[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Richardson.
Bill No. 34, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Thomson.
Bill No. 35, respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill No. 36, to incorporate Grain Insurance and Guarantee Company.-Mr. Blake.

[Stage Direction]
Volume 2 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ended March 31, 1918.-Sir Thomas White.
Annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals.-Hon. Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, respecting the Department of Health.
Mr. PROULX:: Explain.


Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: This Bill is to provide for the creation of a Department of Health, to be presided over by a minister of the Crown to be named by the Governor in Council. It also contains the usual provision for the appointment of a deputy minister, to be the deputy head of the department, and for the necessary officers, clerks and employees. The powers of the minister administering the department extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction; that is the general definition of the powers of the minister. Certain particular powers are mentioned in detail covering co-operation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities, with a view to the coordination of efforts proposed or made for preserving public health. The department is also authorized to deal with questions relating to the conservation of child life and child welfare generally; the inspection and medical care of immigrants; the supervision, as regards the public health, of railways, boats, ships and all methods of transportation; the supervision of federal public buildings and offices with regard to the health of civil servants and other Government employees therein;
the enforcement of the regulations of the International Joint Commission promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the prevention of the pollution of boundary waters; and the administration of certain statutes mentioned in the schedule now being administered by other departments. Provision is also made for the appointment of a Dominion Council of Health, of which the Deputy Minister of Public Health is to be chairman; the council to be composed of the chief executive officers of the Provincial Health Departments and three other persons to be named by the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)	.
['1.\tYes.\n2. (a) On petition of the residents of the district; (b) 1917; (c) built by A. Martineau.\n3.\t$4,211.68.\n4 and 5. Both lines have been combined with the system of the Dorchester Telephone Company, which is operating them under agreement with the Government.']
Mr. SPEAKER:: I am informed by the
Clerk of the House, who has made inquiry, that the Paris Matin and the Canadian Record Viave never been on the list of publications in the reading room of the House of Commons. The other papers mentioned in the question were on the list for years, but during the war they ceased to come, for som(e reason, it is supposed, connected with the war. With respect to the second part of the question I shall be very happy to confer with any hon. member who may desire additional papers to be added to the reading room list.



*Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Has the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into and report upon the commercial possibilities of the Georgian Bay Canal, on the 18th of March, 1914, completed its work.
2.	If so, when will the report be submitted to the House?
3.	If not, is said Commission, which was appointed five years ago, expediting its work diligently so that a final report may be presented at a very early date?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: In reply to 1, 2, and 3, instructions were given under Order in Council of 6th October, 1914, that' ae

much data as possible be gathered with respect to the industrial and commercial aspects of the project, and the collection of such information was entrusted to the Chairman W Sanford Evans until sufficient progress be made to enable the holding of public sittings by the Commission. Such data was compiled and three reports were submitted, planted and laid before Parliament, hut on account of the war, there were no public hearings.


INTERNED ENEMY ALIENS.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	Is it true that enemy aliens interned in Canada are permitted to sue and trade the same as Canadian citizens?
2.	What is the amount of property held in Canada by alien enemies and is it being investigated?
3.	If so, by whom and on what authority?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No.
2.	Estimated value of property reported to Custodian and Department of Secretary of State, $38,000,000.
3.	Under the Consolidated Orders respecting Trading with the Enemy, persons managing or holding property of alien enemies were required to notify the Custodian thereof, and persons owing money to alien enemies which would be payable if a state of war did not exist 'were required to pay the same to the Custodian. Action was taken to publish as widely as possible the effect of these orders. Under the said orders the Secretary of State is authorized to make investigations where trading with the enemy was suspected, and under the provisions of the orders investigations have been made in every case where a suspicion was raised of any contravention of the orders. By Order in Council dated the 11th of November, 1918, published in the Canada Gazette of the 14th of December, 1918, the Enemy Debts Committee was constituted, consisting of: the Secretary of State of Canada, an officer of the Department of Finance named by the Minister of Finance, and an officer of the Department of Justice, named by the Minister of Justice, and that the following act upon that committee: the Under Secretary of State, Mr. J. R. Forsyth for the Custodian, and Mr. C. C. Robinson for the Department of Justice. The committee is proceeding with the investigation required by the said Order in Council, and has advertised its terms widely, asking for reports of all alien enemy property held in Canada.
3 Answered by No. 2.
[Mr. Can-veiH. 1


CANADA REGISTRATION ACT.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many persons, in compliance with the regulations of the Canadian Registration Act, expressed their willingness to help-harvest the farmers' crops for 1918?
2.	How many were subsequently notified to do so?
3.	What was the total expenditure in connection with the Canadian Registration Act?
4.	What was the total expenditure in connection with the previous National Registration Act?
5.	How many paid officials were employed in connection with the work of Canadian Registration Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1 Nearly 300,000.
2.	107,000 names were supplied provincial authorities in the provinces where application for this information was made, but have no knowledge as to the number of people whom they subsequently notified.
3.	$631,230.89, including cost of compilation.
4.	$156,964.55, which, however, included the cost of occupational survey of the overseas forces and of Canadian industry.
Question No. 5 is not answered.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING EXPENSES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CA8GRAIN:
1.	What dm the printing expenses of the Government amount to?
2.	Why is not all the printing of the Government done by the King's Printer?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918, $2,569,559.73.
2.	For various reasons:
(a)	The flow of Government printing work not being regular at all times, gluts of work occur in some or all of the departments, and when it is felt delivery cannot be made in time, the work is sent outside.
(b)	Some of the departments are under capacity in equipment, for instance, the press room; some of the work has to be sent to outside firms for execution. [DOT]
(c)	The Printing Bureau is not equipped to manufacture electrotypes, half-tones, line cuts, zinc cuts and engravings of all descriptions; it is not equipped to do lithographic work (maps, cheques, certificates and other commercial work, etc., etc.), or to do all of the specialty printing work. These classes of jobs have also to be sent outside.


QUEBEC MILITARY HOSPITAL.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have any complaints been made with regard to the accommodation in the Military Hospital, Quebec?

2.	II so, toy ivhom?
3.	Have any Boards of Inquiry toeen appointed since 1915, to date?
4.	If so, what has been their findings, and has any action been taken?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	There is no record of any complaints having been made.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes, a Court of Inquiry was held on November 8, 1918, by order of the General Officer Commanding Military District No. 5, inquiring into and reporting upon the administration and conduct of the various temporary hospitals.
4.	The findings are as follows:
"The court having heard the evidence and after visiting the temporary military hospitals at the Drill Hall, Quebec, and at Levis Armouries, is of the opinion that:
"The buildings selected for these temporary hospitals were the most suitable available under the circumstances.
"The equipment, including drugs and medical supplies, were adequate.
" The food supplied was in sufficient quantity and of good quality and suitable.
"The organization of these two temporary hospitals was completely developed under unexpected circumstances, and there was no undue delay in completing this organization.
The sanitary condition of these two hospitals was at all times satisfactory.
"The A.D.M.S. M.D. No. 5, who was responsible for the organization of these hospitals, and Lt.-Colonel E. A. Lebel, C.A M.C., Officer Commanding Quebec Military Hospital, have shown much attention to the organization and administration of these hospitals, and the work of the personnel and V.A.D.'s have shown remarkable devotion in their duties and given their best endeavours to carry out their tasks towards all patients.
From, evidence adduced there seems no question but that all the patients received skilful treatment, good care and nursing while under care in these hospitals, and the *court finds no cause for complaint in any manner whatever."


TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS FOR INFLUENZA.
Mr POWER:: 1.	Have any complaints toeen made with regard to the treatment of soldiers stationed in M.D. No. 4 and No. 5 during the epidemic of Influenza?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	Has any action been taken in the matter?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	No complaints have been received at these headquarters with regard to the treat- m ment of soldiers stationed in M.D. No 4 and No. 5 during the epidemic of influenza.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


BASE HOSPITAL, TORONTO.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have any complaints been made with regard to the ba.se hospital in M.D. No. 2, Toronto?
2.	If so, has any inquiry toeen made into the
matter?
3.	What was the result?
4.	What action has been taken?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Some local complaints.
2.	Yes.
3.	All complaints were satisfactorily adjusted by the General Officer Commanding Military District No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


EXPORT OF WOOLLEN GOODS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How much liability has been incurred by the Government to date in connection with the export of woollen goods from Oanada to Rumania?
Major-General MEWBURN: No information.
LIQUOR FOR CANADIAN SIBERIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES. [DOT]


Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Was there any liquor bought for the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	If so, when was it bought?
3.	From what firm or firms?
4.	By whom?
5.	What kind?
6.	How much of each kind?
7.	What was the purchase price per bottle, case or barrel?
8.	What was the cost price of said liquor when delivered in Siberia?
9.	To whom were said liquors delivered in
Siberia?	.
10.	Were said liquors paid for toy the Canadian Government, or were they paid for by the Imperial Government?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes; all for medicinal purposes, except rum, which is issued by the Imperial Government as part of a soldier's rations.
2.	September, 1918; October, 1918, and February, 1919.
3.	Messrs. Hiram Walker, Messrs. Canadian Wine Vaults, Messrs. Law, Young & Co., Paul D'Aoust, Esq., Messrs. Western Canadian Liquor Company, Messrs. L. Chaput, Fils & Co., Ltd., Messrs. Hudon, Hebert & Co., Messrs. Boivin, Wilson &

Co., Gillespies & Co., Hudon & Orsali, R. P. Rithet & Co., through the War Purchasing Commission.
4.	The Director of Contracts, through the War Purchasing Commission.
5.	Whisky, rye and Scotch; wines,, sherry and port; brandy, alcohol, alcohol absolute; rum.
6.	Whisky, Scotch, 142 quarts; whisky, rye, 192 quarts; alcohol, 102 gallons; brandy, 78 quarts; wines, sherry, 173 quarts; wine, port, 148 gallons; rum, 10,000 gallons.
7.	Alcohol, barrel (40 gallons), $300 (except 80 gallons purchased in bond at $3.30 per gallon).
Brandy' case, $34 (except 6 cases purchased in bond at $27.62 per case).
Whisky, Scotch, case, $27 (except 6 cases purchased in bond at $21.43 per case).
Whisky, rye, case $10.75 (except 6 cases purchased in bond at $7.29 per case).
Wine, sherry, case, $15 for 12 cases purchased in bond (balance supplied at $20.50 per case).
Wine, port, $15 per case for 12 cases purchased in bond (balance supplied at $22 per case).
Rum, 200 gallons at $4 per gallon in bond; 200 gallons at $7.50 per gallon in bond; 200 gallons at $3 per gallon in bond; 400 gallons at $2.75 per gallon in bond; 800 gallons at $4.25 per gallon in bond; 8,200 gallons at $3.40 per gallon in bond.
8.	The above mentioned prices, plus cost of transportation.
9.	Rum, which forms part of the soldiers' rations, was delivered to the Army Service Corps. The remainder was delivered to No. 4 Advanced Depot Medical Stores, Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force, Base Depot Medical Stores-for the Stationary Hospital, Field Ambulance, Regimental Units, Sanitary Officer.
10.	Payment for said liquors was advanced by the Canadian Government and charged to Imperial account, and will be paid for by the Imperial Government,


C.N.R. EMPLOYEES.
John Ewen Sinclair: How many employees formerly in the service of the Canadian Northern Railway Company have been appointed since January 1, 1918, to positions on the Canadian Government Railway East of Montreal?


Hon. Mr. REID:: No former Canadian Northern Bailway*employees have been appointed to positions on the Canadian Government Railways east of Montreal, but Mr. W. A. Kingsland, former General Superin-
[Major-General Mewburn.]
tendent of Canadian Northern Railway at Montreal, has been appointed Assistant General Manager, Canadian National Railways, Eastern Lines, and his jurisdiction has been extended to cover Canadian Government Railways east of O'Brien.
Mr. Guy Tombes, formerly Assistant Freight Traffic Manager Canadian Northern Railway Eastern Lines, has had his jurisdiction extended to include lines of Canadian Government Railways west of Mata-pedia, Que., and Edmundston, N.B., and east of Armstrong.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS AT GUYSBOROUGH.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: 1.	Were repairs made to the public building: at Guysborough in 1918? If so, what was the total expenditure?
. 2. Who was foreman? -
3.	Was there a local inspector? If so, what was his name?
4.	What proportion of the expenditure was paid out for labour?
5.	Who was paymaster?
6.	How much per thousand was paid for lumber, and what was the total quantity purchased''
7.	Was any lumber sold after completion of work? If so, how many thousand feet and for how much?
8.	How' much coal was supplied to the said building during the calendar year 1918, and what did it cost? Was the ooal purchased by tender and1 contract?
9.	Who supplied the coal?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) $20.3.83.
2.	Alfred .Carroll.
3.	Work was inspected by Mr. Wm. Bishop, public works inspector of Dominion buildings, Nova Scotia.
4.	$142.82.
5.	No paymaster.
6.	(a) $25; (b) 1,492 feet.
7.	(a) Yes, for the old staging that was standing, the sum of $9 was deducted from the account of Lewis Hart & Go.; (b) No. information as to quantity in staging.
8.	(a) 40 tons; (b) $430; (c) Yes.
9.	Lewis Hart & Co.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VACANCIES.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Did the Civil Service Commission advertise for applications for the positions of executive head and four assistants in connection with the war loans in the Department of Finance? If so, when and how many applications were received?
2.	Did the Finance Department subsequently request the Civil Service Commission to make no appointments to these positions? If so, when was such request made and why?
3.	Have appointments to any or all of the above positions been made? If so, when, by

whom, and what are the names of the persons appointed ?
4.	Were any of the applicants for the above positions or any of the appointees returned soldiers?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes; August 8th, 1918; for executive head, 81; for four assistants, 232.
2	and 3. On 30th July, 1918, the department, in order to build up an organization to carry on the Victory Loan campaign, 1918, without having to lean too heavily on the department proper, wrote the Civil Service Commission to secure the services of a first class executive head and four or five accountants. The department emphasized the necessity of the immediate employment of these officials, because they must obtain a working knowledge of the arrangements to be made for the flotation of the loan.
The 1918 Victory Loan was to be issued on a very different basis from previous issues. The bonds were to be printed and furnished to all branches of the various banks before the campaign opened so that immediately on full payment of subscriptions the coupon bonds could be handed out at once to the subscribers and the fully registered bonds as soon as the required registration could be made in the books of the Finance Department.
The Civil Service Commission advertised for applications for above mentioned positions in the Canada Gazette of August 8, 1918, calling for the filing of applications not later than September 12 next but extending the time for one week for candidates from British Columbia, thus fixing the date for closing the lists as September 19. 1918. _
It became necessary for the department to take very prompt action in the direction of making all preparations for the issue of a very extensive loan, the plans of the Dominion Executive Committee being so far advanced as to require a conference arranged for the 20th August between the subcommittee and officers of the department to effect final arrangements of all details. As the commission was not in a position, until after the 19th of September, to furnish officials required for this work the services of the officers of the department who directed the work of previous loans wrere utilized. It was eventually deemed more advisable to delegate one of these officials to take complete charge of the carrying out of such arrangements rather than rely at such a late date on the services of a new and untried appointee. To assist him in this work, the department availed themselves of the services of four expert men loaned by the Victory Loan organizations in Toronto and
Montreal to, as it were, represent them in the work. These officers, whose names are as follows, were loaned to us from the organizations from the dates mentioned: Arthur Paterson, October 16, 1918; Thomas Holloway, October 16,	1918; James R.
Adams, October 16, 1918; George E. Elliott, October 24, 1918.
Their services will be required until the final adjustment of the loan. They receive remuneration from the department at the rate of $2,500 per annum each, being the amount of remuneration offered for assistants in the advertisement of the Civil Service Commission.
On the 5th December, 1918, the Deputy Minister of Finance wrote the Civil Service Commission in connection with the employment of the above and asked for certificates for such employment which were issued by the commission and forwarded to the department.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT BOARD LOANS__________


NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How many loans have been made in Nova Scotia under the provisions of the Soldiers' Settlement Board?
2.	How much money has been advanced ?
3.	How many applications have been rejected?
4.	How many applications have not yet been dealt with ?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Seven.
2.	$12,900.
3.	Two.
4.	An accurate report on the number of cases pending cannot be arrived at owing to the difficulty in making inspections during the winter season.


CABLE CENSORSHIP.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough).
1.	How many cable messages were refused transmission by the cable censorship at Hazel Hill and Canso, N.S., during the period of the war?
2.	Is the staff of censors and decoders at the above named stations still in the employ of the Government? If so, what are their names and the amount paid to each during 1918?
3.	What was the gross expenditure in connection with this service at Hazel Hill and Canso, N.S., since the war commenced to date?
Major-General MEWBURN :
1.	Approximately 3,600. In addition approximately 30,000 messages have been the subject of inquiry by the Censors beforle
[Stage Direction]
being passed, while the special attention of the Censors in the United Kingdom has beien called to approximately 18,000 more.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) Censor.
H. A. Rice.
Salary received during year 1918.
[Stage Direction]
Assistant Censors.
Major G. W. Hart - [DOT]	[DOT] [DOT]	2,185	00J. M. Rutherford	
2,185	00George Self	
2,185	OOT. P. Hambling	
2,185	00
Deputy Assistant Censor.
R. G. Fraser	 1,640	00
Decoding Clerks.
A. H. Macdonald	
1,277	50F. M. Keating-*	
1,277	50E. W. Hadley-[DOT]	[DOT][DOT]	1,277 50J. H. Cousins	
1,277	50H. S. Hart	
905	00
Typist.
E. iSt. C. SmiL'ey	 684 75
Total	$19,994 75
3.	$106,423.30.

Mr. AROHAIMBAULT:: 1.	Were the bonuses, recently given to the mail carriers of the Dominion, all of the same amount, or were said bonuses of a higher amount for the mail carriers of the western provinces than those paid to the mail carriers of the Province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of the bonuses paid to the mail carriers of the western provinces, and of the Province of Quebec, respectively ?
3.	Why were the amounts less in-the case of the Province of Quebec mail carriers than those of the western provinces?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 
LAND FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	How many acres of land have been set aside by the Federal Government for school purposes in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What were the conditions under which the land was set aside?
3.	What is the amount to the credit of each province on account of school lands with the Federal Government?
4.	What amount has been paid by the Federal Government to each of the provinces to date -on account of school lands?
5.	What is the average amount received per acre in each province on account of school lands?
G. What is the approximate value of the school lands unsold in each province?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: n
1.	Manitoba, including unsurveyied territory, approximately 7,993,600 acres; Saskatchewan, including unsurveyed territory, approximately 8,421,000 -acres; Alberta, including unsurveyed territory, approximately 7,798,600 acijes.
2.	Undter provisions of chapter 23 section 22 of the Dominion Lands Act of 1872, which reads as follows:
" And whereas it is *expedient to make provision in aid of education in Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories, therefone sections eleven -and twenty-ninie in each and every survieyed township throughout the extjent of the Dominion lands, shall be and are hereby set apart as an endowment for purposes of education.
"1. The sections so dedictated shall be thereafter dealt with in such a manner as may be prescribed by law, and the same are hereby- withdrawn from the operation of the clauses in this Act relating to purchase by private entry, and to homestead right, and it is hereby declared that no such right of purchase by private entry or homestead right shall be recognized in connection with the said sections or any parts or parts thereof:
"2. Provided, that on a township being surveyed should such sections, or either of	them,	or	any	part	of either,be	found	to	have	been	settled on
and improved, then and in such case the occupant or occupants, conforming to the requirements of this Act shall be confirmed in such possession, and the Secretary of State shall select a quantity equal to that found to have been so settled on

from the unclaimed lands in such township, and shall withdraw the land so selected from sale and settlement, and shall set apart and publish the same as school lands, by notice in the Canada Gazette.
The Act has been amended from time to time to meet existing conditions, and these lands are now administered as provided for in sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act as amended in 1918.
3.	To 1st March, 1919.
Manitoba	$4,786,982.40
Saskatchewan .. ..	7,478,298.49
Alberta	 4,732,052.72
4.	To 31st March, 1918.
Manitoba	$2,576,568.52
Saskatchewan .. ..	2,397,978.45
Alberta	 2,108,440.35
5.
Manitoba	$ 9.72
Saskatchewan... 69,672,000
Alberta	 13.54
6.	Including the unsurveyed territory and estimated at $7 per acre in Manitoba, $10 in Saskatchewan, and $9 in Alberta, which is considered a fair valuation, the approximate value of unsold school lands in each province is as follows:
Manitoba	$49,778,000
Saskatchewan	..	..	09,672,000
Alberta	 55,408,000


C.E.F. IN IRELAND.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Is the Government aware that, at this very time, soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force are being made use of for police duty in Ireland with a view to preventing a Sinn Fein-ers' insurrection?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to recall these troops from Ireland and to repatriate them as soon as possible?


Hon. Mr. MEWBURN:: 1 and 2. This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for the desired information.


TELEPHONE LINES IN DORCHESTER.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has the Government constructed a telephone line in the parishes of Saint-Louis de Gomzague, and St. Cyiprien, in the County of Dorchester?
2.	If so, upon whose request, when, and by whom?
3.	What is the cost of said construction?
4.	Is said telephone line now operated by the Government?
5.	If not, has the Government authorized anyone to operate said telephone line?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Yes.
2. (a) On petition of the residents of the district; (b) 1917; (c) built by A. Martineau.
3.	$4,211.68.
4 and 5. Both lines have been combined with the system of the Dorchester Telephone Company, which is operating them under agreement with the Government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the amount spent by the Government for each of the canals of Canada since Confederation p
2.	What has been the cost of the upkeep of each of these canals, and what receipts have been received from each of them?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Who is Director of Vocational Training? What is his salary? What is his profession? What special training had: he to fit him as " Director of Vocational Training " ?
2.	How' many units for Vocational Training are there in Canada? How many officers in each unit, and at what salary? Wihat is their profession or training?
3.	What is the cost of administration, (a) at Ottawa; (b) at each unit? What is the cost for maintenance? What was total cost per year? What is estimated cost for coming fiscal year?
4.	How many applications for training have been received? How many from iboys under age? How many have been refused training because they have been under age?
5.	Does Vocational Training Branch give an agricultural course? Doeis Land Settlement Board give an agricultural course?


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What amount have been paid for travelling expenses to the different members of the Government since 1st of November, 1911?
2.	What are the names of the ministers Who travelled, and the names of places to which they travelled?
3.	What was the object of such journeys?
4.	What amount was paid to each minister, and what was the date of payment?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a copy of the Report , of the Military Service Council on the Administration of the Military Service Act, 1917, of April 4, 1918.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, correspondence, and documents of all kinds in the Post Office Department, referring in any way to charges against the present postmaster of Brook Village, Inverness County, Nova Scotia, during the last four years.


John Ewen Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, or other documents on file with the Post Office Department received since January 1, 191,2, -relating to the keeping open or closing of the Post Office at Sea View, P.E.I.



PAYMENTS TO SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK.

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the amount of $5,000 received by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick for the fiscal years 1915-16 and 1916-17 to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should1 be returned by the said Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to the Treasury of Canada forthwith.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to recall the circumstances to the minds of hon. gentlemen who were present last session when a discussion took place on this subject? The circumstances in connection with this motion, the payment of $2,500 to cover the expenses of the Chief Justice of Canada in connection with attending meetings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dates back to 1897, I think, when, at the suggestion of the then Minister of Justice (the late Sir Oliver Mowat) that amount of money was placed in the Estimates for the specific purpose of meeting the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice when performing the journeys referred to. From 1897 until a few years ago the item always appeared in the Estimates in exactly the language which I have stated. No variation was made in that language until the fiscal year 1915-16, when the wording was somewhat changed. Previously the vote had invariably read " Travelling expenses attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 'Council." In the fiscal year 1915-16 the wording of the vote was made " Special allowance to Sir Charles' Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." I am aware that apologists for the respectable raid which has been made on the treasury to the extent of $5,000 will find in the wording of the vote-in its technical or legal phraseology-a loophole for an excuse for the payment of this money. I submit, however, that there can be no doubt that the express object for which this money was granted was to cover the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice when atr tending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the Chief Justice did not attend these sittings he would incur no travelling expenses, and there would be no justification for his taking advantage of this vote. The Chief Justice rather seems to have held that view himself at one time. When I first brought this matter up in the House on 13th May, 1918, the Ottawa papers the next morning contained an interview in which Sir 'Charles Fitzpatrick characterized my statement that he had received this money when he did 
not go overseas as absolutely untrue. In the interview in question that gentleman used these words, as reported in the press:
When I do not go to Dondon of course I do not receive the money.
I proceeded then to show from the Auditor General's Report that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had received money for travelling expenses, although he had not gone overseas in the two years referred to. On the 15th May, 1918, the Prime Minister without comment read to the House a statement which he announced had been placed in his hands by iSir Charles Fitzpatrick. The statement drew attention to the fact that the wording of the vote in the fiscal years 1915-16 and 1916-17 had been changed to "Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," instead of reading as formerly "Travelling expenses for attending sittings of the Judicial lOommittee of the Privy Council." I hold myself responsible, as a member of this House, for allowing this vote for this purpose to pass for the two years in question. In common with very many other members of the House I was present at that time, but I excuse myself for not raising objection to the vote on the ground that ever since 1897 this money had been voted without dispute, and the purpose of the vote was taken for granted. But, Sir, after I found out that the gentleman concerned had not gone overseas and had not performed the service for which the money was undoubtedly voted, after I found out that we had made a mistake in passing this vote in those terms, I do not feel like adding to my mistake an offence; because if I were to allow Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to retain, without question on my part, money for which he had given no service whatever to the country, I should be condoning what I regard as absolutely wrong. I do not propose to do that, consequently, I am making the present motion.
But, Sir, I did not think it would be necessary to bring this matter up in this House at all after what transpired last session. When we were in Committee of Supply, as will be found by reference to page 2507 of last year's Hansard, I asked if the Chief Justice had repaid, or would do so, this $5,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George E. Foster) who was overseeing the Estimates, said that an answer would be given later in the evening, and for the time being the item was allowed to stand. Later on the same evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce

brought the item forward again, but at my request allowed it to stand until the statement which he had promised was produced. I said in explanation of my request:
But the fact that, in my judgment, five thousand dollars of the money of Canada has heen taken out of the treasury by a man who happens to be Chief Justice of the Dominion of Canada, warrants me in saying that I will not consent to the passage of another item of $2,500 to that gentleman until I know that the money-
-that is, the $5,000 in question-
-will be refunded.
Again the item stood, and when we came back to it a little later the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a summary of the statement which he had promised earlier in the evening to give, and which I take it from reading Hansard he was authorized by the Chief Justice to give. I commend to your consideration a portion of that statement, the full text of which will be found on page 2536 of Hansard. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
Sir Charles Fitzpatrick contends that he was entirely justified under the circumstances in accepting the allowance for the two years during which he visited London.
That is entirely true.
But with reference to the last two years-
That is, the fiscal years 1916 and 1917.
-as it appears to be the wish of the House that these amounts should be returned, he says

That is, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick says,
-that he is quite willing to return them.
I thought, Sir,when I had that statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressing the words of the then Chief Justice of Canada, that I had an assurance which would make it unnecessary for me to refer to this matter again.
As soon as I received that assurance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce I withdrew any objection to the voting of the $2,500 for the next fiscal year. That is to say, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, having given the assurance of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick that this $5,000 would, be returned, obtained $2,500 from this House for the purpose of paying the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice when he went overseas. Now, Sir, I am informed that that $5,000 has not been returned.
I am not a lawyer, Sir, and therefore am at a great disadvantage in arguing a case of this kind where a lawyer is concerned; but I think I have heard of such a thing as
getting money under false pretences, and I do not know but what I will have the right to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce arrested for obtaining money under false pretences, because the committee did not consent to the $2,500 being voted until he had given the assurance from the mouth of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick himself that the $5,000 would be returned.
Now, Sir, the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in discussing this matter in the House on that occasion used these words:
This item goes back to 1897. It was for travelling expenses. It appeared in the Estimates in that form until 1915 or 1916, when the item w>as changed from "travelling expenses" to "special allowances." Under this the Chief Justice received his travelling expenses to attend the court, when, in fact, he had not attended the court.
Of course, we are all aware of the fact that about the time that wording was changed it was not quite so healthy to travel across the seas as it had formerly been; the submarine menace was growing all the time. I do not know whether the former Chief Justice of Canada was a good swimmer or not, but at all events he apparently found it safer to stay on this side of the water-and he did stay on this side of the water. My contention is that, having stayed on this side of the water, he should not have drawn the $5,000 which he did draw, and which I say this House voted with the intention that it was to cover his expenses when he went overseas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use any strong language in referring to this matter; perhaps if I did Bourinot would step in and guarantee immunity to the gentleman to whom I refer. Bourinot does step in as a guarantor of immunity to certain men when they happen to occupy exalted positions in this country. There is more in this matter, Mr. Speaker, than the sum of $5,000. If there was one person more than another in the Dominion of Canada whose every action should have been beyond the slightest question, that person was the one holding the highest judicial position in the gift of the Dominion of Canada. I regret very much that the former Chief Justice of Canada has not lived up to his intention of last session as announced to this House by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not know why he has not done so, but I can only come to this conclusion, that he must be in some doubt as to whether the members of this House think he should hand this money back, and the only way that I know of to remove that doubt is to get an ex-

pression of opinion from the members of the House on this motion, and that is what I propose to do this afternoon.
How can we as representatives of the people go back to our constituents and say that we have acted here in their interests in endeavouring to put down corruption or graft of whatever form or from whatever source, if we allow a man who occupies an exalted position in the country to pocket $5,000 for which he has never given one dollar's worth of service.
A short time ago we ,were told in this House that the prison doors were yawning to receive the profiteers and grafters of Canada. Yawning precedes sleep, and I suppose that this yawning is the physical manifestation preceding a somnolent condition. We must be asleep when our money is taken improperly by some one holding a high position. We have to answer for this to our constituents. Whether a man be the Chief Justice of Canada or a peasant, he has no right to receive money for which he has given no service. What service has Sir Charles Fitzpatrick rendered to Canada for the 85,000 which he received in those two years? Some members of the Government may deem it their duty to attempt to justify the receiving of this money by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick on the ground that it was voted by Parliament. I do not think that that would be good ground for the Government to take. Why not be fair with the general public? One does not add to his status as a man by refusing to acknowledge a mistake after he has made it; he certainly does not improve his position if he converts that mistake into an offence, and that is what I would feel I was doing if I permitted this gentleman to retain $5,000 for which he has given no service to the country.
This money was voted year after year for the purpose of paying the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice of Canada when he attended the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No objection is made to his receiving that money during the years that he did go across the seas, but during the years that he did not go, he should not have received the money. I believe that the great majority of the people will support my view that, having received the money, it is his duty to return it to the treasury of Canada.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the resolution, because if men holding high positions in Canada who gat money that they did not earn or obtain money under false pretences are allowed to hold the money and go scot-free, how shall we prosecute the poor

man, woman, boy or girl who steals because he or she is cold or hungry? I hope the Government will not condone any such action simply because the man in question holds a high position. Much of the unrest in Canada to-day is caused by just such actions as this. The poor man and the poor woman have the idea that because a man holds a high position he can get away with any amount of money. I hope the Government will see that this money is returned, as it should be if it was not earned.


Edmond Proulx: The member for Fron-tenae (Mr. Edwards) said that the wording of the resolution appropriating these sums of money was changed in 1915. Was that change made by the Government on its own initiative, or at the request of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick?


Arthur Meighen: (Acting
Minister of Justice): The resolution which the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has brought to the attention of the House is of a character not only unusual, but involving upon this House a very deep responsibility. The adoption of the resolution unquestionably would very seriously challenge the personal honour of a citizen of Canada, and I am sure that no hon. member will feel like supporting it unless he is convinced that the necessity for the passing of the resolution is based upon the demands of reason and of justice.
The citizen involved is a man distinguished in our public life, I do not argue that on that account his honour should be any more jealously guarded against unjust aspersion by the House than should the honour of the most humble citizen of our country. But he is a citizen of Canada, and only upon the gravest cause should we take any step which would impugn his honour as a public man and as a citizen.
In order that the House may decide whether or not there is behind the resolution that principle which compels its adoption, that is whether or not the resolution is fair, just and right, it is necessary that I should review very hurriedly and briefly the circumstances connected with this matter. As I do so, what I say will be an answer to the question just addressed to the House by the member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx).
For some years the Appropriation Act of this Parliament contained a provision under which this House appropriated out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, $2,500. I ask the House to note the exact wording of the resolution making this appropriation:

Travelling expenses of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick attending sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $2-,500.
In 1913-14 and 1914-15 -the vote was put through in that form, and my information is that in those years the moneys were drawn by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick only when he actually attended the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not otherwise.
In the Appropriation Act of 1915-16, the words employed were as follows:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $2,500.
Precisely the same words were employed in the succeeding year, 1916-17, but for the following year, 1917-18, they were changed to read as follows.
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses when attending the sittings of the judicial committee of the Privy Council.
The House will observe that all three wordings are different. In the first, the word "allowance" is not used at all. The words employed are:
Travelling expenses .... attending sittings of the judicial committee.
In the second:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with-
And in the third:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses when attending-.
It is of the utmost importance that the House should have clearly in mind the three distinct wordings which the Parliament of Canada employed in voting the money in question. Under the first wording, while that rwas the language of Parliament, the money was drawn by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick only during the years that he attended the sittings of the judicial committee. Under the second wording, during those two years when it read simply: "to cover expenses in connection with-" Sir Charles Fitzpatrick drew the money although, as I am informed, he did not actually attend the -sittings of the Judicial Committee. I am not sure what actually occurred in the succeeding year, but in that year he would clearly not have been entitled to draw the money unless he attended the sittings, because the wording is:
When attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Parliament is now requested to pass a resolution calling upon Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to return the money which he drew for the years 1915-16 and 1916-17. I am using only the language of moderation when I say that the House could not justify such a resolution upon any ground of its own mistake, upon any ground of wrongdoing whatsoever, unless that wrongdoing is attributable to the party who is to suffer. I am neither admitting nor denying mistakes on the part of this House. Parliament may have been mistaken, but the country must pay for the mistakes of Parliament-not a single individual. It is to the country we are responsible.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the minister think the Chief Justice should profit by the mistakes of Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend will permit me to finish with the subject I am discussing, I will deal with that in a moment. Parliament has, in the history of this country, made many mistakes, as has every Parliament in the history of every country. Parliament has often voted money for which the country has not received the full equivalent in value. Sometimes Parliament has undoubtedly voted money for which the country has received no equivalent in value, and many instances could be cited of votes and actions on the part of this House where the country has not received full consideration for the money voted. We might, for example, go back to contracts made by this country in days gone by, contracts which to-day would, I think, by any dispassionate observer, be freely declared to have been improvident contracts on the part of this country, contracts by which this country suffered and in respect of which this country did not re-, ceive anything like the equivalent in value,, and there have been instances in which-no value whatever was received for the money voted. But in those cases I do not think Parliament would, for a moment, consider visiting the injury upon those, who were parties to the contract. Suppose,, for example, we were to go back to a contract made in 1908 and refuse to-day on behalf of the citizens of this country to-recognize the legal rights that arose by virtue of that contract, such a course would1 be indefensible. I think, therefore, I am on safe and impregnable ground in asserting that whether Parliament made an error or not is not the question now. The question now is whether or not Parliament is justified in asking a man who, as a result of this appropriation, received money from this country, to return that money to the

treasury of Canada. Parliament could pass such a resolution and could take that position only if the party receiving the money should not in honour have taken it, was not entitled to it, or used any dishonourable means to get it; if, in a word, circumstances of dishonour attached to the receiving itself. Is that the case here? What was the intent of Parliament in voting the money? What must Parliament now say frankly was its intent in voting the money in these words? It is to be noted that a change was made in the wording. The old language which made the resolution apply only if .Sir Charles attended, and only for travelling expenses, was abandoned, and Parliament, rightly or wrongly, employed other language instead, voting that money as a special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee. Parliament has, in other cases, employed similar language. Parliament employed similar language even in the case of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick himself, in connection with his duties as administrator in -the absence of the Governor General. The ianguage in that case is:	.
Special allowance to the Chief Justice of the [DOT]Supreme Court of Canada to cover travelling and other expenses in connection wjith his services while acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General.
My information with regard to the paying out and receiving of the latter money voted is that such was done in exactly the same way as in the case of the money paid out and' received in connection with the appropriation now under discussion. My information is further that that language was employed in connection with the appropriation in question prior to the use of it in the present case. The question arises: Must Parliament now take the position of saying that, in changing its language and in using the language there employed, it did not intend that money to be drawn in the same way as in the previous case when the same precise words were used, but only when actual attendance on the Judicial Committee took place?


Mr MORPHY:: Had Sir Charles Fitzpatrick any other duties than going overseas in connection w'ith the Privy Council?


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the question of my hon. friend1.


Mr. MORPHY:: Had Sir Charles Fitzpatrick any duties that he could perform otherwise than by going overseas for the purpose?
{Mr. Meighen.]


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware that he had. I see the point my hon. friend is making. The information given to me by the Department of Justice is that this allowance in connection with acting as deputy to the Governor General, has always been paid without inquiry at all as to whether any expenses were in fact incurred. This appropriation was in the same language, and evidently
3	p.m. was intended by Parliament in the same way. As to whether in the present instance consideration for the appropriation was actually given or not, it is quite true the same consideration could not be said to have been given as if Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had attended. But similarly, under the other vote, it is quite clear there might be cases,-I do not know whether there were or not,-in which it was not actually necessary for the Chief Justice of Canada to act as administrator of this country. It must, however, be kept in mind that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had to hold himself in readiness to go overseas, and it can quite forcibly be argued that the intention of Parliament was that an allowance should be made to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick either for attending, or in years when he did not attend, for holding himself in readiness. Before Parliament could be justified in passing a resolution which challenges the honour of a respected citizen of this country, Parliament should be fully convinced that there was moral wrongdoing on the part of the receiver of that money in taking the money so voted by Parliament under that wording, and it must remember that the same wording had been employed in other cases; and that no such course has ever previously been pursued.


John Best: Was the wording under which this money was paid out changed previously to the first year that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick did not attend the sittings, or at the end of the first year that he did not attend?


Arthur Meighen: My information is that the first year that he did not go, but accepted the money, was subsequent to the change in wording. I am concerned with the legal aspect alone. My duty merely is to state the circumstances, and to ask Parliament to consider the principle which should inspire us in determining this question, and to point out that we should not be swerved from that principle by any but vital considerations, because, if there is one thing more vital than another it is that the Parliament of this country shall not lightly



26, 19X9

[Stage Direction]
and for insufficient cause challenge the integrity of a citizen of this country.
(Mr. DENIS: The minister has pointed out the three different wordings in the Estimates. I should like to know whether the money was voted, no matter what the wording may have been, with the specific object and intent of paying the travelling expenses of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.
Arthur Meighen: The intent of the vote must be gathered from the wording of the vote itself. The intent in other cases of similar wording has been as actually shown by the result-the paying of the money, although the attendance did not necessarily take place.


Edmond Proulx: I think it is merely playing upon words to say that the Chief Justice should have drawn the money when he was not put to the expense of attendiing the sittings of the Privy Council. It seems evident from the three wordings that this money was voted for the specific purpose of defraying the expenses of the trip overseas and the stay in London of the Chief Justice, in order that he might attend the sittings of the Privy Council. I think it would have been preferable if the Chief Justice had been obliged to file a monthly account of his expenses, just as the judges have to do under the. Judges' Act. However, Parliament decided to vote a lump sum, but it was certainly the intention of Parliament that this sum was for defraying the expenses of the Chief Justice while attending the sittings of the Privy Council, and the Chief Justice should have known that that was the intention of Parliament. I should like to know whether the wording of the resolution was changed by the Government with or without a request from the Chief Justice.


