminated, and those whom the board recommends as apparently suitable are called up for oral examination, at which examination the warden of the penitentiary concerned is in attendance. The board recommend the candidates whom they find qualified. Up to this time the warden has in every instance concurred in the findings of the oral examination board, which consists of himself, a representative of the Civil Service Commission, and, in cases where the applicant or any of them are veterans, a representative of the Canadian Legion. So that if the guards or any of the employees engaged have not been of a sufficiently high standard it is due to the wardens themselves certifying as suitable men who are unfit. Besides, there is another safeguarding clause, that the person selected may be dismissed any time within six months of his appointment; so the superintendent may have opportunity of ascertaining the fitness or otherwise of the person so taken on before his appointment becomes permanent. I believe that gives all the opportunity possible for the selection of properly qualified guards in the penitentiaries. However, I should like to point out that if the commission does not function as it should, or as we think it should, I believe the commission could be improved. Last year I had the honour to be a member of a special committee of this house that investigated the Civil Service Commission and, as has been said already, recommendations were made by that committee suggesting the retirement of that commission and the appointment of new members. Up to the present time this has not taken place.
There is another point to which I should like to direct attention, and I believe this is one of the most serious matters facing the people of this country. I refer to the statement of the minister that the staffs of the penitentiaries should be considered as semi-military. My understanding is that penitentiaries
Penitentiary Act

are places where men who have been tried by civil courts, under civil procedure, are placed for safe keeping or correction. The extension of militarism in this country is going on apace. One day we have the appointment of mounted police as truant officers; then we have their appointment as game wardens, and now we are to have our penitentiaries militarized. Soon I am afraid the civil courts may be abolished and we will have military court martials instead of the ordinary civil procedure if this government remains in power much longer.
I protest against this move, because I do not think it is necessary. I believe the Civil Service Commission is the body best qualified to make appointments to any part of the civil service.


Mr. JEAN:: I should like to ask the minister a question before making up my mind in connection With this resolution. Will the act provide for a bilingual superintendent and bilingual officers so far as the province of Quebec is concerned?


Hugh Guthrie: I should say yes.


Joseph Jean: Even with regard to the superintendent?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. ARTHUH DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution under
consideration is certainly worthy of our attention, and had it to a greater extent pledged the responsibility of the government, I would have been disposed to congratulate them. I think that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) should have assumed the responsibility of appointing not only the superintendent of penitentiaries, the inspectors, wardens and deputy wardens, but also the guards and other employees.
According to the views expressed in this respect, some members are under the impression that the hon. Minister of Justice, by this resolution, wishes to set aside the system of appointing officers according to their qualifications. I think that the merit system in respect to guards can be applied just as well by an official of the department as by outside officials who are not connected with that department. It behooves ministers to assume full responsibility for such appointments. Reference is made to favouritism, it still exists under the Civil Service Commission, however, it is concealed. The time has come when all such hidden practice should disappear in the administration of public affairs, we should proceed openly. Ministers of the crown should assume the responsibility of appointing the officials of their department,
[Mr. Maclnnis.1
and later on when called upon, give an account to the people of such appointments.
As far as I am concerned, I would approve of this resolution, if its powers were more extensive, and I trust that when the hill comes before the committee, certain amendments will be introduced in order to allow the minister to assume the responsibilities which are incumbent to his office and later on give an account of it to the people.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I should like to ask the minister if he has received the commendation of the civil service federation in connection with this measure.


Hugh Guthrie: Am I at this stage entitled to speak again?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The house is not now in committee. Hon. members speaking to the resolution may do so once only.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then may I say that so far as I am concerned I have learned of a good deal of opposition to the move the minister is contemplating, and that opposition comes from practically every civil servant in the riding of North Battleford. These civil service locals have asked me to make the minister aware of this fact. I am doing so to-day; I am giving that echo of opposition to the minister in the hope that he may decide to change the bill even at this late date.
So far as this measure is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I believe it will be detrimental to the civil service in general. We have no national civil service council; no constitution for such a body has been worked out or put into effect. So, while this action will meet with much opposition, that opposition will not be so strong as it would have been if this national council had been in existence. Therefore, in opposing the move of the government, I am expressing the opposition of civil service locals in the federal riding of North Battleford.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: I should like to read one or two opinions into the record in connection with the resolution now before the house. I am not convinced that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) made out a case for the transfer of the responsibility for these appointments from the Civil Service Commission to the superintendent and the wardens of the penitentiaries. I have before me a report in connection with the recent disturbances in the Kingston penitentiary. In the conclusions drawn in that report there is no recommendation of any kind that might lead the government to adopt this policy.

Penitentiary Act
The minister said that these guards should be considered as a semi-military body. We must appreciate this fact, that the discipline of a military body has been built up with hundreds of years of back-ground. I am not convinced that, should this policy be adopted, we shall not very soon have once more the old state of political patronage. I have here a statement made by the superintendent of penitentiaries for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1926. At page 15 he has this to say:
The greatest drawback to our Canadian penitentiaries in past years, before the Civil Service Commission made appointments, was by the appointment of wardens and other administrative officers, without any experience or training in penitentiaries or knowledge of the criminal and his methods. . . . All that was necessary was that they required the position and it suited those in power to appoint them.
With further reference to the question of political pressure in connection with the appointment of officers to the penitentiaries,
I would read part of an interview which appeared in Collier's Weekly, as copied in the Ottawa Citizen of February 23, 1927. Mr. William G. Shepherd, a special representative of that American magazine, interviewed the superintendent of Kingston penitentiary for the purpose of comparing American and Canadian prison methods. After outlining the state of affairs in the country to the south of us, where politics rather than merit predominated in the appointment of officials to the penitentiaries, he asked the question, "Are affairs like that in Canada?" The interview goes on:
"I'm glad you asked me that," said the Canadian superintendent. "There was a time here when wardens had to accept the guards who were sent to them. Politicians picked the guards."
"I remember, years ago, a guard who was put into a penitentiary position by a powerful politician. He was an ex-inmate, with a long, bad record. But the politician insisted, and a certain warden had to make a place for him. As was anticipated, within a few months the ex-inmate yielded to the temptation to handle money for prisoners."
"I saw that, no matter how good our plans might be for turning our penitentiaries into factories where we could turn out good men as well as good factory products, we would have to have honest guards, under the absolute rule of honest wardens."
"To-day our officers are selected by the Civil Service Commission. Their standard is high."
I verified this at Kingston penitentiary. I have never seen, in any American prison, such clean-cut young men in the corridors as I saw about the Kingston institution.
I have been in American prisons where. wardens did not dare to discipline certain of their own guards who were special pets of powerful politicians. No wonder they were failing in the effort to run their prisons in orderly fashion and to discipline prisoners when necessary.
In Kingston penitentiary, under the superintendent's direction, which extends to all penitentiaries in Canada, Warden Ponsford exerts, it seemed .to me, even more discipline over tire guards than he does over the prisoners themselves.
"If you ask me," explained the superintendent, "to say what is the greatest boon toward advancement that has taken place in connection with the management of Canadian penitentiaries, I would have to say:	The
change in the method of appointment of officers: in other words, the taking of the authority to appoint out of the hands of the local politicians and placing it under the control of the Civil Service Commission."- William G. Shepherd in Collier's Weekly.
I think that substantiates the statements of hon. members who have spoken in opposition to the principle of this measure. Last year we saw that nearly four t.hosuand men who had previously been under the jurisdiction of the commission were placed within the purview of party patronage, and I am not so sure that the policy which the government contemplates will not work in an entirely opposite direction to that which the minister anticipates. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed change in policy.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Smoke in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister give an estimate of the number of officials who are likely to be affected?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that anyone can estimate how many are to be affected, nor do I know that any retirements are contemplated. I know that within the past three months a number of inefficient officials have been retired for the greater efficiency of the service. I do not think that at the present time there is any particular case in contemplation at all. Permit me to say that I think the suggestions which have been made in regard to retirements have been rather extravagant.
It has been suggested that if this bill is passed as drawn it will be within the power of the superintendent and the wardens practically to retire the whole staff and appoint a new one. To my mind that is an unreasonable suggestion. This proposal gives power to the superintendent and the warden to appoint all the minor officials, the administrative officials in the penitentiary itself. I submit that this is an endorsation of the merit and not at all of the political system. The warden will be the man at first responsible for applications and passing on the applicant,

Penitentiary Act

and if the applicant passes muster with him he will be put on for temporary appointment only until he has been tried out and approved by the superintendent.
The proposal of the superintendent in regard to guards is as follows. When a man has been accepted he shall undergo a course of training, that training to take place during his employment in the penitentiary establishment. It will last from three to six months before he is considered a fully equipped guard. That I believe is the term of instruction in Great Britain. It is also suggested that for the purpose of giving these guards training the wardens shall hold classes in the institution at the outset. One of the greatest deficiencies in the present guards is their lack of familiarity with the ordinary rules and regulations of the institutions. Many of them who have been there for a considerable time are not yet fully up on their own regulations. Another thing which in the opinion of the superintendent is very important is the lack of any training in the use of firearms. The superintendent, who of course has been trained in military work, has told me that on visiting various institutions he found that very few guards had any knowledge whatever of firearms. He said it was dangerous to be with them when they tried to explain an ordinary rifle or to load it. Many do not know how to load a rifle. We have had one or two accidents in the penitentiaries-I do not mean in the riots-in connection with the use of firearms by guards. They are almost totally inefficient in that respect. Firearms are dangerous things and some training in their use is necessary. It is anticipated that the Department of National Defence will be in a position to let us have the loan for a limited time of certain instructors to instruct the guards in the various penitentiaries at least in the elementary principles of the use of firearms. The wardens themselves will conduct classes with regard to prison regulations and special guards will be appointed to see that new guards are properly instructed in the handling of prisoners. After a probationary term of from three to six months it can be decided whether or not the proposed guard measures up to the requirements.
It was rather a surprise to me to find out that both the wardens and the superintendent placed considerable emphasis upon the guards and other minor officials in the prison establishments. It was found during the recent riots in Montreal, in Kingston and in New Brunswick that many of the guards were quite unable to cope with the situation confronting them. They did not know what to do. A fire took place at St. Vincent de Paul and

it was found that there had been little or no fire drill in that institution. There had been practically none at Kingston but fortunately no fire occurred there. These are matters to which the superintendent attaches great importance.
Apart from all this, there is the safety of the prisoners themselves. A reckless or careless guard may do things in a moment of excitement which he would not do otherwise. As I say, there have been one or two instances where lives have been sacrificed by the careless use of weapons by guards. It is felt by the higher officials that the best system is that proposed by this measure. I expected that the charge would be levelled that patronage was breaking into this matter, but I think I am within the mark when I say that there is absolutely no patronage in the case of the mounted police. If we can have an establishment in our penitentiaries comparable to the mounted police, to my mind we would have almost an ideal system. It has been suggested that under the present system the wardens select the guards. That is not so. The wardens know that they have not that power and in most cases their examination of the prospective guards is rather perfunctory and not as complete as it should be. It was discovered recently that we had taken on two active communists as guards in one of our penitentiaries.