Arthur Meighen: I know of no request.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What explanation has the minister to make with regard to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that this money would be returned by the Chief Justice?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I should read his exact words. On Page 2479 of last year's Hansard, in answer to a question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce read a letter from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, the last paragraph of which reads as follows:-
If, however, it is now considered that the intentions of Parliament have been misunderstood I can only say that I shall be prepared to return the amount of the allowance received during the two years in question. My first object is to avoid all personal embarrassment to you.
In effeot, that means that if Parliament -or the Government, I presume, to whom he was addressing the letter-considered that he had drawn that money against the intention of Parliament he was prepared to return it.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not the paragraph to which my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) refers.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind hon. members that the House is in committee, and that the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has the floor.


Edmond Proulx: The resolution in the Estimates of 1915-16 uses the word "expenses." It says: "Special allowance to cover expenses in connection with the sittings of the Privy Council." The wording of the resolution of the following year is a little different, because the words "when attending" are added. But both resolutions contain the word "expenses."
I say that if the Chief Justice did not attend the sittings the money should not have been paid; I think the Department of Justice was negligent in not requiring a certificate showing the expenses incurred before paying the money.


Arthur Meighen: The Department of Justice does not pay the money.


Edmond Proulx: Under the Judges' Act, the cheques are paid by the Justice Department.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Edmond Proulx: The certificates, at all
events, go to that department.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Edmond Proulx: Do they go to the Auditor General?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the cheques.


Edmond Proulx: Then the Auditor General should have required a certificate that the Chief Justice had attended the sittings of the Privy Council. We have been paying money for which we have received no consideration. According to law, there must be consideration in every contract. If you give a promissory note, and no consideration passes, and you are sued for non-payment, you cannot be made to pay because there was no consideration. In this particular case, there might be difficulty in getting back the money. The minister says that Parliament made a mistake. I do not

admit that Parliament made a mistake. I think the intention of Parliament was clearly expressed by the word " expenses," and I say that the Government was negligent in paying this money. I understand that last spring Sir Charles Fitzpatrick offered to return the money, and I certainly think it is the, duty of the Government to request a refund of the amounts paid for which there was no consideration given. The Government are the trustees of the people, and they should take care of the people's money which is entrusted to them.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I quite agree with the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), that the House should give most earnest consideration to this matteT and have all the facts before it so far as possible, before supporting this resolution. I have given the question some attention by way of making careful inquiry in my own department and in the Department of the Privy Council with a view to ascertaining precisely what happened in connection with the changed wording in the Estimates of 1915-16. The Acting Minister of Justice has referred to the payment of the special allowance by the Finance Department upon the requisition of the Department of the Privy Council, of which the Prime Minister of Canada is the head.
As a result of my inquiry I have come to the conclusion that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick accepted this money in entire good faith, and I feel bound to say so to this House. I asked the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. T. C. Boville) for a statement of the matter which he has presented to me in a memorandum that reads as follows:
Department of Finance, Ottawa, Canada, March 26, 1919. Memorandum respecting Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.
In 1912-13 the sum of $2,000 iwas voted under the heading " Miscellaneous '' for
"Travelling expenses to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council '[DOT]
The sum of $2,500 was voted in each of the years 1913-14 and 1914-15 in the same wording for the service in those years.
The amount for* 1912-13 was paid in two sums.
In 1913-14 the vote was not expended.
The amount in 1914-15 was paid' in one sum on June 15, 1914.
In these three years it will be noticed that the allowance was to cover the travelling expenses of Sir Charles when attending the sittings of the committee.
When the estimates for 1916 were toeing prepared the wording of the item was changed so as to read,
"Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
This change in the wording of the vote was conveyed to the undersigned in January, 1915, toy the Secretary to the Prime Minister who asked

that the vote be amended to read in the same way as the vote for expenses in connection with the services of the Deputy of the Governor General, which, being in the nature of a special allowance, was paid monthly.
The effect of this change in the wording of the vote was to convert what had hitherto been a vote for travelling expenses for Sir Charles when attending the Committee into a grant which might he paid to him apart altogether from his attendance on the committee.
The expenditure of the vote naturally fell under the administration of the Privy Council Office, and was applied for month toy month hy that office in the ordinary process through the office of the Auditor General, who interpreted the vote as above, and authorized the payment month toy month. The allowance was so paid during the years 1915-16 and 1916-17. Thereafter it was changed to read,
" Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses when attending the sittings of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
(Sgd.) T. C. Btoville.
Now, a question has been raised as to what was the intention of Parliament and of the Government in this matter. I do not recollect distinctly concerning the change that was made; it is not in my memory that the matter was specially called to my attention at that time. I cannot say what the intentions of Parliament were, but of course those intentions would be gathered from the language in which Parliament expressed _ itself; and that language was contained in the Estimate, which my deputy points out was handed to him by the private secretary of the Prime Minister. I think it must be admitted that the deliberate change in the wording must have been intended to have some significance, else why would it have been made? I would ask Die House to note that the item deliberately omitted the words "attending sittings," which had appeared in previous years as a limitation on the use of the amount, and also the qualifying word "travelling," which had formerly appeared in connection with the word "expenses."


Edmond Proulx: I would like the minister to observe that in the year 1916 the word-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member may rise to ask a question with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, but for no other purpose.


William Thomas White: The memorandum which I have for the year 1916 is this: "Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses-"


Edmond Proulx: Is it for the next year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Thomas White: The question is raised whether, if the word "expenses"

occurred in the item, the money could be paid unless the expenses had been actually incurred and vouched for. On a certain assumption it undoubtedly could. It might have been the intention of those responsible for the change in the item that the vote should be an average vote of $2,500 per year for expenses. If the expenses exceeded the amount the Government would vote no more, and if they fell below the amount it would still be paid. Now, I would draw t)he attention of the House to what the late Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said respecting this matter during last session. He was dealing with the question of a vote which purported to cover expenses and yet which was paid to the party to whom the money was voted, irrespective of whether or not the actual expenditure had been incurred. At page 2599 of last year's Hansard (unrevised) the late leader of the Opposition is reported as follows:
This special allowance to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to pay his travelling and other expenses while attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council goes back to the days when Sir Oliver Mowat was Minister of Justice. At that time the then Chief Justice, Sir Henry Strong, went to England, to sit as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under an Act which had been passed by the Imperial Parliament inviting judges of colonial courts to sit with the members of the Judicial Committee. Their services were required especially for colonial cases. The Government of that day, at the instance of Sir Oliver Mowat, placed an item in the Estimates of $2,500 to cover the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice. I do not remember the exact wording of the item, but it was to pay the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice while attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or some such wording as that. This item goes back to 1897. It was for travelling expenses. It appeared in the Estimates in that form until 1915 or 1916, when the item was changed from " travelling expenses "to " special allowance." Why this change was made from "Travelling expenses" to "Special allowance" I do not knoiw.
Then further on the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:-
It so happened that in one or two years the Chief Justice was not called upon to attend a sitting of the Judicial Committee, and in those years he had received the money. If the item had been left as it was before with the wording " travelling expenses " the money could only have been paid when there were travelling expenses, but it was changed to " special allowance," and there the matter stands to-day.
The position therefore is that the Government, which is responsible for the bringing down of the Estimates, changed the wording which had prevailed up to 1915-16, and which covered the travelling expenses of the Chief Justice when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council to special allowance to cover expenses. I am advised, and believe, that the payment which was made by the Finance Department was legally and regularly made. That was the view of the Auditor General, who authorized the payment, and it was the view of the Privy Council officials who obtained the money from the Finance Department. iMy own view is-although I do not recollect the matter distinctly, I have had a good deal on my mind since 1915- that it was the intention that that language should be changed so as to authorize the payment to Sir (Charles Fitzpatrick month by month. I do not pretend to say what was in the minds of other members of the Government, but reviewing the situation in the light of what I am informed by the responsible officials was done-the change in language which was made at the instance of the private secretary to the Prime Minister-I am of the opinion that the intention was to assimilate, or practically assimilate, this to the language of the vote to the Deputy Governor, and that the money was paid out by the Government and received by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick on that basis. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick received those payments monthly. He might have gone overseas in September, having received monthly payments from the end of March, or the first of April rather, the beginning of the fiscal year, up to that time, and continued to receive the monthly payments after that. His expenses might have been more than $2,500. If they had been, he would not have been entitled to receive any money in excess of the $2,500 which was specially voted. If, on the other hand, he did not go Overseas, then he was not to account for the money. Now, I do not say that that was the intention of the Government, or of any members of the Government, because my recollection of the circumstances is imperfect, but it is a possible explanation; and I cannot understand why the language of the item was changed from what it was in 1914-15 to what it was in 1915-16 unless there had been the intention to make a change. Why would the change have been made in the language if there was no intention of change? I am driven to the conclusion-


An hon. MEMBER:: To get the appropriation.


William Thomas White: I am not speaking about the actual expenses incurred in attending the meetings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; what I am talking about is the change which un-

doubtedly took place in the language of this item.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: I can explain that to the Acting Prime Minister.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will have an opportunity of explaining it later. The hon. gentleman will pardon me, I have no desire to prevent him from asking me a question.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: When the hon. gentleman has concluded I will give my explanation.


William Thomas White: Now I have received this telegram from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick :
Quebec, March 25, 1919.
Sir Thos. White,
Actg. Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
You are at liberty to state when Mr. Edwards moves his resolution that I adhere to the explanation given in my letter to Sir Robert Borden and which was read in the House last session in answer to Mr. Nickle's questions. I then offered to return the money and I now repeat that if the Government or any of the officials through whom the money was paid will say that there is any doubt as to the regularity or legality of such payments I am prepared to return the money.
C. Fitzpatrick.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: That is not what he said last year


William Thomas White: I have simply read the telegram which I received this morning.
Sir iSAM HUGHES:	To what officials
does 'Sir Charles Fitzpatrick refer in his telegram?


William Thomas White: I presume he
would mean the officials who had to do with the paying out of the money, including the Auditor General. Now, permit me to make my position clear. I have stated that I believe that this money was paid out legally and regularly. I have also stated that I believe the money was received in good faith by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. I cannot speak as to what the intentions of Parliament were, except in so far as can be gathered from the language of the item which was passed by Parliament. It is for Parliament to say what its intentions were, if it so desires, with respect to this matter. I have endeavoured to make a clear statement of the facts, as I understand them, because I think the facts should be before Parliament, and if any of my statements are in error, or if there are other facts which I have not been able to ascertain by inquiry, and which are in the pos-

session of any hon, member, I shall be only too glad if he will bring them forward for the information of the House in coming to a decision, because it is for Parliament to decide, on this important subject.


John Best: I understood from the memorandum which the Acting Prime Minister read that the wording of this vote was changed in 1911?


William Thomas White: In 1915-16.


John Best: If Sir Charles Fitzpatrick drew money from the first of April, 1915, to the first of April, 1916, he did so for at least one year under the old wording?
iSir THOMAS WHITE: I think not, because the Estimates are voted in advance.
Mr. C A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouta): When the Chief Justice of Canada was empowered to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the wording of the estimate to cover his expenses was "travelling expenses." It was discussed between the Minister of Justice and Sir Charles Fitzpatrick that perhaps some day he would not be obliged to go, but that he would lit' to draw rthe money all the same. Then it was understood that the Minister of Justice would change the phraseology of the item under which, instead of "travelling expenses" the word "allowance" was used. The Minister of Justice adopted that word because he was a little scared that some of his best friends, like the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) would kick against the vote. Thus under the term "allowance" even if the Chief Justice did not attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he could draw the money voted. This is the explanation I have to give to the House.
Mr. W. F. NICKLt; (Kingston):	Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with what the Acting Minister of Justice says, that the matter under discussion this afternoon should be approached with all the seriousness that this House can muster, because if the House should decide-and certainly no matter whether the House decides or not-that this money should be repaid, there is a certain reflection on the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the fact of this discussion taking place this afternoon. The Acting Minister of Justice says that we should be particularly careful because the reputation of a man who occupies, and has occupied, a particularly high place in Canadian national life is under review. But I would draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that it was thought that Caesar's wife should

be beyond suspicion because she was Caesar's wife, and those who occupy high positions should be particularly careful to see that not even the shadow of a suspicion is cast over their lives, and certainly the fountain of justice should be careful to see that the waters of justice are in no way discoloured.
I do not agree with the Acting iMinister of Justice when he says that the passing of this resolution will necessarily mean that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick committed a moral wrong when he took the money. I am sure the Acting Minister of Justice feels, as does every member of this House, that it would be a ridiculous contention, a contention that no court would uphold, that no lawyer would endeavour to sustain, that the misreading of an Act of Parliament-not intentionally misread, but misread in an honest belief-would be considered as fraudulent intent as distinct from misapprehension I am quite prepared to admit that if the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court knew that the estimate, which is in effect a statute, did not anid could not have carried the meaning that he put into it, then it was a fraudulent thing for him to have taken the money, and morally wrong. But if the Chief Justice believed that he had a right to take the money, then this House in asking him to return it is not saying that he did that which was in itself morally wrong, but is taking him at his own word when he told us in the letter to the Prime Minister, read by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last session, that if his view of the intention of Parliament was mistaken he was prepared to return the money to this House and to the country. And it is on that argument in part that I purpose this afternoon to direct my remarks.
What was the intention of Parliament? The Acting Minister of Justice says that that is the test which must be applied in discussing and deciding this matter. The Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) takes practically the same point of view. How, what was the intention of Parliament, and how are we to reach a conclusion as to what it was? I would like to direct the attention of the House to this matter in some detail, because, as I said, Sir, in rising, this is an important matter- it is a matter that probably will have a wider bearing than those of us who are taking part" in this discussion this afternoon have any idea. For I am satisfied that from one end of the country to the other the public have their eye on this discussion and on this vote. That is the conclusion I have reached from what I have
heard in my own constituency and the questions that have been asked me in reference to the matter.
The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier told the House that in 1897-if my memory of dates does not fail me-the original vote was passed for the purpose of allowing the late Chief Justice Strong of the Supreme Court to go to England and attend the Privy Council. Regardless of what the original intention of the vote was, the vote from 1907 until 1914 was couched in this language:
Travelling expenses of Sir H. E, Tasohereau-
Or Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, as the case might be.
*-attending sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
That contemplated a journey being taken by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and it contemplated his expenses being paid in reference to that journey. In 1911 that was the form of the vote, in 1912 it was the same, the same again in 1913, and the same language Was used in 1914. In 1915 the vote was made to read as follows, and it will be found as item 320 of that year's Estimates:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
There was a change in the language, certain words were omitted from this vote, as the Acting Minister of Justice has said, and there was a change in the phraseology in that the words " attending sittings of the Judicial Committee " were left out.
How are you going to judge what was the intention of Parliament when that vote came before it? Now, Sir, the position I am taking this afternoon J am taking as having been a member of the House when that vote went through. If it went through and I misunderstood what the House meant, then I am prepared to take the responsibility that must be mine, because even if I were desirous of doing so I cannot evade it. But as the Acting Minister of Justice says, the question is: What wat the intention of Parliament?
You can tell the way the wind blown very often by the direction of the smoke from the chimney tops, and you can tell the direction of the current by the straws that float upon the surface of the water, and I would draw the attention of this House to the fact that in the Sessional Papers of 1915 at page 92 this language is found:	.
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Then there follow two perpendicular parallel columns, the first column headed 1914-1915 and below that the sum of $2,500; and the next column headed 1915-1916 and below it another sum of $2,500. That means to you, Sir, and to me and to every member of this House that when these Estimates were brought in the apparent intention was not that there was to be a new vote for a totally different thing, but that the old vote was being revoted and the purpose of the vote for 1914-1915 was being carried forward in 1915-19161
But, Sir, I am not going to stop at that. The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) often asks questions. In 1915 on the 19th day of March when he asked a question in this House, I very much doubt, Sir, if he understood how much light it might throw on the discussion that is taking place this affernoon. In column 1250 of Hansard for 1915 the following appears:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee ot the Privy Council, $2,500.


Edmond Proulx: How many trips to London does the Chief Justice make each year?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: He usually goes twice, so far as my memory serves me.
Notice the language, Sir. In answer to that question the right hon. the leader of the Government did not say that Sir Charles Fizpatrick went twice; the member for Prescott did not ask how many times Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had been in the habit of going to London, he asked the Prime Minister: "How many trips to London 'does' the Chief Justice make each year." "Does" is the present tense; it means something that is or is to be done. Sir Robert Borden answered:	"He usually
goes twice, so far as my memory serves me," That implied that the practice had been that the Chief Justice went twice to England, but the question of the member for Prescott and the answer of the Prime Minister, taken in conjunction with the fact to which I have just referred, certainly meant that this House had reason to suppose-and I as a member of this House did suppose-that that $2,500 was being voted for identically the same purpose as the votes which had been passed from 1911 until that year-and these are the years that I have been in this House.
Let us go further. I realized that it was a question that should be considered seriously, and after the member for Frontenac first introduced the subject into the House I was not satisfied with the answers given by the members of the Government who replied to the question or with the answers

given to the public by the Chief Justice through the press. I placed on Hansard a series of questions, which I propose to read to the House,, together with the answers given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). If you turn' to Hansard of 1918, pages 2478 and 2479, you will find the following:


Mr. NICKLE:: 1. Is it the intention of the Government, in the event of voluntary repayment not being made by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick of the $5,000 paid to him to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the fiscal years 1915-1916 and 1916-1917, and not incurred nor disbursed, to take steps to recover this amount?
To which the answer was:
1. No. In view of criticism made in the House of Commons, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has offered to return the amount mentioned although he strongly urges that he is legally entitled thereto under the Act of Parliament which authorized the payment. In this opinion the Department of Finance and the Auditor General concur.
The second question was: "If not, w'hy not?" To which the answer was: "Answered by No. 1." The third question was:
3. Does the explanation given by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in the memorandum read to the House by the Prime Minister on May 15, for the acceptance of the said sum, express the practice and policy of the Government?
To which the following answer was given:
3. The explanation referred to as given by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick does not purport to express any practice or policy on the part of the Government but merely the views of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick as to the effect of the legislation governing the payment of the allowance and his rights thereunder. In this connection the following additional letter has been received by the Prime Minister from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick :
"My Dear Prime Minister,-May I trouble you again with reference to the payments made to me as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, to which objection has been taken by two or three members of the House of Commons as having been accepted by me contrary to the terms of the Parliamentary appropriation which authorized them.
"Dealing first with the 'special allowance to the Chief Justice to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General' : as you are aware, during the early years of Confederation, the rule assigned to the Administrator one-half of the Governor General's salary. Subsequently this provision was considered neither jusit nor advantageous when applied to a Governor General when absent from his Government for a brief period either on leave or on the public service. As a result the emolument was reduced, about 1875, from one-half to one-fourth. In 1906 the question was again reconsidered and it was then decided that it did^not comport with the dignity of the high

office of Representative of the Sovereign in this country to make abatements of his salary and the regulations which authorized them were revised' so as to provide that in case the Governor General of Canada was absent for a period of thirty days consecutively there should be no reduction of his salary for reason of such absence. In 1907, another change was made which provides that in any case of absence although exceeding thirty days no deduction should be made for the period of twenty-nine days.
"Subsequently it was thought proper that the Administrator should receive ia fixed sum of $2,500 in lieu of those allowances. At a later date the Government thought proper to increase this allowance from $2,500 to $5,000. That this latter amount was voted with the sanation and approval of Parliament cannot be doubted. For two years, the amount was put in the estimates and voted in the regular way and paid without protest. In the estimates for 1917-18 as originally brought down that special allowance was reduced to $2,500, but on the 19th September, 1917, as will be seen on reference to Hansard, p. 6049, an item was introduced in the supplementary estimates 'to complete the special allowance for the Chief Justice so as to make it equal to that allowed the previous years, $5,000.' This did not pass unnoticed. Mr. Edwards, M.P., drew attention to this increase and asked for an explanation, which explanation was given by Mr. Reid, the minister in charge of the estimates, who said it had always been the custom to pay this amount to the Chief Justice, 'and the Government feel that as he has been receiving $5,0'00 for the position it is hardly fair to reduce it at the present time.' It was alsd intimated that the payment wais made partly for the purpose of implementing the salary of the Chief Justice. Although the allowance is made to me personally I have always paid over the proportion due to the senior puisne judge of this court who has acted as administrator during my absence.
"Dealing now with the two payments of $2,6 00 each, made to me as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one during the fiscal year 1915-16 and the other during the fiscal year 1917-18.
"The amounts in question were voted by Parliament as 'special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to oover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council'- the provision in regard to 'travelling expenses' attending sittings of the Judicial Committee, which was a condition of payment in previous years, having been Intentionally omitted-and were paid in monthly instalments on application from the Privy Council office to the Auditor General who evidently certified in the usual course that the cheques asked for might be properly issued by the Finance Department.
"I perhaps never gave the matter as much consideration as I ought to have done but my view was that an allowance to cover expenses differed from the payment of actual expenses and was at any rate not dependent on their being incurred in any particular period."
Just a commient in passing. If the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admits that there was -a condition precedent that the expenses should he incurred in some particular period, then, to use a slang expression, it was up to the Chief Justice to
show that he incurred expenses at some particular time that exhausted the money for which this vote was made. The letter continues:
"The expenses of attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee must always vary with the length of the sittings and of course attendance is not necessarily confined to one sitting in the year. If there were more than one attendance in any one year the expenses would certainly exceed the allowance.
"The war has brought about an exceptional state of things. Though I have offered each year to go over to assist at the sittings of the committee I have been advised that it was not considered necessary to ask me to do so under the conditions actually obtaining.
"The fact that this exceptional position had continued for two years no doubt properly called for an alteration in the vote and this was made for the fiscal year 1917-1918.
"I do not think that any representation of mine can be responsible for the view which I suppose both the Auditor General and the Finance Department must have held that the payments could be properly made.
"If, however, it is now considered that the intentions of Parliament have been misunderstood

I commend this remark to the careful consideration of the Acting Minister of Justice and of the Acting Prime Minister. I shall r<ead it again from the beginning, so that it may not escape their attention:
"If however, it is now considered- '
" Now " must mean the present time. (Reading):
-"that the intentions of Parliament-
That is, the intention of this institution, which is made up of its components parts called " members."	s
-"have been misunderstood-
That is, if th.e intention of members of Parliament have been misunderstood.
-"I can only say that I shall he prepared to return the amount of the allowance received during the two years in question. My first object is to avoid all personal embarrassment to you.
"Yours very truly,
"C. Fitzpatrick."
The next question I asked was:
4. Are payments of the nature of those referred to in the statement of Sir Charles made without the concurrence or consent of the Auditor General?
To which the answer was:
No. The allowances in question were drawn with the concurrence of the Auditor General of the Department of Finance.
The last question was:
If so. why?
The answer was:
Answered by No. 4.

As I have said, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has, in that letter, offered to return the money if the intention of Parliament has been misunderstood, and, I think, I have shown on general principles that the intention of Parliament was misunderstood in this respect, that the answer of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) indicated the members believed the vote was for expenses to be incurred. I think it is also abundantly clear, from the manner in which the vote was put in the Estimates, that the intention was not to direct the attention of Parliament that this was in any way a different appropriation. I want, however, to go just a little further than that. I want to endeavour to deal with this question as a matter of law. There is a fairly celebrated case from British Columbia called Bex versus Clement, where a judge, Mr. Justice Clement, got into considerable difficulty^ because he took a travelling allowance to which he was found not to be entitled, and as far as my inquiry has enabled me to find a precedent as to the meaning of the word " allowance," that case is the best guide I have been able to secure. I want to be quite frank with the House. As I said in rising, I approached this question from the point of view of a member of Parliament sincerely desirous of doing his duty. My first angle of approach was this-and I do not want to make myself out as being any better than any other man, because the chances are I am not,-I wanted to catch the spirit of the House, and I said to myself: What would I have done if that money had been offered to me? And I am not going to answer that question. Then I said: What would other members have done if that money had been offered to them? And I have asked, not one, but half a dozen members of this House, some professional men, some business men, some men on the farm, and they have all said: We do not think we should have taken it; the intention was that the Chief Justice should have attended the sittings, or else not have drawn the money. Satisfying myself, therefore, as to what I might call the common-place point of view of the ordinary man on the street, I turned to this question: What is the law on the matter? What are those special allowances? Are they increases in emoluments or are they indemnities? Are they intended to add something indirectly to a man's salary, or was it the intention to defray 4 p.m. expenses honestly incurred? I set out to find a precedent, be-
cause, as you know, Sir, when lawyers are in doubt on a point, they endeavour to find a case to elucidate their arguments. 1 found the case which I have mentioned, Rex versus Clements, heard in the Exchequer Court of Canada, as reported in the Canada Law Journal, volume 50, at page 67, and on appeal, taken to the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Clement, the Supreme Court sustaining the findings of the court below, as to the meaning of allowance.


Mr. STEVENS:: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was a member of the Supreme Court.


William Folger Nickle: While it is quite true that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was a member of the Supreme Court at the time That judgment was given, my recollection is-and I want to be quite fair to His Lordship-that he did not give a judgment. The case was apparently argued before the other members of the court. As regards the interpretation of the law; the provision in the Judges' Act is not on all fours with the provision,in the Estimates. The provision in the Judges' Act to which I have referred reads:
There shall be paid for travelling allowances-
Jn the Estimates of 1915 the wording is " special allowances "-
-to each judge, whether of a superior or county court, and to each local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court, except as in this section otherwise provided, in addition to his moving or transportation expenses, the sum of six dollars for each day, including necessary days of travel going and returning, during which he is attending as such judge in court or chambers at any place other than that at which he is by law obliged to reside: Provided that:-
(a) No judge shall receive any travelling allowance for attending in court or chambers at the place where he resides.
The facte >are briefly these. Mr. Justice Clement h;ad been living at Grand Forks and he mowed to Vancouver. When the question arose as to where his residence was, he alleged that he had a technical residence at Grand Forks, but th'e court held that, in the terms of the statute, his residence was at Vancouver, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the $6 a day mentioned in the statutes. But I want to emphasize this, that there was the " tail," if I may so express it to the section of the statute, stating definitely:
No judge shall receive any travelling allowance for attending in court or chambers at the place where he resides.
This made it abundantly clear that if a judge resided in the place where he at-

tended court, he could not draw the $6 a day. But I quote from the case-and I do not want to obscure my argument-for the purpose of giving -a judicial interpretation to the word " allowances." The caste came first before Mr. Justice Cassels of the Exchequer Court, and Me said:
Now it seems to me too clear for any reasonable doubt that this statute only contemplates an indemnity to the judge for expenses he is put to in travelling from and to his place of residence. It never could have been intended as a statute to augment the salary prescribed by statute. The sole legal question is where was the place of residence of the defendant as contemplated by the statute during the time the charges in question were made'?
Mr. Justice Cassels found that, the place of residence was Vancouver, and he, therefore, disallowed the charge of $6 a day. The case went to the 'Supreme Court (see Western Weekly Report, Vol. VI, page 414), and Mr Justice Duff, Mr. Justice Anglin and Mr. Justice Idington gave a decision. Mr. Justice Anglin -see Western Weekly Report, Vol. VI, page 428-said:
I agree with Mr. Justice Cassels that the purpose of this section was not to augment a judge's salary, but to indemnify him for outlay occasioned by travelling and absence from the place where he resides in the discharge of his duties.
The Supreme Court gave judgment confirming the point that the allowance was an indemnity for travelling expenses incurred, and that His Lordship, Mr. Justice Clement, was not entitled to draw his $6 a day during the time that he was in Vancouver. I, therefore, think that authority proves quite conclusively that the word "allowance" as used in a statute means compensation for something done or to be done on indemnity against expenses. I am forced to the ponclusion that the expression "special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," as used in the Estimates of 1915, and taken in conjunction with the method of the vote, as well as the remarks of Sir Robert Borden as elicited by the questions of Mr. Proulx, means that the allowance was given in condition that the expenses were incurred, and that His Lordship attended the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Will my hon. friend tell me how proceedings in the Clement case were instituted?


William Folger Nickle: Speaking from memory, a motion was passed in the Legislature of British Columbia, of which the Dominion Government apparently took notice, and an
action was launched to recover from Mr. Justice Clement the money which it was alleged had been improperly paid to him.


Mr. McKENIE:: Does my hon. friend not think that precedents are good procedure, as well as law?


William Folger Nickle: If the hon. member will give me the opportunity 1 hope to prove to him before I get through why the procedure he suggests is not wise. The hon. leader of the Opposition is an ex-judge, with a reputation of knowing the law. He ought to know, and does know, that we lawyers make a very sharp distinction between mistakes in law and mistakes in fact. I do not believe he will dispute my law this afternoon when I state that if a mistake at law is made, you cannot recover money from a man to whom it has been paid through that mistake. My hon. friend nods his head; I therefore assume that he assents to the proposition that I. have enunciated. But if a mistake in fact has been the cause of money being paid out in error, then the money may be recovered. Now the question is, was there a mistake in fact in this case? Was this money paid to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick under a mistake as to the facts underlying the payment? Were those who paid over the money under the impression that the Chief Justice had been to England? The Acting Prime Minister has told us this afternoon that those who paid over the money were under no mistake as to the facts; they knew Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had not been to England. There was no misrepresentation on the part of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick; he did not pretend he had been to England; it was known that he was in Canada. And the leader of the Opposition has the temerity to rise and ask me: Is not legal procedure just as good in this case as it was in the Clement case? He knows perfectly well that if an action were launched in the courts it would be ineffectual, because this Parliament, represented by the Department of Justice, would be compelled to admit that they knew that the Chief Justice had not been overseas; they could not show that any representation to the contrary had been made, and on the very principle of law which I have just enunciated and to which my hon. friend has assented, the money could not be collected as a matter of law. We are not discussing these votes in any narrow, legal way, but on the broad ground of national honesty and righteousness, if I may say so.
I wish to direct a few remarks to another phase of this question. I want to say that whoever drafted Sir Charles Fitzpat-

rick's letter is a marvellous draughtsman. It is as subtly drawn a document-I did not say corruptly-as the pen of a man could draw. I want to read my questions and the answers again, because the leader of the Opposition has directed my attention to a certain point:
1. Is it the intention of the Government, in the event of voluntary repayment not being
made	to take steps to recover this
amount?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1. No. In view of criticism made in the House of Commons, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has offered to return the amount mentioned although he strongly urges-
Strongly urges what? Not that he was entitled to receive the money, but:

that he is legally entitled thereto.
What does legally entitled thereto mean? It has a double-barrelled meaning. It may mean, entitled to receive or entitled to retain. I am quite prepared to admit that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is legally entitled to retain the money, because possession is nine-tenths of the law, and self-possession the other one-tenth. But the Chief Justice does not say that he is entitled to the money. He qualifies his answer by saying "he is 'legally' entitled thereto." What does " legally entitled " mean, to the man who knows his law? It means that if you enter the courts of law, with their rules and precedents, you could not recover the money as there had been no mistake of fact influencing payment. He qualifies the word " entitled " by the word " legally," and the hon. member knows that the Chief Justice is legally entitled to retain that money because he has got it, and we cannot show there was any mistake in fact.
Let us look a bit further. I was not as subtle in drawing those questions as I should have been, but I have learned since. One question I asked was this:
Are payments of the nature of those referred to in the statement of Sir Charles made without the concurrence or consent of the Auditor General?
I made a slip when I used the word "concurrence." I should have used the word "certificate," but I did not. In answer to my question Sir George Foster replied:
These moneys were paid in monthly instalments on application from the Privy Council office to the Auditor Genera], who evidently certified-
He does not say "who certified in the usual way," but he uses the word "evidently." Evidently from what? Evidently because the money was paid over. I understood the Acting Prime Minister to say this

afternoon that the items were never certified but went through the ordinary course, and the Acting Minister of Justice says: This House is estopped this afternoon because the payments went through in the ordinary course. I ask him, what do we private members know as to how items are paid?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend will
please quote me correctly. I never made any such statement.


William Folger Nickle: I have no desire to misquote him. If my hon. friend did not say that, I must have taken down incorrectly what he said. If we were estopped, it would mean that we were absolutely prevented from going further at law. But I say this House is not estopped-and I am using the word not in its narrow, legal sense, hut in a different sense altogether- I say we are not reasonably prevented in common sense and decency from inquiring into this matter-


Arthur Meighen: I say the same too.


William Folger Nickle: -and taking a vote on it, simply because payments were made in the ordinary course of which we knew nothing.
There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. I am going to vote for this resolution for three reasons: First, because as a member of Parliament I certainly never intended, and I do not think Parliament intended-I do not know what the Government intended-to increase Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's salary by $2,500 in the years 1915, 1916 and 1917, when we were preaching economy and thrift from the housetops. If the House did intend that, the members who were present in 1915, 1916 and 1917 must testify their intention by their votes.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: What is his salary?


William Folger Nickle: I am not discussing his salary. I do not care whether his salary is $100,000 or $100. It is purely a question of principle, and I approach it from that standpoint.
The Acting Prime Minister read a telegram this afternoon which purported to be a repetition of the offer made by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to this House through the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in 1918, and I shall show how vastly different are the two messages of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, and what a wide divergence there is between the principles enunciated in 1918 and those enunciated by telegraph this afternoon. If those hon. members who are not lawyers will listen

carefully and bear in mind what I said a few moments ago as to the difference between a matter of law and a matter of fact, they will perceive the subtlety that lurks in the message which we have heard this afternoon. In the year 1918 Sir Charles Fitzpatrick said this: "If, however it is now considered"-Let us give the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker, he may mean, considered by the Government, or by the House, but he admits that the intention of Parliament should be accepted-"if it is now considered that the intentions of Parliament have been misunderstood, I can only say that I shall be prepared to return the amount of the allowance received during the two years in question." That, I take it, is tantamount to saying: "If Parliament says the money should be returned I bow to the judgment of those who voted the money and return it to the country, as Parliament thinks it should be returned; I took the money believing I had a legal right to it, but if Parliament thinks otherwise, I am prepared to accept its decision." The Acting Prime Minister read a telegram this afternoon in which Sir Charles Fitzpatrick says: "You are at liberty to state, when Mr. Edwards moves his resolution, that I adhere to the explanation given in my letter to Sir Robert Borden and which was read in the House last session in answer to Mr. Nickle's questions." What does he adhere to? He adheres to his explanation; but he makes a radical departure from his offer of 1918 to return the money if Parliament asked for its return. On March 26, 1919, there is no such offer. The offer now, I repeat, is in effect this: That if the Government, or any of the officials through whom the money was paid will say that there is any doubt as to the regularity or legality of such payment, he is prepared to return the money. In one case he gives the positive assurance that he will return the money if Parliament expressess a desire that it shall be returned owing to a misunderstanding of its intentions. In the other case he falls back on the narrow legalism, "I will return it if you can show by law that I should not have received it or retained it." The two positions, Sir, are as far apart as the poles.
Now, I have spoken longer than was my intention, and I should not have gone as fully into the matter as I have done had it not been for the objection of the leader of the Opposition. I think that this is a question on which we should have a vote this afternoon entirely on principle. The hon. member will either vote this after-55
noon that this money shall be returned because Parliament never intended that it should have been received by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick unless the expenses for which it was intended to be voted had been incurred, or he will endeavour to side-step the issue. I, Mr. Speaker, am going to vote for the resolution because I believe the intention of the members of Parliament was that the money should not have been paid unless the expenses were incurred. I am of opinion that that was the intention of this House in the broad way in which Parliamentary intentions should be construed. If I took the narrow legalistic view and argued from the standpoint of precedent I should conclude that the money ought to be returned; and I say frankly, as a lawyer and on my reputation as such, that I do not believe this money could be recovered in a court of law, for the reason that I have given, the money having been paid over without a mistake in fact. But I am going to vote for the motion for another reason,-and I am sorry that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick did not pay the money back in 1918.-1 am going to vote for it because I believe this will be an object lesson to those who occupy high positions, that they must stand out fearlessly before the people and show by conduct that they are above and beyond the temptations that they condemn in others.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say at once that I am not rising to speak on this question as the leader of the Opposition, nor a partisan Although 1 may have a poor reputation in many respects, I think that in this House at least I am reputed to he a good partisan. But it is not as a partisan that I shall speak. I shall address myself to the observations of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). He did not understand my question or he would not have taken any exception whatever to what I said. The hon. member was quoting a precedent in law-the case of Rex vs Clement, That case was one in which Government money was obtained by a judge who, it was contended, should not have received it, and it was considered by the authorities that that money should have been refunded. From that case the hon. member quoted authoritatively the judicial definition of "allowance." I ask him the question: If he is quoting good law from that case as to what allowance is, is not the manner in which the Government went about getting that money back a question of precedence that we should follow in this



case as well? If that case is light and guidance as law, is it n-ot also light and guidance as to procedure? I do not think there is anything offensive about that question. My hon. friend said the leader of the Opposition had the temerity to state that fact in this free Parliament. If that is a matter that requires extraordinary temerity, or temerity of the most ordinary kind, I do not understand my position in this House; and I think my usually perfect and complete friend should rather apologize for the way in which he construed my remarks. I did not intend to interrupt the hon. member, but simply to suggest that this House, although the highest tribunal, and nominally the highest court in the land, is in the broadest sense of the word, not a court at all. Consequently, if a case which has run the gauntlet of the Exchequer Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, is quoted to this Parliament as an authority on any question, the whole case, I contend, must be applied to the subject under discussion. And if in the case of Judge Clement it was proper that he should be haled into the court before his peers-according to the procedure provided by our constitution and the British constitution, which recognizes the fact that no man can be affected in his person or property except by fair trial before his peers-will the hon. member for Kingston say that this Parliament, because of its high prerogatives, should adopt a different course and try a person in his absence?


William Folger Nickle: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


William Folger Nickle: Does my hon. friend suggest that if a man elects to be tried in a certain forum, that forum has no right to take him at his word?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly say that a
man's choice of tribunal does not confer jurisdiction upon that tribunal. I may be charged with murder and, knowing a friendly magistrate somewhere in Hull or in Ottawa or elsewhere, I might admit to the sheriff my guilt in the matter but request to be tried at the place I might designate.


William Folger Nickle: May I ask another question? Does not the hon. member's parallel fail, in that trial of murderer is regulated by statute, whereas the recovery of any amount paid by Parliament is not so regulated?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have a precedent-


William Folger Nickle: Not precedent; what is
the law?
Mr. McKE'NZJE: We have a precedent.