Ernest Lapointe: Were they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Hugh Guthrie: They were placed upon
the eligible list by the commission. Of course, they were immediately released. I do not say that the same thing will not happen in exceptional cases under the system now proposed, but the object of this measure is to improve the morale, the discipline and the welfare of the prisoners, as well as the prisons themselves. It is intended to do this with a merit system entirely divorced from political patronage. That is the reason why this rather exceptional power is to be given to the wardens and the superintendent instead of to the governor in council.
A moment ago my hon. friend from North Battleford fMr. McIntosh) asked whether the Amalgamated Association of Civil Servants supported this measure. I received a communication from a Mr. Knowdes-I believe he is the secretary of the association-protesting against this measure. Through the efforts of Mr. Knowles I received similar protests shortly afterwards from civil servants in almost every quarter of Canada. They seem to imagine that they are a law unto themselves and that the Civil Service Commission

Penitentiary Act
is their sheet anchor. They seem to think that no one can offer an amendment to the present system without their consent. I do not agree with that. The penitentiary officials are not members of the Amalgamated Association of Civil Servants; they have never been admitted to and have never desired to join with that association. Practically all the resolutions which I received were the same and probably they were drawn up in Ottawa and sent out through the country. I have great respect for the civil service of Canada but I do not think that they should dominate the judgment or will of this parliament. I take them for what they are worth, as representatives of an interested body, but if I feel that I can improve the system, I am quite willing to do so even at the risk of offending the Amalgamated Association of Civil Servants.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister will admit
that the representatives of the civil servants have a perfect right to protest to the department in connection with a policy of this kind?


Hugh Guthrie: I certainly do, and I have acknowledged receipt of their protests. There are many positions in the governmental service which are not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The late government, I think with the assistance of my vote, appointed a large number of preventive officers. I think there were some six or seven hundred such officers, three hundred and fifty of which are now in the mounted police. None of these men come under the Civil Service Commission. In the Department of National Revenue there is a large staff of appraisers who are not appointed by the commission. There are a large number of employees in the Department of Finance in a similar position. The employees of the Soldier Settlement Board and of the department presided over by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) are not subject at all to the Civil Service Commission. The members of the military forces and the mounted police, the employees of the tariff board, the radio commission and the research council also do not come under the commission. There is no new departure suggested by this measure. This organization is more a police than a civil organization and there is every reason why some latitude should be given to these prison officials. For these reasons I think I can fairly ask that this measure be passed by the committee.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: When the committee took recess the hon. Minister of Justice had given further explanations about this resolution, and among other things he said that the reason why this resolution was introduced upon which later legislation may be based was that it had been found with regard to the penitentiary guards that there was a lack of knowledge of the rules of the penitentiary, a lack of knowledge of firearms, and a lack of knowledge of the care of prisoners. That may all be true, and with that I have no quarrel, although it would be unfortunate if it were so. But I say that the responsibility for that condition is misplaced. As I pointed out this afternoon, these appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission, and they made the appointments under the conditions I pointed out. The Civil Service Commission measured the qualifications of these men by a measure which had been given them, over which they had no control, and if that measure was defective in producing the type of man required it was no fault of the Civil Service Commission. This resolution is introduced, the minister says, for the purpose of appointing men of certain qualifications. These men will be appointed, he says, and thereafter the warden will give them lectures on the observance of rules; they will be trained in the use of firearms, and given certain information about the care of prisoners. But all that could be done now. All that needs to be done now is to say to the Civil Service Commission, "The rules under which you have been operating have been found wanting. Those rules have been defective. Hereafter we want you to appoint men of a certain calibre, and here is the standard by which you will have to measure these men." So I say let us change the rules under which these men are appointed, and let the Civil Service Commission continue to appoint them according to the new standard. All that need be done hereafter could be done right now in that way. The minister will understand, I trust, that I am not saying this in any offensive way because I think he knows the esteem I have for him, but he will have to use more convincing logic if he wants even to attempt to convince me that the step he is now taking is in the right direction.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
53719-225J

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Penitentiaries-amount required for cost of administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies and equipment, maintenance and discharge of inmates at Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba, British Columbia, Piers Island, Saskatchewan and Collins Bay penitentiaries, $2,941,400.
Mr. LUCAS:: Would the minister explain the decrease in this item?


Hugh Guthrie: We have, as is known, a very large increase in our penitentiary population, but by cutting down our expenditure program in the way of buildings we are able to show a decrease in the vote this year. I suppose it is well known that in regard to construction in the penitentiaries a very large part of the work is done by prison labour. One difficulty is to find enough suitable work for prisoners to do. The work is not in all cases what you might call skilled labour, and therefore it is done more slowly perhaps than if it were done by contract in the ordinary way. We purpose curtailing building operations to some extent, in order to lessen our expenditures during the present year.


William Thomas Lucas: What part of this vote is for administration purposes?


Hugh Guthrie: I can give the figures for last year; the figures for this year will be about the same. The number of prisoners last year was 4,164, but on account of the Doukhobors the number has been increased to above 5,000. There were 740 employees on the staff, now increased to about 900. The total expenditures last year for administration, salaries and the like amounted to $93,634; the figure this year will be slightly increased, although I have not the figure before me.


Mr. HEAPS:: What damage was done during the recent riots?


Ernest Lapointe: If the minister will permit me, I should like to say that there are many hon, members who want to speak on the penitentiaries item. I believe this is the only place in the estimates where such a discussion could take place and-


Hugh Guthrie: As a matter of fact I
had not intended calling this item.


Ernest Lapointe: I ask the minister to
let the item stand.


Hugh Guthrie: I intended to call the
civil government item, but someone called for item 43.
Item stands.
Justice - salaries, $208,998; contingencies, including the Solicitor General's office, $40,000.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: According to the
press, a report has been furnished the government concerning the case of Judge Stubbs. I should like to know if the Minister of Justice is prepared to make any statement in that connection.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not be prepared
to make any statement at the present time. The report on the evidence has been received and referred to the Department of Justice. There are four very large volumes of evidence and a whole mass of exhibits that were filed at the hearing. To do justice to the quantity of material in hand would take some time; we have but begun. I fancy I am correct in stating there are probably 2,000 pages of typewritten evidence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister cannot tell us when a decision will be made in regard to the case?


Hugh Guthrie: No; as soon as we can
carefully deal with the matter I shall bring it to the attention of the house, but I cannot say when that will be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suppose until
that is done we cannot do any anything. However I should like to say a word with regard to the case. Without discussing its merits, may I say that a large number of citizens in the city of Winnipeg are deeply interested in the case, and large numbers are very sympathetic towards Judge Stubbs. As a matter of fact a petition has been prepared and along with several other members I was asked some weeks ago to present it. I am told by one of my colleagues that it was presented this afternoon, and I am glad to hear it. Before the report had been made I felt that I could not present the petition, and I think that attitude was taken by some other members. Yet I should like to express my own very great sympathy with those who are presenting the petition. A great many of them of course will have no opportunity of going into the legal side of the case or viewing the evidence closely. On the other hand I think the idea behind all of it is that Judge Stubbs himself has been very-
Mr. MeGIBBON: I rise to a point of order; this whole discussion is out of place. This matter is sub judice and the hon. member's

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
remarks are nothing but publicity and advertising for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order is well taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to speak to the point of order. There are two things I resent in the statement which has been made. First of all, this is not being brought forward for the purpose of advertising for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is not discussing the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The second point is that the case is not sub judice; the report has already been presented. Some of us have been very careful indeed to make no statement at all until the report had been presented.


Hugh Guthrie: Well then, wait until it has been presented.


Peter McGibbon: You are getting it in, anyway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say the report has already been presented. Some of us were very careful to say nothing until the evidence had been brought in and the report presented.


Peter McGibbon: I rise again to a point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The point raised by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is well taken, because the subject about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is speaking is not now before the committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order. The only point of order stated is that this case is sub judice, which is not correct.


Peter McGibbon: The discussion is out of order until the judgment is made known.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I am not a lawyer, nor is the member for Muskoka-Ontario, but I know that much about the law.


Peter McGibbon: That is only common
sense.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My opinion is-and I may be wrong-that the subject is still sub judice, because the report has not been made, and consequently it could not come under the item we are discussing.


Alan Webster Neill: Where would it come, then?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I said the point of order is well taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking to the point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have given my decision on the point of order. The only remedy left to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to appeal my decision.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do appeal then, against your decision.


Ernest Lapointe: You are alone. Did you appeal?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I cannot see, when the evidence is all in-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order; the hon. member has appealed and cannot speak any further. I am making my report to the Speaker.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say we are dealing with the civil government item?


Mr. SPEARMAN:: On the item, Mr. Chairman-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Where do we go from
here?


Alfred Speakman: When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to know where we are on this matter.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He is getting his decision written down.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The chairman having ruled that discussion of the report on the investigation concerning His Honour, Judge Stubbs, is not a proper subject of discussion while considering the item of supply before the committee, Mr. W'oodsworth appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the chairman's decision be confirmed? All those in favour will say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Those opposed will say
nay. In my opinion the ayes have it.
The ruling of the chairman was confirmed, and the house resumed in committee of supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Minister of Justice a question? I notice in the details of civil government, Department of Justice, that the minister, who really controls the department, is head of the department, has one assistant private secretary at $2,400. But the Solicitor General has a private secretary at $4,120 and a joint private secretary at $3,000. Could the Minister of Justice explain how it is that he has only an assistant private secretary, and the Solicitor General, who I do not suppose has the same responsibility as

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
the Minister of Justice, has two private secretaries?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot explain any more than to say that I find I can get on very well with one assistant private secretary. I have never filled the position of private secretary since I was appointed, and we have made a very large saving in that respect. I think my predecessor had two private secretaries and one aissistant.


Ernest Lapointe: No, one private secretary and one assistant.


Hugh Guthrie: The work in the Solicitor
General's office has been enormously increased since the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act was placed in his department. I know he has quite a large staff who do nothing else; in fact I was told to-day that the oor-respondance of that department now amounts to 40,000 letters a year. There is this other feature: the Solicitor General is the representative in the cabinet of the whole of the eastern part of the province of Quebec, and I believe he has a very large eorrespondaoce in that connection. I have made inquiry of the deputy minister, and discussed the matter, and from all the information I have been able to gain I believe the staff there is constantly employed and is not in any sense larger than is needed. But I am glad to say that the estimates of the department show a reduction.


Alfred Speakman: When the Minister of Finance brought down the budget proposals he indicated that, in addition to the saving in expenditure as shown in the estimates as they now appear before us, there would be another saving, a reduction of approximately ten per cent-not necessarily in each department, but an average of ten per cent in all departments. Might I ask the Minister of Justice whether than ten per cent reduction will be taken from this item? Will his department share in it? If so, from what paid of his estimates will it be taken?


Hugh Guthrie: These salaries are all subject to the ten per cent reduction, that is the reduction which we had last year and which is to be in force again this year. There is a reduction of SI 1,000 in the clerical staff alone, but I am not aware of any further reduction than the ten per cent authorized under the Salary Deduction Act.


Alfred Speakman: As I understood the Minister of Finance he said that in addition to some $4,000,000 of reduction shown in the estimates as they appear, a further general reduction averaging ten per cent but varying in the different departments would be made
fMr. Mackenzie King I
in the interests of economy. I knew it could not be applied to salaries; I was wondering to what part of the estimates of the Minister of Justice it would be applied.


Hugh Guthrie: If there is to be a general reduction of ten per cent it is a matter, I suppose, that will have to be taken up by the treasury board, and the Department of Justice will submit to the reduction if called upon. But there is no provision in these estimates for that ten per cent further reduction.


Alfred Speakman: As I understand it, we simply vote the estimates as they stand and the government will assume the responsibility of expending only ninety per cent of the estimates voted?


Hugh Guthrie: Not spending the money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice there are three messengers and five confidential messengers. Has the minister five confidential messengers in addition to the three ordinary messengers?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I think there is only one in my branch, and one in the deputy minister's branch. There will be one in the remission branch in the western block, and at least one, perhaps two, in the Solicitor General's office.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is another
matter about which I should like to speak- and I do not think it is sub judice; up to perhaps a day or two ago that excuse might have been given, but I cannot see how it can be given to-day. I refer to the question of the attempted deportation of Peter Verigin. That comes under the Department of Justice-


Hugh Guthrie: No, it does not; it comes under the Department of Immigration. My hon. friend can discuss it to his heart's content when the immigration estimates are up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may discuss some aspects of the question when we come to the Department of Immigration, but there is a phase that directly relates to the Solicitor General's office, namely, the parole. The parole was given to Peter Verigin through the Department of Justice. This I believe is a copy of the document:
Remission Register No. R-48200.
Ottawa, January 20, 1933. Convict-Peter P. Verigin, No. N-552, Prince
Albert Gaol.
Crime-Perjury.
Sentence-18 months.
Date of Sentence-From May 6, 1932.
Age-51 years.
Previous convictions-Nil.
This inmate has now satisfied one-half of his sentence.

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
He is to be deported to Russia -when released from custody, but the passport issued in liis favour is only available until the end of March, and if he is not within the Russian border by that date it is doubtful whether it will be possible to obtain any extension of time.
The undersigned has the honour to advise that Peter P. Verigin be released for the purpose of sending him back to Russia, and further, lias the honour to advise that the warden of the gaol be instructed not to release him until the necessary arrangements have been made for deportation, and that he be instructed to deliver the prisoner into the custody of the officer appointed by the deputy Minister of Immigration to see to his deportation.
(Signed) M. F. Gallagher,
Chief of Remission Service.
Recommended and respectfully submitted to Your Excellency:
(Signed) M. Dupre,
Solicitor General.
Approved.
(Signed) Bessborough.
From my standpoint this is a most extraordinary document. We have been told that the granting of parole was one of the last prerogatives remaining to the crown. I have never been able to see that this matter should be a royal prerogative in the sense that no one has any right to interfere or that no information can be given about it. On several previous occasions questions of this kind have been raised, and we have been told that since the granting of pardons is a royal prerogative there must be no information whatever given with respect to such matters. It seems to me that gradually the so-called royal prerogative 'has been done away with and that nearly all these matters are now matters of executive action. I think we all know that in practice paroles are given by the remissions branch, and it seems to me that there is no particular reason why parliament should not become acquainted with the reasons for the giving of a parole.
In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, the reasons are given with altogether too much particularity for us to let the matter pass without some definite inquiry addressed to the minister. In the very first place there was considerable discussion as to whether or not this man could be deported; the matter went back and forth between the department here and various outside officials. I know, for example, that there was correspondence in which it was urged upon the acting Minister of Immigration that Peter Verigin should be sent to Mexico instead of to Russia, To be fair to the acting Minister of Immigration, there is nothing in the correspondence laid upon the table to indicate that he yielded to these importunities, but pressure was brought to bear in a letter signed by P. H.
Gordon, who apparently was acting for a real estate firm who were interested in seeing that Peter Verigin went to Mexico.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member can discuss this case in connection with the immigration estimates, but I do not think it comes under this item.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am discussing it diractly under this item, and I want to read one paragraph from this letter which was sent to the Minister of Immigration:
If there is any possibility of the government allowing Verigin to go to Mexico rather than deport him, I should be very glad if you would write and let me know. Mr. Hackney has advanced large sums of money in cash to Verigin and to the various directors of the community to enable them to personally inspect the land in Mexico and it will give him an opportunity of recouping himself. In my opinion, if Verigin is deported, we shall have more difficulty than ever with Doukobors and the easiest way out of the difficulty is to get the Sons of Freedom to go with Verigin.
Whether or not there was direct communication between the acting Minister of Immigration and the Department of Justice I have no documentary evidence, but the so called pardon would seem to indicate something of this kind. Verigin was to be deported to Russia when released from custody, and the passport issued in his favour was available only until the end of March. If he was not within the Russian border by that date it was doubtful whether it would be possible to obtain an extension of time, so evidently there was some negotiation as to when he was to be released. It seems to me that the royal prerogative is being brought down very nearly to a matter of departmental exigency. I will not go so far as to say that this in turn has been determined more or less by other and outside influences.


Peter McGibbon: What would you suggest should be done with him?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting anything; I say that we are degrading the royal prerogative.


Peter McGibbon: You should have some solution. .


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are not discussing the question of Peter Verigin; we are discussing the issue of this paper which purports to be a parole or pardon. Mr. Gallagher, acting for Mr. Dupre, says:
The undersigned has the honour to advise that Peter Verigin be released for the purpose-	.
This is the purpose:
-of sending him back to Russia.

Sap-ply-Justice-Penitentiaries
That is not a pardon.
-and further has the honour to advise that the warden of the gaol be instructed not to release him until the necessary arrangements have been made for deportation-
That is, the whole thing is being very carefully arranged, and the pardon is being granted contingent upon these arrangements. It would seem that the position I am taking is endorsed by Mr. Justice Mellish of Bthe Nova Scotia Supreme court. I should like to read a paragraph or two from his decision.


Peter McGibbon: That may be repealed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not repealed.
Neither my hon. friend nor myself is a lawyer, but I think I know that much about law. I will read a few paragraphs from the latter part of the decision:
Section 43 of the Immigration Act, which has already been several times referred to, is as follows:
"43. Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen, or a person having Canadian domicile, has become an inmate of a penitentiary, gaol, reformatory or prison, the Minister of Justice may, upon the request of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, issue an order to the warden or governor of such penitentiary, gaol, reformatory or prison, which order may be in the form F in the schedule to this act, commanding him after the sentence or term of imprisonment of such person has expired to detain such person for, and deliver him to, the officer named in the warrant issued by the deputy minister, which warrant may be in the form G in the schedule to this act, with a view to the deportation of such person."
If there is no authority in law for deporting the prisoner he must be discharged. If he is lawfully held for deportation the application for his release must be refused.
At the outset I was and still am of the opinion that the prisoner cannot be deported or held imprisoned for deportation for what I think is a rather obvious reason, viz: that his "sentence or term of imprisonment" has not "expired" within the meaning of the above section. Nothing that has happened for the purpose of accelerating his removal from the country can in my opinion have that effect. On this ground alone I think the prisoner is entitled to be discharged. However, the reasons upon which it is contended that the deportation is authorized by the act under the sign manual of His Excellency the Governor General will be given a fuller consideration. In determining the interpretation to be given to that document, it need hardly be said that the policy of the government as expressed therein in relation to the prisoner is immaterial except in so far as such policy can be legally implemented.
It is contended that the document is a conditional pardon. The right of the crown to grant a pardon subject to conditions is undoubted, but they must be lawful conditions and not repugnant to the pardon itself.
There is nothing on the face of the document I think to show that the prisoner's release is subject to any condition. It shows I think the purpose or motive of the release, and the legal consequences expected to follow therefrom, by
[Mr. WoodsworthJ
those on whose advice his excellency acted. But there is no question of a condition. The prisoner was to be released and nolens colons forthwith deported.
A word as to the powers of the crown in this connection is I think in order.
As I understand the law, a prisoner's sentence cannot be commuted, i.e., altered, except under the authority of an act of parliament; and this as I understand arises from the fundamental reason that sentences or terms of imprisonment are fixed by the courts in accordance with the law which is binding on the crown as well as the subject. In respect to sentence of death parliament has authorized such commutation. But such is not the sentence here. The "term of the imprisonment" referred to in section 43 means I think the term fixed by law for its duration and cannot in my opinion be altered at least against the will of the prisoner, for the purpose of accelerating his deportation. He has a right if he choose to take the limit of time allowed him before deportation. The crown in extending the royal mercy does not I think alter the law or the sentence or term of imprisonment fixed by law. In exercising this mercy by means of a pardon, the punishment is remitted but the sentence and period or term fixed for the punishment remain. If the prisoner is pardoned conditionally he has I think the right to refuse the pardon if he is unwilling to accept the conditions. If the prisoner has been pardoned (and I do not think he could be discharged from prison except in exercise of the power of pardon) he cannot in my opinion be deported. Freedom from deportation is incident to the pardon, because deportation was incident to the imprisonment. In any view' the prisoner is I think unlawfully detained for deportation and must be discharged.


Peter McGibbon: What is the hon. member reading from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From the decision
of Mr. Justice Mellish, published in the Halifax Chronicle of Monday, March 27, 1933. It seems to me that there are two points to be considered here. The first is that the so-called royal prerogative is being degraded. We have here a conditional pardon, a so-called pardon the outcome of which would be that the prisoner would receive a more severe punishment than that t.o which he had been originally sentenced. My next point is that if we are to maintain the dignity of the crown and all that goes with it we cannot allow matters of this kind to pass unnoticed. Further than that, it seems to me that the decision of Mr. Justice Mellish is a direct reflection on the Department of Justice. He says:
The right of the crown to grant a pardon subject to conditions is undoubted. But they must be lawful conditions and not repugnant to the pardon itself.
That is an implication that the conditions are unlawful, and under the circumstances I think the Minister of Justice should explain to this committee how his action was deter-

Supply-Justice-Penitejitiaries
mined in this case and if possible give some justification for what seems to have been an illegal act.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not propose to
answer my hon. friend at any length except to say that he has based his whole statement practically on the fact, which he has repeated on more than one occasion, that Peter Verigin was granted a parole or pardon. He was granted neither a parole nor a pardon. Paroles are granted only under the Ticket of Leave Act upon conditions endorsed upon the ticket of leave. The Ticket of Leave Act is never used when deportation proceedings are in view. There is nothing about a pardon in the whole proceedings. What there was was a release for deportation under the provisions of the Immigration Act, and the judgment which the hon. member has just read to the committee in regard to the Peter Verigin application for habeas corpus was yesterday virtually overruled by unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think I need go further; I have the judgment in my hand and it is unanimous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May we have it on the record?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: It establishes the right
of his excellency under the royal prerogative to release for deportation, and it forms a complete answer to the argument now submitted to the committee by my hon. friend.