William Folger Nickle: Not a precedent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, we have a precedent, which is the law. That is the famous case of Rex versus Clement. If my hon. friend from Kingston will please listen to me, these moneys which are paid as allowances are voted every year by Parliament. Allowances are paid out by the authorities to the judges, and if they are paid in a place where they have no right to be paid they are in exactly in the same position as the moneys which were paid to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick from a vote of this House-it is a vote of the House in both cases, and in both cases, the money paid out by the officers of the Government.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman give us
his views about the failure of a " consideration "?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I might well have expected that the rapid, running mind of my friend from Peterborough would get so far ahead ihat I could not hope to answer him. By this time next week I may catch up to the hon. gentleman.
I was saying, (Mr. Speaker, when my oldtime interrogator came to his feet, that these cases could not be more alike. I want it understood at once that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick does not require, or claim, any defence from me, nor am I here to act in any capacity of the kind, but I want to make this perfectly clear: That the moneys paid out to Judge Clement, and the moneys paid out to Sir 'Charles Fitzpatrick are identically in the same position-they are public moneys paid out to a judge in the one case, and public moneys paid out to a judge in the other. Now, the Clement case in an older one-that is to say, the initiation of the procedure to get the money back is of an older date. What was done in that case? I presume that a flat was obtained by somebody from the Crown, proceedings were commenced in the Exchequer Court in behalf of the Crown, and the case was tried out properly in court. Let me say to my hon. friend from Frontenac, or to anybody who is interested in this matter, that those proceedings having been established by the authorities, the course taken in the Clement case was the proper one to follow. Why depart from it and ignore the Exchequer Court, ignore the Supreme Court of Canada, ignore the Supreme Court of Ontario-this proceeding having happened in the province

of	Ontario,	and	come under thejurisdiction of the Ontario courts? I say	that it is	entirely irregular,
at all events it is entirely a departure from the precedent that was established in the case of the Crown against Judge Clement. In that case, Judge Clement, I am sure, had the opportunity of coming before the court and making the best explanation he could, and the issue was tried out; the pros and cons having been heard. But a forum is selected here at which Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is not present, and at which he is not given a chance to tell his own story or to put up his defence. That being the case we are not within the safeguards and bulwarks which are given to every British subject, and which provide for a man being heard by his peers before any judgment is given against him which affects either his person or his property. That is the position which I take as to the matter of procedure.
Now, my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) is not happy in his reference to the facts. The hon. gentleman says that this is a case in which the money was paid by a mistake of law, and that being so we cannot go into a court of law to recover it. That is perfectly good law as far as our courts are concerned. But if the money has been paid in consequence of a mistake of fact, of course we can get it back. But the hon. gentleman, however, says that there was no mistake of fact, that we knew all about it; consequently we cannot plead ignorance of the facts. Well, the Prime Minister of thfs country is supposed to speak for the Government, and when we get a statement of the facts relative to a Government transaction from the Prime Minister, I am not aware that there could be any higher authority, and I submit that we have a right to accept the facts as stated by him. The hon. member fox Kingston read an answer from Hansard, in which the Prime Minister gave it as his opinion that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick went twice a year to attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now, that is the knowledge of the Government on this matter. Well, if it turns out that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick did not go, and that he got the money under a mistake of fact,-the Prime Minister having stated that the Chief Justice was going to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council twice a year, whereas he did not go at all, and the officers of the Government, under the belief that he was going, paid him the money,-then there is clearly a mistake of fact, and the 554
law which my hon. friend from Kingston quoted does not stand in the way of going to the Exchequer Court, having the facts determined, and the case properly tried. There is another thing that I wish to submit: This is the High Court of the Parliament of Canada. We are here sitting- those of us who are not burdened with the responsibility of judicial office-like the jurors in court, and those hon. gentlemen who are familiar with court practice know that the jurors must take their law from the judge. He may be absolutely wrong, but the jurors sitting there, having heard the facts of the case, must take their law from the judge; he tells them what the law is. I regard myself as a layman and a juror sitting in this House to-day.
I hear such facts as are presented, and I am bound to receive the law from the Minister of Justice. I must apply a logical, clear-cut analogy to my position here to-day as to my position if I were sitting in court, under a judge, as a juror. The Minister of Justice in this case gives us the law, and he tells us that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was entitled to receive this money, that he got it absolutely honestly under the prevailing rules.


William Folger Nickle: Did not the Minister of Justice use the expression "legally entitled?"


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He said Sir Charles Fitzpatrick got the money properly.


William Folger Nickle: Did he not use the expression "legally entitled?"


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not aware that he said any such thing. I do not know how a man gets a thing properly unless he gets it legally.


William Folger Nickle: Don't you?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, I do not. I must admit that I am not up to trisecting things like the hon. member for Kingston, but I thought that legally, honestly, and properly were concomitant and conjunctive terms and went together.


William Folger Nickle: Not overlapping.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But now it appears we can get a thing legally and justly which is not properly got. If that were so we would not have the same high opinion of our laws that we have to-day. But whatever the interpretation the Minister of Justice puts upon the case, he tells us this money was legally obtained, and, as far as I am concerned, taking the law from him, and I have nothing to do but with the facts, I

think we have to stop there. Let us transfer ourselves for a moment to the House of Commons in England, and consider a question of this kind coming up there. In England, perhaps, the officers of the law fill a higher position in the estimation of Parliament than they do with us. Whether they do or not the functions of the law officers are the same. If a question of this kind comes before the British House of Commons, where questions of law and fact are involved, the Parliamentary officers of the law hand down a certain decision upon the point and that is the end of it: Their decision is accepted and there the matter stands. Now, we have the decision of the officers of the law of this Parliament to the effect that this payment is all right, and that we have nothing to do with it-that it is the payment of a mere indemnity to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, just the same as the indemnity that he received as Deputy Governor.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Acting Minister of Justice said this afternoon that this was not a legal question at all?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was not aware of that, otherwise I would not have said what I did.


Arthur Meighen: I never made such a statement. I said I thought a question of law was involved, and I also said that the honour of a citizen of this country was involved.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is worth while to find that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) is wrong for once. It is worth while to discuss the whole thing to obtain that knowledge.
I was just saying that this was according to the interpretation that was put upon it by the officers of the law, that it was by way of indemnity to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick just the same as the allowance that was made to him as Acting Governor General. If that is the interpretation, I do not think we have anything further to say about it.
One more word, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from West Peterborough asked me whether there was any consideration for this money. I think that the duties thrown upon Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, or upon any other Chief Justice of this country attending the sittings of the Privy Council, are very onerous indeed, and that it would be absurd that merely his travelling expenses should 'be paid. Every professional man in this House who has special responsibilities will understand that he must have certain qualifications and make special prepara-

tions for those duties which he has to perform. If a judge of one of the Ontario courts is going on circuit he has to prepare himself for that duty, and for that duty only, and for that duty he is paid; but if he is asked to go and sit in the Privy Council, what has he got to do there? He has got to know something about the laws of Australia from which appeals come, something about the laws of New Zealand from which appeals come, something about the laws of South Africa, India, and every other colony,-he must acquaint himself with the laws of all these different countries, otherwise he is rather an impediment and a nuisance and a danger to that court than a help.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: Does the Canadian representative on the Privy Council have anything to do with colonial cases other than those from Canada?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As far as I understand it, he sits upon that court and he hears every case that comes before it, and cases come before it from every country that I have mentioned. For that reason he must have a knowledge of the laws of those different countries, and certainly the duties which he has to perform are very onerous. Therefore I think there was good consideration for any further compensation that might have been given him.
Apart from that, let me say at once that if the words of this vote are to be interpreted, let them receive judicial interpretation as in the Clement case. There is no question of difficulty in getting this before the Exchequer Court, from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court, and from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council. That is the place where this matter should be dealt with, and not in this House. Then we shall have a full and proper interpretation of what is meant by the language of this vote. If there is anything wrong, it is not traceable to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, rather it is traceable to the Prime Minister of this country-at all events, it is traceable to his office. We have heard from the memorandum handed to the Acting Prime Minister by his deputy minister, that word came to him from the office of the Prime Minister that a change was to be made in the language of the Estimates for years past so as to convert this from a matter of actual expense to an indemnity. There the fault is traceable, if fault there be, and from the

time that the Prime Minister of this country, through his secretary, passed that word down to the Department of Finance, where those Estimates were prepared, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had a perfect right to take advantage of the change of mind of the Prime Minister and of all the officials of the Government by which he was receiving this money. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick ever asked for that change. Is it fair, without giving him a chance to be heard in one of our courts, that we should pass a condemnatory resolution in this House? I suggest to my good friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), he having heard the case now, and having had all the satisfaction that he can possibly get out of it, and knowing, as he does from this Clement case, that there is another and a proper way of getting this money back, that he withdraw this resolution.
Mr. WILLIAM S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey):	Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the
whole matter resolves itself down to a question of interpretation. It is a fundamental rule of law that the meaning of an Act of Parliament must be gathered entirely from the words in which it is expressed, and there are many cases where the intention of Parliament has not been carried out by the expressions used in the statute. I think a very good illustration of that is what occurred in this House a couple of years ago, when in passing the Act to take over the Quebec and Saguenay railway it was enacted that the Government should pay the cost of that railway as determined by the Exchequer Court, and an hon. member of this House asked a question of the Minister of Railways and Canals who then had the Bill in charge, if the word " costs " included interest paid for money borrowed during the time of construction. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said: Yes, cost would cover interest paid by the contractors for money borrowed during the time of construction. When the case came before the Exchequer Court, that court decided that interest paid during the course of construction did not enter into the question of cost at all as a matter of law. So that I say the interpretation of what we meant when it goes to the courts is left to the courts, and I am willing to argue this case upon that ground.
I contend that the three clauses mean practically the same. The first clause says:
Travelling expenses of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick attending sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The next clause says:
Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
If the words "to cover expenses" had not been in there would be no doubt whatever in my mind that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick would, as a matter of law, be perfectly entitled to receive the $2,500, which would simply be an addition to his salary as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But it is not given to him in that way; it is given to him to cover expenses. We do not require a statement as to whether his expenses are more than that amount or less than that amount, but the money is given to him for that special purpose.
The last clause says:
Special allowance-
The same words again.
-to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Now, I am assuming that there are no expenses in connection with his services as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council unless he does go to England, and if there are not, then 'he is not entitled to those expenses, because I find in this memorandum prepared by the Justice Department that the word "allowance," as defined in "Wharton's Law Lexicon" which, as members of the legal profession are aware, is the standard legal dictionary, as "something conceded as compensation." If a man has incurred no expense, he cannot claim any compensation for expenses. According to the terms of the resolution appropriating these amounts, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, as a matter of law, is not entitled to the $5,000 which he received during those two years. In saying that I am not saying anything disrespectful of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. To a certain extent he was justified in taking these amounts because of the change which was made in the wording of the resolution. I do not know whether the change was made inadvertently or purposely, but whether inadvertently or purposely, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick would naturally believe that it had been made for the purpose of enabling him to get that compensation. Personally, I never intended, and I doubt whether any other member on this side of the House intended, that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick should receive $2,500 to cover his expenses in going to England when he did not go to England and did not incur any expense. For these reasons I must vote for the resolution of the member for Frontenac.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the discussion this afternoon. The legal aspect of this matter has been put before the House in all its phases by the member for Kings-ton( Mr. Niekle), the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and others; I desire to approach the matter entirely from the point of view of the remark of the Acting Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Meighen) that the honour of a citizen is involved. I do not know that my thoughts will lead to the same conclusion as his, but I uo feel that the honour of a citizen is deeply concerned -more deeply because the citizen in question sat at the fountain-head of justice as the Chief Justice of the highest judicial tribunal of Canada, the summit of all law That court, above all courts in the land, and the Chief Justice of that court, of all officials, should keep clean.
Any one listening to the discussion to-day could not help but feel that there has been a lot of specious argument around the question of legality. Whether the action of the Chief Justice was legal or not, was it honourable in him to take the money ? I think that is the whole question. He himself did not think that it was-at least, he had doubts, because in the letter read by the member for Kingston the Chief Justice said that if Parliament considered that he should not keep the money, he would return it. The matter is, therefore, "out of court;" he has sent it back here for the opinion of this House.
Let us see what the member for Fron-tenac asks us to do. His resolution reads:-
That, in the opinion of this House, the amount of $5,000 received by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick for the fiscal years 1915-16 and 1916-17 to cover expenses in connection with the udi-oial Committee of the Privy Council, should be returned by the said Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to the Treasury of Canada forthwith.
Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has said two things about returning this money. First, he said that if the House was of tthe opinion that he should return it he would do so. After thinking the matter over for a year, he sends in a telegram which reads:-
You are at liberty to state when Mr. Edwards moves his resolution that I adhere to the explanation given in my letter to Sir Robert Borden and which was read in the House last session in answer to Mr. Nickle's questions. I then offered to return the money-
He then offered to return the money if Parliament was of the opinion that he should. Note what he says now in this telegram, from which I quote further:-
I then offered to return the money and I now repeat that if the Government or any of the

officials through whom the money was paid will say that there is any doubt as to the regularity or legality of such payments I am prepared to return the money.
I thank the Acting Minister of Justice for the phrase " the honour of a citizen is at stake." This citizen has apparently forgotten his own honour and has descended to depending on regularity and legality. There is no doubt in the mind of any one in this House that that $2,500 a year was voted to enable the Chief Justice to go overseas and perform certain duties, and if we look at the matter in a fair way we will realize that no honourable man would take that money unless he did go overseas to perform those duties. That is the whole issue; there is no legal quibble about it. The member for Frontenac wants to get the opinion of this House on the question whether it is honest and decent and right that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick should keep that money, and the opinion of the House should be given in no uncertain way. It is then up to him to say: " The House of Commons, having been asked by me to give their opinion, has declared, by a majority vote, that I, sitting as the Chief Justice of 'Canada, while well cared for by the Government, being in receipt of $17,500 a year in all, should return the money voted to me during two years for expenses that were not incurred, for the performance of services that were not rendered." The Acting Minister of Justice said to-day, in answer to my question, that there was no duty to be performed in this connection except that of going overseas to attend the meetings of the Judicial Committee. So that the late 'Chief Justice has taken $5,000 out of the treasury without having turned a hand for it. Probably he did it legally; probably he did it regularly. I am inclined to agree with the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) that there may have been some conversation between the Chief Justice and some one else-I would not say with the Minister of Justice. But Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is astute enough to frame up anything for his own benefit to work through somebody-in a way that people understand. The point I make is that we are not seeking to sue him for this amount. If this resolution carries, the opinion of this House will be conveyed in the public press or through Hansard to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. His question will be answered, and the honour of the citizen will be up to the man whose honour is at stake. If Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, after that opinion has been expressed, feels that it is worth his while to keep the money of Canada, I, as a citizen of Canada, will say:

You are very welcome to it, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick; you will answer to yourself and your conscience in attempting to hold on to that which you did not properly obtain.
Mr. ROBERT J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):	Sometimes there come
up for decision by members of Parliament, questions in which the easier course would be for a member to refrain from voting.
I must confess I am in some doubt on this question, and I would find it a good deal easier to leave the chamber, as I felt tempted to do, so as to miss the vote if a vote takes place, but I generally do not like to run away from risks, if I may so term it. I have listened to the arguments put forward this afternoon by members on both sides of the House as intelligently as an ordinary layman can listen to the arguments of lawyers. I do not pretend to be able to follow the subtleties-that was the word used, I think, by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle)-of lawyers' minds. I have listened to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) and the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) explaining the position, not of the Government, but of their legal advisers in this matter, and my interpretation of their remarks is to the effect that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had, at least, a legal, if not a moral, right to this money. If we take it into account that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had a legal right to this money-and even my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy), who thinks this money should be returned, admits that he has a legal right to it-and if we are demanding it back from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick simply on the moral ground, then it should be the duty of this Government, if Parliament insists, on moral grounds, on getting this money back, to investigate thoroughly the administration of the Government at the present time and to make other people who have taken money to which they have no moral right pay it back; and to go back over the record of the late Governments and make the crooked contractors pay back moneys which they had no moral right to take.
If I felt convinced that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had no right to retain this money, I would have absolutely no hesitation in voting in favour of this motion; but because I had a doubt in my mind in regard to the matter, I made it my business to chat with a few of the ministers who knew the situation and they are all of the same opinion as the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Justice, namely,
that this $5,000 should be left as it stands at the present time. One of the reasons put forward which impressed me very much was that, if this Parliament voted in favour of demanding the return of this money, that would practically be saying that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was a thief and stole that money. I am not prepared to go as far as that. I am not, however, convinced that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had a moral right to this money, and I will tell the House, in a moment,
5 p.m. what I would do if I were Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. I think the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) stated that if Sir Charles Fitzpatrick wanted to play the right game, he would have paid the money back last Fall. I do not know Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, I have not had the pleasure of meeting him, but in my opinion the reason why he could not pay the money back while under this cloud, was that if he did so, he would be admitting to the people of Canada that he stole it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That he took it improperly.


Mr. MANION:: Possibly he took it improperly, but I do not suppose Sir Charles Fitzpatrick would care to admit that he took it improperly even if, in his inner conscience, he thought he did. I do not blame him for that. I think his proper stand would be to stand by his guns; otherwise, he would be admitting that he took it improperly, a thing which no man would care to admit. To take a thing improperly is a drawing-room phrase for stealing it. One of the ministers with whom I spoke expressed the opinion that if Parliament passed this resolution it would wipe out any reputation for honour that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has. There is a great deal of truth in that, and I am not prepared to vote away the reputation of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick for $5,000. Not only is his honour at stake, but the honour of this Government is also at stake. That is the conclusion I have reached, and I have endeavoured to give in a few words my reasons for supporting the view held by the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Justice. If the vote taken by the House on this matter does not support Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, I suppose he will have to pay the money back; but supposing the vote supports him in keeping it, in that case, if I were Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, I would pay back the money after I was exonerated, as a doubt has been cast upon him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I hear laughter from different parts of the House. I do not think that view differs from my first conclusions in this matter. I repeat what I said at the outset, namely, that every hon. member who has spoken has admitted that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has a legal right to this money. Therefore, he has not stolen it, and I do not see why he should admit he has stolen it. But as a doubt has been cast upon him, the proper course for Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to pursue, if this vote exonerates him, is to hand back this $5,000 to the people of Canada.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: If we vote for this resolution, will that defeat the Government?


Robert James Manion: I understand this has nothing to do' with either a defeat or a support of the Government, and I am not, as is implied by the hon. member, tied by any chain to supporting this Government, if 1 feel like voting against it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish, in just two or three sentences to make my position clear on this question. I may say at the outset that I intend to vote for the resolution for reasons which are perfectly clear to my mind. I remember very well, when the items referred to were before the House, it was clear to me that we were voting from year to year this sum of money for a particular purpose, namely, to pay the expenses of the Chief justice of Canada, whoever he might be, to attend the sittings of the Privy Council. Last year-and I use the argument I am now going to use, for the particular benefit of my hon. friend (Mr. Manion)-when the Estimates were being considered, this question was raised by several members, and a large number of members who intended to speak did not speak for the reason that they were given an assurance by the Government, on the strength of a letter from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick read by a responsible minister of the Crown, that this money would be returned. On that assurance being given to the House, opposition was at once removed and the item was allowed to pass.
Another feature of the case to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is this. The question of law has been discussed very carefully and earnestly by hon. members. One principle is accepted in all courts, namely, that where in law a phrase or a clause of a contract is in doubt, the lawyers and the judge usually look for some precedent or some action which went

before which might interpret the meaning of the clause.
We have a dozen precedents for this. From the year 1897 to 1915-16 this item was in the Estimates year after year, and it was there for a particular purpose, and the money was used for that purpose. In the year 1915-16 the wording was slightly changed, but the item as it had appeared the previous year was placed alongside; in other words, the vote was interpreted in the terms of the vote of -the previous year. I submit to the Government this point: If we, as private members, were to be forced to analyze in detail every item that comes before this House we should never get through the Estimates in a hundred years. Every item in the Estimates is condensed in as few words as possible, and we trust to the officers of the Crown to carry out the intention which Parliament undoubtedly has in passing these items in this abbreviated form. It was clear to Parliament what this particular vote was intended for; it was clear to Parliament last year that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick intended this House to understand that he would return the money. But a year afterwards we find that the money has not been returned. I shall certainly take the opportunity of expressing my opinion in a vote on this matter.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: If
I agreed with my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) in what he said, I should vote as he is going to vote, but the only thing he said with which I agree was that we are dealing with a very disagreeable question. I am no apologist for Government by Order in Council, but if this matter could have been settled by an Order in Council it would have saved Parliament a very ugly situaJtion. I think, for once, I would be in agreement with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr.' McKenzie) who seems to want it settled somewhere else than here anyhow, and we are at one in not fearing to derogate from -the rights and privileges of Parliament on the present occasion. I must say I rather resent the duty of having to discuss and decide on this question; it should not have been thrown on the shoulders of Parliament. It appears to me, as my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) suggested, that there has been some intercourse between the Government and Sir Charles on this question, and the Government should have saved Parliament from having to discuss and vote on this matter. I do not attach much

importance to the legal cobwebs that we have had spun here this afternoon. OE course, it is a long time since we ascribed first place in that particular art to my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), but I thought this afternoon he would have to look to his laurels because the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) really made a splendid exhibition along the same lines. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) was willing to enter into the competition, hut I am bound to pronounce him a bad third. When I listened to these gentlemen I wondered if I could lay claim to being an intelligent layman, and ever since I have been trying to persuade myself that I am a reasonably intelligent layman.
I am sorry for Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in this connection. I do not share the habit of my hon. friend from Fort William of wishing to use strong language where I can possibly avoid it, and I differ very profoundly from the attitude that he has just taken up in asserting that those who vote in a certain way in this matter will proclaim that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is a thief. I should like to warn my hon. and young friend against the use of such language; even if he thinks it, he should modify his language. It is sometimes well, it may be generally well, to call a spade a spade, but there is excuse in some circumstances for calling it a horticultural implement. In this case I neither think Sir Charles Fitzpatrick a thief, nor will I have my vote represented as indicating '*at I think so. I do not blame, primarily, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick for the situation. I think it should have been settled when there was a chance to settle it, without ihe House having to vote on this question. I have a slight acquaintance with Sit Charles Fitzpatrick, and I think he is a man who by his intellectual gifts and by his high character has been an adornment to many public positions in this country. That is all one needs to say upon such an interpretation cf the vote here as was given by my hon. friend from Fort William.
While I am sorry for Sir diaries Fitzpatrick, I am sorry for myself, as a member of Parliament, in having to deal with this matter. From the view expressed hy the Minister of Justice that this House is the guardian of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's honour I sharply dissent. Every man is the guardian of his own honour; it must be so; and I refuse to assume the guardianship of the honour of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. Neither am I the guardian of the business capacity of the Government. This question has been
allowed to drift into the House of Commons for settlement, and what I have to remember is what I am guardian of. I am the guardian, in the humble capacity of a single member of this House, of the public purse; that is a duty which I cannot avoid; it is put upon me by those who elected me here, and by the constitution of our country. We all know, in spite of legal contentions to the contrary, that this five thousand dollars was paid to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. I do not think any one contradicts mat. That is a fact known to everybody, including the hon. leader of the Opposition. He may not know' it in his legal capacity, but as I do not know what that is, I am content if he knows it in his capacity as a member of Parliament. I believe, and I want to state my belief, that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in taking that money tooiv it under error. I will not permit myself to say of any other man whui he should have done when he had committed that error-and I am using the language of straightforward sincerity. I do not know that I would even answer on my own account a question which I suppose the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) addressed to me with the other members of this House. He seemed to turn in my direction wrhen he asked, would I have taken this money? I thought at the time, my mother was Scotch, and it is a large sum, and I am not bound to answer the question. I should be in the same difficulty if he had gone on to ask, would I have given it back, and for the reason that if I had got the sum I should not have retained it till this time, as I have not been able to exercise the Scotch quality of taking care of money too well So I have not to answer this question as to -what Sir Charles Fitzpatrick should have done or what I would have done myself under those circumstances.
The money was paid by the Government to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to enable him to travel. He did not travel. It w'as said during the war by somebody-the Minister of Public Works, I think-that we must " work or fight," and I think that in this case the question was, " travel or return the money." That, at any rate, is the view I shall take of the matter. The money was paid for travelling expenses; travelling was not done, therefore it is due back to the country, and I say that without any reflection upon Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, but merely as indicating the way in which I shall vote. For once I was pleased to take my law-if it was law; the commonsense of it anyway-from my old friend the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx), who

was, to my mind, by far the clearest-brained lawyer who spoke on this subject in the House to-day. I have tried to put this question from the point of view of the layman, and to put before the House the reasons which shall guide me if the question comes to a vote.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford North):: When I voted, as I did, for the resolution at the time the vote was taken, I believed that the money was to be paid to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick as a sort of salary, somewhat in the form of a retainer which is Sometimes paid a lawyer by a corporation for the purpose of securing his services at any time if required. I might have been wrong in my view of the question at that time, and I am not saying that I was not. I have listened to most of the discussion this afternoon, and have heard a great deal of legal opinion. The Acting Prime Minister has told us that the changing of the wording was made at the request of the Prime Minister's secretary. Now, the money was paid by the Finance Department at the instance of the Department of Justice and the Privy Council, without any question, and with the sanction of the late Auditor General, who, we all know, was very capable. In these circumstances it is my opinion that the money was legally paid, and, as far as I can gather, it was honestly accepted by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. I therefore have no other recourse than to endorse the payment that was legally made by those who were in authority to make payments such as this, and to oppose this resolution.


Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County):: There is no doubt in my mind that previous to 1915 and 1916 Sir Charles Fitzpatrick would not, according to the way the money was voted then, have been entitled to it; but under the vote of 1915 and 1916 I think the money was legally paid to him and that it was accepted in good faith. There must have been some reason for the change that was made in the wording of the Estimate, and I feel I must vote against the resolution and at the same time express regret at some of the remarks that have been made concerning Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is extremely difficult to understand the attitude of any hon. member in this House who defends Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in his retention of this money. Sir Charles himself, in his letter last year, offered to return the money if this Parliament thought he should do so, and that was an absolute

admission on his part that there was certainly a doubt in his mind as to the propriety of his retaining the money. One hears many legal arguments on a question of this kind, but it seems to me that the bald facts are so self-explanatory that a wayfarer, though a fool, could not fail to decide what is Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's duty in this matter. When the late Dalton McCarthy some years ago was addressing a meeting in the town of Selkirk, Manitoba, in the course of a criticism of the Government of the day in which he made some deductions that were perfectly logical, an obtrusive person in the back who was opposed to him politically asked him: "How do you know, Mr. McCarthy, that what you say is right?" Mr. McCarthy, with that dignity and strength of character that distinguished him, paused for a moment and replied, "Because I am not a damned fool." Now the people of this country are not fools-I omit the adjective -and they know that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick received $5,000 for services that he did not render. The matter has been referred to this House for decision. The people are exceedingly critical, and the average Canadian citizen regards $5,000 as a large amount of money-which indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. The people are waiting to see what attitude their representatives in Parliament will take in this matter. The money was improperly accepted. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick did not spend one farthing of it, and yet his salary is $17,500.
If you give him this additional money as an honorarium, he will have $20,000, nearly three times, perhaps more than three times, the salary of the average minister of the Crown. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was the Chief Justice of Canada, the fountain of justice in this country. In addition to that he was the administrator representing the Governor General of Canada, and the people have a right to look to him as the fountain of honour, as he was the official fountain of honour. And yet he takes this $5,000. He practically admits he did not earn it, he did not spend it, and he had it improperly; and to ask this House to say that he should be allowed to retain the money is, in my judgment to insult the intelligence of members of the House, the intelligence of the people of this country. I did not hear the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister, or of the Acting Minister of Justice, but taking the interpretation of their remarks as I heard it secondhand from members of this House, I must confess that I am surprised that either, or both, of those gentlemen-while they may not have de-

fended the payment-should have left the impression that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is legally entitled to this money. A man may be legally entitled to $100,000, and yet not have one scintilla of moral claim. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has no moral claim on this money; and let him understand, as the reperesentative of the Crown in this country, that the Parliament and the people of Canada do not propose to allow him to go Scot free in this matter. Sir 'Charles Fitzpatrick, by reason of his position, should he placed in the pillory, and it should be given out to the people of Canada that this Parliament does not intend to allow a man of his position, and of his supposed honour, to escape responsibility. Let the declaration of Parliament this afternoon be quite clear, so that the country will have no doubt as to the mind of the people's representatives that we propose to insist upon having this money returned. If under the circumstances, 'Sir Charles Fitzpatrick should wish to retain it, 'then on his head be the responsibility. I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that Parliament cannot be the keeper of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's honour, or of any man's honour-every man must be the keeper of his own honour-and if we make an emphatic pronouncement on questions of this kind, we will have struck a strong and hearty blow for honesty and for honest public service in this country.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) :: I do not take the same view of the question as is taken by my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and quite a number of other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. If blame attaches to any one as a result of this unfortunate matter, I think the blame should be put upon the House of Commons itself, or upon the Government administering affairs in 1915-16, rather than upon the shoulders of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. In my judgment no stigma whatever, no degree of moral turpitude whatever attaches to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, in respect of the two payments of $2 500 each which form the subject of this resolution. Parliament must be presumed to know what it is doing when it passes its Estimates. Deliberately it changed *he language which had prevailed in this House with respect to this item for years. When this vote was made in 1915, an item which stated in express terms that the money was given for travelling expenses was changed. We assume that it was done deliberately, because that action was taken with the knowledge of hon. members who were then in this House. We are supposed to know
what it meant, and we approved of it- we must have known what it meant when we took that course. The blame for anything that has gone wrong since must be attributed to us; if a mistake was made, we made it. Why did we make the change referred to? To my mind the matter is clear, and I agree writh the view taken by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. E. W. Nesbitt) with respect to it. The language of the vote was changed expressly to permit Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to accept an allowance practically as an addition to his salary. What was the wording of the vote of 1915? " Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy . Council." My hon. friend from Springfield and my hon. friend from Red Deer said that money was paid to enable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to travel. There is nothing in the vote which limits the payment to travelling expenses. We are assuming that there was no expense in connection with the office but expenses of travel. We do not know whether or not Sir Charles Fitzpatrick employed clerical assistance or stenographers, or disbursed money for telegrams, postage, or the like. So long as any expense was incurred at all the payment of the money cannot be withheld. Let me give a little instance by way of illustration. Every hon. member of this House who were here fifteen or twenty years ago accepted mileage every year and travelled on a railway pass. Members of the Dntario Legislature do that yet. In the Militia Department the higher officers receive an allowance per diem; they do not give details of their expenditure for travelling expenses, they do not vouch their accounts. The allowance, I believe, is some $12 or $15; at any rate whatever the amount may be, I am told they do not give an itemized account of their expenditures; they accept the allowance no matter how small their expenditure has been. Our judges do the same thing. We give them a per diem allowance of $6 or $8 for expenses, and if the expenses happen to be $2 or $3 below the amount, the allowance is drawn just the same. The money is not given for actual expenses, it is an allowance, and it was so in connection with the money that was voted to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.


Mr. R. H. COOPER (Vancouver South):: Will the Solicitor General definitely state that this money was voted for work done by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not quite catch the question.


Richard Clive Cooper: This money was voted in connection with attendance at sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Solicitor General says that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick may have used it for certain other expenses, but he does not say that it was expended for work in connection with the Judicial Committee.


Hugh Guthrie: I have just as good a right to say that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick might have used it for other purposes as hon. members have to insinuate that he did not use this money for expenses. I have just as high and firm ground for doing that as hon. members have who are criticising this payment. The fact still remains, however, that when we voted this money we voted it in plain, distinct, language as an allowance, and having done so we should assume the responsibility. I quite agree that no good end is going to be served by a discussion of this unfortunate question in this forum. In my opinion this discussion is purely academic, and I do not think anything will come of it, whether we adopt or reject this motion. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick may say: " I do not propose to return this money," even if we adopt this motion. How are you going to compel him, if he takes that attitude?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about his telegram ?


Hugh Guthrie: He may not act on it, he may even change his mind with respect to it. How are you going to exercise compulsion? Where is this going to end? When is any finality going to be achieved? There is a forum where this question could be disposed of, and I think the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition is the correct one in view of the statute which says that a claim of the Crown may be adjudicated by the Exchequer Court of Canada. I believe that is the proper form to which this whole question should be referred and there be dealt with. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick can be heard there. We have not had the other side of the matter, except in the somewhat discursive communication which has been read from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick himself, but if we have a claim, or believe we have a claim, the Exchequer Court is the forum where this question should be decided. In that court we should get finality, a definite finding. Here the discussion may have the result of casting a slur upon Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, which, in my humble judgment, is entirely undeserved on account

of anything that has occurred in this transaction.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) does not place Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in a very favourable light when he tells us that even if we vote that this money ought to be returned to Parliament Sir Charles Fitzpatrick will not return it, although he has offered to do so. I shall not attempt to follow the legal side of the argument. I think it was well that that side should be stated, and it was stated very completely by the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I do not look at this matter from the legal standpoint, neither do I think the people of Canada so regard it. I think the member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) gave the right view of it. The people of Canada see an item in the Estimates of $2,500 for expenses, and as far as they can learn no expenses have been incurred. Nowq I submit, Sir, that if any expenses had been incurred sufficient to warrant the taking of that money some member of this House would be able to say so today. No person has ventured such a statement, no person has even insinuated that any expenses had been incurred. We are told that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick might have spent something on postage, clerical help, or something of that sort, but no effort is made to show how much that is or how little, and if it was anything like sufficient to justify this payment I am sure that fact would have been stated here to-day.
If a postman, Mr. Speaker, takes fifty cents improperly wre send him to the penitentiary for five years. I do not mean to' say that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has stolen the money, but I go this far, that the one man in Canada who should be careful of his position in matters of this kind is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Every man should be careful of what he does in financial transactions if he is an honest man, but the one man above all others in this Dominion who should be careful that nobody can say he has taken five cents improperly is the man who presides over the Supreme Court of this country, and it is most regrettable that he should have allowed this matter to go so far when he knows the feeling of Parliament from former discussions.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that working men, farmers and others who have to work for five years to earn $5,000 should get restless when they see that amount taken by a man already drawing $15,000, and taken improperly. How are we going to

prevent unrest, how are we going to satisfy the people that we are doing the square thing by them when men who have the highest paid positions in this country resort to these means to add to their incomes? Whether Sir Charles Fitzpatrick is able legally to retain this or not, he has no moral right to it, and that is the view I take and I propose to give effect to it by my vote.


Mr. GEORGE BOYCE (Carletcn):: 
John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. gentleman purposes to speak he can only do so in closing the debate, and if he exercises his right to reply now, other hon. members will be precluded from speaking.


John Wesley Edwards: I only wish to say, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEVLIN:: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has the floor.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words upon thiB question, but if my hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) wishes to make a statement that he withdraws his resolution, then I will give way to him.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing my resolution. I am aware of the fact, as I presume my hon. friend is, that it is a quarter to six. I believe the sentiment of this House is that we take a vote on this matter.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, I have done my best to follow the reasoning of the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken. I am
indifferent in this matter as to whether the charge is made against a man who calls himself Fitzpatiick, or whether it be made against a man who might call himself by any other name. I desire not to give a silent vote, but, I hope, an intelligent one, and in order that I may give that vote, as I mean to give it, I want to say a few words in explanation. We have been dealing this afternoon with a case that I might call the case of Edwards vs. Fitzpatrick. The complainant in this case asks us to constitute ourselves into a transferring court to transfer the charge in the case of Edwards vs. Fitzpatrick to one of the King vs. Fitzpatrick. I understand that the Government take the position that they will not recommend, nor will the officers of the Crown recommend, that the case be styled one of the King vs. Fitzpatrick, but that it must continue to be the case of Edwards vs. Fitzpatrick.
I was brought up, Mr. Speaker, under the British system of justice, and you all know it is a rule of British justice that every man in this country must have a fair and a free trial, that the evidence for and against him shall be heard, and that both parties shall have access to the court to give their version of the case.
I put it to hon. members of the House: Is this a fair trial to give to the defendant in the case of Edwards vs Fitzpatrick? The hon. gentleman asks us to sit here not as judges but as jurors and to render a verdict upon the facts as he has stated them, without giving the accused, or the defendant, an opportunity of stating his version of the case. Is that fair? Is that British justice?
I want to emphasize the further point that there are jurors in this case who do not stand indifferent as between Edwards and Fitzpatrick. It is a rule of Britffh justice that when a juror is not indifferent as between the King and the accused, he shall stand aside and not be allowed to decide upon the facts of the case. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) told us that he was not concerned with the law in this case; that he did not want any instruction to the members of this House- the jurors in this case-on questions of law. Is that British justice? What would he say, for instance, if in some famous trial, after the judge had charged the jury upon the points of law, one of the jurors called upon to decide on the questions of fact stood up and said: "Your Lordship, arway with your questions of law. We do not want to know any law in this case;

we want to decide it according to the facts as we wish to see them, not according to the facts as they have been placed before the court."


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the hon. gentleman who said: "hear, hear" he good enough to stand up?


John Hampden Burnham: What does the hon. member wish to know?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was not referring to the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham).


Mr. McLEOD:: Is the hon. gentleman asserting that it is not the right of the jury to decide the facts in any case heard before them? I say to him that it is absolutely the right of the jury to decide the facts.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My hon. friend is a lawyer and he must know well that I am not propounding any such doctrine. It is perfectly within the province of the jury to decide upon questions of fact. But let me ask the hon. gentleman: is it not within the province of the judge to instruct the jury upon questions of law? Will he be fair and answer that question?


Harry Fulton McLeod: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The judges in this case are the law officers of the Crown, who tell us that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick had a legal right to keep the money. Are we to take that into consideration, or are we not? Will the hon. gentleman again be fair and tell me what his view is on that point?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member should confine his remarks to his discussion of the subject before the House, and not address another hon. gentleman.
<^(r. DEVLIN: Then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at the present moment the judge of this court, whether you would simply take the facts of a case brought before you and set aside all the law, where the case had to do with facts and law? I take your silence, Mr. Speaker, as indicating that you thoroughly agree with me.
With the statements that we have before us-the statement of the mover of the resolution and some of his friends and the .statement of the Government advised by the law officers of the Crown-what can we poor mortals, layman jurors, decide in this case? Have we not the right to ask that the defendant at least be heard in some way before we decide this case against him? Unless that right is granted, Sir- 
that right which is a principle of British justice-I propose to vote against the resolution.


Joseph Read: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the legal luminaries on both sides of the House and have come to the conclusion that every hon. member must have come to: That this is really not a legal, but a moral question. With regard to the moral question-the fact that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has agreed to leave it to the judgment of this House, notwithstanding the fact that he knows the packed jury and the mentality of them-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark.


Joseph Read: Well, I withdraw that remark. -notwithstanding the nature of the jury, I am perfectly satisfied that in his own mind Sir Charles Fitzpatrick stands acquitted, as stainless -$s a star. Now, to give you my own attitude I shall paraphrase a few words from that grand old moral philosopher, Robbie Burns:
Who made the heart, 'tis He alone Decidedly can try us;
He knows each chord, its various tone,
Each spring its various bias.
Then at the balance let's he mute.
We never can adjust it;
What's done we partly can compute But know not what's resisted.
Then, gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler Charles Fitzpatrick:
Tho' he has gang a kennin'wrang His company's full of bad tricks.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion negatived.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his right to speak.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: A
question of principle has been raised today in the discussion of this whole question. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) stated that in his opinion the money had been unduly taken. Whether it was legally or illegally taken, so long as it was unduly taken, it should have been returned to the treasury. I will not lay very much stress on the question whether the money has been taken legally or illegally, but I will call to my assistance another principle which has been applied ever since Confederation. I refer to the separation of the three distinct powers which are at the foundation of our constitution-the executive power, the judicial

power and the legislative power. It has been the constant practice of all statesmen not to allow any one power to trespass on the province of another. The executive power, the province of which is well defined by our constitution, should not trespass on the legislative power. That is one of the reasons why we so much object to the method of procedure by Order in Council. We consider that by the method of procedure by Order in Council, the executive power is trespassing upon the province of the legislative power. The hon. member for Frontcnac (Mr. Edwards) has, in this resolution, asked us to substitute the legislative power for the judicial power. It is the duty of this House to enact laws, but it is not the duty of this House or of this Parliament to pass judgment on the laws that this Parliament has enacted.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Thursday, March 27, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Order in Council of date 19th March, 1919, providing for the cancellation of certain regulations made under the provision of the War Measures Act.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Report of the Military Service Council for last year.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)
ORDER IN COUNCIL No. 3168.

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has a report been made to the Government as to the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the Halifax explosion?
2.	Was Captain Martin, Superintendent of the Dockyard at Halifax, removed?
3.	Was Captain Martin subsequently appointed to a position in the Esquimalt, B.C., Dockyard?
4.	If so, why was the change made?
5.	Was Commander Wyatt dismissed from the service?
6.	If so, why?
7.	Did any Canadian ratings lose their lives at the time of the Halifax explosion?
8.	If so, has the department in any way recognized the bravery and heroism of these ranks and ratings?
9.	Is the Government aware that Imperial Government Ratings from H.M.S. Highflyer, who performed similar service at Halifax, N.S., have been awarded medals and placed on the Honour. List in the Royal Navy?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Captain Martin was transferred from Halifax to Esquimalt dockyard as superintendent.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Owing to greatly increased work and responsibilities at Halifax dockyard it was considered advisable to appoint an officer of admiral's rank as superintendent thereof.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Yes.
8.	Yes, the names of those who distinguished themselves at the time of the explosion were forwarded to the Admiralty with a view to obtaining for them proper recognition. His Majesty the King has been pleased to approve of the following posthumous awards: Mr. Albert Mattison, late acting boatswain, R.C.N., Albert medal; late Stoker Petty Officer Edward S. Beard, V.R., 1731, R.N.C.V.R., Albert medal; John T. Gammon, Chief Master-atrArms, R.C.N., member of the Military Division of the British Empire Order; Chief E. R. A. 2nd class Hay, R.C.N., Meritorious Service medal; Walter Critch, A.B., official number 1242, Newfoundland R.N.R., Meritorious Service medal. The British Admiralty have requested that an expression of Their Lordships' appreciation may be conveyed to the following officer:	Mr. Walter
O'Reilly, Gunner, R.C.N. The Admiralty have sent letters of appreciation to the next of kin of the following ratings: Chas. C. McMillan, Leading Seaman, V.R., 2496; Carl C. Wilson, Able Seaman, V.R., 1561; Albert Saunders, Able Seaman, V.R., 4066; Freeman P. Nickerson, Able Seaman, V.R., 1891; George H. Yates, Stoker 2nd class, V.R., 5480.
9.	No information in the Department of the Naval Service.


THE STEAMER STADACONA.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	At any time during the war did one Lt. Jarvis R.C.N., make a report in regard to the condition of the Steamer " Stadacona," purchased by the Government^
2.	If so, is that report on file in the Department?
3.	Was the " Stadacona " in dry flock at Vickers, Montreal, at the time the report was made?
4.	Were the recommendations in that report followed by the Government?
5.	Was Lt. Jarvis a competent person to make a report?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, the vessel was examined by experts whose recommendations were carried out.
5.	Lt. Jarvis was competent to report on any subject of which he had proper knowledge.


PURCHASE OF DESTROYERS-COMMANDER J. K. L. ROSS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 3.	During the years 1914 and 1915 did Commander J. K. L. Ross urge upon the Government or any official thereof either by letter or word of mouth the necessity of the Government purchasing five or more modern destroyers?
2.	Did Commander J. K. L. Ross offer to purchase one destroyer and present it to the Government providing the Government would purchase four or five additional destroyers?
3.	If so, was the offer accepted?
4.	If not, why not?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Not so far as the Department of the Naval Service is aware.
2.	Not so far as the Department of the Naval Service is aware.
3 and 4. Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


GOVERNMENT-OWNED AUTOMOBILES IN OTTAWA.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many automobiles are owned by each department of the Government in the City of Ottawa?
2.	What are the names of the manufacturers of said automobiles?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: Department of Customs: 1. One. 2. Hudson Motor Oar Company.
Department of Interior: 1. 5 trucks. 2. 4 Fords, 1 Dodge.
Department of Justice: 1. One, Dominion Police. 2. Reo,1914 model.
Department of Militia and Defence:
1.	Eleven. 2. Eight Cadillac, motor cars five McLaughlin motor oars.

Department of Mines: 1. Three. 2. One Chevrolet, two Fords, all stored and not used at Ottawa.
Department of Post Office: 1. One.
2.	Pierce Arrow. The Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company.
Department of Public Works: 1. Two.
2.	One Ford and one Packard.
Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment: 1. (a) At Head Office for administrative purposes, two; (b) at Vocational School for Instruction in Driving, two. 2. (a) McLaughlin Manufacturing Co.; (b) Ford Motor Co. and Willys-Overland, Ltd.
Board of Pensions Commissioners for Canada: 1. One. 2. Ford Motor Co.


LEON TROTSKY AND THE DOMINION POLICE.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Was Leon Trotsky, the present Bolshevist Foreign Minister for Russia while en route to Europe in 1916, ever in the custody of the police authorities of the Dominion or of the City of Halifax?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Were any representations received in favour of Trotsky's release from Canadian custody? If so, from whom?


Martin Burrell: 1, 2, and 3. No record.


TERMINAL ELEVATORS.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	How many public and private terminal elevators are operated by the Dominion Board of Grain Commissioners?
2.	What is the capacity of each, and where located?
3.	What departments of the Government exercise control over elevators referred to?
4.	What is the capacity of each, and quantity of grain handled at each elevator under the several departments of the Government?
5.	What are the profits or losses over cost of operation in connection with each elevator, during each of the past five years, or such years for which the information is available?


Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Five.
2.	Port Arthur, capacity 3,250,000 bushels.
Moosejaw,	"	3,500,000	"Saskatoon,	"	3,500,000Calgary,	"	2,500,000	'Vancouver,	"	1,250,000	"3.	The Department of Trade and Commerce.4.	All the grain in these elevators is handled under the Department of Trade and
Commerce.

Port Arthur-Capacity 3,250,000 bushels.
Crop Year 1914-15.	Receipts.	Shipments.
	Net Bush	Net Bush.
Wheat	7,501,752	7,561,200Oats	1,486,097	1,488,263Barley	279,248	281,411Flax	395,127	405,947lbs.	lbs.Mixed grain .. ..	2,517,940	2,522,300Screenings, etc. ..	357,780	6,193,560Crop Year 1915-1916.	Wheat .. ..	25,659,650	25,156,497Oats	7,523,751	7,173,281Barley	809,801	781,721Flax	523,652	516,942Rye	708	708lbs.	lbs.Mixed grain .. ..	3,145,040	2,556,640Screenings, etc. ..	445,740	12,697,400Crop Year 1916-17.	Receipts	ShipmentsWheat	4,147,931-40	4,185,688-10Oats	953,546-31	942,337-12Barley	32,338-10	32,761-10Flax	148,892-04	153,326-33Rye	9,494-26	9,494-26lbs.	lbs.Mixed grain ..	423,080	1,020,030Screenings.. ..	446,360Mustard seeds	550	550Crop Year 1917-18	Net Bus.	Net Bus.Wheat	1,481,606-30	1,632,867-50Oats	2,786,792-21	2,749,204-01Barley	27,223-06	27,771-02Flax	31,885-01	33,521-39Rve	1,663-02	1,663-02Corn	1,187-28	1,187-28Mixed Grain ..	286,560 lbs	. 645,990 lbs.Screenings .. ..	94,300 lbs	. 94,900 lbs.
Crop Year 1916-1917.
Wheat	 13,292,056
Oats	 6,270,438
Barley	 662,792
Flax	 975,605
Rye	 662
lbs.
Mixed grain ..	..	4,308,550
Screenings, etc...	68,800
13,732,148
6,053,378
677,449
1,036,502
lbs.
4,728,662
5,603,940
Saskatoon-Capacity 3,500,000 bushels. Crop Year 1914-15.
Wheat	
1,076,957-30	1,076,629-10Oats	
1,356,202-28	1,374,437-24Barley	
25,971-37	25,971-37Flax	
60,320 lbs. 1,912,620 lbs.
Mixed Grain .. Screenings .. .. Crop Year 1915-16. Wheat	
11,520 lbs. 2,189,720 lbs.
6,791,690-20 6,717,180-50
Cron Year 1917-1918.	*	Oats	1,381,782-19 1,346,457-20Wheat	.. 8,911,239	9,178,615	Barley	69,057-09 67,195-23Oats	.. 1,438,719	1,856,788	Flax	203,614-37 193,252-46Barley	.. 307,851	314,654	Mixed Grain ..	925,946 lbs. 890,030 lbs.Flax	.. 469,905	488,726	Screenings	. 2,771,330 lbs.Rye	.. 12,135	12,135	Crop Year 1916-17.	lbs.	lbs.	Wheat	5,153,870-20 5,246,208-30Mixed grain ..	.. 1,499,300	1,329,375	Oats	1,773,964-23 1,764,722-02Screenings, etc.	.. 923,000	8,260,895	Barley	56,829-35 57,986-12Flax	249,394-16 259,434-20Mixed Grain ...	525,740 lbs. 853,820 lbs.Moosejaw-Capacity 3,500,000	i bushels.	Screenings ....	122,320 lbs. 7,681,610 lbs,Crop Year 1914-1915. Wheat . 2.294.127-50	2,215,346-50 *	Crop Year 1917-18.	589,993-28	572,064-16	V\heat	. 4,607,153-20 4,611,588-50Barley	16,911-02 1,375-42	15,664-08 492-30	Oats	
Barley	. 3,607,068-00 3,609,364-25 72,294-45 69,342-43Flax	69,723-23 68,802-10Mixed Grain ..	694,370 lbs. 673,340 lbs.Mixed grain ..	58,390	58,390	Screenings .. ..	1,426,050 lbs. 2,764,530 lbs.Screenings, etc.	4,895,150	*Caflgary-Capacity, 2,500,000 bushels.	Crop year 1915-1916.	Crop Year 1915-16.	Wheat	4,604,617-50	4,402,635-00	Wheat	1,037,109-19 1,023,693-09Oats	763,698-29	746,184-00	Oats	841,211-00 823,268-30Barley	33,523-46	24,903-32	Barley	40,602-47 40,481-35Flax	85,999-34	81,602-47	Flax	2,608-12 2,608-12Rye	5,320-00	5,249-16	Rve	2,020-00 2,020-00lbs.	lbs.	Corn	1,053-32 1,053-32Mixed grain ..	444,520	408,200	Mixed Grain ..	1,405,670 lbs. 1.327,810 lbs.56	Screenings	9.640 lbs. 71.250 lbs.
Crop Year 1916-17.	Receipts.	Shipments.
Wheat		1,469,379-00 1,468,089-10	
Oats		1,943,718-20 1,966,107-00	
Barley	160,391-37	160,404-43Flax	15,857-28	15,327-21Timothy Seed..	36,917-40	34,765-16Rye	6,413-52	6,413-52Corn	1,285-40	1,285-40Mixed Grain .	856,270 lbs.	625,000 lbsScreenings .. ..	6,775 lbs.	566,990 lbsCrop Year 1917-18.	Wheat	740,716-00	752,968-00Oats	2,328,921-08	2,281,885-03Barley	211,256-01	198,688-45Flax 	7,302-39	7,395-22Rye	39 275-37	39,275-37Corn	1,446-24	1,446-24Timothy Seed..	21,352-47	23,173-21Mixed Grain .	880,290 lbs.	817,530 lbs.Screenings .. ..	685,979 lbs. 1,009,110 lbs.	Vancouver-Capacity 1,250,000 bushels.	Crop Year 1916-17	Wheat	73,419-00	71,424-00Oats	160,101-04	158,504-29Crop Year 1917-18.	Wheat	482,304-31	375,619-10Oats	245,818-03	240,106-01Barley	6,114-03	6,114-03Beans	1,833-20	1,833-20Mixed Grain .	66,230 lbs.	66,230 lbs.Screenings .. ..	72,320 lbs.	76,610 lbs.
Port Arthur.
Fiscal Year 1913-14-Profit..	66,708 54
1914-	15-Profit... 153,966 84
1915-	16-Profit... 162,384 53
1916-	17-Profit... 395,425 19
1917-	18-Profit... 399,454 95
Fiscal year 1914-15.
(October to March) Los
1915-	16 Profit	
1916- 17	"	
1917-	18	"	
Saskatoon.
Fiscal year 1914-15.
(October to March) Loss
1915-	16 Profit	
1916- 17	"		
1917- 18	"		
Calgary.
Fiscal year 1915-16.
(September to March) Loss

1916-	17 Profit	
6,899	511917-	18	"	
36,748	47
Vancouver.
Fiscal year 1916-17.
(January to March) Loss

 $ 8,620 86 1917-18	"	  733	34
Note:-These figures include salaries of the respective elevator staffs, but do not in-. elude depreciation or interest on the money invested, or the salaries and expenses of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


COLD STORAGE ON STEAMERS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: How many steamers are furnished with cold storage apparatus?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: So far as the Department of Marine is concerned-none.
The question of cold storage for certain vessels being built by the Canadian Government (one of which is actually in commission) is under consideration.


THE FRASER SEIGNIORY.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Have the Seigniors Fraser, of River du Loup, requested the issue of a flat permitting them to sue the Government to have their claims confirmed in respect to the shore portion of their seigniory, and compel the Department of Public Works to pay for that site, or. the -lease thereof, where certain wharves have been constructed?
2.	If so, who will plead the case for the Government, before what tribunal, at what place, and on what date?
3.	Does the Government dispute said Seigniors Fraser's exclusive rights to the shore and bed of the river opposite their seigniory?
Hon. Mr. iMEIGHEN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. E. H. Cimon, Advocate, Fraser-ville. Before the Exchequer Court of Canada. At the place, and upon the date to he determined by the Judge or Assistant Judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
3.	Yes.


CANADIAN SOLDIERS DRAWING PENSIONS.
[Stage Direction]
, Mr. SHEARD:
What number of Canadian soldiers are drawing pensions, and what number of same are drawing less than fifty per cent disability?
Newton Wesley Rowell: (a) 34,897.	(b) 31,300 drawing less than
fifty per cent disability.


PROSECUTIONS FOR SALE OF LIQUOR.
John Ewen Sinclair: How many prosecutions have been brought by the Department of Justice under the -authority of Section 7, Chapter 19, of the Acts of 1916, relating to the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor shipped from an outside province into a dry area?


Arthur Meighen: None.
..-[DOT] $17,092 21 [DOT] * [DOT] 56,432 37
*	- [DOT] 59,829 26
*	-[DOT] 73,482 32

	$ 11,787 69
- -	57,740	17[DOT] -	124,506	19[DOT][DOT]	79,949	55

SOLICITORS ON SOLDIERS* SETTLEMENT BOARD.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigomsh and Guys-borough):: 1.	What are the names of the solicitors in Nova Scotia who have been employeid by the Soldiers' Settlement Board of Canada, and the gross amount paid to each of them for their services up to the 31st of December, 1918?


Arthur Meighen: A. .1. Campbell, Esq., K.C., Truro, Col. Co.; D. McLellan, Esq., K.C., Port Hood, In. Co.; Messrs. Rowlings & Duchemin, Sydney, C.B.; H. Ruggles, Esq., Bridgetown, Anna. Co. The only amount paid is the sum of $25 to Messrs. Rowlings & Duchemin, of North Sydney, C.B.


ANTI-LOAFING LAW.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How many special officers were appointed in Nova Scotia under the Order in Council of April 4th, 1918, commonly known as the AntiLoafing Regulation?
2.	How many arrests were made in Nova Scotia under that regulation, and how many of those arrested were convicted?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	None.
2.	There is no record in the department, the local police being responsible for the enforcement of the regulation.


C.N.R.-FORT WILLIAM LANDS.
Edmond Proulx: '	1. Has the Government or the Canadian National Railway System experienced any delay or difficulty in getting possession or ownership of certain lands at Fort William or Port Arthur which should have been turned over to the Government with the C.N.R. Railway?
2.	If so, what are the particulars of such difficulty or delay, and what progress has been made towards securing possession and title to such lands ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No. The Canadian Northern Railway has title to its terminal lands at Port Arthur and Fort William.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CUSTOMS RECEIPTS-DORCHESTER COUNTY.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What are the annual receipts for customs entries at St. Anselme, County of Dorchester, since the establishment of the customs office at that place?
2.	What is the name of the collector or agent, and what salary does he receive?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. St. Anselme was established a customs outport from January 1, 1914. Customs 561
duties Jan. 1, 1914, to March 31, 1914, $70.74; April 1, 1914, to March 31, 1915, $2,491.67;	April	1,	1915,	to	March	31,	1916,$1,514.04;	April	1,	1916,	to	March	31,	1917,$1,935.01;	April	1,	1917,	to	March	31,	1918,$1,158.93;	April	1,	1918, to Feb.	28,	1919,

2. Darius Cadrin, $800 per annum. MILITARY SERVICE ACT DEFAULTERS. Mr. TOBIN:
1.	Have the Police Court Judges and Magis trates of the different provinces of Canada heel! authorized to hear and adjudicate upon the cases of defaulters under the Military Service Act, 1917?
2.	If so, is it possible for the said defaulters to present themselves before the said judges before they are taken into custody by the Military Police authority?
3.	Who is authorized to institute proceedings against the said defaulters?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes. By virtue of their offices.
2.	Although there is nothing to prevent a defaulter presenting himself before a magistrate before he is taken into custody, the magistrate cannot proceed to conviction except upon information and hearing and with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Moreover by the regulations of 12th February, 1919, no provincial, municipal or local police or peace officer or constable not thereunto authorized by the Chief Commissioner or Acting Chief Commissioner of Dominion Police or by the Commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police may accept surrender or apprehend or receive or have in custody, or take or deliver to any court of summary jurisdiction any deserter or absentee without leave, and the court cannot proceed to hearing or disposition of any charge of an offence of desertion or absence without leave from the Canadian Expeditionary Force unless the person charged be in the custody of or brought before the court by a police or peace officer or constable thereunto duly authorized as aforesaid.
3.	Any person having the necessary information may institute the proceedings.


SERVICE MEDALS FOR SOLDIERS.
Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention of the Government that service medals will he issued to the militia who did duty as guards and sentries on bridges, canals, etc., throughout the Dominion during the war, but who did not get overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Definite
regulations have not yet been published, but it is intedend that soldiers who have been on active service in Canada during the war will receive a medal


LIEUT. P ARISE AULT.
Mr. SAVARD:: What were the costs in connection with the lawsuit of Captain Pariseault, the officer in charge of recruiting at Chicoutimi, in 1915?
Major-General MEWBURN:	The costs
paid in connection with the prosecution of Lieut. Pariseault amounted to $280.26. These accounts were assessed by the Justice Department.


EXEMPTIONS-MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	How many cases have been appealed to the Judge of the Central Court of Appeal, from each of the provinces of Canada, under and by virtue of the Military Service Act of 1917?
2.	How many exemptions were sustained by said Judge, respectively, for each province, under said Act?
3.	How many exemptions were rejected by said judge, respectively, for each province, under said Act?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Alberta, 423; British Columbia, 468; Manitoba, 1,567; Ontario, 7,894; New Brunswick, 256; Nova Scotia, 2,164; Prince Edward Island, 188; Quebec, 28,102; Saskatchewan, 1,238.
2.	Alberta, 153; British Columbia, 204; Manitoba, 988; Ontario, 3,761; New Brunswick, 91; Nova Scotia, 881; Prince Edward Island, 20; Quebec, 10,869; Saskatchewan, 542.
3.	Alberta, 237; British Columbia, 136; Manitoba, 324; Ontario, 2,107; New Brunswick, 112; Nova Scotia, 633; Prince Edward Island, 144; Quebec, 16,279.
Note 1.-Of the cases mentioned in (1) the following numbers were undisposed of by the Central Appeal Court on November 11, 1918, when all tribunal operations ceased:	Alberta, 33; British Columbia,
128; Manitoba, 255; Ontario, 2,026; New Brunswick, 53; Nova Scotia, 650; Prince Edward Island, 24; Quebec, 954; Saskatchewan, 428
Note 2. The cases mentioned] in (1) do not include those scheduled where leave to appeal was refused by Central Appeal Judge, nor cases scheduled of men of the 20-22 class whose exemptions were eventually cancelled by Order in Council.


MAJOR GIBSON.
Joseph Archambault: Is Major Gibson, who was recently appointed Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, the same Major Gibson who represented the Government as Chief Scrutineer in France during the general elections of December, 1917?


Arthur Meighen: No.
[Major-General Mewburn.]


MINISTER OF LABOUR.
[Stage Direction]
*Mr. AROHAiMBAU'LT:
1.	Is the Honourable the Minister of Labour represented in the House by an officially appointed Parliamentary Secretary?
2.	If so, what is the name of the member occupying the said position?
Hon. Mr MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by answer to No. 1. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR


RETURNS.
Mr DELISLE:: 1.	How many drifters were in the service of the Canadian Nava.1 Department during the period of the war?
2.	On whose order were these drifters built?
3.	Were any drifters built on the order of the Canadian Government?
4.	If built on Imperial order did the Naval Service of Canada take them over, and were they manned by Canadian crews?
5.	Were the crews paid Canadian rates of
pay?	,
6.	What has been the refit cost to each drifter since becoming part of the Canadian Navy?
7.	Does the Canadian Government bear the cost for these refits?
8.	Did 'the Canadian or British Government inspectors supervise the construction of these drifters?
9.	Are these drifters considered efficient and seaworthy ?


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Did the Government increase the salaries of its civil servants in the County of Dorchester during the year 1917?
2.	If so, what are the names of the officials and employees who received increases, giving the date of each increase?
3.	On whose recommendation were these increases made?


John Ewen Sinclair: How much has been expended by the Government on newspaper advertising since August 4, 1915?


BRITISH AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON.
William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, from time to time press despatches from abroad have erroneously associated the name of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister with the position of British Ambassador at Washington. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I have received from him to-day this cable:-
Paris, March 26, 1919. Acting Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
You are authorized to state publicly that I am not considering the post of British Am-

bassador at Washington, and that it is my intention to return to Canada and resume my duties as Prime Minister as soon as the work of the Peace Conference will permit.
Borden.


DEATH OF SENATOR TAYLOR.
William Thomas White: There occurred in the Capital yesterday an event which I feel the members of this House would not desire should pass without fitting and appropriate reference. I allude to the sudden death of the Hon. George Taylor. As is known to the members of this House, the hon. gentleman was a member of the Senate, having been appointed to that body in 1911, but it was through his long association with this chamber that he was best known to parliamentarians and to the public throughout Canada. In the general election of 1882 he was returned with a majority of less than 300, and at each ensuing general election he was re-elected by a gradually increasing majority, which in the year 1911 had reached nearly 1,000. He was a member of the House of Commons for almost thirty years, serving under the premierships of Macdonald, Abbott, Thompson, Tupper, Bowell, Laurier.
The late Senator Taylor belonged to a generation of public men that is fast passing away. In his earlier days party spirit ran high and men were strong partisans. Senator Taylor was a staunch party men, and there was never any doubt as to where he stood upon a public question. He had the most implicit and abiding faith in the tenets of the Conservative party, and his devotion and loyalty to its leaders were unbounded. As has been the case with almost all men of his type, his strong partisanship in no wise prevented his being held in high esteem and respect by his political opponents. I am sure that the House will support me in saying that he was a man who was always well liked by both sides in this chamber.
For a period of twenty-five years he was Chief Whip of the Conservative party, and he enjoyed in very marked degree the personal friendship and confidence of the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. I know that he also enjoyed the esteem and respect of the late leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and there was no man in the councils of the Con-servati\e party whose advice was held in h gher regard by Sir Robert Borden, the present Prime Minister, than was that of the late Senator Taylor. In addition to the confidence which was reposed in him by his leaders, and which he continuously enjoyed,
he was popular with the rank and file of the Conservative party, and indeed, as I have stated, of all members of the House. In his own constituency, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament to-day, he was regarded as the foremost citizen of the town of Gananoque, in which he had lived since early manhood. The late Senator was a man of fine public spirit and good works; a man of high benevolence, whose benefactions were many and most generous.
I think the outstanding feature of his personality was his exceeding kindness of heart, which endeared him to all who knew him. He was never so happy as when doing a kindness to a neighbour or extending a helping hand to any of his constituents, or to any with whom he might be acquainted, or even chance to meet casually. In his constituency and here at Ottawa, where he was best known, he was regarded, and rightly so, as a man of most sterling integrity and probity of character. He will be greatly missed by his associates in both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that this House will join with me in an expression of deep regret at his passing away, and of sympathy with his widow and other members of his family circle in the bereavement they have sustained.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we are all pleased to join in the handsome tribute paid to the memory of the late Senator Taylor by the leader of the Government. By his death we are, Mr. Speaker, once more reminded of the uncertainties of life, that we are merely pilgrims in this land, and that our sojourn here is but a transient one. The departed senator was for many years a conspicuous figure in the public life of this country, he having occupied a great many municipal, provincial and federal positions, to all of which he brought a full sense of responsibility and of public service, and, as has been well said by the leader of the Government, he also brought to them an extraordinary amount of energy and devotion. We all remember him with respect and kindly feelings, for he was a sincere and faithful friend and a man upon whom at all times the country and his friends could depend, for he held decided views, and there was no misunderstanding his attitude where the interests of this country were concerned. I wish to connect myself, as, I am sure, my hon. friends on this side of the House do, with what has been so appropriately said in regard to the memory of our departed friend, Senator Taylor.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER DAMS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) if there is anything new in connection with the project of damming the St. Lawrence? During the concluding stages of the war a request was made to the Canadian Government, and referred to the International Waterways Commission, to the effect that a company, in order to produce war material, should be allowed to increase its power capacity, and permission was granted to that company by the commission to dam the St. Lawrence at a certain point in the river, but for the period of the war only. I would like to know if that permission has been withdrawn now that the war is over.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, there is very little to be said in answer to the question of the hon. member for Maisonneuve. The matter has been under review departmentally, and a departmental report on the subject is being prepared, upon the receipt of which it will be submitted, to a board recently constituted, known as the Dominion Power Board. I may add that that board, which is composed of the leading engineers in the Government service, has now surveys and investigations under way in respect to various portions of the St. Lawrence, and is also utilizing the investigations made by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and by other bodies; all that information will be utilized and brought to bear upon the determination of the question as soon as the departmental report is submitted.


RETURNS NOT BROUGHT DOWN.
Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, I have a list of thirty-seven orders for returns voted last ' session. It seems to me that it is only reasonable the (Government should, have these brought down without further delay, and I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will see that those orders are brought down.


William Thomas White: I would ask my hon. friend to give me a list of them. I shall interest myself to see that they are brought down as quickly as possible.


ADJOURNMENT OVER EASTER.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: Mr. Speaker, a rumour that recently went around the

corridors of this building has, I observe, blossomed out in the public press by way of information that the Easter recess this year will be one of three weeks' duration. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if, in view of the great amount of public business requiring attention in Parliament, the Government have it in mind to give countenance to any such unjustifiable waste of time?


William Thomas White: The statement is without foundation and has not been drawm to my attention by any one except m.y hon. friend, although I think I saw something of it in the press. An announcement by the Government as to the Easter recess will be made in due course. My own view would be that the recess should not be of undue length, because it is highly desirable that Parliament should proceed as rapidly as possible with the public business.


OVERSEAS MAIL-RIMOUSKI.
Rodolphe Lemieux: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the member of the Government who represents the Postmaster General if it is true that Halifax has been substituted for Rimouslci for the reception of the trans-Atlantic mails?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will make inquiries and give my hon. friend the information tomorrow.


DAYLIGHT SAVING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, a matter of keen and widespread public interest at the present time is that of daylight saving. The Government has received numerous-I had almost said innumerable-communications from various sections of the community both in favour of the continuation of the legislation of last year and against such legislation. The question is not a party one and it involves no question of political principle of which I am aware, and I think it is desirable 'in the public interest that there should be a free discussion by the members of this House, representing, as they do, all sections and all interests of the Dominion, upon the subject. With that in view I intimated to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr McKenzie) this morning, and the information was also conveyed to the Whips on both sides of the House, that when the Orders of the Day were reached I would move that the House to proceed to a notice of motion

by the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper), appearing as No. 46 on the Notices of Motion on the Order Paper. The resolution is as follows:
That, In the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enaot at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, " The Daylight-Saving Act, 1918.
It has appeared to the Government that such a discussion as I think we shall have will bring out the opposite points of view held on this subject and the arguments by which they are sustained. I therefore move:
That the House do now. proceed to Notices of Motion, No. 46.	.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the leader of the House say that the Government has no policy on this matter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. This motioir is
not debatable.


Mr. SMITH:: I rise to a point of order.
This motion should have the unanimous consent of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The unanimous consent
of the House is not necessary. It is competent for the Government to move that a certain Order of the Day be proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The House thereupon proceeded to the Order: " Notices of Motions."
Richard Clive Cooper: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enact at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight Saving Act, 1918."
He said:	In deference to requests received from large centres of population all over the country I bring this matter before the House in order that hon. gentlemen may express their opinion with regard to it.
In the matter of daylight saving there is a clear, dividing line between two conflicting interests. On the one side we have the dwellers in the cities and towns, and on the other the farming interests. The question is:	whose claims are the stronger? I am
not going into the subject in detail, but I wish to point out that while the dwellers in the cities and towns are practically unanimous in their approval of daylight saving, the farmers are not. Many farmers all over Canada, particularly in the West, would gladly support daylight saving legislation.
I do not intend to deal with this question in the light of any precedent; that Germany, England and France have found daylight saving of value does not matter. To my mind the question is whether the reenactment of the Daylight Saving Act would benefit the majority of the people of Canada. I believe the largest number of people in Canada reside in the cities and large towns and work within the confines of four walls -in offices, stores, laundries, factories,- where the ventilation leaves much to be desired. As they are in the majority, the demands of these people for an extra few hours of daylight throughout the summer months must be given consideration. Moreover, the desire of the mothers and the children to get out in the sunlight after the father has come home from work must be regarded by all reasonable men who desire to conserve and improve the greatest asset in our national life; the children.
' Reading the speeches dealing with this matter last year, I was impressed by the fact that mention of a very large labouring class was carefully omitted. I refer to the miners of Canada, who, with their wives and children, embrace some three hundred and fifty thousand persons. Only the dwellers in cities and the farmers were mentioned in the discussion of the matter last year; an odd fisherman or two was brought into it, I think, but not to make any matter. So that if we consider the wishes of the miners we shall find-as I know from a conversation I had to-day-that they sincerely desire to have the extra hour of daylight during the summer months. They work for the most part in the darkness under ground, and they will appreciate the extra time which the daylight saving enactment will enable their wives and children to spend in the sunlight with them.
A daylight saving enactment comes into effect in the United States on the 30th day of this month, and if we do not follow the example set by our big neighbour to the south, a great deal of confusion is bound to result. I should like to point to a lesson to be learned from the great war. Up to the spring of 1918 the Allied armies were struggling along under a divided command, and the results were not such as we desired. But from the time that we came under one undivided command, that of Marshal Foch, our success was speedy and was continued until it culminated in victory and the Armistice on November 11, 1918. I submit that application of the principle that brought us success in that case oan be made to the action of Canada and the United States with regard to daylight saving.
It has been very truly said that the farmers are the backbone of the country. But if that backbone is too rigid, it becomes a

detriment to many of the country's interests. The farmers are divided on this question. Those who live close, to towns and railways are opposed to daylight saving, while those who live at a distance from the towns and railways are more or less indifferent. In the West there are large farming communities of foreign settlers, the Doukhobors and the Mennonites, for instance, who own huge tracts of land and care nothing for the movement of the hands of the clock. If a vote were taken on this question among the farmers of the West and the votes of the farmers living close to towns and railways balanced against the votes of foreign settlers and farmers living distant from towns and railways, the majority would be in favour of daylight saving. I believe- it will not be denied that for many years, even before I came to Canada and probably before I was born, the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific have been living under artificial time. That time has always been dictated by the railway companies. Would it hurt the farmer in any way to add another little bit of artificial time? I submit it would not. I sincerely believe that in this Daylight Saving there is no obstacle to the best interest of the farming communities, and in every centre of population throughout Canada there is a strong and insistent demand for it. I have had, from all parts of Canada, a large number of communications, only one of which, which arrived at 2.20 p.m. to-day, but which covers Canada from coast to coast, I purpose reading:	.
The Canadian Credit Mens' Trust Association, Limited, representing the wholesale trade from coast to coast strongly endorse re-enactment Daylight Saving law commercial classes largely preponderating over agriculture minority and living in large centres would receive great *benefit without injuring agricultural classes can we do anything to strengthen your hands?
The endorsement therein contained is, I believe, the sentiment of the majority'of the people of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like to state very briefly the reasons why I support the motion moved by the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper). I have the honour to represent, for the time being, two constituencies, one a farming constituency, the other a manufacturing constituency. I remember when the Daylight Saving Bill was introduced into the House last year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), there was very strong

opposition to it, and if I was pleased at anything, it was that the Government, through Sir George Foster, had the courage to stand by its guns and see the Bill through. I trust the Government will, at the earliest opportunity, take the bull by the horn's and bring in a similar Bill to the one introduced by Sir George Foster last year. That is, however, only an aside.
I represent a farming constituency in which this daylight saving was in force last year as it was in all other parts of Canada, and from the county of Gaspe I received no protests whatever against the measure. On the contrary, I do not think it affects the farmers or the fishermen of that county. They are, and have to be, early birds in any case in order to earn their living. At three o'clock in the morning the Gaspe fisherman is in his barge sailing for the banks in the Baie des Chaleurs, and he does not even look at the hands of the clock. But I also represent the manufacturers and the labour element of Maisonneuve, in which constituency the Daylight Saving measure was in force all last year, and from that important section I received very many letters requesting me to support a renewal of the measure. That is the reason why I stand to-day as a seconder of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver. I believe, moreover, that, in the interest of the health of the people of Canada the measure should be put in force again. It worked very well last year, and I was impressed by the figures from Washington quoted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whereby it ^ was proved beyond peradventure that millions upon millions of tons of coal had been and would be saved as a result of the enactment of the Daylight Saving measure. I would be interested to know what Mr. Magrath, the able Fuel Controller, thinks of this question. It is true the war is over, but our people must learn to save coal, because we may have labour troubles amongst the miners of Pennsylvania and also of eastern and western Canada, and our people may see the advantage of saving coal and thereby saving light.
Another point which impresses me is this. Whatever any one may say, we are living side by side with the great American Republic to the south, and although we must not be merged with that great republic in all the doings of its legislators, still, there are measures passed by the United States Congress which affect the whole of our national life in Canada. Congress has recently passed a Bill which will bring Daylight Saving into force in the United

States on the 31st of this month or on the 1st of April. This will affect, amongst other things, chiefly the transportation business of both countries, and I am in a quandary to understand how the railway systems of Canada are going to conform with the time-tables of the railway systems of the United States. If the time in Canada is an hour behind the time in the United States, how are connections to be made at the boundary line? Will all the trains stop one hour at the boundary line, or what will they do? This is one reason why I think a Daylight Saving Bill should be reintroduced this year, and if it is I will give it my hearty support.


John Best: Last year, when the Daylight Saving Bill was before the House, I opposed it because I believed that we were here to legislate for the greatest good of the greatest number, and my opinion is still that the great majority of the people of Canada are to-day opposed to daylight saving. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said the other day that the farmers get up early in the morning. I am a farmer and I get up early in the morning, but there have been times when I have had to get up in the late hours of the night, and I can say, as a farmer, knowing this to be a fact, that last summer thousands of farmers throughout the Dominion got up in the late hours of the night in order to take their milk and other perishable goods to the station in time for the train. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) said that the intention of this legislation was to increase the amount of daylight by one hour. If any man in Canada can tell me how this Government, or any other government, can increase the time of daylight by one hour, then I shall sit down and say no more. The few men in the towns and cities who are asking for daylight saving are not the men who get up at daylight; they are the men who remain asleep in bed until eight, nine, or ten o'clock in the day, and they want other people, who have to get up in the morning, to do their work at that time, while they drive around in automobiles. Last year, when the Daylight Saving Bill was before the House, I asked if any farmers' organizations had requested that it be passed, and the minister said, no. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) is absolutely mistaken when he says the farmers of this country are divided over this question, because I believe they are against the re-enactment of a daylight saving almost to a man. Nor can I understand why he says
that the people in the cities and towns and villages are in favour of daylight saving; I believe that at least half of these people are against it. Many of this latter class have told me they are opposed to it because they have to get up an hour earlier in the morning. A working man who goes to work at seven has to get up at six for his breakfast. If the time is changed, he will have to get up at five. Would any sane man in this House say that the labouring class in this country want to get up at five o'clock in the morning? The hon. member also says that daylight saving would save fuel and light. I am a farmer myself and I know what I am talking about, and I say that during the last six weeks which daylight saving was in force last year, more fuel and light was consumed in the morning than under the old system. Imagine a man having to get up at four or five o'clock in the morning during the latter part of September and October, and having to put on a fire and burn light. Under the old system he would have gone to bed about the same time, I admit, but he would have saved fuel and light in the morning.
The hon. member also says that the farmers near the cities and towns and villages are not opposed to daylight saving. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is not a class of farmer so much opposed to daylight saving as those living near the towns and cities and villages, and for this reason: The labouring man who comes out from the town or village to work for the farmer during haying and harvest sees his fellow-workers in the nearby town quitting work at five in the evening, and naturally gets dissatisfied. There are cabinet ministers sitting here to-day who will tell you that their experience has been that it is this class of farmers which is the most opposed to daylight saving, for the reason I have given; and I cannot understand how my hon. friend should make such a contention. Any man who knows anything at all about farming knows that from haying until winter comes, an hour in the evening is worth two in the morning, because a farmer cannot start haying or harvesting before eight; and if the time is changed again this year it will mean he will lose an hour at night.
Why does the farmer living farther away from the towns and villages not want daylight saving? Let me give a concrete case, which is illustrative of conditions all over the Dominion. In the county I have the honour 'to represent a mail courier starts his trip twelve miles from one of the towns.

Now he has to be in that town at 8.15, and every man, woman and child in the villages along the route are opposed to the time being changed, because it means 'they will have to get up at three instead of four o'clock in the morning to catch that stage. This carrier has to get up now at four in the morning to feed his horses, and if the time is Changed he will have to get up at three. I think almost as many men from the cities and towns have spoken to me against daylight saving as the farmers themselves. It is true that telegrams in favour of daylight saving have been sent to me by a few men; but who are they? Manufacturers who have nothing to do but ride around the country in their automobiles. Last year, just because a few men asked the Government to put a daylight saving measure through, this Government said they were obliged to do it-had pledged themselves to do it at the election. The men who made those representations to the Government did not represent 'three per cent of the population of this country.
Why is it conditions are so unsettled all the world over to-day, and unrest and anarchy prevail in many parts of the civilized world? It is because one class of people is being set against another, and I would ask whether it makes for harmony for the hon. member for Vancouver to stand up in this House and almost ask the Government to defy the farmers and say: We will enact this law.


Richard Clive Cooper: Will the hon. member quote any word of mine that was at all along the line the hon. member suggests?


John Best: I will. I think a sufficient justification for my remark was the hon. member's statement that we should not look to the farmers of this country, but should inquire what the people in the cities and towns want, and then enact a daylight saving measure. I say not only in connection with this Bill, but with every Bill that comes before the House we should try and compose our little differences and live in harmony together as one nation. We have simply got to do it; there never was a time in the history of Canada when there was so much disunion among the people as at present. One of the Ottawa papers said the other day that the only excuse the farmers gave for wanting the time to remain as at present, was because it was God's time. I say that is an insult to the farmers of this country, who have very good reasons for wanting the time to remain as it is. In the rural districts many

children have to go one or two or three miles to school. At present they can help their parents by doing some of the chores before they go, but if the clock is set ahead they will not be able to help their parents in any shape or form.
The cheese and dairy men of this country do not want daylight saving. Imagine asking these men who now get up at four o'clock in the morning, to get up at three and milk fifty or seventy-five cows and take the milk to the station, while ninety per cent of the people in the towns and cities are asleep in bed. I made a trip in my automobile a short time ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. member get up at seven in the morning and ride in an automobile?


John Best: I get up at five. Does my hon. friend mean to say that the farmers of this country have not the right to own an automobile? The farmers are the people who feed these men lying asleep in their beds, and if they are not entitled to an automobile I should like to know who is. Well, what did I find as I drove through those towns? I passed many men driving along with their milk and cream.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it in Dufferin
county that these people were asleep?