Frederick George Sanderson: There are five confidential messengers provided for in this department. Will the minister give us some information in regard to this. My mind goes back to 192S when the present Minister of Justice was leader of the opposition in the House of Commons-	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: Not in 1928.


Frederick George Sanderson: In 1927. Although I
have not Hansard here to quote from, my recollection of the debate that took place then is that the then leader of the opposition made a very bitter comment on the fact that, there was one confidential messenger in the Department of Justice, and wanted to know what was the difference between a confidential and an ordinary messenger. Now we have five confidential and three ordinary messengers being provided for in the Department of Justice. What is the reason for the increase in the number of confidential messengers and what explanation has the minister to offer with regard to the salary that goes with the position? I would point out to him, what is obvious to everyone, that conditions in this
country in 1927 were very different from what they are now and if ever there was a time *when there should be a curtailment in the number of civil servants rather than an increase it is now.


Hugh Guthrie: Without having the estimates for 1927 before me, I will guarantee that as between the estimates of that year and the present estimates there is a substantial decrease. I will also inform my hon. friend that the work of the Department of Justice has enormously increased, owing probably to the situation that exists throughout the country. In litigation there has been a very marked increase in the number of cases; our present prison population is up to 12,000, including penitentiaries and prisons; the number of opinions asked of the department are greater than ever before; and there is a very considerable increase in work and a very slight increase in staff. In the principal offices there has been a decrease. As regards the increase in messenger staff, that arises in part from the fact that the remission branch had to be moved from the east to the west block. I think one messenger is used between the penitentiary branch, which is in the Confederation block, and the east block. I think there are only two in that section of the Department of Justice over which I preside, one or two in the remission branch, and one or two, I am not sure which, in the Solicitor General's office. These are increases in minor offices and the salaries are set out at page 80, but there is generally a substantial decrease as between the estimates in the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 and the estimates now before the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Apparently the Minister of Justice thinks differently to-day from what he did in 1927, because in that year when he was leader of the opposition and the estimates of the Department of Justice were being considered-


Hugh Guthrie: I do not recall the incident.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have a very clear recollection of it. The estimates contained a vote for one confidential messenger, and the then leader of the opposition, the present Minister of Justice, talked for about three quarters of an hour and wanted to know why the government-


Hugh Guthrie: I never do that.


Frederick George Sanderson: He wanted to know the difference between an ordinary and a confidential messenger. He said that as far as he could see, a messenger who was a civil servant was a confidential servant of the gov-

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
eminent, and there could be no difference between an ordinary and a confidential messenger. The minister must have had a change of heart since that time, because he now offers estimates containing votes for five confidential messengers for the Department of Justice. It appears to me that there should be a curtailment of the number of employees in this department. If in 1927 the minister thought that one confidential messenger was useless and should not be employed, he should not come to the committee in 1933 with estimates for five confidential messengers. Is the business of government more confidential today than it was in 1927?


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend say that there was only one messenger in the Department of Justice in 1927?


Frederick George Sanderson: One confidential messenger.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the hon. member the
estimates?


Frederick George Sanderson: I am trusting to my memory, and I think it is just as good as the minister's.


Hugh Guthrie: I have entirely forgotten it, so I hope the hon. member's memory is better.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have not forgotten. I remember well the discussion that took place at that time in the committee of the whole. There are one or two other observations I should like to make upon this vote. In 1927 when the minister was leader of the opposition, the Minister of Justice of that day had a private secretary. To-day the Minister of Justice has not only a private secretary but an assistant private secretary.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no private secretary; I save $4,200 there.


Frederick George Sanderson: If I am in error I am
sorry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friends had better not laugh too soon. In 1927 the Solicitor General had a private secretary but in 1933 the present Solicitor General has a private secretary as well as an assistant private secretary.


Peter John Veniot: And he has two additional ones down home.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not know about that, I am referring only to what appears in the estimates. Does the minister think it correct that the Solicitor General, who has always been considered a kind of fifth wheel

to the coach, should have a private secretary and an assistant private secretary? Are his duties such that he has to add to the civil service of this country? I am sorry the Solicitor General is not in his place but can the Minister of Justice defend this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Before my hon. friend came into the chamber his leader raised this question and I explained it very fully. I have made inquiries with regard to the staff of the Solicitor General and I find that they are continually employed. The work in this department has more than doubled in the last three years. The Solicitor General is the only representative in the government from eastern Quebec and his correspondence is enormous. This matter was brought to my attention by the deputy minister and I have satisfied myself that the department is not overstaffed. I might give another instance in connection with the Department of Justice. At one time five lawyers were employed on the Soldier Settlement Board; these men have all been let out and the work is being carried on by the Department of Justice without any increase in staff.


Frederick George Sanderson: I take it that the minister defends the increase from one to five in the number of confidential messengers, and defends also the Solicitor General having a private secretary and an assistant private secretary.


Peter John Veniot: Do the estimates allow for the payment of salaries to private secretaries at the Soliticor General's home?


Hugh Guthrie: None that I know of; I think they are all here.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the minister aware that the Solicitor General has two private secretaries at his service outside of the department?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member means not in Ottawa?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I was not aware of that. In answer to the statement made by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) that I had spoken for three-quarters of an hour on a previous occasion, I should like to quote from page 107 of Hansard of 1926-27 as follows:
"Justice-salaries-to provide for salary of a confidential messenger, $1,200."
Mr. Guthrie: I remember when I was the occupant of the office of Solicitor General, we had a very excellent messenger, but he was not described as a confidential messenger. I think

Supply-Immigration
he is still there, and my recollection is that in that office we did not have a very great deal for a messenger to do. May I ask my hon. friend the Solicitor General whether he is asking for an additional messenger, described here as a confidential messenger, or is there to be only one messenger in connection with that office?
Mr. Cannon: Only one.
Mr. Guthrie: The word "confidential" means nothing, I presume?
Mr. Cannon: I am not responsible for the adjective.
Mr. Guthrie: Is there any distinction in salary between the position of messenger and confidential messenger?
Mr. Dunning: Yes.
Mr. Guthrie: The other one was just an ordinary messenger. Might I ask if it is the same man?
Mr. Cannon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
That is the whole discussion, and that is the tirade I raised against the confidential messenger of the Solicitor General! I did not even object.
Frederick George Sanderson: That does not make any difference.


James Houston Spence: You said he talked three quarters of an hour.


Mr. COTNAM:: And that you had a distinct memory of it.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister said a few minutes ago that he had not a private secretary. Am I right in understanding that?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: But the minister has an assistant private secretary.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would like to know how one can have an assistant private secretary and no private secretary.


Hugh Guthrie: Simply because I have
never filled the senior position. It was impressed on me that I should cut down in every way, and by doing considerable hard work mj'self I have managed so far to get on without the private secretary. I may have to have one later, but so far I have managed without one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization-Immigration salaries and contingencies, $1,417,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has been emphasizing in the last few days that the immigration work has dwindled down to next to nothing, that he is keeping out immigrants and not encouraging any to come in. I ask him how, in those circumstances,
does he justify asking for $1,417,000 for immigration salaries and contingencies outside of Ottawa, and outside of Canada altogether, I presume.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I do not think the right hon. gentleman is quite fair when he says that I have been stating time and again, or words to that effect, that no immigration is allowed to enter this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, boasting that it had been reduced to very little.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I think that is a fairer way of putting it. The type of immigration that my right hon. friend and his government permitted I have stopped, and I propose to keep on stopping it. Immigration that is now coming to Canada I trust is of a different calibre from a great number of those who were permitted to enter this country before 1930.


Ernest Lapointe: They will all be aristocrats, perhaps.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, hardly that. The outside service is mainly engaged in the patrol of the border and inspection at ocean ports. There is also a comparatively small expenditure in keeping open certain offices in the United Kingdom. I am told by the departmental officials that the boundary inspection work is now greater and more onerous than it has ever been in the history of the department. I am also told that on the United States side of the line, with the supervision of a population only as large as Canada's, the United States employ twice as many officers as Canada, doing the same sort of work. Each succeeding year new highways crossing the international boundary are coming into being. The tunnel and the new bridge at Windsor have also added slightly to the cost, although the committee will see that there is a decrease in the total vote. I am also told by the departmental officials that the reports and accompanying correspondence and also the general correspondence have very largely increased. I would point out to hon. members that it is very much easier to permit anybody to come into Canada than it is to select those whom you would like to have in this country, because there always arises the human equation in these matters, with pressure brought to bear on the minister and the government to depart from the rule in individual cases, and make departures sometimes from principles and policies as laid down. Those who have occupied the position of Minister of Immigration heretofore are well acquainted, I am sure, with the difficulties that are constantly arising in that connection.
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: How many offices in the United States has the minister closed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: All of them.


Charles A. Stewart: How many have been closed in England? [DOT]


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are just six offices open in England, three of them on part time, merely to keep the structure together and keep the contact alive, so that when we continue the work we shall not have lost the benefit of the organization that has been set up.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it still necessary to maintain officers on the continent? Do they do any examining there?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. The situation that developed when the regulations were changed in 1930 was this, and it still prevails. Under the regulations as they then were and still are, the heads of families who preceded the family into Canada-I do not think it is possible to give the exact figures but they number very many scores of thousands-were permitted to have their wives and children follow them to this country, and that right of the head of the family in Canada was preserved in subsequent regulations. It is of course necessary to maintain the inspectional service, although that staff has been greatly cut down. For instance, there is not now an inspection service on the Baltic whereas formerly we had one at Danzig, but that has been closed. There is on the Atlantic coast and at Paris. In order to examine the wives and children and heads of families at present here, that service of necessity has to be continued, although with a reduced staff.


Eugène Fiset: May I ask the
minister if he is still keeping one of those immigration officers at Father Point?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as I am aware there never has been an immigration officer at Father Point.


Eugène Fiset: Is there a medical examiner there?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The practice of the department has been to send an officer from Quebec to Father Point to board some of the larger steamers, in order to make civil and sometimes medical inspections.


Eugène Fiset: But there is not
a station at Father Point?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Most of the continental examinations are made in Paris, are they not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the major portion of it is done in Paris.


Mr. GARDINER:: Where are the chief
immigration officers located in Great Britain?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: London, Liverpool and
Glasgow.


Robert Gardiner: Have you a full staff
at those points?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, at those points.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the
Belfast office closed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Belfast is open.


Mr. COOTE:: May I bring to the attention of the minister the case of an immigrant named J. E. Flower who was brought to Alberta some years ago. I discussed this case with the minister last year. This man, with his family, wife and three children, was anxious to be sent back to the old country because he was not able to get any work in Canada which he could do. A year ago I took the matter up with the minister and, if I remember rightly, he informed me that if the province of Alberta could furnish railway transportation for the family to Montreal, it was just possible he might be able to have them returned to the old country. After the province agreed to furnish transportation to Montreal the minister said that before he could furnish ocean transportation somebody in the old country would have to signify his willingness to look after the man and family upon their return. Flower was unable to get anyone to guarantee to look after him. Finally, the provincial authorities, having grown tired of keeping the man and his family, advanced the necessary money to return them to the old country.
I have the following letter from the supervisor of charity and relief. Dated at Edmonton, September 3, 1932, it is as follows:
I am pleased to report to you that I have despatched this man and his family to the old country. The cost to the province, which Was paid from public funds, was $492, and I would appreciate it very much if you would use your influence with the federal government to have this province reimbursed for fifty per cent of the expenditure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Gibson Coote: I say to hon. members that there is a very good reason why the federal government should assist in this case. The letter continues:
I have no record showing whether this man obtained an assisted passage, but from his statement on file he was unemployed in the

Supply-Immigration
old country and his father purchased transportation for himself rand family to Canada, and since his arrival here he has been a public charge. The province has already expended the sum of $2,381.50 for their maintenance.
Hoping that I may have a favourable report from your effort, for *which I wish to thank you in anticipation.
Yours truly,
A. A. Mackenzie,
Supervisor of Charity and Relief.
I wish to draw to the attention of the committee and the minister that this man and his family cost the province of Alberta a total of $2,873.50. That province had nothing to do with bringing him to Canada. At that time hon. members in this corner of the house were protesting against the government's immigration policy. The man in question had no employment in the old country, but his father paid for passages for Flower and his family to Canada. Alberta has spent, up to the present time, $2,381.50 for their maintenance, and is now paying $492 to ship them back to the old country, because it appears that they would be a charge upon the province as long as they remained in Canada. I admit the minister had nothing to do with bringing them to Canada, but the federal government has a responsibility. It seems to me unfair that the province of Alberta should have to pay $2,873.50 for one family.


Thomas Reid: How many years did that cover?


George Gibson Coote: I think they came out in 1924. The circumstances I have outlined indicate the expense some of the western provinces have had to bear because of the immigration policy of the Ottawa government.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Address your remark to the hon. member for West Edmonton.


George Gibson Coote: I am addressing my remarks to the Acting Minister of Immigration. I think in all fairness the government should share the expense of returning this family to the old country; that is ths least we could ask the government to do. I do not ask the minister to give me a statement offhand; I think he will remember our discussion of the matter last year. I hope at least he will promise to give the matter some consideration, and that the province of Alberta may hope to be reimbursed in part for the expense to which they have been put. It is most unfortunate that some of the provinces have to incur such heavy expenses because of an immigration policy carried out by a government
at Ottawa. At the time this family entered the country I believe the province of Alberta was not in favour of the immigration policy of the Ottawa government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not a clear recollection of the case to which the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has referred. Of course hon. members are well aware of the situation with regard to that and similar cases. Apparently the man and his family made legal landing in Canada, and complied with our laws as they then existed. I do not know whether they received any assistance from the British government when they came. But under the provisions of our law a person who resides legally in Canada for five years or more acquire domicile. Even if the Dominion government eared to invoke the provisions of the law with respect to deportation, we would be precluded from doing it by reason of his having acquired domiciliary rights. As to whether the policy of bringing immigrants into the western provinces has been beneficial, I have not much to say. I think the results were beneficial to the extent that desirable people were attracted to those provinces. Very great benefits resulted to the western provinces through the efforts of the Dominion government to procure desirable people for colonization within provincial boundaries. Our immigration law precludes the Dominion government from deporting- because that is really what it means-people who have legally landed in this country and resided here for five years. The five year period was thought by parliament to be long enough to indicate whether a person coming from other lands was a desirable citizen of this country or otherwise; I assume that is the reason the five year term was decided upon.


Alfred Speakman: That places the British subject on the same footing as the foreigner, who could become naturalized in five years?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. I had no authority
under the Immigration Act either to order a family deported on complaint of the municipality or province, or to pay anything with respect to the return passage. If the law were changed to cover cases of that kind I am afraid it would impose a very great burden on the treasury. I will admit that with respect to immigration we must of necessity take some chances; that is inevitable in the movement of people from the land of their origin to a country of adoption. I cannot but think that the western provinces have greatly benefited by the colonization of desirable people from other lands. There must
Supply-Immigration

be hundreds of thousands of that class. Of course there is a percentage of failures. It is a question whether the benefits should 'be set up against the disadvantages and the balance shouldered by the federal state. I do not think I would care to embark on any such bookkeeping; it would be hopeless.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps I should have said, if I did not, that this man had asked repeatedly for deportation. He wrote to me personally after he failed to interest the department. It was only because he wanted to be deported that I interested myself in the case. I would not ask that the man be deported if he did not himself desire it.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
the hon. member what was the matter with the family?


George Gibson Coote: The man was unable to get work for a long period. Since he had been in the country, the province of Alberta had spent on relief for him and his family $2,381. It appeared that they would have to keep him and his family outright, for a good many years at any rate, and they paid $492 to send them back to the old country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When did the province
start to pay direct relief for this man?


George Gibson Coote: I am sorry I have not got
that here, but I have read the letter from the officer in charge of relief at Edmonton giving the amount that the province had expended up to that time. The province thought it was much cheaper for the authorities to buy this man's passage back to the old country.


Charles A. Stewart: Was he
physically unfit?


George Gibson Coote: He was a miner and his
eyesight was not good enough for him to get work in the mines. That is the only report I could get from the mounted police. He was located in a mining district and apparently there was nothing else for him to do. I want to urge this on the minister: He says we were taking chances on these immigrants. I think it is the province that took all the chance; the dominion did not take much. In this case the province had to take it all. If the man was on relief he would have to be kept jointly by the two governments, as I understand, because he was in unorganized territory outside a municipality and the Dominion government is just as much advantaged by this man being sent back to the old country as is the provincial government. If he were still here, if the province had refused to send him back, the province would

have had to keep him and his family, and the Dominion government would have had to share in the cost. If it was good business for the province to buy his passage back to the old country to save that unemployment relief cost for the next few years, surely it would be good business for the Dominion government to share in that expense. It seems to me unfair that the province should have to bear the whole cost. Under the circumstances I think it would be quite proper for the dominion to share in the cost of his transportation back.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And apply the rule general!}'?


George Gibson Coote: Well, I think so-apply the rule generally. I see nothing unfair to the dominion in that, but it is very unfair to the province as it stands at the present time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There has been some criticism in connection with a class of people against whom the municipalities and the provinces have made complaints and caused their return to their country of origin. I think perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been the most outspoken in that regard, with the possible exception of a newspaper or two. I put this to the members of the committee. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) were adopted it would mean that people who have been in Canada for the time specified by the act for acquiring domiciliary rights, namely five years, or no matter how long ago they came to Canada say from Great Britain, should be deported, if through misadventure or through their own shiftlessness or through any other cause they are unable to support themselves in this country. Would it be fair to the United Kingdom that in those cases, after people had lived in Canada for perhaps ten or fifteen years, having made a legal landing in this country under our laws, the burden should be shifted back to the United Kingdom? My own view is that it would not be fair or just. There are cases like the one mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod which would seem to give some basis for action that might be taken jointly by the province and the dominion, but those cases are not very general, and I would not care to embark on the idea of making the general law conform to the particular case.


George Gibson Coote: Whether it is made general or not, I feel that in this case, where the man asked to be deported-

Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But we could not deport
him.


George Gibson Coote: He asked to be sent back;
what harm is there in advancing him the money and letting him go back? I think it would not be unfair to say that Great Britain has been relieved of his maintenance for possibly eight or nine years while he was in this country, so they would not object very seriously to having him back now. At any rate the province of Alberta thought it good business to pay his passage back rather than have him permanently on relief. They have thus relieved the dominion of a considerable burden of unemployment relief; why should not the dominion share in the expense of his passage to the old country where he wishes to go?


Mr. DUPUIS:: I think the hon. minister
means that if he paid the fare to return this immigrant it would be a precedent. I think he is right. I just want to ask a question; Is there any change in the Montreal office staff as compared with last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, there has been no change in the staff with the exception of temporary officials such as deportation officers and other minor officials who have been appointed for short periods. They are constantly changing.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there the same number of regular officials as last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I think practically the same number. There may be some reduction, but I would not care to say.


Vincent Dupuis: Who has taken the place of Mr. Moquin, who was formerly head clerk?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Moquin was retired some time ago. Mr. Langlois is there now.


Vincent Dupuis: What was his salary?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not under my hand the exact amount, but it is approximately $2,400 a year.


Vincent Dupuis: The salary Mr. Moquin used to receive?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I was not in the house the other evening when the minister's estimates were up. Did he place on Hansard the number of immigrants entering Canada last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Empire settlement scheme, including . grants authorized by the governor general in council, $15,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I presume this is the three thousand family scheme. Would the minister let us know how many families are still on the land and what proportion, if any, are not in arrears-though I anticipate that most of them will be in arrears. Would the minister also indicate the nature of the grants authorized by the governor general in council?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That does not arise under this vote. This is a vote of $15,000 to take care of the contributions made to the women's hostels at Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Winnipeg. This also includes the sum of $4,000 which is placed in the estimates for the purpose of making a loan, which was to amount to $1,000 from the Canadian government and $1,200 from the British government, to British boys who had earned and were in possession of $500. That was under an agreement. Up to the present time we have not had to supplement the $500 in any single instance, but in order to fortify our department against any breach of that agreement we have carried forward the sum of $4,000 in this vote.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask how many of these boys were brought cut? And do I understand that in not a single instance has a boy been successful enough to call upon the government for its share?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is scarcely the right way to put it. The scheme did not work out at all for this reason, that the boy who was able to save $500 very sensibly did not go on and borrow the balance. Many of them saved the money but did not apply for the loan or advance.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not just understand that statement. If I saved $500 and could get a grant of $500 in addition it would seem the part of wisdom to apply for it. The $500 given by the government was a grant, was it not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, it was a loan. If it had not been a loan I am sure we would have had many applications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingencies, $543,242.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister indicate the total amount of the premium paid to gold producers in Canada last year?

Sup-ply-Mines
Hon, W. A. GORDON (Minister of Mines): That is peculiarly and particularly under the Department of Finance; the Department of Mines has nothing to do with it, but speaking quite offhand I would say the exchange paid on the gold production for the last twelve months would be in the neighbourhood of $6,000,000. I am not sure, but I could easily procure the exact figure,


Alan Webster Neill: Is this the item under which we can discuss the coal bounties?
Mr, GORDON: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not mean the actual bounties so much as the consideration of the importation	of	British	coal	into	British
Columbia. I imagine that might come under this vote.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is another item which deals with that subject.