John Best: I say that ninety per cent of the people in these towns were asleep while the farmers were already at work and had milked their cows. How can a farmer get hired help from a village or city during haying and harvest, if daylight saving is re-enacted? The farmers of this country have to crowd practically their whole year's work into five or six months during the summer, and when they hire men from the villages and towns during haying and harvest the men are not willing to work until six or seven in the evening when they see their fellow-workers in the towns quitting work at five. If the Bill is introduced and is made law, I am of the opinion, Sir, that there will ensue a greater agitation than is likely to be caused by any other Bill on the Order Paper. I do not suggest that it will cause any considerable harm, but the people of this country are looking askance at Parliament and there seems to be a general feeling that if their wishes are to be ignored to meet the whims of the few it is time that they were organized in an endeavour to obtain justice and fair play. I would, therefore, earnestly'request the Government

to consider this matter with extreme care and not to be influenced by a few telegrams that have been received here. Telegrams, Sir! Why, I can get from one township in my county more telegrams deprecating the daylight saving scheme than all the cables that are to-day in this House. I read about two dozen telegrams the other day obviously signed by one who was trying to convince people that every man, woman and child in his neighbourhood favoured daylight saving. We have too many petitions and resolutions, and altogether too many telegrams sent to hon. members, purporting to be representative of popular opinion on this subject, when, in nearly every case, the man rvho has sent the telegram probably does not represent even all the members of his own family.
The farmers have a strong argument against this scheme. During the past four years they have risen early in the morning and retired late at night in order that they might, as far as possible, comply with the urgent request of the Government to increase production in view of the crisis that faced the nations in the matter of food supplies. They worked admirably to save the situation, and in return are their wishes now to be ignored? Why should not the farmers be allowed to observe the standard of time to which they have been accustomed? The hon. member is apprehensive of trouble at the boundary. I admit there may be trouble at the boundary; I am not disposed to dispute that probability; but would that trouble be at all comparable to the difficulties that would arise through every school section in the Dominion having a different time? In our county, people were unable to get their children off to school in the morning. Many of the trustees interviewed the inspector and desired him to revert to the old time. He saw the situation and agreed. In the confusion that resulted from the change of time there arose serious difficulties that cost the farmers considerable money. A farmer breaks his machine and has to stop work at three o'clock in the afternoon. He starts for the town or village believing he will get there before six o'clock to have the necessary repairs attended to. When he reaches the shop he finds that it was closed at five o'clock, and in consequence he loses a day, which means a good deal to him in the busy season. Now, this Dominion has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to keep men on the farms, but how can they expect to retain the rural population if they are to be ignored in such important matters as this. I would ask my
hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) to produce, if he can, a letter or a telegram from any organized farmers' institution in Canada expressing approval of the daylight saving scheme. I do not believe he can, and I hope the Government will see that the wishes of the people are respected in this matter, and that whatever laws may be enacted we shall not have any antagonism between the cities and the towns, and the country.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest constituencies in the province of Quebec, and I think that the daylight saving law passed last year had the approbation of all the people in my section. Speaking for the city of Quebec, whose views I think I voice, I desire to state that if the Government introduces this measure I shall support it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I must congratulate the Government and its leader on the course they are taking in this matter. In no possible sense is it a political question, nor can it be regarded as such; and while the tone of the remarks of my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr Best) will probably be excused because he is a farmer and talks about something from which he has suffered, still I think the best judgment of the House will be that no attempt is being made to set race against race or class against class in this matter, and it is one that each hon. gentleman will deal with according to his best judgment. I might say, as a resident of the great city of Winnipeg, that we adopted Daylight Saving two years ago, regardless of any action of the Federal Parliament, and the people of that city were, very much gratified with the result. The residents of Winnipeg were pleased with Daylight Saving, and I believe will continue it, although there were' some difficulties which resulted from its operation. For example, there was a difference between our railway time and the city time, but there was not very much complaint with regard to that, and if I represented Winnipeg city in Parliament I would vote to have Daylight Saving continuously. However, I represent a rural, not an urban constituency.
I received a few minutes ago a telegram which I shall read to the House:
Winnipeg, Man., March 27, 1919.
R. L. Richardson,
House of Commons.
This organization, after fullest consideration of subject with business men, farmers, labourers, is practically unanimous in favour of con-

tinuation of Daylight Saving plan in Canada this year, and urges Government to take immediate action to this end.
Winnipeg Board of Trade,
W. H. Carter, President.
I am surprised at the statement in the telegram as to the attitude of the farmers, because my constituents are generally opposed to daylight saving. In the West the sun rises very early and sets very late, and it makes a very long day. As against that telegram I have received a letter from the Minister of Education of Manitoba, the Hon. Dr. Thornton, which I shall read to the House, because it is a very important declaration, and should have a considerable influence on the members from Manitoba with regard to the vote which they may give on this resolution/
Winnipeg, Manitoba, March 6, 1919.
R. L. Richardson, M.P.,
Ottawa.	.
Re Daylight Saving Daw.
Dear Sir:-I wish to call your attention to a resolution passed unanimously by the annual convention of the Manitoba School Trustees' Association protesting against the re-enactment of the above law; also to a similar resolution passed unanimously by the Degislature of the Province of Manitoba. I wish further to add my own protest because of the difficulties which arose in connection with practically all the rural schools of the province. The nature of the difficulty will be more clearly appreciated by reading the enclosed copy of a letter received from one School Board. This is only one of a great many dealing with the same situation. I hope the Parliament of Canada will not re-enact this measure.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) R. S. Thornton, Minister of Education.
Dr. Thornton has not sent me the first resolution to which he refers, at least it was not enclosed in the letter, but I take his statement as authoritative that such a resolution was passed by the Manitoba School Trustees' Association. In the resolution passed by the legislature you have the consensus of the opinion of that province as represented by the provincial members
Now here is a copy of a resolution passed by a School District:
At a meeting of the School Board of the Elgin Consolidated School District, held on February 27th, a resolution was passed that this School Board appeal to you to use your influence against the re-enactment of the so-called Daylight Saving law. East year we found it to he entirely unworkable in our Consolidated School, and had to set our school hours at 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. This led us out of one difficulty, viz.: the starting time for the vans, but immediately we found our noon hour conflicting with the meal hour of the parents living in town. This was a cause of constant friction.

I may explain for the benefit of hon. gentlemen who may not understand the reference to "vans" in the resolution, that in the province of Manitoba many of the school districts have large wagons, or vans, which they send about the road allowances to collect the children. That is particularly desirable in cold weather when blizzards might overtake the children, as sometimes happens, with fatal or disastrous results. Under the circumstances I take it that the opinion of rural Manitoba is strongly against daylight saving. My hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) has already advanced arguments showing the difficulty of farm help carrying on operations early in the morning because of the dew on the grass, and I may say that difficulty has been a very serious one in the West. Furthermore, farm labourers raise objection to daylight saving as under it they have to work longer hours than those men who work in manufacturing towns. Therefore they want the hours set at the same time, but not under daylight saving, because it operates rather seriously and entails hardship upon the farmers. Accordingly, as the representative of a rural constituency I shall feel obliged to cast my vote against the resolution.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent):: Having the privilege of representing possibly one of the largest rural constituencies, which also contains a large eity and a large town, I am in much the same position as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. From the cities of this country there comes some request for the enactment of a Daylight Saving Law, and I have received a request of that kind from one of the largest towns of my constituency. In every other section of my constituency, however, resolutions have been passed by the county and township councils asking me to oppose Daylight Saving and to vote against the reenactment of such legislation.
I agree with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) as to the inconvenience which will ^psult in getting children to school if the daylight saving 'law is re-enacted. In the rural parts of my constituency there are children who have to go a distance of a mile and a half to three miles in order to attend school, and under daylight saving the mothers of those children are obliged to rise an hour earlier in order to get them off each morning. This legislation has been opposed not only by women in the rural districts, but also by women in the towns and cities. This is a fact which hon. members must not overlook, because

we expect that at the next general election the women of this country will have a voice in the election of representatives to Parliament.
As far as the labouring men are concerned, we expect that sooner or later in this country-legislation has already been introduced in some of the legislatures-an eight-hour or jiine-hour day law will be called for. If such a law were in operation the men in our industries would quit work at four o'clock in the afternoon, instead of five o'clock, which would leave an extremely long afternoon between the time of stopping work and retiring to rest.
As regards the saving of coal likely to result from daylight saving, I do not see much argument in it. Daylight saving only operates from the 30th of March until the 30th of October, which period comprises the warmest months of the year, so that not *very much coal would be saved in that, time.
The question of the towns passing bylaws has been referred to. In some cases by-laws have already been passed compelling business houses to close at nine o'clock, even on Saturday nights with the result of greatly inconveniencing many workingmen, and business men who sell goods after the stipulated hour for closing are subject to a fine, which is another great hardship. The question of the effect on farming operations of daylight saving has been referred to. In the southwestern parts of Ontario crops are raised which are known as hoe crops, and it is utterly impossible to hoe some of these crops while the dew is on them. That is the case with the bean crop and the sugar beet crop. There are a number of other crops of which the same might be said.
I believe that the House is now thoroughly conversant with both sides of the question, and to save a prolonged debate I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Ross) to replace the words "it is expedient to re-enact at once," by the words "it is not expedient to re-enact until this day six months," which would postpone the matter for the present


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion as amended will read as follows: ,
That in the opinion of this House it is not expedient to re-enact, until this day six months, Chapter 2, ,Statutes of 191S, " The Daylight Saving Act, 1918."
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH {Ontario, South): When this question was introduced last year I took strong ground against it, and I am more than ever convinced that I was
right in my action at that time, by the support which I have since received in the country. It is true that I am not, like my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best), perhaps a farmer according to his strict interpretation because I live upon the farm where I was born, whereas that hon. gentleman, a number of years ago, left the farm upon which he had lived.
I am not going to discuss the question as to whether this legislation is right, I shall leave that in the hands of the House. I will say, however, that I was more than delighted that this amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Kent. Any one who has ever lived upon a farm or been in close personal connection with farmers absolutely agrees with the amendment which has been moved lo-day. Had the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) not moved his amendment, I would have gone one step further -and tested the opinion of this House upon the resolution. As a farmer and as one in close touch with farm life, I may be allowed to say that if the Government of this country would think for a moment of the result in Manitoulin, in South Huron, and in the northern part of the county which I have the honour to represent, I do not imagine they would have allowed this to go so far. The farmers -and I am one of them-have a right to their own opinions, and they have the right to give expression to their opinions in this House, and while I do not say they are always right-neither do I say my hon. friends from the Great West are always right-I am bound to say that on this question of daylight saving the farmers of * the province of Ontario are absolutely in touch with the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kent, and which I propose to support.	.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: Mr. Speaker, when this question came up last year it had the support of the Government, and I am sorry to note to-day that the Government has not the courage of its convictions of last year in this matter. The measure was introduced last year by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), but unfortunately for those who are in favour of the measure the hon. minister is not here to-day to back it with the authority which he gave to it on the last occasion. I would like to ask the hon. members of this House who are opposed to this measure why it is that practically the whole civilized world has passed legislation in favour of daylight

saving. I would like the hon. members of this House to tell me what country in Europe has not adopted a measure of this kind. The United States has adopted this measure. After all there are some farmers in the United States who are doing quite as well as the farmers in this country, and yet there was no protest from them. How is it that in the whole of Europe-in France, in England, in Germany, in Austria, a measure of this kind is in operation? I do not think that the farmers of this country are one whit less able to carry on their business than those of other countries, and it seems to me that it is a reflection on them to say that they cannot.
When this question was before the House last year we had a learned disquisition upon it by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he cited some facts which I think it might be useful for us to bear in mind. Some gentlemen of this House seem to have very short memories, or they may be like the famous Bourbon family, they never learn and they never forget. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who must be considered to be one of the high priests of the Unionist party, gave some information to this House which I think it is well we should hear to-day. He stated that a parliamentary committee was appointed by the British House of -Commons some few years ago to study this whole question of daylight saving. This committee did not restrict its energies to Great Britain alone, but it went on a roving commission throughout- the whole of Europe, and it learned that the measure was in every respect beneficial, not only economically, but in regard to the morals and health of the people. That committee, in one of the paragraphs of its report, said:-
We have devoted particular attention to the question of the effect of "summer time'' on the health of children, and we -have been glad to find that, in spite of certain statements which had been made to the contrary, the bulk of the evidence favours the conclusion that in the case of children also "summer time'' has proved a success.
Then the report deals with the position of -the employers:-
The general view of employers as expressed in the replies to the questionnaires, was that their employees had taken full advantage of the extra hour's daylight; and that while the majority were not in a position, with so short a period of observation, to state positively whether or not an improvement in health had resulted, a number had noticed increased vitality in their workers, and in some oases an improvement in the standard of the work. Only one or two employers recorded the appearance of any ill effects in the shaipe of tiredness and irregular
[Mr Jacobs ]
time keeping. We have had evidence from all sources of the value of the extra daylight to the very large number of workers who cultivate gardens and allotments.
There is a further paragraph with regard to agriculture, which may be of interest to our friends from the farming districts:-
In spite of such difficulties as have been recorded, a very large majority of farmers and war agriculture committees are in favour of the renewal of the Act, and the majority even of those who are of opinion that it was not advantageous to -agriculture consider that -it should be renewed, as they recognize its great benefits to the community at large.
Taking the whole of the evidence, we are satisfied that the great bulk of the working classes are favourable to summertime, and we are convinced- that they stand to profit by it as much as, and in many oases more than, any other section of the community, Such real inconveniences as have been experienced will, we believe, be remedied with a little more experience of summertime conditions.
That is the report of the British parliamentary committee who, as I have already stated, made an exhaustive study of the subject throughout Europe. Now we find ourselves in this position, that every white civilized country in Europe and North America will be in favour of this measure, and the only country that will not be in favour of it, if this resolution is not put through, will be Canada. I ask hon. gentlemen of this House whether they wish this country to be put in that position or not.
. Mr. J. E. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) : Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised at the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jacobs) who has just taken his seat, telling us that Austria-Hungary and Germany had this daylight saving record, and I wondered if he considered that that was a good recommendation for us. I would like to remind him that they have Bolshevism there and many other things that we do not want in Canada.
When this so-called daylight saving measure was up last year I opposed it, and I feel to-day that I was perfectly justified in my action, and I am convinced now that seventy-five per cent of the people of Canada are opposed to this legislation. It may have some advantages, but its disadvantages far outweigh them. The men that work from nine to ten hours a day, I do not care whether in the city or in the country, Mr. Speaker, oppose this measure. I know, for I have talked to city men who were working last year when this measure was brought down, and when it went into force on the first of April, they said: "We had just commenced to go to our work in the morning daylight, but when the clock was put back one hour we had to go by

lamplight." There is no getting away from the fact that the people in Canada that are asking for this legislation to-day to be put on the statute-book are the class who go to work at ten o'clock in the morning, and some of them perhaps do not do any work at all; but the people who are opposing the measure are the people who work long hours. I know that sportsmen, lacrosse and baseball players, and golfers, are the people who are agitating, and I am sorry to say some of the newspaper editors have taken up the cudgels in their favour. We have all been discussing serious matters here during the last month. Canada is burdened with debt, and where are we going to get the products to pay that debt? Shall we get it by putting the hands of the clock ahead an hour? No, we must get it out of the earth, the mine, the< field, the forest, the sea. The farmers to-day, and justly so, are opposing this measure as an unit from the Atlantic to the Pacific, simply because it was detrimental to them during its operation last year.
Many farmers in my district supply milk on contract to firms in Toronto, where the hon. member who edits the World (Mr. W. F. Maclean) comes from. I got off the early train at four o'clock one morning last year on my way home, and when I saw the farmers around the station at that hour I dodged off to the other side in order to meet as few of them as possible. In order to carry out their contracts these farmers were obliged to begin milking operations last year between three and four o'clock in the morning. Ordinarily the local train carrying the milk to the city leaves at six-forty in the morning, but when the hands of the clock were turned ahead, that practically meant that the train for Toronto left at five-forty. One man told me that at the end of the season he was absolutely played out because of the hours he had to keep. Is it reasonable,-is it sensible, is it in the interests of this great country, that farmers shall be obliged to milk by lantern light not only in the winter, but in June and July as well? A farmer who has three or four children said to me: My older boy is twelve or thirteen years of age. His mother is not very strong, and before this daylight saving came in he used to do a little work in the morning before he went to school. But now we cannot get the children to go to bed an hour before sundown, and the result is that when the men get up and work an hour or two they must have *their breakfast; then when the children get up their mother has to prepare a second
breakfast. Not only does she lose the little services which the children formerly rendered before they went to school; she has imposed upon her the additional burden of getting a second breakfast.
I think that some of the schools asked the inspector to allow them to run under the old time, but he refused, and the schools were run on the new time, to the great disadvantage of all concerned..
I saw something in the Ottawa Journal a couple of mornings ago to the effect that the cities and towns and railroads should adopt the daylight saving and then let the isolated farmer " go hang," so to speak. Now, in harvest time the farmer always loses an hour or two in the morning, because he cannot draw in or run the binder before nine o'clock or half-past nine. Before the hands of the clock were changed he made no complaint about losing that time, but last year he lost not only an hour in the morning, but also an hour in the afternoon, beeause the men would not work after five o'clock. Only one municipality in my constituency continued to use the old time.
It is true that in the cities production in garden plots may have been increased under daylight saving. Out of patriotism, men and women, boys and girls, were working day and night, early and late, to produce as much as possible. But if the daylight saving measure is put into operation this year, many farmers who have to depend on hired help will be very careful about their operations. The newspapers are preaching to the people the doctrine of. " get back on the land." Will this measure help to get the people back on the land? I contend that it will help to get them off the land. Many farmers throughout Ontario who have had to hire help are selling out and getting off the farm simply because of labour difficulties.
The arguments of the hon. gentlemen who have advocated the re-enactment of the daylight saving measure are very feeble. It is said that United States has adopted a measure of this kind for this year. I think I am right in saying that the measure adopted by the United States this year is simply a continuation of the measure passed the year before. A very strong feeling prevailed throughout the United States this year in favour of the repeal of the daylight saving measure, but the resolution was placed at the bottom of the list and the interested parties filibustered it. It was talked out and a decision never reached, as has sometimes been the case in this House; so that the daylight saving measure

remained law in the United States this year. I am glad that our daylight saving legislation lasted only a year and that we have now the privilege of expressing our views with regard to it, and if necessary, of casting our vote for or against it. I sincerely trust that the Government will take into consideration the inadvisability of re-enacting this legislation, and that we shall have heard the last of it for this year.
Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM ANDREWS {Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, when the daylight saving legislation was brought down by the Government last year, I was strongly in support of it. Personally, I see nothing very much wrong with it to-day, but when I returned to my constituents last year-who, by the way, are not farmers, but real working men nevertheless-I found that the measure was not at all popular amongst those who started work at six or seven in the morning. It did not meet with the approval either of the men or of their wives, and I have no hesitation in saying that if a referendum could be taken in my constituency of Winnipeg 'Centre, where there are some eighty thousand people, the measure would be heavily defeated.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: It was generally understood
throughout the country that the daylight saving legislation would not likely come before the House this session, and until I came into the chamber this afternoon I had not expected that this, the last resolution on the Order Paper, would come before us for consideration. It is generally recognized that after the House has been in session about four weeks, resolutions of private members placed on the Order Paper after that date, would have little or no chance of getting before the House.
I have no intention of going into this matter in detail, but I earnestly request every hon. member to consider carefully the signs of the times. A feeling of great unrest prevails in practically every country in the world to-day.
Many labour organizations throughout the country are not content with even an eight-hour day, but are now advocating for a six-hour day and that the old rate of wages should be maintained. Since the beginning of the war the cost of living has undoubtedly increased considerably throughout the world, and while many industrial workers in the towns and cities are receiving large wages, I believe many of them are unable to save more than they did when wages were much lower than at present. The result is that they naturally

look at this question with an earnest desire that the cost of living should be considerably reduced. What will the trend be if all these agitations are complied with? Does any one think it possible that the cost of living in this country can be reduced under such conditions as reducing the hours of labour and moving the clock onward, by which many people can get their day's work done during the forenoon so that they will have the whole afternoon for play? Does any one think that by putting a full day's work in during the morning at the old rate of pay, the result which is so much desired at the present time can be achieved? The people who are producing the food for the world to-day are tired; while the war was on they laboured hard under difficulties and made great sacrifices. Perhaps some people will say that they did it largely through a desire to reap the advantages of high prices accruing as the result of their labour. That may be true in a number of instances, but, on the whole, I believe they did it through an honest desire to help win the war. What are the conditions throughout Canada today? The value of the field crops of Canada during the past year amounted to about $1,000,000,000. We have facing us at the present time an appalling debt, and when one takes a general survey of the physical features of our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where is the hope for the future based most strongly? Is it not from our soil, our fields, our forests, and our mines, that we hope to create the wealth necessary to overcome the serious condition with which we are confronted at this time? But it is rather significant that even under conditions as they were formerly without the short labouring day, without moving the clock on, the trend has been from the broad lands of Canada to the towns and cities, so that about one-half of our small population of around seven million people are to-day living in our towns and cities. That is not, from an economic standpoint, at all desirable, and that is why I protest when I hear people argue in favour of this so-called daylight saving. This is a most foolish name to apply to the measure, because it does not save daylight in any sense whatever and the name is a misnomer. In the county and province from which I come, the people who are engaged in the food production are almost, if not a unit in favour of leaving the time as it has always been previous to 1918, and I think their views are representative of the views of the majority of the people of Canada. I have received from

almost every imaginable representative body in my constituency resolutions protesting against the re-enactment of this legislation. While I have received such resolutions from school trustees, insurance companies, farmers' organizations, municipal bodies, indeed, practically every organization in the county, I have received only one petition or resolution in favour of this measure from the members of a horticultural society in one of ithe towns. I have had from the people of the towns numerous individual requests urging that this measure be not re-enacted; that they are not at all in favour of it; and I think if there was any strong feeling in favour of it, petitions that it be re-enacted would have been received. But in view of the feeling throughout the country that this measure was not going to be reintroduced, one can understand why those who are agitating for it, who desire to have nearly the whole afternoon for themselves to play, got busy during the past few days and made the wires hot bombarding the Government in order to make it appear that 'there was an overwhelming sentiment throughout the country in favour of it, and I presume that is why we are discussing this question this afternoon. I would suggest that the Government consider impartially what is really in the best interests of the country. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will have to do a great deal of hard thinking and figuring before he is in a position to secure the requisite revenue to meet the expenditures with which we are confronted, and I, therefore, suggest that nothing be done which will, in any way, discouiage those who are creating the wealth that is needed to help us out of our present difficulty.
I have the honour to represent a county that is well-known as one of the greatest dairying districts in Canada. Last year a survey was made of 437 dairy farms in that county as regards the revenues and profits that the farmers on those farms were making. The term "scientific agriculture" is very often used nowadays and, if I do say it, scientific agriculture is applied in that [DOT] county as well, if not better than in any other section of Canada. What was the result of this census-and let us remember that this was taken during a year when the returns for dairy products were higher than ever before in the history of the world? It was found that after allowing the farmer $500 for wages, he received, on his capital invested, 7 tper cent.
We hear people saying that the farmers were profiteers during the war; that they
have reaped enormous advantages as a result of the high prices; that many of them have become wealthy; that they have their automobiles; well, if there is in Canada any class of people who require automobiles to carry on their business, it is the farmers. The automobile is a business proposition with them; it is not a question of pleasure altogether; and if it were not for the fact that a farmer has something of that nature, he would not be able to carry on his business to-day. Notwithstanding what may be said about the farmer, it is a fact that the movement from the country to the city that has been going on to such a tremendous and alarming extent for so many years, has continued during the war to even a greater extent than before. From 1915 to 1917, in Ontario, there has been an actual decrease in the farming population of 37,867. Some one may say that is the result of so many men having enlisted.
That is largely true, for at the same time the cities have decreased to the extent of 10,736, and towns and villages increased to the extent of 744. The war is ended, so far as we can judge at present, but the last few months have witnessed in the older sections of Ontario the greatest number of exchanges of farms in the history of Canada; and the significant thing is that it is not the impulsive shortsighted farmers who jump from one conclusion to another who are selling their farms, but the hard-headed business men among them. And the people who are taking their place are very largely people of inexperience who imagine that conditions on the farms of Ontario are much more advantageous than they really are. I would suggest to the hon. members of this House, and particularly to those who are so anxious to have the afternoons to themselves for play, that they consider the effect on the cost of living which this so called daylight saving measure would have in this country, and I would urge them not to aggravate the present situation. There is no denying that a bad and bitter feeling is growing up between the urban and rural citizens of Canada: we cannot close our eyes to that fact, and the sooner we recognize that something will have to be done to remove this feeling, rather than aggravate it by mischievous legislation of this kind, the better it will be for all concerned. In the rural sections many of the children have to go a long distance to school, sometimes two or three miles, and if this measure is again adopted they will have to be dragged out of their beds in the morning to get them to school in time. Is that a condition we



should have in this country, simply because it suits ihe convenience of those in the towns and cities who wish to have the whole afternoon or nearly so to themselves? This resolution if adopted will result in many more people selling their farms and moving into the towns and cities where their children can receive an education, which would be more difficult for them to receive in the country districts. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent those who desire daylight saving from having it. There is no town or city in Canada that cannot pass a by-law bringing socalled daylight saving into effect, without interfering with people in other parts of the country.
It may be said that the United States have in effect a similar measure. The United States law of a year ago was to remain in force until repealed, differing in that respect from ours, which would have to be re-enaoted. This year Congress rose with much business still not dealt with, and daylight saving as a result was automatically continued. I think it is generally conceded, however, that if the matter had come before Congress the law would have been repealed; so I do not think there is much force in the example of the United States. And as for making our law conform with theirs, why, that is hardly in keeping with the principle of autonomy of which we are so proud; and it is not exercising that initiative in our own affairs which we should exercise. Sometimes we lead even the United States.
I have spoken at greater length than I intended, but I have still not touched many important features, which, however, other speakers discussed fully, but I am satisfied that the arguments I have advanced ought to convince every-
5 p.m. one in this House that it is not in the interests of Canada under present conditions to have legislation of this kind put upon the statute book. Do not forget that self-denial will have to be practised by all the people of Canada, and do not imagine that it is the other fellow who will have to practise all of it, and that you can go scot-free. That idea Is altogether too prevalent in this country. We must all make sacrifices in view of the conditions with which we are confronted, and I believe that if we face our difficulties with courage in a sound businesslike way they will soon be overcome. I do not think anything will be gained by having this discussion this afternoon, and I regret exceedingly that the Government have seen fit to allow it to come up to-
day. I think it would have been much better if the matter had been left in abeyance and nothing done to aggravate the feeling which undoubtedly exists to-day between urban and rural citizens.


Mr. WALTER DAVY COWAN (Regina):: The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) sought to chide the Government for not having the courage of their convictions and bringing down their policy on this question, and the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sutherland) practically took the same attitude. I think that criticism is quite undeserved, for I remember quite well when the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in this Bill last session he brought it in as a war measure, in order to save coal which was absolutely necessary to meet war necessities, and he said at that time, in answer to a question, that the law would remain in force for only one year, and then Parliament could decide whether it should be reenacted or not. And that is exactly what is being done to-day; I commend the Government for keeping the promise which was made last year.
For my part, I am quite satisfied that the Act which was passed last year has done exactly what it was intended to do; that is, it has .saved to Canada many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In our city, in the power house and in every private house, a great deal of coal hag been saved; but because I supported the measure last year, as I did, as a war necessity, it does not follow that I am going to support a similar measure when the necessities of war no longer exist. Conditions to-day are entirely different, and with me the question is simply this: Do the people of Canada want this Bill or do they not? I for one -do not believe in forcing legislation down the throats of the people in advance of 'the time when they want it, and it is quite evident to me, from the numerous letters and resolutions which I have received from private individuals and public bodies and trade associations in my constituency, that a very large element in our part of the country does not want this legislation. Mark you this; In the city in which I live, on the 6th day of April, we are going to have fast time, because we have had it there by by-law for many years. It makes.it very difficult to transact business, because we have slow time in the country all around, and the farmers often come in an hour late to transact business, but we have it, and it cannot be repealed except by by-law, and you cannot get

enough people to repeal that by-law. I tried it myself, because I -did not like the trouble caused by having the two different times; but the people want it, and so let them have it. In time, I fancy the farming community will be educated to the advantages of daylight saving, but until that time comes, and they express a desire for it, I do not think we should force it down their throats. Therefore, I am going to suggest to the Government that they do not introduce a Bill for re-enacting daylight saving this year. I do so because it seems to me it would act simply and solely as an irritant to our agricultural community, and when you get a farmer irritated he gets hot, as the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) very clearly evidenced this afternoon. It is not desirable that such a condition should exist. What is happening to-day is this:
The workingmen to-day are making considerable demands, and the farmers are about the last people in the community who have any inclination to accede to them; they want to get a dollar's worth of work for every dollar paid from any man whom they employ. I think that we should remove 'the irritation that undoubtedly exists by not enacting this legislation. The agriculturists are unquestionably annoyed, and these things are merely pin pricks that accomplish very little. I would, therefore, suggest to the Government that they do not bring in this Bill. I believe that a great many of those who express opinions on the subject are not by any means vitally interested one way or the other. By way of illustration I may mention one fact. One of the numerous letters I have received recently came from a Methodist minister who lives in the province of Saskatchewan-not in my constituency. He said that farm labourers were not available, and that as soon as they heard the factory whistles they wanted to go to the house and rest. This is, to say the least, rather strange, in view of the fact that there is not a factory whistle within one hundred miles of this gentleman, parson though he is! It is obvious, therefore, that a great deal of what we hear on the subject is purely imaginary, and we must remove these misconceptions. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be advisable at the present time to put this measure through.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Somebody has suggested in the discussion this afternoon that the miners should be considered. As a matter of fact the miners
57i
nearly all over Canada work in three shifts a day, so that it cannot make much difference to them which system of time is adopted. I am not acquainted with the mining sections of the West, but I know the Cobalt section intimately, and know that that is the practice there.
Now, I do not think that there is any doubt that the people in the cities and large towns are largely in favour of daylight saving. The merchants and manufacturers and some of the workingmen regard it favourably-not all of the workingmen by any means, because I have been informed by some that they are indifferent in the matter. It can safely be said, however, that the bulk of the city people would be in favour of the Bill. As has been remarked many times this afternoon, we are a country of different classes, or rather, we follow different occupations; but it is best that we all should agree if we can, on some common platform. I believe that the farmers are opposed to this project, and the remarks of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) concerning their opposition I endorse, because I have had resolutions from cheese factories, farmers' clubs, municipal councils, county councils, and, practically speaking, any organization that could pass a resolution of any kind, in opposition to the renewal of daylight saving. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Jacobs) said that there was no opposition to this daylight saving in the United States. On the contrary, as far as I have been able to gather from the United States press, there seemed to be considerable opposition from the farming communities in that country to it. Congress convened and rose suddenly, and as the law was not repealed it remained in force.
I hope I may be pardoned if I state a personal experience in illustration of my contention that the farmers are earnest in their opposition to the renewal of this law, and that they have reasons for such opposition. My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan) said, if I did not misunderstand; him, that it was largely a matter of sentiment, and that the farmers, appreciating the advantages of daylight saving, would come to favour it. This contention, however, will not hold, as I shall show. In Ontario, as a great many hon. members no doubt know, there are threshing machines that go around from place to place and do the threshing by the bushel. This is necessary because we house ell our own grain in the barn. It is also necessary, where we grow fall wheat and barley, to have a first threshing in order to clean out

the barn sufficiently to allow other grain to go in. This first threshing, as we call it, is commonly practised. Now last year it so happened that our crops in Ontario were very heavy, and I had to thresh early my fall wheat and other grain so as to get room in the barn for the oats. I had about 40 or 50 acres of oats standing out all cut and in shook. I had not sufficient men on the farm, and could not obtain a sufficient number in the immediate neighbourhood, to take in the crop as rapidly as I could desire, so one of the factories allowed me to enlist volunteers from among its men to help me. I took those men out, leaving the factory shortly after seven o'clock and arriving at half past seven. It was half past nine before any work could be done in the field, owing to the dew on the grain. 'The following morning the men went out again, but the dew was heavier than ever, and they could not commence work before ten o'clock. Our section of the country is largely a dairy section, and it is necessary for our men to stop work at five o'clock in order to get the milking done. The men that came from town would not work longer than ten hours and you could not ask them to do so. At any rate they stopped at five o'clock, and as a consequence they worked, practically speaking, only two hours or two and [DOT]one-half hours in the forenoon and Jrom one o'clock until five in the afternoon. Under these circumstances, therefore, the day is very short. One might suggest that the men could go and do something else in the morning while waiting; well your own men might be able to find other things to occupy their time, but where you have certain work ahead of you and men are waiting to do that work, they will not do anything else in the meantime. They will wait for the main work, and anything they may do in the way of chores will not under such conditions amount to anything. This is a matter, Mr. Speaker, in which the farmer is intensely interested. There is a feeling of irritation at the present time on the part of the farmers. They are of opinion that we are legislating in the interests of the city people and not of the farming community.	This feeling is	unnecessary	and	not	correct. However,I would	ask	my	city friends,	whountil last year, have done without this legislation	all	their	lives, without	any
serious effect on their health or business, to give way 'to the farmers, in this matter at least, because the farmers' interests are at stake. Let them meet the farmers to that extent. It will do no harm [Mr. Nesbitt.l
and it will, in my judgment, prove of great benefit to the country. It will also prove to the farmers that we are not trying to legislate in opposition to their interests.


Mr. SAMUEL FRANCIS GLASS (Middlesex East):: I do not rise with the idea that I can add anything to the arguments advanced in opposition to this legislation, or submit more strongly anything that was urged a year ago when the law was enacted.
I do not, like the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) take exception to the attitude which the Government has assumed on this question, which question has possibly agitated the country considerably more than from its very nature it should. Personally, I think the Government has taken a very wise step in permitting the question to be discussed dispassionately in the House, and having it decided on its merits. As has already been pointed out, the Government has kept faith with Parliament and lived up to its declaration of last session that this law should be enacted for the period of one year, and if not found satisfactory it could then be determined whether it should be continued or die a natural death. As I said last year, I cannot urge any personal objection to the Bill, but if I am to reflect the opinion of my constituents in this House, and respect their wishes, I can do nothing less than oppose the re-enactment of this measure. Every important organization in my constituency-the county council, township councils, farmers' clubs, fair boards, dairymen's associations, and all the different organizations engaged in the activities of * agriculture-have passed strong resolutions opposing the re-enactment of daylight saving. In deference to their wishes, and respecting the opinion of farmers as expressed in agricultural journals and in the press throughout the country, I am bound to believe that the re-enactment of the law will cause a disturbance in the agricultural community that would not be justified by any benefit which the Bill could confer upon city communities.
The hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution has drawn attention to the fact that fifty per cent of the people of Canada are living within cities, and he reaches the conclusion, that because certain city organizations have placed themselves on record as strongly supporting this legislation, that therefore it represents the unanimous opinion of the cities. I am in a position to say, so far as the district from which I come is concerned, that feeling in the city of London is by no means unani-

mous in reference to this measure. I have heard labour organizations and labour men repeatedly urge that this law should not he re-enacted, and they expressed the opinion that it was a nuisance and an annoyance to them. If the city population represent one-half of our total population then they are not unanimous as to the desirability of re-enacting daylight saving.
It is sometimes asserted by those who claim to reflect city sentiment, that the farmers could very easily adjust their clocks to meet the situation which would be created by the enactment of this law. I pointed out, however, last year, and the statement has been repeated this afternoon, that possibly never before in Canada's history had the farmers been compelled to draw from the industrial workers in the city for labour for farm requirements to a greater extent than in recent years. And when recourse was had to such labour by the farmers residing in the districts surrounding cities, villages and towns where industries are established, they have found that their labour regulated its hours of employment so as to conform with the regulations of the labour unions of the district. Therefore this law necessarily imposes a difficulty upon the farmer in retaining the interest of the man drawn from that class of labour after the time for quitting work has expired in the surrounding towns. That is a very great difficulty which the farmers in those districts have experienced. Why cannot the farmer just as well say to our friends in the city, "If you find daylight saving a convenience, pass a by-law and go in accordance with whatever time suits you." I remember in the city of London a couple of years ago a by-law was passed in that way, and it was found that what was called local time was out of harmony with railroad time. Accordingly after the by-law had been in operation for a few weeks, the very organizations that had started the agitation for its passage objected to it on the ground of the inconvenience caused, and the by-law was repealed before the summer had half passed. If the railways are going to make their time conform to the time that is in operation in the United States I cannot see any difficulty in the cities adopting the necessary by-laws and fixing their hours of labour so as to harmonize with it.
There is another strong reason to be urged against this legislation and it is this:	At
the present time, when necessary onerous restrictions are being imposed on the people of Canada, or rather not so much of an onerous as of a vexatious character, farmers do not relish the idea of being compelled to submit to further unnecessary impositions. The proposed law will be unpopular in the country, and I believe it will not be acceptable to this House. Had a vote been taken on the question a year ago, I do not believe it would have carried. The sentiment of the House was just as strongly opposed to daylight saving last year as it is now, but the House deferred to the express wish of the Government at that time, and the arguments advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that as other countries were making the experiment we might as well try it for a year, and if the law did not measure up to expectations, it could die a natural death. Now, Sir, that death has taken place, and we are now going to decide whether it is wise to have a resurrection. In my opinion the law will be buried. If we want peace and harmony in the rural districts we must not further impose a law of this nature on the people: we should refrain from arousing such irritation and dissatisfaction as will undoubtedly be created if this law is again placed on the statute books.


Joseph Read: 1 am not going to detain the House very long, and I would not speak at all were it not that I have changed my mind since last session. I pointed out the other night that in my opinion consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. I believe in expressing my views to-day, even though it may contradict everything I said yesterday, providing I have good grounds for changing my opinion. I want to say that the only vote I gave in this House last session to which fault was found in my constituency was the vote which I gave on this daylight saving measure. One of the reasons that I have for changing my mind is that my constituents found fault with me last year for supporting the Daylight Saving Bill.
I want to answer some of the arguments put forward, Mr. Speaker, in favour of daylight saving. One was in regard to train time. Some years ago the United States railway time was an hour different from ours, but we found no very great difficulty about it, and as a matter of fact there are three or four different sections between the Atlantic and Pacific where-there is an hour's difference in the train: time; for instance, we change our time one hour at Vanceboro on our way to Ottawa. That argument is not well taken.
Another thing that has come up in this debate would cause me to change my mind, that is, that I find that the large cities
*902

which wish to adopt the daylight saving scheme within their own boundaries can do so by way of by-law. Therefore, why should we extend daylight saving to the country people who do not want it? If the cities want daylight saving, let them adopt it within their civic boundaries; then there is no harm done.
An argument advanced in favour of the Bill by the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Jacobs) was that all the rest of the world had adopted daylight saving. That is no good reason at all in its favour. If it was, why every law enacted by other nations would need to be adopted by us.
Another very strong argument in favour of the amendment is that the country young men get very much dissatisfied with the fact that the city boys can knock off work an hour earlier, because it is impossible for the farming people to complete their work by five o'clock.
There is just one more thing I want to say in regard to this question, and that is to thank the 'Government for the change in its attitude towards this House, and: inviting this expression of opinion1, instead of its former course of introducing a measure and then telling the House: You must swallow this or defeat the Government.


Mr. E. C. HENDERS (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the introduction of this daylight saving measure, and at the same time to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government has acted in good faith with this House in giving the opportunity that has been afforded this afternoon for an expression of its opinion. I distinctly remember that it was with the understanding that this measure was to be on trial that it was allowed to go into effect last year. It has been on trial for the year, we have been studying the facts in connection with it, and I believe that this House has come to the conclusion that the measure has not proven satisfactory.
I rise to protest against it, Mr. Speaker, and in doing so I believe I voice the opinion of organized agriculture in Canada. I have in my possession at the present, time more than 300 resolutions passed by organized farmers in Western Canada and a number from Ontario, all of them distinctly opposed to this Bill, and in which they set forth in strong terms, good, sound argument why they are opposed to it. I have failed to discover one organization among them that is in favour of this Bill. Surely if it was an advantage to the farmers

there would be some of them expressing themselves in favour of it. I think organized agriculture represents about forty-eight per cent of the population of the Dominion of Canada at the present time, and I take it that that forty-eight per cent have expressed themselves on this measure. Furthermore I find myself supported by men from the towns and cities in the contention I am now making-I have had expressions of opinion from organizations dn some of the cities and towns putting themselves on record as opposed to this measure, and for this reason: They say that the children of this country should be taken care of and should have every opportunity of developing to the utmost advantage, in order to bring them up to the best manhood and womanhood that this country can develop, and they say that this measure is robbing our children of at least one hour's rest which is essential to child growth -and child development. I find further that the public schools are opposing this measure. We have the Minister of Education from one province and the superintendents of education all over the provinces offering their opposition, for the simple reason that they say one hour of the education day is practically lost to the rural population by daylight saving. By this I mean that we had it on trial in our public schools and we found that the children coming there at the earlier hour in the morning were not up to normal for the first school hour because they were deprived of the rest they should have bad. And after giving it a trial, a number of our schools simply went back to the old order of things and opened at nine o'clock.
I do not think any valid argument has been advanced in favour of this measure. Several assertions have been made with regard to the saving of light and coal, but I fail to find that a single hon. -member presented a valid argument in support of such assertions. I 'therefore ask the Government that this measure be not passed.