Alan Webster Neill: It would hardly deal with the importation	of	British	coal	into	British
Columbia, because that is not subsidized, but if the minister will allow that matter to be debated under the other item it will be quite all right.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Certainly.


Ernest Lapointe: I notice that in the Department of Mines there is a gentleman known as an artist in vertebrate palaeontology. I would like to know what he does.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He is a scientist whose time is engaged in the investigation of spineless creatures throughout Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is his
attention confined to Tories?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I believe there are cases in Quebec and around the foothills as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I see there is an assistant invertebrate palaeontologist. Would the minister tell us the difference between these two gentlemen?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This gentleman assists the chief in that work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But one is vertebrate and the other invertebrate.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: One has a spine and the other has not, and I think the right hon. gentleman probably will be able to identify the one without a spine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view
of whait the Prime Minister said the other day in regard to the tremendous importance of improving gold mining in Canada as a means of meeting tine present crisis, does the depart-

ment intend to assist prospectors in Ontario and northern Manitoba and British Columbia by airplane transportation and in other ways in order to open up new gold fields for production?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question of government assistance to prospectors in Canada has been raised in a number of quarters at various times. I am sure my hon. friend is acquainted in some measure with the difficulties that beset us in turning the attention of people unacquainted with prospecting into that line of activity by reason of the very work in which they would have to be engaged. Prospecting for precious metals is a vocation that lends itself to but a very small percentage of our population. To be a prospector a man must have certain traits of character in perfect combination - characteristics that are not found in people generally. He has to be fearless, with abundance of courage; he must have patience; he must be a canoe man, a bush man, an axe man, a cook, and he must know how to travel with confidence in all sorts of country.


Eugène Fiset: A jack of all trades.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Much more than that. He has to know something about geology. Altogether, if there is one vocation in Canada, or for that matter anywhere in the world, that calls for a combination of faculties that are keenly alive, it is the game of prospecting. You cannot allow your courage to ooze out in that game or you will get nowhere. I quite appreciate that since the beginning of time great difficulties have faced every prospector -and I mean the good prospector, not the arm chair fellow-in even getting grubstaked to go out and investigate possibilities. That is one of the discouragements associated with tire effort, and even after he discovers some favourable ground that gives indications of valuable ore deposits he has only begun to meet the discouragements that are ahead of him, because he must be able to attract money in order to explore what he has found. There are so few who are able to measure up to the task that confronts the prospector that I greatly fear there would not be many who would be successful. Tiien there is the question of dealing with prospectors by way of assistance. I have thought it over a good deal and my own view is that the state had better keep out of that activity. I know the prospector about as well as anyone in this house and I know that he is a man who takes care of himself pretty well. He is not given to grumbling, and if the galleries in this chamber were full of prospectors I fancy there might

Sxipply-M ines
be some rather salty comments made upon some of the observations which we members of parliament utter at times. My own opinion now is, although I would not hesitate to give the matter further consideration, that this is an avenue which the state had better keep out of. If the state-aided prospector did find a gold mine or what afterwards developed into a mine, or if he found one of those rich little pockets where with a minimum of effort he captured from the ground say half a million dollars, how would you divide it? I think we should have a difficult time getting even the advance back. There are many barriers in the way of state-aided prospecting, and at the moment I would not favour it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree in part with the minister, but I certainly must take exception to some of his remarks. In the first place, the government is aiding gold producers in Canada at the present time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In what way?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By paying a premium in exchange to gold producers.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I disagree with the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are two arguments to be advanced. In the first place, if gold production is to be of fundamental importance in meeting our national crisis, then it should be encouraged in Canada. According to the Prime Minister's speech two or three days ago, the products of our gold fields were of great importance last year in helping to meet the situation, our gold production for that year having amounted to $63,000.000. My suggestion is this-and I am not putting it forward in any partisan sense but rather with the idea of being constructive. If gold is to remain the basis of our-currency in Canada, although personally I am strongly of the other view, I would point out that the gold committee of the League of Nations at the Genoa conference in 1920 predicted a decline in gold production in 1934 in the world stocks of gold, and if gold is going to remain as the basis of our currency I suggest that instead of the various forms of relief which the government is supporting at the present time the state should lend some assistance to the producers in proven gold fields. I think it would be a wonderful thing to assist the prospectors who to-day are unemployed in Vancouver and other cities, of whom there are hundreds, not amateurs but tried prospectors. They could be sent out with help from the dominion; the govern-53713-226
ment might provide them with four or five or six assistants and with a government engineer, if the department thought fit, so that they might go prospecting-that is, if the administration really believes that the accentuating of gold production values will be of benefit. Of course, if the administration does not believe in that, then my argument falls flat. At any rate, in the coming summer there is going to be a scurry in British Columbia to the gold mining prospects in the Cariboo and Bridge River country, and encouragement from the Department of Mines would be of great assistance to these men.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Monetary assistance?


Eugène Fiset: There is some wonderful nomenclature in these estimates; for instance, I see here an assistant invertebrate palaeontologist and there is also a process worker. What is that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is in the photograph
department.


Thomas Reid: There is an item in connection with metallurgy. Is anything being done in regard to finding out the various grades of iron ore that are being produced?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For many years the department has devoted a good deal of time to the investigation not only of various types of iron ore but of various processes by which it is said our low grade ores could be mined at a profit. It is only recently that an effort has been made to prove or disprove an invention which it is said can produce iron at a profit from such ores. Unfortunately the hopes of those who own the process were not borne out by investigations made by the Mines department. The government is always alive to the possibility of iron ores being found in Canada which can be converted by proper processes to the industrial uses for which they are intended, and in so far as finances will permit, the department will always be ready to make investigations with respect to such ores as may seem desirable in the premises.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines and geological survey

for administration of the Explosives Act (chapter 62, r.s. 1927), $10,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister explain this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This item, which rarely
changes from year to year, is to provide for the administration of the Explosives Act; under which the government is required to

Sup-ply-Mines

regulate the manufacture, sale and to some extent the carriage of explosives, so that injury to the public or to those using them will not result.


Thomas Reid: Were the three inspectors
mentioned in the last vote connected with this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has- this anything to do with the government's policy of blasting?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines Branch-for investigation of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and research laboratories, investigations by Dominion Fuel Board, including salaries and all other expenses, $215,000; for publications, English and French, purchase of books, instruments, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $35,000.
Alan Webster Neill: This vote is to cover research and investigations by the Dominion Fuel Board and so on. Could the minister give the committee any information as to the activities of -this board in developing new uses for coal? I may be doing the board an injustice, but I do not think its efforts have been outstanding in this connection. I would draw the attention of the minister to a statement which has appeared in certain British papers to the effect that a new colloidal fuel has been developed. This fuel is a mixture of approximately sixty per cent coal and forty per cent oil. It was thought that it would be of great value to Canada because it would provide a cheaper fuel than oil and could be produced from Canadian coal. The inventor predicts its use in power plants requiring an intense -heat with the flexibility of oil fuel. There are a number of plants in this country that require an intense heat which does not go up and down such as coal heat. I would like to know if the fuel board has taken any notice of this development either by way of investigations of its own or in disseminating to the coal operators the results of the researches by the British and other governments and various universities. While I am on my feet I will ask the minister if his department is in possession of any information in connection with the use of oil developed entirely from coal. I notice that the British Admiralty has signed a contract with a company known as the Low Temperature Carbonization Limited, having factories in London and Yorkshire. It appears that the first bulk supply of this fuel is to be delivered to the destroyer Westminster and

it is expected that the ordinary cruising range of this ship with ordinary petroleum will be increased by the use of the new fuel without any adjustment of the standard equipment. The coal industry in the west, and possibly also in the east, is in a desperate condition and it would appear to be the duty of the fuel board to investigate any developments along these lines. Any information I have in this regard has been derived from sources outside of Canada and I would like to know what the fuel board has been doing in connection with the two items I mentioned.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Dominion Fuel Board would have no connection with the matter to which the hon. member has referred. That board is purely administrative; its main work is in connection with the coal subventions, the determining of freight differentials and the allotment of competitive areas throughout Canada. The fuel testing division under the mines branch is constantly working on matters such as those mentioned by the hon. member. I have heard from the departmental officers of the fuel developed by a combination of oil and very fine coal, and I understand that British chemists have made considerable advances with this fuel. Of course we have the benefit of what they are doing, just as they have the benefit of our investigations. I am sure the hon. member would not suggest that there should be a duplication of effort along these lines. This division has many activities. It has to do with the testing of fuel from every standpoint. It has been able to convince some of the large coking plants in Canada that they could use Canadian coal in their coking processes, the result being an increase in the use of Canadian coal.


Alan Webster Neill: The item reads:
For investigation of mineral resources and deposits; pf the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and research laboratories.
The minister now tells us that the main purpose of the fuel board is to cover the handling of the coal subventions.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid the hon. member was not listening to me. I said that there is a fuel testing division, but that is only one of many divisions, and their activities are devoted to the research work to which I have made reference.


Alan Webster Neill: I certainly understood the minister to say that the Dominion Fuel Board was mainly used for the purpose of carrying out the coal subventions.

Supply-Geological Survey


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I said that the Dominion Fuel Board was concerned with the coal subventions in a purely administrative way, but the fuel testing division is a division under the mines branch.


Alan Webster Neill: I would respectfully suggest that the work of administering the coal subventions could be better done by the Finance department if the work is so purely financial, if it is simply a matter of adjusting payments made under the subventions.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is not merely that.


Alan Webster Neill: I am taking the minister's own word for it. However, we will let that go. In connection with the remarks I made a moment ago, I notice that a prominent engineer in Ottawa made a comment on this new colloidal oil development in Great Britain, so it would be possible to get some first hand information from a well known local engineer if the board was interested in the matter. It is not only necessary for the board or for the branch to inform itself on these matters, but the information should be given out to the coal operators or to the press, because information stored solely in the records of the department is not very valuable. I suggest that it should not be left to individuals or the press to make these things known; the board, and in a broad sense the department itself, should be the leader in giving out this information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As it is.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I took this information from the columns of the press. It was not put out by the department. Has the department any bulletin dealing with the subject of this new colloidal fuel or the development of the low temperature carbonization system?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Obviously the hon. member has not read the annual report of the mines branch, which deals at great length with the subject to which he has made reference, including the advances which are being made in fuel oil and coal. The suggestion that we should set our course by some advice from an engineer who is in Ottawa is one to which I do not think I would care to subscribe. We get all the information concerning advances made by the British chemists through official, dependable channels, through the British Fuel Research Board, whose reports come in at regular intervals, and the information contained in them together with a fund of other information is included in the annual report of the 53719-226 J
Mines department. Wherever it seems that it would be helpful to our coal operators to receive such information, together with the results of our own investigations, that information is sent out.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister be good enough to include my name on the mailing list so that I might be informed also?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For explorations, surveys and investigations, wages of explorers, topograj>hers and others, $127,500.
For publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., $50,000.	.
For maintenance of offices and museum, expenses of special exhibitions pertaining to natural resources, purchase of instruments, chemicals, books of reference, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $42,500.
For museum equipment, $8,000.
For purchase of specimens, $1,000-Total, $229,000.
Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister explain the increase of $3,780?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The increase is in the item for publications. It was found that too great a reduction was made in this item last year, and that geological publications could not be printed with the amount provided. Hence the increase this year.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the number of survey parties going out this year being reduced?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the number of parties going out this year will be about thirty-four, a decrease of eight or ten from last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $2,000,000.
Alan Webster Neill: This is the vote to which the minister referred a moment ago. I understood that it was provided under a former vote that the grant to the coal mines in British Columbia would be continued for another fiscal year. Is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The order in council under which the subventions were established has not yet expired, but it is proposed to continue the subventions for another year if this vote passes the committee.
3574	COMMONS
Supply-Geological Survey-Coal


Alan Webster Neill: That leads me to a discussion of the importations of coal into British Columbia from Great Britain. I regret that the departmental records do not seem to agree with each other. I have in my hand a letter from the minister's department saying that the importation of coal for the month of February was so much, but the figure does not agree with the records I get from the Department of National Revenue, and I take it that the Department of National Revenue is more likely to be correct because they actually collect the duty. The same thing occurred last year. I made a very definite statement as to the importations, and the minister contradicted my figures. He was perfectly sincere, but when we came down to analyze the thing we found that he was getting his figures from the Dominion Fuel Board and I was getting mine from the Department of National Revenue. They ought to agree, but they do not. It shows a little sloppy bookkeeping, that is all. However I want to deal with the importations of British bituminous coal into British Columbia. In the month of February last the imports were 2,244 tons, and in January 7,393 tons, making a total of 9,637 tons in two months. In previous years importations have been very small. In 1931 there were no importations and in 1932 only 1,100 tons. So it would appear that these importations are going up in a very marked degree, and it seems unfortunate when British Columbia coal production is going down.
I hold in my hand a record of production for the past month of February. The total production for Vancouver island in February of this year was 58,833 tons, against 75,787 for February 1932. That is a substantial reduction, running into nearly thirty per cent. The importation of British coal for the two months is equivalent to sixteen per cent of the production on Vancouver island for one month. We do not want to have our coal production cut down sixteen per cent, if we can possibly avoid it. I have no doubt the minister is familiar with the situation. I imagine it is the currency situation which enables coal to be brought out from England at practically ballast prices, and also in consideration of the British preferential arrangements which were made last summer.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, that is not the major feature. The major feature is the operation of the Coal Mines Act in Great Britain, and the low ocean freight rates through the Panama canal to Vancouver. Of course the factors the hon. member has mentioned are contributory.


Alan Webster Neill: Does Britain subsidize her
coal mining?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Well then, that is unfair
importation; what about our dumping duty? In January the minister said: "I cannot say for the moment just what steps may be contemplated to deal with the situation". But I suggest it. is time some steps were taken. We cannot live in hopes of what is going to be done. I am not making my statement from a political standpoint at all. The minister may have observed that other hon. members from British Columbia and I have asked questions recently as to whether the Canadian National Railways purposed selling a large wharf they own in Vancouver harbour. It is well known that the suggestion is to sell it at a very low price. These are times when one can buy anything at a very small proportion of its cost. The suggestion is that a large importing company is going to buy the wharf with the buildings thereon for the purpose of establishing importations of British coal. The time to do anything towards checking such procedure is before an enormous investment is made, because if action is not taken immediately you are confronted with the necessity of dealing with vested interests. When we allow a trade to be built up, it is unfair to take steps to stop it after establishment. The time to act is before it reaches the stage of operation. When we are receiving 9,000 or 10,000 tons of coal in two months surely it is time for us to become alarmed, and especially when these importations are accompanied by heavy reductions in native coal production. I had hoped that the minister would take somewhat more drastic steps than simply to say the matter is before him. The matter may be before him two years from now.
While I am on my feet I should like to speak concerning another matter. In this connection I am not blaming his department. I notice that the importation of bituminous coal from the United States has increased enormously. In 1931 there were only 8,000 tons imported, in 1932, 5,000 tons, but in the month of February last alone, there were 2,413 tons. I cannot understand how it can be coming in in such increased volume, because we know the exchange situation makes it difficult for us to buy in the United States. If we are buying coal there, and they are competing with locally produced coal-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is that on the Pacific coast?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, into British Columbia. It is remarkable that the amount should be in-

Supply-Geological Survey-Coal
creasing in such large proportions. I cannot understand it, in view of the fact that exchange is decidely against such a trade. However, that is only a matter of comment. I should like the minister to assure us that he is taking some definite step, and that he is not only voicing an expression of good will in dealing with the importation of British coal. The other day the government promised immediately to put into effect the provisions of section 4 of the New Zealand treaty, which promptly put a check upon the importation of large quantities of New Zealand butter. Now is the time for us to take steps, before our local trade is ruined-it is badly handicapped now-and by the application of dumping duties, or some other means, apply a remedy.
The minister has advised us that the coal comes through the Panama canal bearing practically no freight charges at all, or only those charges which would apply to ballast. Then, apparently under the British Coal Mines Act the British industry is subsidized by the government. I suggest some very active steps be taken in the immediate future. I should like to hear from the minister.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Of course the importations from the United States to British Columbia are steadily reducing.


Alan Webster Neill: On the Pacific coast?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes; the figures before me would indicate that. In 1929, 30,535 tons were imported.


Alan Webster Neill: Bituminous?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, lignite and bituminous.


Alan Webster Neill: Ah.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1930 there were 26,819 tons; in 1931, 8,685 tons; in 1932, 5,208 tons. I understand the coal is used as far north as Any ox and some in Vancouver. A small amount of British bituminous coal has been landed in Vancouver by way of the Panama canal. Up to December 31, 1932, there were 1,154 tons. During the last two months an additional amount has come in to the Pacific coast from Great Britain.


Alan Webster Neill: How much was there in 1932?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There were 1,154 tons.
The matter of the importation of British bituminous coal has been before me, and I have been acting jointly and in cooperation with the coal operators on the St. Lawrence and on the western coast ever since the possibility of the importation of British bituminous in
any large amounts became a threat to the future markets for the Nova Scotia and the far western coal mines. It is a subject that the coal operators themselves, who are closely in touch with the situation, recognize as presenting difficulties. Only yesterday I spent a couple of hours with the heads of mining companies both east and west looking into the whole situation, in the hope that we ceuld find a solution which on the one hand would give the Canadian coal operators the home market, to which they think they are entitled,-and I do not disagree with them- and on the other hand refrain from placing on the consumer a burden which might in whole or in part be avoided. The question has not been so lightly regarded by me as the observations of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) would seem to indicate. I am not unacquainted with the difficulties that confront Canadian coal operators both in the east and in the west. There has been a very commendable disposition on the part of coal consumers to go a considerable way in using Canadian fuels even if they cost more than foreign fuels. There is a zone in Canada which I think the coal producers both east and west recognize that they cannot hope to invade with any degree of success. With respect to other sections of the country, we are making gradual but sure progress in the displacement of foreign fuels by Canadian coals. There has been the growing competition of oil, which tends J.o reduce the production of coal. That is a question that the producers are alive to, and we have discussed it with reference to the amount and the nature of assistance that the government may be able to extend to coal operators. I can only say what I have said before, that we are making headway. If the consumption had not fallen off, the provision that the coal miners themselves made by reducing overhead and increasing efficiency, combined with the assistance the government gave them, would have taken care of their requirements two years ago. But the mild winter of the year before last, and other factors, reduced the consumption, and we were again confronted with the difficulty of keeping our coal miners at work. Foreign fuels are a constant threat to the Canadian market. Hon. members of the committee are aware of the steps that the government has taken in an endeavour to conserve that market for our own producers as far as we economically can. Those efforts we shall continue to make, working in harmony with the coal producers. There is no movement of fuels into Canada that does not come under

Supply-Geological Survey-Coal
my review and is not discussed from time to time with the coal producers with the object of endeavouring to maintain those markets for Canadian producers. I am sure the hon. member must realize that the problem is a difficult and complex one. We have immense bodies of coal, but they are so located geographically that it is impossible to transport them economically in any considerable quantities into certain highly industrialized areas. There are markets that are available by reason of their geographical position, and in those markets, I am told by the coal producers, by the producers' own efforts and the assistance the department and this government can give them, we are displacing foreign fuels. The Winnipeg market is a striking instance, although foreign fuel has not been entirely supplanted there, and I doubt if it ever will be, having regard to various factors that enter into the question. At any rate I can assure the hon. member that the department has not overlooked any phase of this most complex question, and is working with the producers, endeavouring to lend such assistance as is justifiable.


Alan Webster Neill: With one exception the figures the hon. minister has quoted do not agree with those I got over his own signature from the Mines department. However, the differences are not very great, so I will not go into it. But I must certainly take exception to his statement that the importations into British Columbia of bituminous coal from the United States are steadily decreasing. He surely did not get the proper figures.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Bituminous and lignite- that is how we have them classified.


Alan Webster Neill: Only 800 tons of lignite came in in 1933. The bituminous that came in 1932 was 5,176 tons in twelve months, and in the month of February last there were 2,413 tons. That is, almost half as much came in one month this year as in the whole of 1932.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was giving the years from 1929 to 1932.


Alan Webster Neill: I have no figures prior to 1931. There is certainly a very disappointing increase in the present year. I do not know why the amount from Washington has increased and I do not think the minister is in any way to blame in that regard. But [DOT]turning to the British coal, I must expect him to take full responsibility. I quite admit that the subject is difficult and complex, but it is not to be solved with sympathy, it is not to be solved by discussion, it has to be solved by action, definite action.
XMc. .Gordon.]


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What sort of action?