Mr. H. H. HALLIDAY (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the pros and cons of this question have been pretty well gone over-at least the cons against this so-called daylight saving have been; I have not heard very much from the pros. Last session I supported this Bill, and I did so with a clear conscience. In opposing it this year I believe I am not speaking for myself alone but for 40,000 other people whom I represent here. After leaving 'the House last session I made

careful inquiries throughout my constituency, which is a very large one, and I did not find one man who was in favour of this measure being enacted again this year. That is the reason why I oppose this resolution to-day. An old lady came to my door on the twenty-second of June last, while I was reading a newspaper at 10.15 p.m. She jumped on me about this daylight saving. I said: " My dear lady, you did not object to this daylight saving legislation before it came up in the House last session." " Well," she said, " I am willing to try anything once."


Mr. DUNCAN CAMPBELL ROSS (Middlesex, West):: I agree with what has been said by various members who have opposed this resolution. More than ninety per cent of the agricultural people of Canada are absolutely opposed to daylight saving, and the great masses of the labouring people as well are opposed to it. These two organizations constitute a great majority of the people, and we should respect their wishes by defeating this resolution. If the House adopts daylight saving it will be giving more consideration to the pleasure of the leisured classes in the big cities than to the business and the production of the toiling masses on the farms and in the cities. On that account I am opposed to this resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to a point of order. I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the language of the motion now before the House. It is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enact at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918. "The Daylight Saving Act, 1918."
The amendment of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) asks that the words " it is expedient to re-enact at once" be replaced by the words " it is not expedient to re-enact until this day six months." If the amendment means anything, it is what is known as the " six months' hoist," which is merely a motion to adjourn and is not debatable. On the other hand, the meaning might be that it is not expedient to re-enact the Daylight Saving Act now, but that it should be enacted six months from now, which would bring it in force next autumn. I fancy that the amendment has not been very carefully worded, and if one voted for it he would render himself rather ridiculous. The main motion can be met with " Yes " or " No." If the amendment is merely a six months' hoist, it should not be debated; if it is merely a negative, it should be ruled out of order.
I submit that we should have a ruling on this point before the debate proceeds further.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While this amendment purports upon its face to be a motion for the six months' hoist, in actual fact it has not that effect. The sense of the amendment is that daylight saving be enacted six months hence, not that the subject should be considered six months hence, which would be the six months' hoist. The second point raised by the Solicitor General is whether a motion .to effect a six months' hoist is debatable. If that motion is made in the form of an amendment to a substantive motion which is before the House, it can be debated, because there remains sufficient of the original motion, which is debatable to permit debate. On the other hand, a motion made not by way of amendment, but "that the subject be considered this day six months," would be a straight motion for the six months' hoist, and, under Rule 17A, would not be debatable. As the motion of the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) is in the form of an amendment, it is debatable. Although it is not very happily worded and does not, in my judgment, convey the meaning which the mover had in his mind, it is technically in order.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The amendment was
worded as it is for the purpose of permitting a discussion of the matter. Had I worded it differently, it would not have been debatable, as I think you, Mr. Speaker, will rule. I was going to ask the consent of the House, at the conclusion of the debate, to change the wording to make the amendment read: "considered this day six months."


Mr. DAVID MARSHALL (Elgin, East):: I have received letter after letter from my constituents expressing their opposition to daylight saving. I was the first man to start a canning factory in Canada, and I have been in the business ever since; that brings me in close touch with the farmers, and enables me to speak with some authority on this subject. Last year we contracted for 30,000 acres of corn, peas and tomatoes, all produced by the farmer. If there was ever a time when we should try to make things pleasant for the farmer, it is now. The daylight saving measure interfered very much with our getting contracts from the farmers this year. They say "we have to stop our work at five o'clock instead of six, and that interferes with the harvesting of our crops."

I am quite in sympathy with what has been said by the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig). When the ground is damp you cannot work many of the crops produced for canning; consequently daylight saving would he very detrimental to the farmers, and in expressing my opposition to it I am expressing the views of the people whom I represent.


Mr. WILLIAM GARLAND McQUARRIE (New Westminster):: Last session I supported the Daylight Saving Bill and when I went back to my constituency I found that apparently I had done the right thing, because so far as I know all my constituents are in favour of daylight saving. I think I am safe in saying that the people generally of British Columbia are in favour of daylight saving. About two-thirds of my constituents are farmers.
I represent about 50,000 people, two-thirds of whom live outside the city. I have recently received from many organizations in the city requests that I should support daylight saving, and at the same time, I have received no objections whatever from the farmers. I presume, if my farmers objected to daylight saving, they would advise me of their objections just as farmers in other places have advised their representatives of their objections. I, therefore, take it for granted that my farmers are in favour of daylight saving. Possibly, the farmers of British Columbia are a little in advance of the farmers of the East in their ideas in regard to daylight saving. It is, perhaps, not . surprising to see the farmers of the East opposing an innovation of this kind, because farmers have opposed many innovations. It may be remembered that when the first locomotive appeared in this country, the farmers were opposed to it; they said that locomotives were a nuisance; that they frightened their cattle and so forth. When automobiles were invented, the farmers opposed them, saying that they should not be allowed, and, if I remember correctly, it is only within the last year or so that in Prince Edward Island automobiles have been allowed to use the roads and now they can use them for only two or three days a week. My opinion is that in a few years the farmers will appreciate the fact that in this respect it is the right thing for Canada to fall in line with the rest of the civilized world. I trust the Government will see fit to re-enact the daylight saving measure this year.


Mr. AUGUSTE THEOPHILE LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: When the Daylight Saving
[Mr. Marshall.!
Bill was brought down last year, from what I could understand of it, I was opposed to it. After the session was over when I went home I made inquiries amongst the farmers and the labouring classes of my constituents. I found the farmers were absolutely opposed to daylight saving and the labouring classes said: We do not like it at all; it means more expense to us, especially in the fall of the year; it is an hour lost to us. Therefore, I am going to vote against the re-enactment of this measure just as I did last year. Some hon. members contend that daylight saving is a great thing for the cities and towns. While it is true I come from a small town, I find that when the merchants open their stores at seven o'clock in the morning, or six o'clock under the old time, there is practically no one around, so that they lose an hour in the morning, and in the evening they lose another hour.
So far as the farmer is concerned, Parliament, instead of giving him an hour in the morning, should give him an hour in the evening so that he can harvest his grain. As has been stated, farmers cannot start harvesting until ten o'clock in the morning, and the afternoon from two o'clock to six or seven o'clock is the best time for the farmer to harvest his grain. The morning I left to attend this session of Parliament, I met one of the most important farmers in my constituency and he told me to do all I could to prevent this measure being reenacted, because it is against the interest of the farmers. I have been asked to tell the Government to keep its hands off the farmers, to give the farmers all the latitude possible, because they are the backbone of the country, and should, therefore, be given every advantage, and the same may be said of the working classes. For these reasons, therefore, I intend to oppose the re-enactment of daylight saving.


George Boyce: I was very much amused at the hon. member from British Columbia, who wants to make us believe he represents a farming constituency. They are truck farmers, and in the East we do not take much stock in truck farmers. I do not think any hardship will be caused by the people of the cities working an hour or two hours in the morning, as they choose. We do not want to dictate to them, but we do not want them to die-tate to us. I come from a constituency comprising mostly farmers and dairymen and my opinion is that if 'this measure be re-enacted, a great hardship will be suffered by them. I believe also the people in the cities who are supporting daylight

saving are standing in their own light, because if this measure be re-enacted, it is bound to enhance the cost of the production. We cannot go out into the fields to cut grain until eight o'clock in the morning, and the greatest part of our day will be lost. If the farmers do not know their own business when to begin and when to quit work, without being dictated to by the people of the cities, they are not endowed with as much common sense as I thought they were. I think the great majority of the people of the cities do not want daylight saving, only a few who do not get up until nine o'clock in the morning and who want to play baseball, cricket and so on in the evening are in favour of it, and if they are the ones who are going to rule the farmers of this country the farmers want to know it. Do not aggravate the farmers too much. So far as I can make out, there is in existence a little organization, just about as big as a man's hand, called the Organized Farmers. If you aggravate the farmers too much you will get that organization down here, and while I am a strong supporter of the Government, I ask the Government to be very careful, or those people will drive it out and my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) will, perhaps, become Minister of Agriculture. I trust that the result of this discussion will be that the farmer will start work whenever it suits him and the city people the same.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to say a few words on this question on behalf of the farmers of Toronto. There are, in my constituency, a great many farmers, and although, of course, they are truck farmers, as the hon. member (Mr. Boyce) has stated, yet they produced a great deal last year and they did so after they had performed their day's work, so that I think in that respect they are entitled to some consideration, as in doing that they show that they are willing to work overtime in order to bring about that production which the country needs. The statement has been made by the Fuel administration at Washington that 1,250,000 tons of coal were saved by daylight saving in the United States during the past year. I have not figured out what proportion of that would be Canada's saving, but the proportion must be very large.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. member explain how one pound of coal can be saved? I have never heard 'that explained yet.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is saved by not starting lighting plants so early in the day as
under the old system; that accounts for a very substantial saving in coal. Large quantities of coal oil are also saved by people not having to light their lamps so early. The saving in light and fuel has been enormous in the United States, and proportionately large in Canada.


Michael Clark: Does the hon. member think, now the war is over, that it is desirable to save coal? Would it not be better to keep people digging it and keep all our industries going?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We have a Commission of Conservation in this country, the purpose of which is to conserve our natural resources, and I submit that if we can save two or three hundred thousand tons of coal, that is a saving worth while. I appreciate that I am in a decided minority in this House, judging by the speeches that have already been made, but I want to say that there never was a more popular measure than daylight saving so far as the big cities are concerned. The workers in my own plant and in my constituency-and I represent 90,000 industrial workers-are unanimously in favour of daylight saving; they think it is the greatest boon ever given to this country. On the other hand, if we do not enact this measure, there will be a state of great confusion in this country Tne hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) has said that daylight saving will mean that the farmer will have to get up an hour earlier to catch the milk train. But he will have to do that anyway, because the railways of this country are going to conform with the American time.


William Findlay Maclean: What
authority is there for that statement? I am very interested in this matter and would like to know from the Government whether it is a fact.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I saw the report in the newspapers, and I think we may take it for granted that our Canadian railways are going to conform with the American railway time. In the county of Haldimand the people did not adopt daylight saving last year, but held all their meetings in churches, schools and other places on the old time. I want to warn the House that if daylight saving is not adopted) by Parliament this year there will be a state of great confusion in our industries all over the country, because transportation is our principal industry, upon which all the others depend. I realize that the sentiment of the House as expressed is abso-

lutely against me, but I am here to represent my constituents and my personal opinion also is that daylight saving is one of the best measures that this Parliament has ever enacted.
At six o'clock the House took Tecess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government should he fully informed as to the sentiments of the people on the daylight saving question. It is immaterial to me whether the proposed legislation is put into effect or not, and I may say that the people in the greater portion of the constituency from which I come are not interested in the matter either. They feel that there is ade-. quate daylight for all their purposes, and in fact more than enough. I am, therefore, able to look at the question from an absolutely unbiased standpoint. Some of the constituencies, however, think differently. I have travelled <a good deal and am satisfied that the farmers in Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan are almost unanimously opposed to any change. I do not propose for a moment to go into arguments from the farmers' viewpoint; they have already been advanced by others more qualified perhaps to speak on the subject than I who have had no actual experience on the farm. It has been suggested that there might be some difficulty or confusion in the railway service between the United States and Canada if there were a change of 'time, but I see no reason why there should be any more confusion in the service between the two countries than at different points along the lines in Canada, such as Port Arthur, Broadview and Field, where the time changes in any event. The prevailing sentiment in Manitoba has been fairly well expressed in the letter which has been read from Hon. Dr. Thornton, and I believe that the farmers generally throughout Canada are strenuously opposed to this proposed legislation. This is not a vital question to the future welfare of Canada, it is one that might well be left to the majority to decide; and if the minority should happen to be those who are in favour of daylight saving, then they have the privilege of legislating to suit themselves in their own cities and towns.


Mr. THOMAS HENRY THOMPSON (Hastings East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to put myself on record as being opposed to

the Daylight Saving Bill, although I supported it last year as a war measure. The arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) are practically identical with my own, and express the views of the people of the riding I have the honour to represent. My district is a dairy section. Some of the milk is shipped to Toronto but 95 per cent of it is sent to the Cheese factories. I believe that under the by-laws of the cheese factories that the milk drawer must be at the end of the route at five o'clock. If the change in time were effected that would mean four o'clock, and the farmer would have to rise too early. _
The Government has spent considerable money in an endeavour to educate the farmers in the proper methods of dairying, and one of the things which they have advocated is the regular milking of cows. It has become the practice to milk at five o'clock in the morning and at five in the afternoon. Five o'clock in the afternoon their hired help leave and the farmers are obliged to do the milking without assistance. Besides, the sun is still high at that time and it is more difficult and expensive to save the milk. The cheese companies have passed resolutions opposing daylight saving, and several have requested me personally to oppose it. The school sections are also strongly opposed to it; it is not necessary that I should give their reasons. The hon. member for East Peterborough has taken up this point and I agree with all he has said. The farmers' co-operative associations have passed resolutions against it. The county council of Hastings composed of thirty-one members-twenty-six farmers, and five members representing four villages and one town-have also unanimously expressed their disapproval of the proposal. Another disadvantage that attends the daylight saving is that the hired man is idle in the morning, while he loses an hour in the afternoon. Looking at the question from these standpoints therefore I do not think the Government should put this legislation into force.
I must commend them, however, for having given the members an opportunity of expressing their views on this question. As far as I can see there is no need for the amendment, and I am prepared to vote against the resolution.


William Findlay Maclean: I have listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the discussion, and the views of the farmers as expressed by various hon. members have my entire sym-

pathy. There is no doubt a grave feeling of unrest among the farmers, and I agree with the statement which has been made that the farmer's occupation is a very precarious one. Now if there is an unrest among the farmers, such as we have evidence of on all sides, it is the duty of the Government to address itself to this state of affairs and remedy such grievances as may exist for the day will come when the farmers will be industrially organized and will obtain their rights. I also agree with the statement made by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. T. H. Thompson) that the farmers should be at liberty to express themselves in this House.
But there is more than that goes with it: If the farmer is entitled to express his opinion in the House and it prevails, then the farmer has a right to rule this country as well as express his opinion here. The way in which this question has come up to-day brings to my mind, and will bring to the minds of the people of the country the responsibility that rests upon the Government of the day in dealing with this question, which cannot be made an open question and cannot be relegated to private members to settle. My contention is, although I may be wrong in my doctrine, that the Government must take the responsibility of dealing with this question. I have heard conversations of late in regard to the responsibility of the Government, and I thoroughly agree with what I have heard in those conversations, viz:-That while members may speak and express their opinion, the responsibility rests on the Government of the day of dealing with questions at issue, and especially of dealing with a question of this kind. The statement appears in to-night's evening papers that the Canadian Railway War Board, has assumed to deal with this question, and says that the daylight saving arrangement of the United States is to obtain in regard to the railroads of Canada. I would like to know at this point, if I can, whether the Government intend to assume responsibility for the policy of this Board. If it does, then we shall have daylight saving in spite of the expressions of opinion here, and especially in spite of the expression of opinion by the farmers. It would be a disappointment to the farmers, however, if they are merely to have the opportunity of expressing their views, and that in some way an irresponsible body, like the Railway War Board, shall assume to give us daylight saving in this country.
Then there is another view of the matter. This country forms part of the continent
of America, and we have, more or less perhaps, to continentalize our policy, daylight saving to-day is the rule and is the law in the United States. Heretofore the administration of our railways in this country has largely been based on the system that prevails in the United {states, and has worked in harmonious arrangement with the administration of the railways of that country; the two systems have always run together. I want to know whether, if this House votes, as I expect it will vote tonight, against daylight saving, the order that has gone forth of the Railway Board is to obtain, or whether the grievances that have been expressed here this afternoon as far as the farmers are concerned are to end in nothing? Will the Government tell us to-night that it intends to assume the responsibility on this question, and to be responsible for the acts of the Railway Board, or if it intends to recall, after the vote takes place to-night, the order that has gone out from the Railway Board? If the Government assumes that responsibility and recalls the order referred to, it will be a party to something that will result in great dislocation of the business interests of the country. An hon. gentleman sitting near me suggests that I should ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) now. If the minister cares to offer an opinion well and good, but I do not think I can fairly press him to do so. However, I want to point out first, the dislocation, as far as the business organization of America is concerned, which is involved in the present situation, and second that the Railway War Board, an irresponsible organization, proposed to retain daylight saving in Canada. I want the farmers to understand fairly what they are going to get. Are they to get daylight saving or not? Are they to be satisfied with a mere opportunity of expressing their dissent? There is a great deal of reason in that dissent. I say that although I voted for daylight saving and intend to vote for it again to-night, for I know what is the condition of the farmer in Canada. I am not going to say that I have tried to do a little farming myself, because it seems to be an offence for some of us who were born in the country, and who would like to have, and do have, a home in the country, to make such a confession. I have been unbraided in this House on account of that, and yet it is my right, and I intend to exercise it, to express my opinion. On behalf of the farmers I say that if the House to-night votes to defeat daylight saving then the farmers are entitled to get

the advantage of it. If not, the Government must assume responsibility for the action of the Railway War Board, and compel the farmers to submit to daylight saving, and I do not know what is going to be the outcome in that ease.
But I revert to the question that I have raised, that we must harmonize ourselves with the rest of the continent to which we belong. We have heard a good deal on that subject in this House. I disagreed to a certain extent with some hon. gentlemen in this House when the question was up before. But the more I study the question of the recent great war, and the more I see of it, the more I am convincel that it is the duty of this country to associate itself with the continent of America in the matters arising out of it, and to keep clear of, and keep away from, as much as possible, the present issues that are embroiling Europe. We have over there to-day, representing Canada, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Overseas War Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Customs. We have those ministers who, from my point of view, are butting somewhat into the affairs of Europe, and are open to the charge,-and I am not saying it in any spirit of disrespect,-that they are actually porch-climbing to get into the conferences of Europe.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


William Findlay Maclean: I am talking to the question, I am talking to the question of responsibility. The Speaker may call me to order, but I wish to point out that in view of the responsibility that goes with this question, and what has taken place in Europe," our duty is to keep our country in harmony with the rest of the Continent, and not to dislocate our railway arrangements. I do not know whether other hon. gentlemen appreciate the situation; I have tried to appreciate it, I have studied the railway question. It may be that the dislocation that I fear will not occur, that the problem will be satisfactorily worked out. Nevertheless, I fail to understand how the great city of Toronto will maintain its business connection with the United States, or with the ports of Europe, unless we have harmonious arrangements, or how the city of Montreal, or the other great manufacturing centres of Canada will maintain their present situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let them change their time table.


William Findlay Maclean: Changing their time table will not do it. Perhaps the Minister of Railways has a plan to meet the situation, and if he has I shall be only too glad to learn of it, and to understand it. As I size the situation up, however, our business is going to be dislocated, and it will be a very serious matter if we dislocate our transport service by such a change in the law as is proposed here tonight. Let me repeat that we have always arranged our railway policy so as to harmonize with that of the United States. There was a time when we had railways of broad gauge. That was the case with the old Great Western. But the gauge was brought to standard and into harmony with the American railroads.
There was a great business built up between the two countries and a great amount of traffic came to Canada because we had standardized our gauge, which enabled us to fake the traffic of the American roads and carry it over our lines to our own Atlantic ports or to the American ports. Today we are allowing the great New York Central line to handle from the Niagara frontier all its traffic which originates in Chicago and to carry it over its lines in Ontario to Buffalo and New York. Now, is all that to be dislocated? So, my contention is that the responsibility must be assumed by the Government, and the farmers who are voting for this change are entitled to get what they expect, and their expectation is that there is to be this dislocation of the railway transportation of Canada-that daylight saving is to be at an end in this country. I feel that it would be better to leave things alone and to try out daylight saving a little longer. Of course, the cities have the opportunity of passing by-laws that will give them daylight saving, and I know all our cities and manufacturing towns will have it.
I know that the farmers who have been expressing themselves here this afternoon have a grievance. They have to gei up too early in the morning in order, to ship -their milk to the cities. But if the Railway War Board at Montreal orders the railways to run on the daylight saving schedule, what is to become of the farmer?


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. member a question? What has the running of the railways to do with the farmers? What difference will it make to them even if you make the change to-morrow?


William Findlay Maclean: This is what the farmers say:	Ilf the trains run an hour
later in the morning they will get the bene-

fit of rising that much later. If the Railway War Board orders the railway companies to operate their train service on the daylight saving schedule the farmers are going to draw a blank. They think they are considering something else here this afternoon, and that an expression of their appreciation for the opportunity of stating their views on this question is all they want. I venture to say that they want something more:	They want results. And
again I say, after all this war experience we should be careful before abandoning daylight saving. During the war we had to change many things, we had to abandon, more or less, responsible Government and take refuge in commissions, and we are to-day dealing with the transportation question by means of ,a war measure; we have appointed a receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific as a war measure; we are governing the country still by means of war measures, and probably we are going to have daylight saving as a war measure by this Government. But if that is the case is it not time that we had responsible Government in this country?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Let us have peace.


William Findlay Maclean: Let us have responsible Government first now the war is over. Let the farmers come here and express themselves, and if they express themselves in a certain direction, then if that expression of opinion by them is respected, they are entitled to carry on the Government of this country. That is the way it impresses me. I may be mistaken, but after studying this question very closely- and I am again speaking now from the business standpoint-I want to see the farmer have his grievance remedied in some way if possible, and a compromise may be effected, continuing to the cities and towns daylight saving in regard to . railways and other things, and allowing the farmer to make his own time to suit himself. I know that is rather hard and I confess it may not be feasible.
I want the House to be seized of what the issue really is. We have been talking all the afternoon and I have waited for some one to tell us how our railways were to be run, ami just at six o'clock I was made acquainted with a statement in the evening papers-I suppose it is correct- that the Railway War Board had settled that we were to have daylight saving. I will take the liberty of asking the Minister of Railways and Canals whether we are to have daylight saving in regard to our railways according to that statement?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not any word from the Canadian Railway War Board. Of course, the Canadian Railway War Board may make arrangements to run their railways on whatever time they like, but in so far as the operation of the railways is concerned they must be operated in the public interest. If they are not being operated in the public interest Parliament can correct that condition; and as we shall practically own half of the railway systems of Canada in a short time, I think Parliament can make the railways do whatever they like.


William Findlay Maclean: But I do not know yet from the statement of the hon. the Minister of Railways whether we are to have daylight saving. I hope he will give me credit for not speaking from a political point of view. I am trying to speak for many of the farmers of this country, I am also trying to speak for the business and the manufacturing and the railroad interests. I do not know what is going to happen to the railways who have this large transportation problem ahead of them retaining the very large international traffic which comes to them from their American connections. The funny thing is we are discussing this great question without a responsible proposition before the House. I do not remember a similar situation. Somebody must take the responsibility, and if the Government are convinced of the truth of the position of the farmers let them say: "All right; the farmers have made out their case and we assume responsibility of giving them the relief they ask." But we are told now by the Minister of Railways that the business interests of Canada are to be guarded. I am not going to abdicate my function as a member of this House by handing over this question to any irresponsible Railway War Board to deal with, and I do not think the Government ought to abdicate their functions or contract themselves out of their liability, as to the legal phrase is, but they must deal with this question, and I submit that before this discussion is over we ought to have a statement of the Government's policy.
Just one word more in regard to the advantages of daylight saving. These are many and have been demonstrated in the countries of Europe, and we are the first country to go back on what was called progressive legislation. The European countries may have been wrong, but I have seen no one yet who has brought forward a scientific explanation for the difference be-

tween our country and the countries of Europe on this question. A large portion of my reading has been in the direction of the increased benefit that has come to the working classes of this country by reason of daylight saving in connection with giving their children a little better chance, and my idea of the object of government is to improve human welfare. Now, if the farmer has a grievance it should be remedied. I do not feel justified in saying that the statements made by hon. gentlemen this afternoon with regard to the position of the farmer in this matter are not correct. If, then, they voice the views of the farmers, we must do more with regard to these grievances than merely allow them to be expressed in this House.
-Sir SA-M HUGHES:	Wouldn't the
simplest way be to let the farmers alone and let them mind their own business?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not interfering
with the farmers. The Canadian Eailway War Board has interfered with the daylight saving proposition; it has said that on Monday the clock is to be set back in every railway station.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Set forward. That is what the whole trouble is about.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman intimates that there is trouble because somebody wants to set the clock forward. Will he, then, assume the responsibility of setting it forward. Somebody must assume responsibility in this matter. If the farmers are to get, what they are after, a declaration should be made by the Government that daylight saving is at an end and that the farmer will not have to get up earlier in the morning. But as a result of the order issued by this Railway Board, on Monday morning the farmer, willy nilly, will have to get up early to milk his cows and get his milk to the train in time for shipment. If he is to get what he wants, he ought to know it to-night. The business community and the railways should know to-night what the policy of tne Government is to be; otherwise each city will do as it likes in the matter, and instead of a well-ordered community we shall have something more or less in the nature of chaos. The members of tnis House should not go away to-night without knowing what is to be the law; without knowing whether the clock is to be put forward an hour next Monday, or whether it is to be left as it is.
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outre-mont): Mr. Speaker, the cities and towns

of Canada, representing a majority of the people, are in favour of the daylight saving system, and more than half the rural population is in favour of it. This Parliament, therefore, should re-enact the daylight saving measure. I do not see what great inconvenience would thereby result to the afrmers. The daylight saving measure was given a good trial last year and it gave satisfaction; I did not meet a single person who believed that the measure was not a good one. I agree with the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that the Government should take some stand in this matter. Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with all his eloquence, brought the Daylight Saving Bill before Parliament; he was very insistent upon having it passed, and for my part I was pleased to support it. Now that daylight saving has had such a good trial and the people have become accustomed to it, why does not the Government bring down a Bill to re-enact daylight saving for this year? Are they afraid to take the responsibility? It is not proper that the Government, which is supposed to lead the people, should not take responsibility in this matter. In the views which I express I voice the opinion of practically all the people of the great city of Montreal. On Sunday the hour will be changed in the United States, and failure to adopt the same system here will result in great inconvenience to our large centres, our railroads and our economic system generally. The suggestions of hon. gentlemen as to the complaints of the farmers are not based on facts. I hope, therefore, that a daylight saving Bill will be introduced and adopted by the House.	'


Mr. HENRY ARTHUR MACKIE (Edmonton East):: In order to have a clear expression of the views of the House on this matter, I wish to move, in amendment to the amendment:
That the words " until this day six months " be struck out of the amendment and the following substituted therefor:	" during the year
1919." .


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Mackie moves in amendment, seconded by Mr. Douglas (Strathcona) that the words "until this day six months" be struck out of the amendment, and that the following be substituted therefor:	"during the year
1919," so that the resolution will now read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enact during the year 1919, chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight-Saving Act, 1918."


Henry Arthur Mackie: That is not the amendment that I suggest. I ask that instead of giving the six months' hoist to the daylight saving proposal, the Bill be not introduced during the year 1919.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman tell us what the effect of this amendment is? I want to vote intelligently.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The hon. gentleman ought to be able to see what the effect of it is.


Georges Henri Boivin: To make this matter quite clear to the House, I shall again read the sub-amendment. The resolution is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enact at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight-Saving Act, 1918."
It was moved by Mr. McCoig, seconded by Mr. Ross:
That the said resolution be amended by replacing the words: " it is expedient to re-enact at once " by the words " it is not expedient to re-enact until this day six months."
It was moved as a sub-amendment by Mr. Mackie (East Edmonton), seconded by Mr. Douglas (Strathcona):
That the words " until this day six months " be struck out of the amendment and the following substituted therefor " during the year 1919."
The resolution as amended will read:
That in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient to re-enact during the year 1919 Chapter 2, 'Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight Saving Act. 1918."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Addressing a few remarks to the motion, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, I think the House is quite clear on the main issue and both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment are of very little importance in this discussion.
As I listened to the various addresses, this is what I gathered, namely, that the principal objection to the so-called Daylight Saving measure is made on behalf of the farmers. Several reasons are given: First that the dairy interests are seriously affected in connection with the shipment of milk and other dairy products to the cities in the morning; second, that the farmers who have large areas of hoe-crops thereby lose an extra hour in the morning on account of the dew and so forth; third, that it interferes seriously with harvesting operations for the same reason; and fourth, that farm labour near the towns is also seriously interfered with. These
arguments deserve careful consideration on the part of every hon. member.
On the other hand, I desire to present to the House a few arguments in favour of daylight saving, and the House should consider both sides of the question and decide accordingly. I am speaking to-day on behalf of that great army of workers in Canada, particularly of those in the city which I represent, who spend long hours of confinement within the walls of the factory, shop and office, and also on behalf of the wives and families of those workers in the hot and ill-ventilated flats in the congested areas of tne cities. To all these the extra hour of daylight in the evening is unquestionably a great boon. It is of value to them from the standpoint of health as well as from the standpoint of adding, in a certain degree at least, to the small amount of pleasure they get in life.
It has been stated as a strong argument in favour of daylight saving that the United States of America has passed a similar measure, and that, therefore, we should follow suit. I have no sympathy with that argument, my opinion being that we should decide the matter as Canadians in our own country's interest.
I wish to refer to the argument advanced by some opponents of daylight saving that the only persons who are asking for it 'are the idle rich in the cities, a few gentlemen who wish to play golf and- so forth. That is not the case. I can assure my hon. friends who represent country districts that we do not represent that class of people, who can look after themselves pretty well. Where there is one individual of that class, there are a thousand or more of the other class to which I haye referred-the workers confined in the shops, factories or offices. It is on their behalf that I support the re-enactment 'of the daylight saving measure.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: I feel to-night I am in agreement with the majority in this House, and that is a comfortable feeling to have. I am always inclined to say a good word for a departed friend, and I feel to-night, as we are attending what I consider to be the wake of the Daylight Saving Act, I should like, before it passes out of existence, to say a good word for it. A year ago I felt that it was a matter of very little concern whether the Daylight Saving Act came into force or not. I did not see much advantage in it, and I did not, at that time, see that there was going to be very much disadvantage.

After a year's experience, however, I have learned that daylight saving has advantages, and I should like to enumerate one or two which I have observed. We have today heard a good deal about the school children in the country, and I want to say a word or two on behalf of them. It is a great benefit to the school children in the country to be relieved, under daylight saving, from their school duties at three o'clock in the afternoon instead of being kept in school until four. That is a decided advantage which is perhaps not appreciated as it should be. It is far better for the welfare of the child to be in the schoolhouse from eight to nine o'clock in the morning and to be relieved at three o'clock rather than to go into the schoolhouse at nine and to remain there until four. The same argument may be used in behalf of the factory employee. The day is at hand when Parliament, employers of labour, educationists and others will have to give very much more attention to the physical welfare of the people, and anything which adds to the comfort and good environment of the factory employee is of advantage not only to the employee, but to the employer and to the country at large. If we can, under any measure, have the employees of a factory engaged from six to seven o'clock in the morning by sun-time, and relieved from their duties at five o'clock in the afternoon rather than have them entering on their duties at seven in the morning and being relieved at six in the afternoon, we are doing them a great favour, inasmuch as from five to six in the afternoon-and I am speaking of the factories in the small towns-is the worst hour of the day for the factory employee to spend in the factory employed at his work, because in the summer time it is the hottest hour of the day in the factory.
I would like to say a word for the people in the offices of our towns. I do not at all agree with some of the remarks made this afternoon which would lead us to believe that the farmer is the only person who works. While I know that no person works harder than the farmer, there are, in 'our offices, stores and factories, many people who are working just as hard as they possibly can.
They are not idle by any means, and because their work differs in kind from that of the farmer it does not mean that they are not being worked to the limit. I have found, during the past year, that daylight saving was an advantage to these people, allowing them to get away from their offices 
an hour earlier in the day and have that much more time for outdoor recreation. I believe that if we could total up the results of daylight saving during the past year we would find that the health of the people of this country has been considerably improved.


John Best: What about the flu?
Mr. STEEiLE: Having said that much, I think I have stated the chief advantages of daylight saving. But notwithstanding all these advantages, I think the disadvantages have been very much greater, and I therefore propose to vote against the re-enactment of daylight saving. I speak especially for the dairy farmers, inasmuch as I believe they are the ones who have been inconvenienced the most by the passage of the daylight saving measure. I want to say this to the people of our large cities: we hear a great deal of criticism these days of the producer of milk and the enormous profits he is getting, but it is my opinion that in the near future people will have to pay a good deal more for their milk than they are paying now. They can afford to pay a good deal more, and still be getting the cheapest food supplied to the people of this country. At fourteen cents a quart there is no cheaper food than milk, and when the people of the cities expect farmers to get up at three in the morning, milk their cows, haul the milk three, four, five, or six miles, and ship it to the city people so that they can get it early in the day, they are expecting something unreasonable from the agriculturists. I think the time is not far distant when the city dairies will have to have refrigerator cars left at points in many of our large cities, where the farmer can leave his milk at a convenient hour during the day. I must vote against the amendment to the motion. I cannot imagine how two representatives of agricultural constituencies could move and second such an amendment as was moved by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McOoig) and seconded by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross). Their amendment read: "That it is not expedient to re-enact this measure until this day six months." How any person can argue against daylight saving in the summer time and favour its coming into effect on the 26th day of September I cannot understand. Surely the farmers of Kent county will not sympathize at all with the attempt of their representative to bring daylight saving into force on the 26th of September, and I am equally confident that the farmers of West Middlesex will

not approve such a move. I shall vote against the motion also, for the reasons which I have given. I believe it is in the best interests of this country that it should not carry, and I am quite satisfied that the majority of my electors are opposed to it.


Mr. W. A. CHARLTON (Norfolk):: I have not any pronounced views upon this question, except that uniformity throughout the whole country is very desir-
9 p.m. able. Still, in view of the large number of petitions and resolutions I have received, I feel that I must say a word. One resolution I received was from the county council of Norfolk, which county I have the honour to represent, declaring unanimously against daylight saving. I have also received petitions from farmers' clubs and many other organizations and associations, all opposed to the measure, also several letters from residents of towns stating that we should favour the views of the farmers. Then, Sir, in keeping with the new order of things which has come into this world and which will remain so long as the world lasts-this beautiful world clothed everywhere with garments of Deity but now desecrated by the violence of man-in keeping, I say, with this new order in which women are not merely followers but great leaders in every movement which is for the welfare of the people; I have received an angelic petition from a group of mothers asking me to oppose this measure. Under the circumstances I feel perfectly justified in voting for. the amendment to the amendment and against the resolution.


John Wesley Edwards: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) this evening, as I always do, particularly when he is speaking on matters pertaining to agriculture. iMy interest was aroused by the hon. member some years ago, when he suggested that the problem of farm labour be	solved by	the farmers
hiring two shifts of men, working eight hours each.	His close and * intimate
knowledge of farming conditions made a deep impression upon me at that time, and I have since listened with very great interest indeed to the words of wisdom which always fall from his lips. But I thought he came very near to violating the second paragraph of rule 18 this evening; if he was not violating that rule in the matter of irrelevance, he was dangerously close to violating it in the matter of tedious
repetition. 1 am also in the habit of listening with interest to the remarks of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), who is also the distinguished member from the rural constituency of Gaspe. I represent only one constituency in this House, but it is perhaps the most strictly rural constituency in the Dominion of Canada, because there is not within its bounds a city or town or even an in-coroporated village. It is very convenient indeed to be in the position of the non. member for Maisonneuve, representing as he does, two constituencies, one a city constituency and the other a rural constituency; and it is particularly convenient when a matter of this kind comes up on which there is a certain amount of conflict between the people who reside in the cities and those who reside in the country; because if the hon. member wants to keep in line with the rural population he represents Gaspe, and if he wishes to line up with the city dwellers, he is the distinguished member for Maisonneuve, which is an urban constituency.
I rise on this occasion for two reasons: First, because, representing a rural constituency, I think I should express my opposition to the re-enactment of the daylight saving measure; second, because I want to propose a solution of this vexed question So far, it has been considered from only one standpoint. Daylight saving proposes that every person should get up one hour earlier than in normal times and quit work one hour earlier in the afternoon, thus having an hour for play at the end of the day's work. Why not turn the clock the other way, and instead of getting up one hour earlier in the morning and quitting one hour earlier in the afternoon, get up one hour later in the morning and quit work one hour later in the afternoon? Then those who are interested in daylight saving-'the dry goods clerks and the golf enthusiasts-could get up in the morning and play golf.
Then they will appreciate what it means to play golf when the dew is on the ground, and at the same time will realize the position of the farmer who has to go to work in the morning when the dew is heavy. Of course, if they played golf in the morning on moist ground they might probably soil their canvas shoes, and their fingers when they handled the ball, but they would find the atmosphere just as exhiliarating in the early morning as at any other time; and I venture to say that if they took their recreation at that time they would find



that the farmer had been at work an hour before them at that. I am told also that those who indulge in the game of golf and similar semi-manly recreations are people who have rather a tendency to stoutness; and, as I am credibly informed that the early morning dew is almost a specific for gout, there is an added reason why it would be advisable to change the time around and take this hour for recreation and pleasure in the forenoon and not rob the farmer of his best hour in the day.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I object to reenactment of the daylight saving law because I believe that the vast majority of the people in the country are opposed to it. I am sure that the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution was perfectly sincere when he gave his opinion as to the percentage of those in favour of daylight saving. I do not question his sincerity, but 1 certainly question the correctness of his figures. I believe that if a census of opinion were taken on this question it would be found that fully sixty per cent of the people very determinedly and positively oppose it, and of the other forty per cent, half would be as strongly in favour of daylight saving while the other half would be indifferent. That is a fair representation of the sentiment of the country, I think, whether it represents the sentiment of the House or not. I am opposed to the re-enactment of the measure because it not only puts the farmers to unnecessary inconvenience but subjects them to considerable financial loss as well. Some will probably disagree with me in the statement, but I am convinced that I am right when I say that last year considerable financial loss to the farmers attended daylight saving. Not only does it inconvenience the farmer, but it imposes extra work on the housewives in the rural part of the country and the wives of the labouring classes in our large centres of population. Who is benefited by it, and from what source comes the request for daylight saving? The newspapers? Why, certainly. It is all very well for the newspaperman who gets down to his office at eight o'clock in the morning and whose staff may want to go off in the afternoon; and there are no doubt a number of clerks who would like the change. But the farmers and the great bulk of the people who are working in factories and industrial plants, people who have to be at their work at seven o'clock in the morning, do not. I think, really want this law. Should we follow the example of the United States? I think not. Let us legislate for ourselves.

Conditions in Canada are not the same as those in the United States. One hon. member referred to the fact that England, France and Germany had adopted daylight saving. Well, what of that? Has that anything to do with Canada? The conditions in those countries are absolutely different. The hon. gentleman forgot that we have only a few people to the square mile in Canada while in the countries to which he referred there are one hundred, two hundred or three hundred people to the square mile. The population in each of those countries is very largely urban, dwelling almost entirely in the cities and towns, while the rural population is only a small percentage. Canada on the contrary is a rural country.
A few years ago the Government thought it wise to adopt on government works an eight-hour day. I expressed myself against the measure on former occasions, because I considered the adoption by the Government of an eight-hour day made it just that much harder for the farmers and the people in farming communities to obtain the help that was necessary to work their farms. That was one concession that the Government made to the labouring class when they agreed to the eight-hour day on government works, and I ask them now to make a concession to the farming .class in regard to this matter of daylight saving. I do not think there can be the shadow of a doubt in the mind of any member of the House, after having heard the speeches delivered this afternoon, that the farmers are opposed to the Daylight Saving Bill. And if hon. gentlemen in this House believe that to be a fact, I ask them to respect the wishes of the farmers in this matter and vote accordingly.
Hon. MARTIN BURREiLiL (Secretary of State): My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was very much surprised that a resolution of this kind was put on the Order Paper or permitted to be taken up at this time, and he seemed to think that not only was there no need for it, but that the people did not want it in any shape or form. I must differ from him in that view, because I think that however we may vote-and I may frankly say that I will support the resolution-it is not at all a bad thing to have had this free and open discussion in Parliament on a question in which there is considerable interest, and which, after all, is not .a political question in the ordinary sense of that word. I do not think my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best), quite did justice to the mover

of the resolution when he placed him in the position of having interjected a question, and said that he was engendering very bitter strife between large sections of the community. I did not so understand the mover of the resolution. I understood him to say that there would be a n.atural conflict of opinion between the rural and urban sections. I think my hon. friend from Dufferin need not have been so warm in some of his remarks, because after all, Sir, we can afford to hold different views and express them temperately.
II cannot agree with the statement made by some opposing the resolution that as low as three per cent of the population is in favour of such a resolution. iMy hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), I observe, put it very much higher. Of course we can only guess on a subject of this kind, but I think it is interesting to have the various opinions held in the different constituencies reflected by hon. members in the House.
I do not think *that the method of approaching this subject is particularly to be deprecated, as my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) seemed to think. Some hon. members who have spoken have accused the Government of shirking responsibility on a question for which they ought to shoulder responsibility. Again and again in this House, I have heard hon. gentlemen complain that in democratic governments the tendency is for the Government to run the whole country and make their followers fall into line by the threat that otherwise the Administration would be smashed. I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) that it is not a bad thing on a question like this to have a free discussion in the House, and to feel that even if members of the Government hold divergent views in regard to it they would still be justified in continuing to hold office. I am glad of that because on this question I may find myself differing from my distinguished friend from Leeds (Sir Thomas White).
However, there were one or two remarks made during the debate that I want to answer. Some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken very strongly against daylight saving have stated that they believed it to be a good thing as a war measure, and they supported it last year on that account. I may be dense, or I may not perhaps have given the argument sufficient attention, but if daylight saving is good as a war measure because it instilled more energy into our people and caused more produc-
58J
tion in this country, it surely must be an equally good measure for Canada in days of peace.
I thought that my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele), who finds himself in the position of having to vote against the resolution, supplied one of the strongest arguments that I had yet heard in favour of the measure, when he gave it as his deliberate conviction, as a medical man, that on the whole the health of the people of Canada had been greatly improved through the operation of this legislation. If that is so I think it is a priceless blessing to achieve. The hon. gentleman also spoke of the very beneficial effects upon people who were working in factories, school children, and so on, that had resulted from the change in time. I am not disposed to dispute for one moment that in many respects daylight saving may have been somewhat detrimental to certain classes, and especially to the farming interests. I remember when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) first mooted the idea of this legislation I was then Minister of Agriculture. Sir George Foster seemed to think that the whole country was in favour of it, but I told him at that time that I was inclined to believe that a large section of the farming community would be against it. He said he had given a great deal of attention to the subject, and I think he had ascertained the feelings of a very large portion of the community. It is true that the view held in the country with respect to this matter may have changed somewhat. I am prepared to admit that a great many of the farming section, possibly most of them, are against it, and it therefore became a matter of balancing conditions.
One of the things that I do think has a material effect upon this question as it presents itself to-day is the operation of the railways, and the fact that in the United States daylight saving is in operation. My hon. friend from South York tried to throw some responsibility on the Government. He demanded that it should control the railways and compel them not to observe daylight saving, if this House, by its vote, decided that it should not be adopted. Well, my hon. friend must know that this is a question of railway operation and of railway time tables. Surely he would not lay down the principle that because the railways are adopting daylight saving and alter their time tables they should not continue to have the power they have always had of running their trains at certain particular times? I must say that I am not convinced yet that if the

railways are altering their time tables by an hour, and that consequently the large business interests of the country, the financial institutions, and so on, with their ramifications, are also going to observe the difference of an hour, in the main it will not lead to a very great deal of confusion and loss if the whole country does not carry out the same policy.
Looking at this matter from the British Columbia point of view, I may say that I represent a constituency very largely rural. Perhaps I do not. know the exact feeling which prevails throughout the province, but Ido not know that in my visits to British Columbia last fall I never heard a single word against the operation of the daylight saving law. I believe it was the opinion and the expectation of those people out there that it would naturally follow that daylight saving would continue this year, and the only communications I have had on the subject at all have been communications expressing gratification that daylight saving had been accomplished.
My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)-not very seriously I am bound to admit-suggested that some of this campaign was instigated by gentlemen who do a lot of golfing. I am almost afraid to admit that although I was a farmer for twenty-five years I am still a golfer, and I am not, as he pictured, an exceedingly stout person or suffering from any physical disability of that kind. Nor do golfers always wear canvas shoes, which are exposed to the dampening influence of the dew. Daylight saving is .popular with the people in cities and towns, and I recognize the truth of the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Cooper) that the workers in the stores and factories strongly support it. Personally, I am going to vote for the resolution and against the amendment. Whatever effect this particular resolution may have-according to my hon. friend from South Perth, it is almost dead now and we have come to assist at the burial-I am convinced that it is an excellent thing to have a question of this kind form the subject of a general discussion, and to afford to every hon. member an opportunity of voting on it without the question of party allegiance being raised. I think that it will be the means of fixing the attention of the whole country in a way that it has never been fixed before, and will ultimately lead to its being settled in a manner that will be for the good of Canada as a whole.

Lt.-General Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria) :	I remember many years ago hearing an American stating that his doctrine in religious matters was to go to Hades his own way, and let everybody else go theirs. That is largely my doctrine on this question. I have not the slightest objection in the world to the people of the cities and towns advancing the clock an hour in the morning. If they think they can make a little better time in getting to or leaving their offices, they are welcome to it, but I am certainly opposed to upsetting the whole industrial conditions of the Dominion of Canada by enacting a statute of this kind. There is not a municipality in Canada to-day but can bring about the desired result by passing a by-law. As a matter of fact, in many towns to-day throughout Canada the whistles are started blowing at five o'clock, half-past five, six o'clock, six-thirty or seven o'clock, as the case may be. That procedure goes on and there is no great worry or turmoil over it; people adapt themselves to their environment. Those in the towns and cities who want their time advanced can easily find the machinery to do. it. But I protest, on behalf of the farming community, and those who do not want to have legislation of this kind forced upon them, against this kind of thing. This talk of it being a war measure is the merest piffle which has been resorted to in the case of any one with a fad to advocate until it has become nauseating.
The farming community want to be let alone. They say the old standard time is good enough for them. I am not very old yet, but I can remember, Sir, when Toronto had one time, then at Donlands we had to set our watches ahead a few minutes, we had to do the same thing when we got to Dumbarton, and I remember in the town of Bowmanville where I grew up we were four minutes ahead of Toronto in our time. Our watches had to be adjusted when we moved up and down the country one or two miles, and yet the people survived, they raised their grain and sold it, and got along very well without any standard time. Then standard time came in, and I remember on one occasion being in St. John where I found they had three different times; the old meridian time, the standard time, and some eastern or Atlantic seaboard time, so that you never knew what time any one was going to travel by. Yet St. John thrived and things went on quite satisfactorily. Therefore I take the liberty of suggesting to the Government that there should be no further interference

with our standard time. The farmers are content with the old standard or meridian time, but they have no objection to the cities and towns passing by-laws to put the clock ahead or back an hour to suit their own convenience. Daylight saving is all very well for those people who are fond of the pleasant pastime at which my hon. friend the Secretary of State is such an expert-golfing is a very pleasant exercise foi delicate women-and I have no objection in the world to cities and towns regulating their own time, but in the name of Heaven let us alone. Down in the city of Windsor they have one time, across the river another time. At Port Arthur our time is the same as it is at Sarnia; at Fort William, which is the dividing line, it is an hour ahead. So we have all that strip of Canadian territory from the Detroit line to Port Arthur with an hour's difference in time. I think there is a great deal of meddling in connection with this whole business, and I, Sir, shall vote to let the matter remain as it is without any interference with the standard time, leaving each municipality to regulate its affairs as it wishes.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to discuss the merits of daylight saving legislation. I am going to express my opinion upon it when I cast my vote, and I think after the discussion we have already had it is the best way to express it; but I want to vote on a motion wfiich is according to the Rules of the House, and 'I rise therefore for the purpose of raising a point of order against the amendment to the amendment as moved by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Mackie). The main resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enact at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight-Saving Act, 1918."
That statute, chapter 2 of the statutes of 1918, reads as follows:
2.	During the prescribed period in each year in which this Act is in force, the time, for general purposes in Canada, in each province, shall he one hour in advance of the time which under the law of the province is the time prescribed for such province, and, if there is no time so prescribed, of the accepted standard time.
3.	This Act shall be in force during the present year for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
If the main resolution is adopted it will mean that this 'Act shall.be in force during the present year, that is the year 1919. So the amendment to the amendment,
which merely says that it is not expedient during the year to enact this legislation, is merely a negation of the main motion-and is not in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) I must point out that he refers to a statute, while the resolution before the House is merely an academic one, or one calling for an expression of opinion on the part of the House, and it would have no effect upon the legislation of the country whatsoever. Therefore it resolves itself into a question purely of phraseology, as to whether the amendment to the amendment is actually an amendment to the amendment. In my judgment it is, because the motion calls for the enactment of a statute at once; the amendment says that it shall be enacted in six months; the amendment to the amendment says it shall not be enacted for at least one year. iSo it is an amendment in question of time, and in my judgment therefore it ig in order.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I quite concur in the views of the hon. gentlemen who have expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which we have been permitted to discuss this question. I know there are times when it is necessary that the Government shall accept the responsibility of a measure, but I think it would make for every good end if we had more frequent opportunities to discuss matters in the free and open way in which this House has had this matter before it to-day. I have only received one communication on this subject from my constituents; it is against the Diaylight Saving Act. Strange to say it does not come from a rural community, it comes from one of the incorporated towns within my constituency. In the town of Shelburne* the shire town of one of my counties, the Board of Trade has passed a -strong resolution against daylight saving, and the secretary in transmitting it to me informs ihe that the views of 'that community are in harmony with the action- of the board. Any hon. member will realise at once that the decision of an important body like a Board of Trade in one of our towns calls for profound consideration and respect from the representative of the county, and I certainly receive it in that way. That is one side of the question. The other side is this: Last year I briefly spoke and voted for the Daylight Saving Bill. After that I had an opportunity of visiting my constituents and

spending some time amongst them, and I am bound to say that no one offered any objection to the course I pursued so far as I heard; Wherever the question interested them at all they were perfectly satisfied and content. So I have on the one hand the apparent satisfaction of the [DOT] whole community, and on the other hand 1 have this resolution of the Board of Trade of one of my towns, to which I should like to pay great respect. Taking it all in all, I am inclined to think I have not found sufficient reason to change the ground which 1 took last year.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question now before the House, I should like to endorse the sentiments of the hon. gentleman from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding). I am thoroughly in accord with the course that the Government has adopted to-day, and I am not in accord with the course that the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has taken. It would appear to me to be much better for this House and for this country that the members of this House should express their itrue opinions, rather than that they should express them wholly and solely under patty patronage, so to speak. The Acting Prime Minister '(Sir Thomas White) has very frankly risen an his place and said that the Government desired an expression of Opinion from this House.
He desired that the members of the House should voice their own opinions or the opinions of their constituents without regard to party. The member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) seemed to ask that somebody should take the responsibility, but suggested that he -should not; in other words, he wanted to be allowed to get in under the wing of the Government and say later to his constituents that he followed the Government, or did not, whichever suited his purpose. The course, therefore, followed by the Government in this matter is a fit and proper one.
We know from the experience of last session that a very decided cleavage of opinion prevails in this matter as between the urban and the rural population, between the country districts and the cities, towns and villages. The petitions and expressions of opinion that have been received by the great majority of members of the House from rural districts indicate that daylight saving is decidedly unpopular in the country and that the farmers do mot desire it. It appears to me, representing, as I do, a constituency made up of

both urban and rural districts, that, taking all things into consideration, the requests of the rural population in this case ought to be acceded to. It is true that there are two extremely arguable sides to the question, but the urban districts have unquestionably not expressed their view in as concrete and forcible a way as have the rural districts. Having regard to what the farmers have done for this country, considering the extent to which the prosperity of Canada depends on the rural interests and the definite manner in which those interests have expressed their opinion that the re-enactment of daylight saving would be absolutely detrimental to them, it is the duty of this House to listen to those representations and to carry out the suggestion contained in them.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East): Like some other members, I represent a constituency the population of which is about equally divided between those whose business is agriculture and those who work in factories, saw-mills and mines. So far as I have been able to judge, just as much difference of opinion exists on one side as on the other. I took the opportunity of going all over the agricultural part of my constituency during the harvest season and finding out what the farmers thought of daylight saving. Many of them were decidedly opposed to it; many of them expressed absolute indifference. I found the same attitude among the men working in factories, in mines and in railway services. So that, so .far as my constituents are concerned I am possibly not compelled to take any particular standf in this matter.
In this whole discussion there has been too great a tendency to regard this daylight saving proposal as something in the nature of a class measure. Many references have been made to the millionaires and the golf-players, and not enough consideration has been given to the large number of people in the urban centres who are neither millionaires nor golf-players and who work in shops and factories ten hours a day. These men say to me: It is a decided advantage for us to have our leisure moments all at one end of the day, and that in the evening. But it has been pointed out to us that the daylight saving system works a great disadvantage to a large number of people who work on and are interested in farms, and we are willing to forego the advantage accruing to us by the enactment of daylight saving in order to do away with the disadvantage resulting to our agricultural population. Ii

the subject was discussed from that point of view, without any effort to create prejudice in the minds of any class of the people, we would arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion. My judgement is that in the interests of harmony those of us who benefit by daylight saving should be willing to forego the advantage accruing to us from it in order that the agricultural interests may have their way, so to speak. Unquestionably 95 per cent of the people interested in agriculture throughout Canada are opposed to daylight saving, notwithstanding what I said regarding my own constituency. I am going to vote against the resolution, without regard to the amendments, because I believe that the re-enactment of the daylight saving measure would not be in the interests of harmony among all the classes of people in this country. I suggest that hon. members should discuss subjects of this kind on their merits. Many of the class differences prevailing in Canada are largely due to the activities of loose-lipped agitators who do not hesitate to take advantage of every opportunity to encourage these differences, having very little regard to the merits of the subjects they discuss.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to say just a word or two on this resolution because of the fact that the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) laid particular stress on the railway situation. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to re-enaot at once Chapter 2, Statutes of 1918, "The Daylight Saving Act, 1918."
I cannot see any necessity at all for an amendment to the original resolution on which I should like to have seen a straight vote. Be that as it may, however, two amendments have been moved which, if carried, really mean that the resolution should not be adopted. When the Government introduced the Daylight Saving Bill last year, one thing that had a great deal of influence on the passing of that legislation was the fact that from one end of the Dominion to the other the people were undoubtedly led to believe and, I think, hon. estly-that we were short of fuel and that everything possible should be done, in the interest of the public and in the interest of the war, to conserve fuel. Therefore, when the Bill was introduced, the farmers of Canada, being willing, as they were during the whole war, to make any sacrifices necessary to bring the war to a successful issue, decided to give up what they believed was of
great value to them and perhaps make a sacrifice in order to conserve fuel and thereby furnish more ammunition and give better service to the men at the front.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the minister a question? I have asked it of several members and I have not yet received an answer. I should like to know how one pound of coal has been saved through the Daylight Saving Act.


John Dowsley Reid: Whether any fuel was saved
or not, there was at all events a feeling throughout the country that a shortage of fuel existed and that fuel might be saved as a result of daylight saving. For centuries, we have had a standard time in this country; we have got along very well under it; there has never been any trouble, and I want to say frankly that since since my birth I have, been satisfied with the standard time, and have not wanted it changed and would like to see it continued as in the past. There is, however, a difference of opinion on this question throughout Canada. As the hon. member for South York has stated, the most serious matter at present is the way in which it will affect the railways of Canada. He asked me for an answer as to what the railways would do. The railways are being operated under their own managements, and unless some trouble should arise and complaint is made to the Government, the Government will, of course, not interfere. When trouble arises and complaint is made the Government, of course, are supreme in this country in so far as rectifying anything that may not be in the public interest is concerned. I do not know what the railways will do, but frankly I cannot see that the situation that may arise will be as serious as has been represented. Travelling from here to Vancouver, one retires to bed at night and when one gets up the next morning the time is changed one hour. One moves one's watch ahead, and the change does not seem to make much difference; one gets along just the same. My view, therefore, is this, that when a train arrives at the Canadian side of the boundary line the time will be changed the one hour's difference, just the same as occurs on the time-tables of trains going from here to Vancouver. There is only this difference- and what effect it will have I cannot say- that on transcontinental trains the time is changed at divisional points. The question has been asked: What effect will this have where trains are crossing the boundary not at a divisional point? No one can answer that question until the thing has been tried.

There is no doubt, however, the railways of Canada will, in their own interest, make their time-tables to suit the interest of the people they are serving. But after all, we have, as hon. members know, the Board of Railway Commissioners, which has full power and jurisdiction over all the railways in Canada in rates and time-tables, and the interests of the people are guarded by that board, from which there is an appeal to the Governor in Council and from that to the Parliament, which is supreme. Personally, I should like to have the old standard time retained in Canada. I believe the cities can change the time to suit themselves, as has been done in other places.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend, as Minister of Railways, not think that, on the first of April next, when the time tables of the American railway systems are changed, the Canadian railways will have to adapt their time tables to those of the American railways?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not doing any
thinking until the thing is done and I see what the arrangement is. I will then do some thinking as to whether it is in the interest of this country or not. When one is crossing at Detroit and other places, the time table shows one hour's difference. The standard tim'e is changed at American points, for instance at Rouse's Point. At present you leave New York at a certain hour and arrive at a certain hour at Montreal. I cannot see why the trains cannot simply change the time at Rouse's Point and run on Canadian time into Montreal. Perhaps, I am not an expert railwayman and so cannot see the effect of the situation on the railways of Canada, but this is a case where we should vote as our constituents want us to. I am quite satisfied from the petitions I have from my constituents that they are absolutely opposed to the daylight saving scheme, and until I feel that it is in the public interest to make a change, I consider it my duty to vote as my constituents would have me vote.
Mr. S. .T. CROWE (Burrard): I was not very imuch in favour of the daylight saving Act last year, but after watching its operation last summer I am certainly in favour of its re-enactment this year. I believe that I am voicing the sentiments of my constituents when I say that ninety per cent of them are in favour of daylight saving. I have heard very little criticism of the measure. I have received quite a number of telegrams and communications 
from the city of Vancouver, of which I am one of the representatives, and all these communications strongly endorse daylight saving. This afternoon my colleague from South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) received a telegram from the Reeve of the Municipality of Point Grey, which, as it arrived after he had finished speaking, he has asked me to read to the House. It is as follows:
Point Grey Council, on behalf of the citizens, favours daylight saving and requests your urgent efforts towards that end.
George Fletcher,
Point Grey.
I received telegrams yesterday from the different athletic associations in the city of Vancouver, also a wire from the Retailers' Association of Vancouver, as well as a letter from the Kiwanis Club of that city, all in favour of daylight saving. I think myself that daylight saving is in the best interests of the great majority of the people of this country, and that is why I am going to support the resolution.


Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa):: It seems to me there is a very important preliminary question to be determined before we vote to-night. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) has not in ,my judgment cleared up the situation. Now, as I understand it, those hon. members who desire to vote against daylight saving will find themselves in this position, if the resolution is agreed to: The railways of Canada will follow the time tables of their American connections, and the result will be that instead of the farmers of Canada avoiding the disadvantage which some hon, members see in daylight saving, the trains will run an hour earlier just as they did last year. I therefore think that before we vote on this question we should have some assurance from the Government that if this House refuses to accept this resolution, the railways of Canada will not change their time tables but will run on standard time.


Samuel Hughes: What have we to do with the railway time tables?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Everything. I am satisfied that the Canadian railways will change their time on Sunday next, and that means they will run their trains an hour earlier than at present. Then those who voted against daylight saving will have daylight saving in effect so far as train connections are concerned.


Robert James Manion: What effect will the
change of time have on any railways except those that cross the border?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It will affect every railway in Canada.


Robert James Manion: But why should it, except those that cross the border?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: My hon. friend must realize
that a train leaving Ottawa this afternoon for New York must cross the border and-


Robert James Manion: I am speaking of the trains that do no't cross the border.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: 
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: It seems to me the question has been discussed thoroughly, and I shall say only a few words. There appears to be a difference of opinion between the rural and urban population of Canada. As a farmer, and as a representative of an agricultural constituency, I am decidedly opposed to daylight saving. There is no question that it does a financial injury to the farmer by reason
of the fact that he loses an hour each day at the season of the year when time is most precious. Under daylight saving he rises by the clock as usual, does his chores, and is ready to proceed to the fields to cut his hay or grain probably at eight o'clock, but if the dew is heavy he will be unable to do anything until half-past nine or ten. That hour and a half is practically lost. Then, in the afternoon he has to stop at lour or five o'clock-five o'clock at any rate but usually at four-if he has chores to do; so that it is a direct financial loss to him. On the other hand, I can quite appreciate the fact that the urban population is strongly in favour of daylight saving. I am willing to grant that the opinion is fairly evenly divided pro and con on this question. But that is not the point. The urban population have only this to claim for daylight saving, namely, that it gives them an hour more in the evening in which to enjoy themselves, or to rest, although it does not benefit them financially, whereas, against that, the farmer argues that he does suffer a direct financial loss, and it does not seem to me under these circumstances that there can be any question as to what the decision of this House ought to be.
As to what has been said to-night with reference to the railways, I can conceive, if the report which we see in the press tonight is correct, that the Railway War Board has ordered all railways in Canada to adopt the American time on the 31st of March, all farmers who ship milk, cream and other produce in the morning will be compelled to adopt daylight saving. I do not doubt that this is attributable to the action of the United States, and am not disposed to blame the Railway Board, because I do not see how we can help adopting the time of the United States roads. We have either to do that or hold our trains up on the border for an hour.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I occupy the somewhat unique position, Mr. Speaker, of having voted on both sides of this question during the last two years. When this matter came up in 1917 I criticised it very severely. In fact I gave what some newspaper called a very learned dissertation on the whole theory of standard time and other allied subjects, and as a result of the severe criticism which was levelled at the Bill it was withdrawn by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). Last year, in order to bring ourselves in harmony with practically all the rest of the

world, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was very anxious to put the Bill through, did me the honour of naming me as his seconder. Therefore, like many other hon. members I voted for the Bill. Now it comes up again, and as a member of the Government I take some credit for putting this matter up to the representatives of the people as we have done. I do not believe in the party whip system, as it has operated, I think, to the disadvantage of'Canada in public life in the past. There has been too much, on the part of both Government and Opposition, of a practice of a dozen men or fewer getting together and outlining a policy and expecting the others to accept it. I realize that under the system of responsible government the great majority of matters that are really questions of policy must be decided by a government, and the government must stand or fall by the vote oi the majority of the representatives. But this is not, in my judgment, a question of government policy. It is a question merely of what is best for the country. I was very much in favour of submitting this question to the House, and I am glad to see that the House accepted it in the spirit in which the Government put it forward, notwithstanding the objection of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I shall not enter into the merits of the question from the standpoint of either the farmer or the resident of the city. I am a farmer myself to some extent-my hon. friend smiles.


An hon. MEMBER:: To what extent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well to the extent that I make some money, I am happy to say.
I am a farmer, and I can agree with every word 'said by the farmers. In the part of Canada from which I come we lose not only an hour, but an hour and a half, because we are on the extreme western edge of the Atlantic standard, and our standard time is half an hour faster than sun time. When you add another hour to that, instead of leaving work at six o'clock during hay and harvest we leave at half past four. The same condition of affairs exists in Western Manitoba and near the Rocky Mountains, and wherever you get beyond the meridian when the standard time is in advance of sun time, until you reach a point where you are an hour and a half ahead of sun time, which makes it almost impossible for the farmers to get along. This, however, has been so thoroughly discussed by hon. members that I do 
not intend to pursue this phase of the subject. I shall now deal with the question in its relation to the railways. I am aware that there is a very strong prejudice by the railway companies in favour of the adoption of daylight saving, not so much, perhaps, because of any intrinsic advantage in the scheme, as that the United States, having adopted it, great inconvenience and difficulty will arise in the operation of the Canadian trains if we do not follow suit. It has been pointed out that there are many places in Canada where railways will be compelled to run an hour earlier than they do at present simply because the United States has adopted daylight saving. There must be twenty-five or more places in Canada where trains run across the border. There is no doubt that a train that starts from New York bound for Montreal or Toronto will leave an hour earlier than ordinarily and arrive at its destination an hour earlier, and the man who desires to travel by that train has to rise an hour earlier than usual. But there are a great many other places where it will mean an advantage rather than a disadvantage. At four different points between the Atlantic and the Pacific the time now changes one hour, and on every train that goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific the clocks must be changed so many times. There are two places in my own constituency where Canadian trains running into the United States are now compelled to change time by one hour. To-day they are compelled to change the time an hour in crossing from Windsor to Detroit or from Sarnia to Port Huron, whereas under this arrangement there would be no change. It is therefore apparent that while there are disadvantages there are also corresponding advantages. I have consulted some of the railway men, and will state their argument in favour of the adoption of daylight saving.
I was not able to attend during all the debate, and possibly what I am about to say may be a repetition of what has been said before. If it is, the House will pardon me. The railway men admit that there is no difficulty in operating the trains where the time changes at divisional points because that is done all over the country. But there are certain places where trains cross the international boundary line which places are not divisional points and where there are no telegraph offices. An engineer running a freight train in the night may be handed an order that he is to stop at a certain hour. Either the train despatcher may make a mistake in not properly calculating the time, or the engineer may make a mis-

take, and there is liable to be an accident.
I am not sufficient of a railway man to answer yes or no to that, or to say whether there is a great deal to it, but I will state this: I have found that most of the things that are held up as reasons for opposing a measure can be overcome if men want to overcome them. I have a great deal more faith in the ability of the Canadian railway companies and their very intelligent employees than to believe that it is impossible that they can work out a little matter like this. If they can work out a change of time at all these different points, moving from east to west across the continent, it seems to me they will not have much difficulty in arranging for changes of time when moving from north to south.
I also realize that it is a great convenience to people living in cities and towns to have the time advanced an hour.
I think any person will admit that. But I do not agree that I am compelled, because of something that is a convenience to the dwellers in the cities and towns, to vote for a measure which, to my own personal knowledge, will result in great loss to the farming community. It is not a question of convenience or inconvenience to the farmers, it is one of absolute money loss; there is not a farmer in this House -I think there is scarcely one in the country-who would not tell you that the change of standard time was a real money loss to him. It is true that the inconvenience is worse in some places than in others; it is very much worse on the western edges of the standards than on the eastern edges. In the town of Riviere du Loup, for example, the adoption of this legislation would only mean the gain of half an hour, and therefore the disadvantage involved would not be very great.
The only great objection, from a business standpoint lies with the railways, and I do not think that is sufficient to justify me in voting to put the farmers of the country to a loss which I am sure they would incur if this legislation goes through. Therefore I will have to vote for the amendment to the amendment and against the resolution.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I rise for the purpose of asking a question, not with any desire to speak again. I understand that the resolution declares it to be expedient to re-enact at once chapter 2 of the statutes of 1918. I. presume that is the Act passed last year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That Act expires
shortly?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When does it expire?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At the end of the current fiscal year.	[DOT]


Robert Lorne Richardson: In that case what
is the object of the amendments? If we vote down the resolution does not that settle the whole question? I think hon. gentlemen should have it established to their satisfaction exactly what they are going to vote on. If the motion is to reenact the Daylight Saving Act, and we vote it down, then the whole thing falls and there is no necessity either for the amendment, or the amendment to the amendment, because the law will expire in three days. Let both amendments be withdrawn, and then members can vote intelligently on the question.


Charles Gavan Power: After having listened for a considerable time to the various opinions expressed, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, I admit, that the inconvenience occasioned to the farmer by the passage of this law will not be greater than the disadvantages which will result to the city worker and dweller should the law not be re-enacted. In common with a great many members of this House I have the greatest possible sympathy with the farming community, so much so that the day before yesterday I voted to remove what I thought was a very substantial grievance under which they were suffering. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a large number of the members of the House who belong to the farming class did not seem to want that grievance removed. Now, Sir, taking those circumstances for granted, I must look to my own constituency, and I find, from letters, telegrams, and communications of all sorts which I have received in the past few days, that the financial, the business, and the working classes of the city of Quebec are almost unanimous in favour of a measure of daylight saving. That being my own conviction as *well as the conviction of my constituency, I will take great pleasure in supporting the resolution introduced by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Cooper).


William Thomas White: The object which the Government
had in view in facilitating the debate upon the motion of the hon. member for South Vancouver has been amply accomplished.

In view of the acute divergence of opinion in the country, and among members of the House, it was felt advisable and eminently proper that an opportunity should be given for a frank, free, expression of opinion, precisely such as we have had to-day. If ever there was a question with which a Government, or a Parliament, had to deal, which might properly be submitted for the opinion of the members of the House of Commons this is one. It is not a party question, nor, as I stated this afternoon, does it involve any political principle. No one will pretend to say that those in the country who are opposed to daylight saving represent substantially any one political party. No one will pretend to say that those in cities and towns who are in favour of daylight saving represent completely or in large measure any political party. It seems to me, therefore, that it was an entirely proper proceeding, and I am very glad to have had the views which have been expressed, particularly those of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) who has had a wide experience as a parliamentarian, and who was for so long a member of the Government of Canada, in support of the view which we have taken. Now it seems to me that Parliament was discharging a function to-day, which it might more frequently be called upon to discharge, and that is to inform the public geneially of Canada as to the opinions which are held in the various sections of the country which are represented in this House upon public questions. I am the first to say that in any matter that involves the policy of the Government, the Government cannot transfer its responsibility to the House.
The executive has its x responsibilities, and the House has its duties, but they are separate and aistinct. The Government cannot escape its responsibility in the matter of policy, and of course its measures must be such as commend themselves at all times to a majority of this House. I do not at all agree therefore with the views put forward by the hon. member for South York that the course which the Government has adopted in this matter is in any way a violation of the principle of governmental responsibility.	"


Samuel William Jacobs: May I interject a remark?
It was made a Government measure last year.


William Thomas White: I am aware of that. It would have been perfectly open for the Government last year to have taken 
the opinion of Parliament on the matter had it so desired.
I do not intend to-night to discuss this question on the merits, because it has been discussed from every angle, and I am exceedingly grateful to all the members of this House who have taken part in this debate and given the Government and the country the benefit of their views. I was aware, generally speaking, of the views which prevailed in the country and in the House, but although I have had information showered upon me from various parts of the country, this debate to-day has been most informing and illuminating and has as I stated before, abundantly justified the policy which has been adopted.
But as to the merits, I have just this to say. It seems to me to be a matter of inconvenience on the one hand and of hardship on the other. I do not mean to say that that will apply to every section of Canada, dividing such section into urban and rural districts; but, generally speaking, it appears to me that whereas in the case of towns and cities there may be inconvenience by reason of the House not adopting daylight saving legislation, at the same time this discussion has abundantly shown that in the farming communities there is more than inconvenience-there is hardship. Let me state further, that I make that assertion having regard to the conditions which prevail to-day. What those conditions will be a year or two years hence I do not pretend to say. But it has been shown in this House that under prevailing conditions with regard to shortage of labour and otherwise, there will possibly be hardship in many of the rural districts if daylight saving legislation is enacted, and that view has been strongly supported in the arguments which we have heard to-day from the representatives of the rural districts.
Now, this is not a Government measure which is under consideration to-night. It is a resolution of a private member which, if it had been reached yesterday, could have been discussed by this House precisely as the House has discussed it to-day; therefore it is open to every hon. member on this side of the House, and of course to every hon. member on the other side of the House, and to every hon. member of this Government, to vote upon this question precisely as he pleases without reference to party lines or to the fact that members of the Government vote one way or vote the other. As for myself, I intend to vote for the amendment to the amendment. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. MARCH 27, 1919
Richardson) has pointed out truly that it would be very much better if we could have a straight vote upon the original resolution, but that is not the position before the House. The position is that one hon. member has moved an amendment which does not, I believe, represent what he intended to move. There is before the House also an amendment to that amendment, and by voting for the amendment to the amendment, as I propose to do, I shall vote against the resolution of the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper).


Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, as I propose to vote on this question differently from what I did last year, I wish to express my opinion on the matter. When this same resolution was presented last year it appeared to me to be not a very sound proposition; I thought it was meddling with something that was outside the jurisdiction of the House, and consequently I voted against it. But after having tried it out for a year I am rather pleased with it, and I think it has been, in our section, a benefit rather than otherwise. I think it is one of the wise measures of the Government,-I am sorry I cannot congratulate them on all the measures that they have brought up and passed.
I can see no special harm in this resolution. I have a telegram to-day from my constituents, and I had a copy of a resolution, which I think has been forwarded to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, asking him to favour this measure; my constituents are very much in favour of it. Personally, whether daylight saving legislation is enacted or not does not affect me very much, because I have always had the habit of getting up before the law requires me to. But, as I say, in my constituency I think this daylight saving measure has had the effect of getting our people up earlier, and when you accomplish that you are moving in the right direction. It does not need any law to keep them out of bed at night, because most of them stay up too late; but if you can induce the population either in the cities or the country to get up earlier, I think it is a step in the right direction. I argued last year the farmer's standpoint, that he required his help in the afternoon, and that a man in the afternoon in haying or harvesting time or other busy seasons was of very much more value to him than a man in the morning That was especially true last year, and the year before probably, when the labourers practically dominated the whole situation. I do not think that the labour condition?
are the same just now as they were last year, and it is not likely they ever will be. Then df your foreman or the man in charge was not feeling very good it was better for him to keep away, because if he appeared before his men looking cross they did not want to stay with him. But this coming season, and probably the seasons to follow, when the farmer goes to town to get help in his haying or harvesting season, while he may have to pay pretty reasonable wages, which is not objectionable, I think he will be able to say to his help anyway, " I will dictate to you to some extent the hours of labour. If I do not ask you to work earlier in the morning, I will expect you to work later in the evening."
The United States have adopted a law putting daylight saving into force from the first day of next month, and that has a peculiar effect upon our railway services crossing the border. For instance, on one particular section of the Canadian Pacific railway whicr passes through the state of Maine, the Maine Central and the Canadian Pacific operate over quite a distance on the same tracks. It would certainly be very inconvenient to have two systems of railways operating on the same tracks but under different schedules. Possibly the same condition prevails in other localities throughout the Dominion. It is quite probable that whether this House adopts the daylight saving system for this year or not, the railways will have to adopt it in order to carry on their work satisfactorily.
I do not think the farmer will suffer by the adoption of this legislation. If he does not want his hired man to start work at seven o'clock, he can tell him to come on at eight o'clock, as under the old system, and work an hour or two later in the evening. It has been said that the labouring class is not in favour of daylight saving. I am informed by the general manager of our business that they expect to put the daylight saving system in force from the first of April whether the Government adopts it or not. I appreciate the position of the farmer, but I believe that the labour conditions are such that he will not have the trouble that he has had in the past. I voted against daylight saving last year because it looked to me like a silly and uncalled-for move, but having tried it out, I am pleased with it. To my mind, anything that has the effect of encouraging people to get up early in the morning is a step in the right direction.


Hon.  T. A. CEEEAE@Minister of Agriculture: This debate has proceeded for five hours during this afternoon and evening, and all the arguments that can be advanced pro and con have been pretty well exhausted. I should like to observe, however, that we have the experience of last year to go upon, and there is no doubt whatever that upon a very considerable part of the population the daylight saving measure did work a hardship last year. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) referred to the fact that the legislation was to be continued in force in the United States for the present year. I think I am correct in stating that had Congress not talked it out, as one hon. gentleman observed this afternoon, the Chances are that the measure would have been repealed. The agitation against it was very strong indeed, and the consideration of its repeal was before Congress at that time.
I am not particularly impressed by the arguments that have been adduced as to the need of re-enacting this legislation in Canada in order to facilitate our railway train service. It is quite true that we may be obliged to alter our railway time tables in Canada so far as international train services, and possibly also so far as trains connecting with international lines, are concerned. But a large number of trains running daily in Canada are not connected with international train services, and there is no reason why they should be affected by the change of time in the United States.
The agricultural population of Canada are a unit in opposing this measure. It affects them peculiarly; it works a hardship upon them. If city dwellers desire to get up earlier in the morning, it is surely not necessary for Parliament to legislate in order to enable them to do so. The member for Sherbrooke on a little reflection will surely realize that that is a fact. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote against the resolution.
Mr. THOMAS M. M. TWEEDIE (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a position similar to that occupied by a great many members of the House with regard to this matter. I supported the Daylight Saving Bill last year, but after a year's experience I find that in the city of Calgary about as many are against the principle of daylight saving as are in favour of it, while in the outlying rural parts almost every one is opposed to it. It seems to me that the consideration of this matter resolves itself into a question

of deciding between convenience and necessity. The necessity is all on the side of the agricultural interests in that district. No necessity is involved, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in the matter of daylight salving a? affecting the people residing in the city; with them it is simply a matter of convenience. I propose to support the policy which has regard to necessity rather than to convenience.
The Bailway War Board was absolutely justified in issuing an order making effective on Canadian railways the same time as they have in the United States. Many Canadian trains go to Boston,, Bangor Portland, Chicago, Detroit and other important centres in the United States, and if the systems running these trains did not adopt the time effective in the United States, the railway systems of the United States would have to alter their time tables to suit the train schedules in Canada in order to prevent traffic from being held up twelve or fourteen hours <at points where connections are made. As the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Crerar) has suggested, local trains not connected with international lines can give the agricultural interests the same service as they are receiving at the present time.