Alan Webster Neill: Put the dumping duty on. Do what you would do if the Toronto manufacturers came crying to you-get some action. The minister said that only a small amount of British bituminous coal had come in. Of course the word small is comparative, but it is not a fair word under the circumstances. The amount that came' in in 1932 was 1,154 tons-that is his own figure-and the amount that came in in the first two months of this year was practically 10,000 tons. I think those figures are occasion for some alarm-I got them from his own department. It is not a small amount when it is sixteen per cent of the output of the Vancouver mines for one month.
The minister told us he was glad to find that there was a disposition among coal consumers to pay more for the local product. But especially in these hard times-or in fact at any time-it is idle to appeal to the consumer on patriotic grounds to pay more than the market price. If he can buy cheaper somewhere else, especially in these hard times, when money is so scarce and every dollar has to be spread out to the utmost, he is not going to be willing to pay more than he has to. Any pressure of that kind has to be put on by the government in the way of taxation or bonus or dumping duty. He told us he was making progress with this problem. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress, but backward.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The producers do not think so.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not a matter of opinion. I would be quite willing to subordinate my judgment to that of the minister in a matter of opinion, but these are matters of cold, hard facts.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will leave it to the producers.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister told us that the importation of bituminous coal from Great Britain in the year 1932 amounted to 1,154 tons, and he says that we are making progress now when we are importing almost 10,000 tons in two months. I do not know what kind of progress that is; it seems a retrograde movement to me, making haste backwards.
Then the minister introduced a feature that I had not commented upon; he said the consumption of coal, because of the hard times, was getting less. That makes the situation all the more acute, because I was not talking about the consumption but about the importation of coal. So if the importations are so

Supply-Geological Survey-Coal
much greater and the consumption is so much less, it makes the situation even more acute than it was before. I suggest that it is about time we got away from expressions of sympathy, and saying, "We will have a conference about this." The law is there, and goodness knows we pay enough for the privilege of having it there. These dumping duties were imposed in 1930; they were going to protect the primary producer first, last and all the time, or at least that is what they were supposed to do. Now I am only asking that the law be invoked. I want some definite action; we should not wait until the house is burned down before considering what should be done about repairing the chimney in order to prevent a fire. Let us get some action before a trade is built up with a large vested interest which could not be thrown into the discard at a moment's notice without gross injustice. Ho not let the Britisher get a footing in that market, if you axe not going to allow him to have it permanently. That is not just to him, and it will only interfere with our relations under these conference agreements, which are putting us in rather a ticklish situation in some respects. We do not want friction in the future with Great Britain; let us take action now. We can take action against New Zealand; we could take action against Great Britain if it were a question of shirts or something like that. Let us take action now, when it is a question of the livelihood of the coal miners of British Columbia.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like the minister to explain the increase of $250,000 in this item.


Alan Webster Neill: They are having sympathetic meetings.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for
Comox-Albemi says we are having sympathetic meetings. Last year the hon. member adopted the same paternal attitude with respect to the coal producers on the west coast. Apparently his observations were noted by the producers of western Canada, and I received a communication from the largest producer out there saying in substance that he was very sorry that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi was interesting himself in this subject, and that he would get along a good deal better without the help of the hon. gentleman.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister mention the name?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was Colonel Villiers. He is in the city now, and the hon. gentleman can interview him and verify what I say. I am sorry I have not the correspondence before
me. The increase to which the hon. member for South Perth made reference has come about by reason of the increased movement under what are known as the coal subventions, and in large part by reason of the increase in the subventions themselves.


Frederick George Sanderson: Just for my own information could the minister give me the amount of anthracite coal imported from the United States into Ontario last year and this year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid that from the way these figures are tabulated I cannot give the complete picture. I can give the coal imported into what is known as the eastern zone. Apparently the trade has adopted certain zones for purposes of statistics; that is, they depend upon the laid down cost of the coal within a certain area.


Frederick George Sanderson: What comprises the eastern zone?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It comprises that part of Ontario east of a line drawn between North Bay and Kingston. The importations of anthracite into that zone for the past four years were as follows:
Tons
1929		 303,132
1930		 254,324
1931		 187,210
1932		 161,915


Frederick George Sanderson: Does that include the whole of Ontario?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to delay the committee. If the minister has not the figures would he be good enough to obtain them for me?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I should be glad to do so. The table is quite long and it would take some time to read it into the record, but I shall be glad to furnish the hon. member with a complete table showing the importations.


Frederick George Sanderson: That will be quite satisfactory.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some months ago an investigation was started into the importation of anthracite coal from Great Britain. -I should like to ask the minister when we may expect to receive that report, and whether we will get it in time to discuss it on the floor of the house if that should be necessary.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe that investigation will be concluded very shortly. It was not a simple matter, because I am beginning to learn that the coal business has many angles, and

Supply-Geological Survey-Coal
I can. easily understand that those conducting the inquiry had to go carefully into all the phases of the coal trade in eastern Canada. I hope, however, that the report will be ready perhaps within a week.


Mr. RALSTON:: I would not want the coal producers and miners or the place which this great resource holds in our national life injured by my intervention in this debate, as the minister said was the case with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Surely a member is entitled to express his opinion without having it suggested that his intervention is going to be injurious to the cause he is upholding. I do not think the minister does himself justice; perhaps he did not quite intend to say what he did. Certainly it does not give one a very good impression to have it indicated that a man who consistently advocates assistance to this industry is doing it harm. One can only think that the people who come to the government must be extremely careful of the company they keep, otherwise they will probably have a deaf ear turned to them. In spite of that I want to suggest one or two things with regard to what the minister has said. He made one of his usual extremely unctuous speeches, if I may say so without being offensive. He used the most general language possible, and if "apple sauce" is a permissible parliamentary expression it may be used to characterize the hon. gentleman's remarks. Some of his expressions were that people had shown a "commendable disposition" towards the use of Canadian coal; that he is "not unacquainted" with the difficulties of the industry; that he is "not overlooking" this great industry; that the government is endeavouring to give such assistance as would be justifiable", and so on. Now that does not sound very much like the member of a government led by a gentleman who gave the undertakings which his leader did to the coal industry in 1930. All over the province of Nova Scotia and particularly in the coal districts we were told definitely that there would be a national fuel policy, and nothing comes of it but a statement in 1933 that the hon. gentleman is not overlooking the situation. I suggest that it is time for the minister either to, fish or to cut bait, to tell us either that he'has a fuel policy or that he has not. In season and out of season I have done my best and stood abuse from this side of the house when I sat on the opposite side and was told that nothing was being done. I made no rash promises with regard to a national fuel policy, but endeavoured to do what seemed practicable and reasonable in connection with the industry; but this government 
came along with an entirely new proposition, namely, that the coal and steel industry should be benefited to the extent of the $55,000,000 that was going to the United States instead of going to the benefit of the people of Cape Breton-money that should be kept on this side of the line; but what they were led to expect has not materialized.
With regard to the dumping duties to which the minister has referred to-night, and which I have no doubt have been discussed with him in the lobbies of the house and in his office in the last day or two, the exchange dumping duty, as I understand it, is applied to coal at a low invoice price. The exchange dumping duty is being figured on so many shillings per ton, so that the fewer the shillings the less the duty and the less the assistance to the Canadian coal industry. I should think that the minister would be able to indicate to us whether it is intended to change that. God knows I am not in favour of this sort of duties, but if that is to be the policy let us have it all round and not some half hearted administration of it. If you are going to have a duty on everything else, if you are going to have irritating restrictions everywhere and a barbed wire on top of the fence, let us have it in connection with coal also and when the invoice value on everything else is raised do not let coal come in at nine shillings and sixpence when it is costing fifteen shillings at the port in England, and only charge the exchange dumping duty on that lower price.
With regard1 to other methods of assistance, I say to the minister frankly that I conratu-late him on the addition made to the maximum in connection with the freight subvention given to forwarding water-borne coal the year before last. But that does not appear to be producing the results which we were led to anticipate from all this talk about the national fuel policy. After so much talk about that policy my hon. friend should be able by this time, having been two years in power, to inform us either that he has some policy or that he has not.
Everyone knows that the coal situation is a difficult one; if it were not the coal industry would be in better shape to-day than it is.
. But it is because of these difficulties which my hon. friends opposite thought that they could solve that the industry is in such straits at the present time, and we feel that they should do something about it. If nothing can be done, then let the minister confess his inability in* the matter.
I would ask the minister to go into some detail with respect to the assistance furnished

Supply-Geological Survey-Coal
the industry, particularly in the east. May I put to him these five questions: 1. How much coal was carried by freight subvention from Nova Scotia to Montreal all rail, last year?
2.	How much coal was forwarded by rail, after it had come by water to Montreal?
3.	How much coal was forwarded by water from Montreal to Toronto? 4. Is any extension of the fuel subvention area contemplated by the government this year? 5. Has the minister any additional proposals whereby he will promote assistance to the coal industry, particularly so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned?
These are things which the committee should know, and I submit that we should get along much better if the minister would tell us precisely what he intends to do to assist the industr3'. I do protest that it is scarcely the right thing for him to say that he is "aware of the difficulties," that he is "not overlooking" the industry, and that sort of thing. Instead of generalities, will the minister give us some definite information with regard to the eastern Canadian coal industry. Will he tell us what has been done during the last 3mar and compare that with the year before.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total movement of coal from Nova Scotia last year was 711,589 tons, under the various subvention rates.


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad if the minister would separate them.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will endeavour to do so, although the figures are not compiled in that way. The all-rail rate in 1932, under order in council P.C. 1048, covered a movement of 15.854 tons. Under order in council P.C. 539, which covers rail and water rate, the movement totalled 59,667 tons. Under order in council P.C. 1300, rail and water rate, there were 214,085 tons.


James Layton Ralston: Is that coal coming by water to Montreal and then forwarded inland?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the rail and water rate. Under order in council P.C. 1048, for 1932, there were 39,847 tons.


James Layton Ralston: What is that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is rail and water again.


James Layton Ralston: We have to know the destination.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is to Montreal.


James Layton Ralston: 39,000 tons rail and water under P.C.1048-there must be a mistake when the minister says that is to Montreal.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is water to Montreal and then rail-*


James Layton Ralston: Inland?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: What is P.C. 1300-the same thing?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: P.C. 1300 preceded P.C. 1048.


James Layton Ralston: It covers the same thing?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The same thing. There were 74,196 tons under section 5 of P.C. 1048. Under section 6, there were 7,898 tons waterborne into Ontario through the canal system and then by rail to destination.


James Layton Ralston: What is section 5?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe section 5 is waterborne west of Montreal; some of that coal would reach as far as Toronto.


James Layton Ralston: P.C. 1300 and P.C. 1048
seem to be the same thing.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: P.C. 1300 preceded P.C. 1048. Under section 7 of P.C. 1048 there were 93,135 tons. Under order in council P.C. 944, there were 152,074 tons.


James Layton Ralston: What is that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is coal for the Lasalle coking plant. If the hon. member desires, I will have a statement prepared covering all coal subventions.


James Layton Ralston: What was the total for 1931?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 349,767 tons.


James Layton Ralston: How much coal subject to the subvention did the Canadian National Railwaj's get?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That would be under order in council P.C. 1048. No coal was purchased by the Canadian National with the exception of about 10,000 tons at Taschereau and Cochrane.


James Layton Ralston: How much of the coal bought by the Canadian National Railways was subject to the subvention?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 7,562 tons.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has stated that approximately 711,000 tons have been moved through these subventions. This was the total movement after the minister's announcement in the house last year that he hoped to promote the movement of an additional million tons of coal. That was broadcast all over Nova Scotia and when I asked
Income Tax

the minister about it, he used the same figure in the house. That statement was advertised very broadly in the government newspapers and when we are all through we find that not only has there not been an additional million tons of coal moved but the total movement under the subventions is approximately seven hundred thousand tons. I think I was right when I suggested that the minister has not shown in practice any benefits to be derived from the national fuel policy.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order
Friday, March 31, 1933