Mr. JOHN FLAWS EEID (Mackenzie):: I cannot see that there is any law which prevents the dwellers in the cities from getting up an hour earlier, if they see fit, and I am sure this House cannot pass any legislation which will compel them to get out of bed an hour earlier. I am opposed to the daylight saving scheme, because it is detrimental to the agricultural interests, and for that reason it is not good for Canada as a whole. I will just read a telegram which I have received from Mr. Morrison, of Toronto, secretary of the Organized Farmers of Ontario:-
Consensus of members' opinions on so-called Daylight Saving almost completely unanimous opposition to it. We do not believe rank and file of towns and cities are in favour of It, if so they can make local arrangements without changing the clocks.
That is all I wish to say in regard to the matter, and it will be my duty to oppose the daylight saving scheme.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (East York):: I did not intend to speak to-night, but so much has been heard from the farmers this afternoon that I want to speak on behalf of the people in the cities. It has been stated that the farmers work fifteen hours a day and have no recreation at all, and that they should have some consideration. I repre-

sent a city of some 550,000 people; Montreal has a population of 750,000 people; Quebec,
150.000	people; Hamilton, 100,000 people; London, 75,000 people; Winnipeg, 150,000 to
200.000	people; Vancouver, 150,000 people, and there are other smaller cities. Surely the people of those cities should have some consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What about Ottawa?
Mr. FOSTER; If I have* omitted any cities with large populations, hon. members are perhaps more familiar with them than I am. The point is that the daylight saving scheme was tried out last year and not one city has complained; the cities are all perfectly satisfied. Resolutions have been passed by the large cities endorsing daylight saving and I have enumerated hundreds of thousands of people who desire daylight saving. As has been said a dozen times, if the farmer wants to continue to work under the same conditions such as have existed for the last hundred years, let him do so, but let the city people work under such conditions as they find is most agreeable and beneficial to them. Surely the hundreds of thousands of people in the banks, factories, and all the other industrial institutions of the cities deserve some consideration. They must have recreation, physical exercise, and if they want to get that by putting the clock an hour forward so as to give them an extra hour in the evening, they should have some say and some Tights in this Dominion. They do not want to have all the say, but surely these hundreds of thousands of people should have somebody to voice their sentiments. I have found such a change in the last twelve months that hon. members are falling over themselves in order to get from under, to get to the other side, to please the farmer. They imagine from the development of the last twelve months* that the farmers are becoming a serious consideration in the political situation of this Dominion, and they want to stand on the right side of that influence. I am not going to be influenced by the farmers of the Dominion so far as to forego the rights of the people in the great cities. Where would Canada be, where would the farmers be if it were not for the consumers in th^great cities? Could the farmer earn a livelihood, notwithstanding his great production, if he did not have the people in the great cities to consume his products? If it were not for the people in the great cities of this Dominion, neither daylight saving nor anything else would be of advantage to the
farmer. The people of the cities are the backbone of this Dominion, financially, mentally and numerically, and it is not right for this House to be lop-sided on this question as it is to-day.
Mr. JAMES BOWMAN (North Huron); It seems to me absurd to add anything to what has already been said in opposition to the re-enactment of daylight saving, as numerous strong arguments have been brought forward in opposition to it, while the few arguments in favour of it have been very feeble. In the first place, I commend the Government for giving hon. members who represent the people of this Dominion an opportunity to say where they stand on this question. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster) claimed, I understand, that the urban population of Canada was in favour of daylight saving. The riding which I represent is composed oi
26,000	people, about one-half of the population being urban and the other half rural. I have not received a petition in support of the re-enactment of the Daylight Saving Act, and I have received from councils and co-operative societies in the riding, as well as from many private individuals, petitions against the reenactment of that measure. But we should go further than simply to depend on such evidence as that as evidence that the people are opposed to daylight saving. At the present time we are trying to place agriculture in this country on a good sound basis. We are also, through the 'Soldiers' Settlement Board, undertaking a very important work in placing our returned soldiers on the land. It is, therefore, very necessary that we should do what we can to make agriculture as profitable as possible, so that when those boys are placed on the land they will be encouraged to remain there. I am very much afraid that if something is not done along that line to aid agriculture, we shall find that the work undertaken by the Soldiers' Settlement Board will be wasted energy.
A number of hon. members, speaking in support of this resolution, have advocated that we should copy the legislation passed by the United States, putting daylight saving into force and effect for the ensuing year. I am not one of those who are prone to copy the legislation of the United States.
The people of Canada are the ones who should be consulted, and whatever legislation we place on the statute book should be in accord with the sentiments of the people of Canada. It has been said that daylight saving

was in .force and has been re-enacted in many of the countries of Europe and in the United States, but that is no argument that it will be in the best interests of Canada. Conditions differ. Canada has largely a rural population, and its people are largely dependent on agriculture, whereas those countries that have enacted daylight saving and are still in favour of it are composed mostly of the urban class. We in Canady should do as we think right, and vote in the interest of the great majority of our people. I have nothing further to say except this: I should feel I was remiss in my duty did I not oppose the resolution which has been brought forward to-day for the purpose of re-enacting the daylight saving measure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The House seems to be in more or less in doubt as to the question. It is largely technical. By adopting the amendment to the amendment a certain expression has been adopted, and that stands as a portion of the question. Technically speaking a portion of the original question still remains, and in order to have it intelligible, to say the least, it ought to be passed, hence the necessity for putting the motion as amended.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Friday, March 28, 1918.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31st, 1918, volume 1-Sir Thomas White.
Summary Report of the Geological Survey (Department of Mines) for the calendar year 1917-Hon. Mr. Maclean.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, recently there appeared in the Canadian press a despatch from

London attributing to the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, the view that no indemnities should be sought from Germany.
I took the liberty of bringing the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I have received from him to-day the following cable:
Paris, March 27, 1919.
Acting Prime Minister,
Ottawa.	[DOT]
Report alluded to is absolutely unfounded and indeed absurd. You are authorized to give absolute and explicit denial to any such statement. We are making .every effort to procure from Germany the fullest indemnity that she is able to pay.	Rorden.


LANDING OF TRANSATLANTIC MAILS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) yesterday asked if Halifax had been substituted for Rimousbi as the port for the landing of the Transatlantic mails, and I promised to make inquiry and reply to the question to-day. I have to say that Halifax has not been substituted for Rimouski, nor is any such change in contemplation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The situation is this: Owing to the interruption of Transatlantic traffic, due to the war, there is no regular line of ships now carrying the Canadian mails. Hence the Post Office Department must make arrangements with whatever vessels are available, and as the majority of these vessels are carrying troops and come under orders with respect to the landing of those troops, the mails are necessarily landed at the port where the disembarkation of troops takes place. There is no intention of changing the permanent policy which has been followed.


WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: In years past it has been the custom of the Government, after the first five or six weeks of the session, to introduce a motion changing the hours of meeting on Wednesdays and making them correspond 'to the hours of meeting on the other days of the week. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce such a motion applicable
to next Wednesday, or the Wednesday following?	,


William Thomas White: The Government will introduce such a motion later on in the session, but I think not before Wednesday, the 16th April. That is to say, I think next Wednesday night will be free and the Wednesday night following. I hope that arrangement will meet with the approval of the House.


OIL-BEARING LANDS-THE SHELL COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of 'the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: T have seen the statement lately in the press that a company known as The Shell Transport and Trading Company has an application before the Government to acquire a monopoly of oil-bearing lands in Western Canada. I would like to know if that statement is true, and if so whether the Government will furnish some details with respect to it.


Arthur Meighen: The company in question has had an application before the Department of the Interior for some time, but it has received no favourable consideration.
DAYLIGHT SAVING-RAILWAY TIME. On the Orders of the Day:


Samuel Hughes: In view of the statements appearing in the press concerning an order supposed to be issued by the Railway War Board, or some railway organization, that the railway clocks are to be set forward on next Monday morning, might I ask the Government if the difficulty will not be met by the railways changing their time-tables instead of making a change of the kind proposed?


John Dowsley Reid: The Railway War Board is composed of the heads of the several railways, and they arrange the manner in which the operation of the railways will take place.


Samuel Hughes: Cannot the railways arrange their time-tables without interfering with the clocks?


John Dowsley Reid: They arrange the timetables, and if there should be any dissatisfaction with any arrangements which the board may make in connection with the operation of any of the railways, the Board of Railway Commissioners, of course, will deal with the matter in the regular way.


DOMINION LANDS SURVEYS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN, Bill No. 10, to amend the Dominion Lands
Surveys Act, was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Examination for admission as articled pupil.
Duncan Campbell Ross: What change does this section make in the present law?


Arthur Meighen: The subject of solid geometry is transferred from the final examination, where it was under the Act of 1908, and made applicable to the preliminary examination. Physics is a new subject.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Examination for commission as a surveyor.
Arthur Meighen: The subjects that are added by this section to the old curriculum are:
Analytical geometry and calculus; levelling, location and construction of roads, principles of irrigation, investigation and calculation of water powers; elementary geology and mineralogy, prairie and forest flora of Western Canada.
This is to bring the standard up to that of other countries for the final examination.


Samuel Hughes: The whole tenor of tlie Bill seems to do away with the possibility of having any one become a Dominion land surveyor who has not passed this technical examination.


Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur Meighen: It is an actual
fact that the outlines in surveying work are now laid by astronomical calculation. In subdivision work that applies as well. Indeed, in much of our surveying the geodetic points are fixed by astronomioal calculation. Astronomy is undoubtedly a most pertinent subject in the necessary curriculum of surveyors. As to the flora' of Western Canada, a man might certainly become a perfect surveyor as far as it would appear to me at least, without a knowledge of that subject; but in the work of surveying in the Dominion Land Surveys Branch we require a report on the character of the land and of the plant life over which the survey extends. This is the cheapest and

most convenient way in which we can get it, and while I do not suppose it is intended to ask a candidate in surveying anything in the nature of a scientific botanical knowledge of the flora of Western Canada, still he ought to know generally how to describe in his report for the records of the department the plant life which he encounters in his surveying work.


An hon. MEMBER:: How does this affect the old surveyors who have been in the employ of the Government for a number of years?


Arthur Meighen: It does not affect them at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Surveying by contract or tender.
Arthur Meighen: The purpose of this
amendment is to enable the day system to be used, instead of making it compulsory to use the contract system. The contract system was abandoned in the United States in 1910 with good results.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the minister mean by the contract system as compared with the day system?


Arthur Meighen: If a certain area is to be surveyed and subdivided, under the contract system that work would he given out by contract, instead of men being employed under the department to do it by day labour.


Samuel Hughes: I do not find in this Bill anything covering those who are Dominion land surveyors under the present Act. Are their rights protected?


Arthur Meighen: Their rights remain
intact.


Samuel Hughes: There is nothing in this Bill in regard to them.


Arthur Meighen: A section would have to be inserted in this Bill, in ordei to affect them. As long as they are not mentioned, their rights are left as they were.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, respecting bankruptcy.
He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill, perhaps it would be well if I were to give to the House a brief explana-
59i	'	!
tion of some of the main provisions of the proposed measure. The subject of bankruptcy and insolvency has not been dealt with by the Parliament of Canada since 1880. As the House is aware, under section 91 of the British North America Act, the question of bankruptcy and insolvency is one of the questions which was left to the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. In 1875, this Parliament passed a Bankruptcy Act, and after two amendments in subsequent years, that Act was finally repealed in 1880, so that for the last thirty-nine years we have had no bankruptcy law in the Dominion of Canada. It seems rather surprising that we should not have had one, because, with the exception of China and Canada, almost every country in the world has bankruptcy laws. Great Britain has a bankruptcy law, and every British Dominion save Canada has one-The operation of the Bankruptcy Act in this country between the years 1875 and 1880 was not regarded as a marked success, and it was urged that the machinery provided was much too cumbersome; that delays in the administration of the Act were very great and tedious; that the whole administration of the Act was expensive, and that too great liberty was permitted to fraudulent debtors to obtain special privileges. The result was that the Act gradually fell into- disfavour and was finally repealed in 1880.
It has been thought proper that another effort should be made to pass an Act having general application throughout the Dominion of Canada. During the interval between the year 1880 and the present time, many of our provincial legislatures attempted .something in the nature of bankruptcy or insolvency legislation. It was at one time doubted whether they had power to pass any legislation in regard to bankruptcy .and insolvency, but that question was set at rest by a judgment of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1894. The province of Ontario,, it may be remembered, undertook to pass an Act in respect of assignments and preferences by insolvent persons; the jurisdiction of that province to pass such an Act was questioned by the Federal authorities and a case followed which went to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. That judicial body held that Ontario was within its jurisdiction in passing that enactment. The ground of that decision was briefly this:
That the provisions of section 9 of Ontario " Act respecting assignments and preferences by
[Stage Direction]
insolvent persons " which relate to assignments purely voluntary, and postpone thereto judgments and executions not completely executed by payment, are merely ancillary to bankruptcy law, and as such are within the competence of the provincial legislature so long as they do not conflict with any existing bankruptcy legislation of the Dominion Parliament,
That decision simply meant that so long as there was no Dominion bankruptcy or insolvency Act in force the provincial legislatures might, by reason of the ancillary jurisdiction which they possessed, pass laws which, while strictly speaking, not bankruptcy or insolvency Acts, related generally to that subject. For instance, while provincial legislatures might provide for the abolition of preferences among creditors, they could not compel a debtor to go into bankruptcy or provide for a discharge to the honest debtor. The provincial powers were exceedingly limited. Only this Parliament can pass a bankruptcy law which will have uniform force and effect throughout the Dominion. One difficulty in the way is the fact that there are so many legislative jurisdictions in this country. In Great Britain, the Bankruptcy Act is a comparatively simple thing, there being but one central legislative authority for the United Kingdom. But in 'Canada there is the Dominion Parliament, as well as nine provincial legislatures, and during the last forty years all the provincial legislatures have made some attempt to pass laws approximating very nearly to bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The effect of the passage of this measure by this Parliament will be to abrogate and annul the existing provincial laws upon bankruptcy and insolvency.
There is another difficulty in our way. In eight of the provinces of the Dominion the basic principle which has been adopted is the English common law, while in the province of Quebec the basic principle is the civil law, and a considerable distinction exists between the two. In the drafting of the present Bill an effort has been made to unify, as far as possible, the laws of the various provinces. The object of the Bill is to give uniformity in all commercial matters pertaining to bankruptcy, to the extent of abolishing all preferences or priorities as between creditors, and allowing all creditors to share equally in the estate of an insolvent debtor.
In the next place, the object is to provide an expeditious means of administering an insolvent estate, and at the same time to render that administration as inexpensive as possible. In the third place, and this is one of the main objects of the Bill, provision is made for the honest insolvent 
receiving, under certain conditions, an absolute discharge from further obligations; that is, the man who has fairly and fully disclosed his business dealings and handed over his assets to the trustee.
This Bill was before the House last session, but not exactly in its present form. Last year, it was referred to a special committee, which held twenty-five prolonged meetings and examined very carefully the provisions of the Bill. The Bill was reported to the House, but the session was then so far advanced that it was impossible to give it any further attention before prorogation. During the interval certain changes and amendments have been proposed to the Bill as it was reported from the committee last year. While there aro a great many changes in the present Bill, with the exception of one or two the amend-rnents are not in any sense radical. The object has been to follow as closely as possible the phraseology of the English Act, although that has not been possible in many of the sections. Most of the changes that have been made are changes in phraseology.
One radical change, however, has been made. The Bill presented last year applied to all persons, firms and corporations doing business in Canada, with the exception of farmers and wage-earners earning not more than $1,500 a year; but the compulsory clauses of the Bill did not apply to corporations. The present Bill has been changed in that respect, making all corporations subject to its provisions. The various clauses of the Winding-up Acts in our Canadian statutes have been incorporated in the present measure, so that this Bill, if it become law, will apply to all persons, firms and corporations except banks, railway companies, trust companies, and in-suirance companies, which are governed by special Acts, and to all persons except farmers and wage-earners earning less than $1,500 a year. Farmers may take advantage of the Act, but they cannot be forced into bankruptcy against their own wishes. If they desire the benefits of the Act they can receive them by making an assignment. The Bill, of course, is somewhat complicated, and contains a vast number of provisions which are more or less technical.
The machinery for administering the Act is to be the Superior Courts of the provinces. The Bill does not seek to establish any new court for the administration of the bankruptcy laws. It has been suggested that a bankruptcy court might give greater uniformity, but this would involve

a very large increase in the judiciary of Canada.
Edmond Proulx: Have the county courts jurisdiction in bankruptcy?


Hugh Guthrie: Not under this Bill. I assume that the principle of the Bill will receive the approval of the House, and I think that when the Bill itself comes under discussion in detail, many useful suggestions will be made. The Government do not for a moment consider that the measure is a perfect one, but it is as nearly perfect as they have been able, after a great deal of effort, to make it, and they will gladly accept any useful suggestions that may be made by way of amendment, as we carefully consider the Bill section by section. If the Bill is permitted to have its second reading, when it reaches the Committee stage every facility will be given the House for the fullest possible discussion in order to remedy any imperfections that may exist in the various complicated sections. The Bill also applies to the Yukon Territory, and the District Court of the Yukon is the tribunal specified there.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At this stage I have very little to say regarding the Bill, as it is only within the last two or three minutes that it has been distributed and hon. members have not had an opportunity of studying its provisions. I have carefully followed the explanation made by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie), and I agree with him that a bankruptcy law for Canada should be very useful. It is no doubt a necessary piece of legislation. Not having had opportunity to examine the Bill, I have nothing further to say at present; but I might suggest to the hon. Solicitor General that perhaps it might be well not to press it in Committee to-day, as hon. members, not being familiar with its terms, are not in a position to offer proper criticism.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
That it is expedient to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914, by providing that the annual fee for a license to operate a salmon cannery or salmon curing establishment in British Columbia for commercial purposes shall be five hundred dollars, and in addition, four cents for each
case of forty-eight one-pound cans, or the equivalent thereto, of soekeye salmon, and three cents for each case of forty-eight one-pound cans, or the equivalent thereto, of any other species of salmon, including Steel Head (salmo rivularis) packed in such cannery during the continuance in force of the license; and the said five hundred dollars shall be paid before the license is issued1, and the remainder of the license fee shall be paid as the minister may from time to time by regulation prescribe.
He said: The resolution is self-explanatory, namely that it is the intention to increase the annual license fee for canneries to $500.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Increased from what amount?


William Findlay Maclean: Some two or three
years ago this matter, together with many others incident to the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, was the subject of an inquiry by a commission, one of the recommendations of which was that the salmon cannery license fee should be $1,000. The present license fee is $100. It was not deemed advisable to make the license fee $1,000, but rather to increase it to $500. The proposal seems to be approved by all interested parties in British Columbia, so far as I have been able to ascertain. There was some opposition to it, of course, but inasmuch as the salmon fisheries of British Columbia are regarded as a monopoly it is generally considered but fair that the amount of the license should be $500. When I say that the salmon fisheries of British Columbia are in the nature of a monopoly, I mean that those who are interested in the business carry it on by virtue of a license. A license is issued for the various contrivances that are used to catch fish, and the canneries must also have a license. It is conceded that it would not be in the interests of the industry to allow every one to catch or can fish, and inasmuch as those who are permitted to engage in the industry do so by virtue of a license, their business is to that extent a monopoly. It is therefore deemed proper by the department- that those who enjoy the privilege should pay more for it than they do at present.


Duncan Campbell Ross: Can any one pay a license?


William Findlay Maclean: Oh no, they are limited in number according to locality. It is always desirable to license but a limited number of fishermen or canneries in any district. Some districts will stand more fishermen and canneries than others, according to the quantity of fish that periodically visit those waters. It is a matter of much dispute in British Colum-

bia as to the number of canneries and fishermen that should be licensed, but the consensus of opinion is that there should be some limitation. Every one who desires a license, or applies for one, cannot get it and in that respect the officers of the department responsible for the administration of the law must do the best they can and give licenses to those whom they believe, to deserve them most. It is also believed that this increase in the license to $500 will meet the expenditure made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in connection with the administration of the salmon fisheries of British Columbia. To-day it costs more than $200,000 to administer the fisheries in that province. It is thought that this increased license will yield a revenue considerably above that amount and it is hoped that the department will be able to do more to encourage the fisheries of British Columbia and also to expend more money in the administration of the law. It is my intention at the proper stage to send this Bill to the Fisheries Committee.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I do not profess to know very much about the fisheries of British Columbia but it would appear to me that it will only be strengthening the monopoly to make the license fee as large as $500. The same question arose in Eastern Canada in regard to the lobster fisheries. It was contended by the packers that it would be a good thing to have a limited number of canneries because there were not	enough fish	to supply
a large number	of canneries. It
is the same argument that is used in British Columbia.	That was always
resisted by	the people	in	Eastern
Canada who wished the industry to be thrown open to any man who could erect a factory and equip it. It was felt that he should be allowed to do so; otherwise the business is bound to fall into
4	p.m. the hands of a few people who will put up the prices on the consumer. If we charge $500 for a license to catch salmon I assume that the man who packs salmon will get that money out of the consumer. We are also charging four cents a case on the fish packed and that will represent a very large sum of money payable by the packers of British Columbia. These packers will turn this account over to the people who consume the fish and we are assisting them in making the price of the salmon higher than it otherwise would be. What do we get for it? It strikes me that we do not get

anything while we are making it possible for the few people who are engaged in packing salmon to create a monopoly. What do the public get out of this? The minister has not told us any benefit that is coming to the public from this change. I can easily see that it will be an advantage to the packer. I am not interested in the packer. 1 am interested in the people who consume the salmon. I would like the minister to explain, if there is any explanation, how this change that we are now asked to make in the law will in any sense benefit the consumer.
Mr. MiACLEAN (Halifax): It might perhaps be difficult to answer directly the question which my hon. friend from Guysborough has put to me. As I stated before, it is impossible to administer the salmon fisheries of British Columbia without the granting to a limited number of people only the right to fish and to can salmon. That is conceded; nobody, as far as I am advised, will question that statement. It is not questioned by the citizens of British Columbia or by the fishermen of that province. It is conceded universally, I think, that the fisheries must be administered by a system of licenses. It is disputable, of course, whether in any given water any given number of licenses should be issued. Every day there are applications from fishing sections in British Columbia for licenses to fish and can salmon, but they can not be granted. That is conceded, even by those who apply for them, and who are very frequently refused licenses.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the reason that they cannot be granted?


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Because of the nature of the salmon fisheries. They would be very rapidly destroyed if the fish were caught in too great quantities in any one season. I do not intend to go into the history of this particular species of fish this afternoon. I think that had better be reserved for the special committee or in Committee of the Whole House, but there are several reasons why this particular fishery must be protected. The salmon of British Columbia breed in the headwaters of the lakes and streams of the province. They then proceed when young to the sea. They return after two or three years to the place from whence they came and in proceeding back they are caught or proceed to their spawning grounds where they die. As a matter of fact but few return to the sea .because they die on the return to the breeding ground if they

are not caught by the fisherman. It is necessary that not all the fish proceeding to the place whence they originally came be caught; otherwise they would be extinguished. My hon. friend opposite seems to think that an increase in the license fee will be a disadvantage to the consumer. I do not think that is correct, inasmuch as if the persons licensed to catch or can salmon have a monopoly it is only proper that they return a part of the profit to the Government. That is the principle of the resolution.


Mr. CAHILL:: Will they not be allowed to increase the price to the cohsumer to the extent of the extra charge for the license?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know. My hon. friend might as well put that question to me concerning any other commodity that is offered for sale.


Frank S. Cahill: We are not making a monopoly in any other commodity.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The salmon catch of British Columbia is marketed the world over. The greater proportion of the catch is marketed not in Canada but in Great Britain. I do not think that the additional fee proposed under this resolution will increase the price at all. But it is felt, and very properly so, in British Columbia, that they who have this privilege conferred upon them by a license from a department of the Government should pay a tax to the country, and that is one of the reasons for this proposed increase in the fee.
Some hon. gentlemen may object to the -fee of $500 as being too small and they might do so with very good reason. However, the judgment of the officers of the department is that, for the time being at least, $500 is sufficient. It is to be understood that that is not the only tax the canners must pay. Hon. gentlemen will see by the terms of the resolution that they will also be obliged to pay four cents for each case of forty-eight one-pound cans, or the equivalent thereto, of Sockeye salmon, and three cents for each case of forty-eight one-pound cans, or the equivalent thereto, of any other species of salmon, including Steel Heads, packed in such cannery during the continuance in force of the license. That provision has always been in the statutes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the weight mentioned there the lobster pound or the salmon pound?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Exactly the
same condition prevails in British -Columbia ;n respect to the content of the salmon can
as obtains in the Maritime Provinces in regard to the content of the lobster can.


Mr. DUFF:: I would like the minister
to give us a little information as to how these licenses are granted. It seems to me that the argument which he advanced 'as to the likelihood of the extermination of salmon if more licenses are granted is altogether different from what can be urged with respect to other species of fish. I do not presume to know very much about salmon fishing in British Columbia, but I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman when he says that the salmon which go up the river one year to spawn will all be exterminated. The minister does not seem to realize that the salmon spawn before or .after, going up the river, and while perhaps the old fish may be caught that year, millions of spawn have been deposited on the banks of the river which in the following year will grow into salmon, and consequently are ready to be caught the following year, or in ye'ars afterwards. I would also like the minister to state why these license fees have been increased from $100 to $500? If the fishermen have asked for that increase I think it is good legislation, but if it has been made at the demand of the canners, who wish to prevent other people from going into the business, I do not think it can be so designated. I have had	a little	experience in connection with our fisheries, and I think that every fisherman who wants to catch salmon should be allowed to do so. Then I would draw attention to the matter of the weight of title cans. The resolution states -that there shall be an -additional fee of four cents

speaking of Sockeye salmon

for each case of forty-eight one-pound cans. Now if the -minister wants to make this resolution harmonize with that which he previously introduced in regard to lobsters, he mu^t provide that the can shall contain -sixteen ounces, or else change the resolution to read that the fee -shall be four cents for each case -of forty-eight twelve-ounce cans, each case of forty-eight thirteen-ounce can-s, and so on, specifying the weight of the can from one ounce up.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In regard to the last poin't raised by the hon-. gentleman, I would say that it is proposed to introduce legislation this session compelling all manufacturers of food supplies to expose upon the containers the exact contents of each can, which legislation will apply in this case. As a matter of fact, the British Columbia salmon can to-day,

while called a pound can, does not contain sixteen ounces of salmon meat.


William Duff: It seems to me the hon. gentleman should change the resolution, because it specifically refers to one-pound cans, and one pound certainly means sixteen ounces.


William Findlay Maclean: That will be provided for in another Bill.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914, founded on the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) Bill No. 19 (Letter A of the Senate) to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, was read the second time.
John Dowsley Reid: As this Bill is a very lengthy one, and there are a number of persons that desire to be heard with reference to some of its clauses, I would move, with the consent of the House, that it be referred to a special committee composed of: Messrs. Armstrong (Lambton), Carvell, Reid (Grenville), Green, McCurdy, Nesbitt, Mow'at, Tweedie, Wallace, Morphy, Reid (MacKenzie), Davidson, Maekie (Renfrew), Allan, Boys, Crothers, Stevens, Lemieux, Murphy, Sinclair (Antigonish and Guys-borough), Kennedy, Cahill, Ross, Casgrain, Copp, Demers and Molloy, with power to report from time to time, 'and that Rule No. 11 be suspended in relation thereto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As no notice has been given of this motion it can only be accepted with the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act (Aid for Railway Crossings) was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-Grant continued for ten years.
John Dowsley Reid: This extends the time
so as to allow the Board of Railway Com-
missioners to pay a portion of the cost of removal of dangerous crossings for another ten years.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does it apply to the Government railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I intend bringing
in a Bill later on to cover all the Government owned railways.


John Ewen Sinclair: What does it apply to?


John Dowsley Reid: All railways under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does it apply to the Canadian Northern?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, to every Dominion incorporated railway. The sums expended from this fund from 1909 to 1919, do not appear to be very large. They are:
1909-4/910,	$70,00 ;	1910-1911,	$69,109.18;1911-1912,	$7,643.14;	1912-1913,	$20,807.38;1913-1914, $39,968.11;	1914-1915,	$92,099.48;1915-1916,	$47,079.99;	1916-1917,	$46,630.53;1917-1918, $13,740.85 ;	1918-1919	(to March
12th), $2,336.85.
We have not used a very large amount out of the fund voted each year, but we thought it was as well to continue the provision pending the enactment of the new Railway Bill.


John Howard Sinclair: It would .appear from the minister's statement that this Act is of no service to those parts of Canada served by the Government railways. On the Intercolonial Railway there are a great number of dangerous crossings, but so far as I know nothing has been done towards eliminating them. The hon. minister says that the Government railways may be brought under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and in that case I suppose the same law will apply as to other railways, but at the present time it is unsatisfactory. If that condition of affairs is going to continue, I would like the hon. minister to consider whether some arrangement could not be made by which the Government itself would take steps to eliminate these dangerous crossings, or unite with the municipalities in doing so.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no doubt that the Government railways in the lower provinces will be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners within a very short time, and of course this provision will apply there as well as to any other part of Canada. I have been over the Intercolonial, and I know there are some very dangerous crossings, but I sup-

pose the same condition applies to other railways. The difference is that in most of those cases on the Intercolonial they were urging the Government probably to do a greater proportion of the work than this section would cover. Under this section the railway, the municipality, and the Government each contribute a certain proportion of the cost of protection.


John Howard Sinclair: How
many people were killed last year at these dangerous crossings?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the new Railway Bill as it left the Commons last session had a clause in it, with the consent of the then and the present Minister of Railways, placing the Government railways under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission.


John Dowsley Reid: That is so.


William Duff: Do the Board of Railway Commissioners order the replacement of dangerous level crossings by overhead crossings, or simply the protection of level crossings?


John Dowsley Reid: It is for the Board of Railway Commissioners to decide whether the removal shall be by subway or overhead.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A certain amount of money is paid out of the public exchequer to the agency that is constructing this work, because it is not Government work, and the aggregate amounts to a considerable sum of money. It would be well foT the House and the Committee to know under what system the parties to these crossings are entitled to get a contribution from the Treasury.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The department pays
out the money on the order of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Why do we not make the extension for two years instead of ten, so that in two years, when our railway policy is more clearly determined, we may decide what should be done?


John Dowsley Reid: If the new Consolidated Railway Bill is passed, it will probably supersede this Bill. The former Act was for ten years, and I prefer renewing the former Act as it stood.


Thomas Vien: I object to giving this
authorization for ten years, and I am going to move that the word "two" be substituted for the word "ten." If the Consolidated Railway Bill supersedes this, the change will not cause any great inconvenience to the Government. On the other hand, if the Consolidated Railway Bill does not supersede this, when that Bill is being discussed in committee, the same objection will probably be raised. I move, seconded by Mr. Duff:
That the word " ten " be replaced by the word " two " in the sixth line of section 1 of this Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the new Consolidated Railway Bill supersedes this one there will be in it a clause cancelling this measure. If the new Consolidated Railway Bill does not. supersede this one, and nothing else interferes, no better legislation could pass through the House than this to assist in doing away with level crossings. I see no reason why we should not continue this legislation for ten, or even twenty years.


Thomas Vien: We are now taking control of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if we can judge from the announcements of the Government to the House we are also going to take control of the Grand Trunk. When this is done there will be in Canada only two railway systems, the Canadian Government Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, neither of which require this aid to carry out the changes in dangerous railway crossings. Surely the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are able to do this work without the help of the Government, and so far as the Canadian Government Railways are concerned, this means simply transferring the money from one department to another. It may be advisable for the next two years to retain this item in the Estimates and to vote it, because we have not as yet taken over the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific

and the Grand Trunk, but I do not see why we' should give this authorization for ten years. I do not believe it will be required for ten years, and I think we should economize and at the end of two years refrain from expending this sum of $200,000 a year.


John Dowsley Reid: There would not be any difficulty for the hon. member, if he so desires, to ask, at the end of two years, that this legislation be repealed. I think this is a good measure, and even if we take over those two roads, I will press that this law be continued, because I think we should remove these level crossings. If the hon. member's suggestion should prevail, there will be no authority to order that dangerous railway crossings be removed. I would rather that even the full amount of $200,000 a year be paid for ten years if the result will be the saving of lives at these crossings. As a rule, the crossings ordered to be removed are those where life has been lost. This legislation refers only to crossings built prior to 1909, and surely we should give assistance to have them removed wherever it is found necessary that they should be removed. If the new Consolidated Railway Bill supersedes this measure, this difficulty will cease to exist, but we have now been trying for three years to get that Bill passed.


Thomas Vien: The minister has not
answered my arguments at all. He says that in two years, if he thinks it advisable, he will have this law repealed.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that. I said
that if the hon. member finds after two years that, in his opinion, the Act should be repealed, it will be for him to make a motion to that effect. I do not want this legislation repealed until the end of ten years.


Thomas Vien: It would be much simpler
to make it two years, than make it ten, and repeal the Act after the end of the two years. The minister has not answered my other arguments at 'all. I am strongly in favour of dangerous crossings being done away with, but I contend that the expense in connection therewith should be borne by the railway companies and by the municipalities concerned, not by the public. It would be very easy when the Railway Act comes up for consideration so to amend it as to give authority to the Board of Railway Commissioners to order any changes that are required to make dangerous crossings safe, the expense to be borne by the municipalities and the railway companies, whether it be the Canadian National Rail-
[ M r. Vien.]
ways or the Canadian Pacific. It is not a question of not removing the danger; the question is, who shall bear the expense of removing it? I think the railway companies can well afford to pay the expense of making these crossings safe, and they are the ones who should be made to pay, together with the municipality concerned. Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
lOGMiPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE KILLED OR INJURED.
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill No. 30, to amend an Act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
On section 1-Compensation payable out of Consolidated Revenue Fund as may be authorized:
John Howard Sinclair: When the resolution was under discussion, I suggested that the Provident Fund be devoted exclusively to pensions for retired employees of the road. I should like to hear from the minister with regard to that. Another point I made was that a certain class of employees on the Government railways does not appear to be provided for under this Act. If that is so, it is an important omission. The Act provides for all those who are employees according to the terms of the Provident Fund. Is it true that a certain class of employees on the Government railways are not provided for in this Act?


John Dowsley Reid: All permanent employees of the Government railways are supposed to be members of the Provident Fund, and all employees, whether permanent or temporary, come under either the Compensation Act or the Provident Fund.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Even temporary employees?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they come under one or the other.
In order to change the present Provident Fund Act the employees would have to approve of such change for the reason that they are subscribers to that fund. The largest part of it is subscribed by the members of that organization, and the Government could not undertake any change with-

out their consent. The present proposed changes are the result of a careful investigation of the whole matter by the solicitor of the Government railways, who has discussed the situation with the principals of the different organizations that subscribe to the Provident Fund. The employees of the Government railways have several organizations. They are union men, and the conductors, the engine drivers, the brakesmen, and others all have separate societies. In order that I might satisfy the House that this Bill, in the form in which it is, had received the approval of the employees, I brought into the House some days ago a memorandum signed by the heads of these different organizations in which there was a request that this legislation should be enacted. A number of employees who are superannuated and who availed themselves of this fund several years ago consider that the pension they are now receiving is far too small under present conditions. This matter has been brought to the attention of the organization, but so far no change has been agreed on. When I brought this matter up in the House a few days ago I expressed the opinion that there was a necessity for some arrangement whereby these different funds or benefits to the employees should be consolidated in one law in order to provide that employees in any part of the country might receive the same benefits as those elsewhere. I have made inquiries concerning the nature of the organization of the Canadian Northern Railway as regards the insurance fund-for this is really an insurance fund-and I find that it is entirely different from the Provident Fund of the Intercolonial Railway. The Grand Trunk Railway employees also have a different system, and if we could bring them all under one organization or under Government ownership a considerable advantage to all would acrue. When the 'Compensation Bill was discussed last year I stated that I had consulted the members of the Provident Fund who had expressed themselves at that time as being perfectly satisfied with the Bill, and I added that if the Act were found in practice to be unsatisfactory in any respect it could be amended at this session. Now the two main objects of this Bill are these: First, to provide for the payment to each province of its proportion of the cost of operation of the Compensation Act; and, second, in respect of cases in which employees were killed who had not elected, prior to the accident, what fund they would take advantage of. There was no way by which the dependents of such men could obtain the benefits of the Compensation Act or the Provident Fund. Two such cases were called to my attention by the hon. member for Kamouraska, and for that reason I have inserted the clause making it retroactive.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not want to be over critical of the Bill because I am heartily in favour of it, but I am still inclined to believe that there is a class of employees in the Government railways who are not provided for at all under this Bill. To say that they are provided for under the existing law is not strictly correct. Under the Provident Fund the only accident for which there is provision is permanent disablement. Am I correct in that statement?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no provision in the Provident Fund Act for a man temporarily disabled. If a man loses a finger or has his leg broken, there is no provision for him under the Provident Fund which, as I understand it, provides for old age pensions and men permanently disabled. Men who are permanently incapacitated are put on the same basis as pensioners. That exhausts the Provident Fund. Now we come to this Compensation Bill. The minister tells us that the men who are provided for under this compensation are permanent employees of the railway. I do not think that is very satisfactory. To give an illustration. A man who was working in connection with a steam shovel gets injured while engaged in such work. If he is not a permanent employee of the railway he does not come under the Provident Fund, neither does he come under this fund. If I understood the minister correctly he said that permanent employees-


John Dowsley Reid: What I said was this: Any employee of the Intercolonial or the Government railways, even though he is a labourer and has been at work only a day, if he is employed on the Intercolonial railway at the time of the accident then he comes under the Compensation Act of last session. So that every employee of the Intercolonial railway or the Government railways will come under one Act or the other. I think I have made myself Clear. The Provident Fund applies only to permanent employees.


John Howard Sinclair: It is stated in this section what class of people this Act applies to. It will apply to any

one who is employed within the meaning of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees Provident Fund Act. The Minister says that that includes every person working for the Government railways, even a labourer.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that.


John Howard Sinclair: Well
then, this Aot does not apply because it specifies those who are employed within the meaning' of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees Provident Fund Act.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


John Ewen Sinclair: If the labourer I referred to in my illustration is not an employee in the sense of this Act, then this does not apply to him.


John Dowsley Reid: The Provident Fund Act does not apply.


John Ewen Sinclair: There is no provision under this Act for any man unless he is a permanent employee.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is quite right. A temporary employee would not receive any benefits from the Provident Fund. He would receive it under the Compensation Act.


John Ewen Sinclair: If so that is quite satisfactory to me.


Samuel William Jacobs: When the Act of 1918 was passed I raised an objection to the restriction which was inserted in the Bill limiting the responsibility of the Government railway to only one of these funds. The question now comes up again. It is declared in this Bill that the injured party must make election as to which fund he intends to draw from and if he is to draw anything under the Compensation Act he is not entitled to come under the Provident Fund. As the minister has just stated, a very large proportion of this Provident Fund is contributed by the employees themselves. It is nothing more or less than insurance. The employees pay for this. Although there have been clauses inserted in the Provident Fund Acts relating to railway companies, (not under the control of the Dominion) limiting the responsibility of the railways and declaring where a party becomes a member bf the provident society he renounces any claim to other damages, the Privy Council has decided that it is absolutely illegal and that the Provident Fund is an insurance fund. The employees pay for participation in that fund and they are entitled to its benefits irrespective of the re-

sponsibility of the company under the Compensation Act. Why should the Government attempt to restrict its responsibility to the Compensation Act or to the Provident Fund where the ordinary railways are responsible under both? That is isomething that the Government has attempted to enact by legislation which is denied to it under the common law. The Grand Trunk Railway 'Company to-day have a provident fund. It is declared that it is an insurance fund and the question of election or not does not cut any figure. Why will the Government insist upon putting itself in a better position than the ordinary railways of the country? It is quite wrong and the portion of the Bill which declares that the employee must elect which of the funds he is to draw from should be struck out. I would therefore move in amendment that the words:
11 Unless he elects to accept prior or subsequent to the injuries such compensation in lieu of the allowance payable under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, section twelve, Class D, and gives notice in writing of such election."
That the words ** unless he elects to accept prior " be struck out.
In that way the employee will be entitled to participate in both funds. One is the Act under which he pays for insurance and the other is the Compensation Act, and which provides for the compensation to which he is entitled.


Mr. McMASTER:: Is this Provident Fund composed altogether of contributions from the men, or does the Government also contribute?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government pay $100,000 a year towards this fund, and, therefore, if this amendment is carried, the Government will be paying twice. They will be paying the money that they are paying into this Provident Fund and they will also be paying under the Compensation Act.
Mr. McMfASTER: I think that a middle ground should be taken in regard to this matter. I think it is quite unjust and unfair to ask a man, in order to avail himself of a right which the law gives him, to waive his right to a fund to which he himself has contributed. It would seem that the proper attitude for the Government would be this: A man, if he is hurt should be entitled to have the proportion of the fund that his subscription would bear to the whole fund. The Government should not be obliged to pay twice, but I think a certain portion of the fund should be given a man as the insurance to which he has contributed and then he ought besides to have the right of

compensation that any other employee has from his employer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would put the railway employee in a different position from, every other class of employees in the country?


Samuel William Jacobs: Because he pays for it?
Mr. M1ACLEAN (Halifax): He does not pay for it entirely because the Government contributes a certain amount annually. That was done because at that time there was no compensation law applicable to the railway employee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I quite accede to the proposition that the Government should not be obliged to pay twice, but it seems to me that a man should not be obliged .to give up rights in a fund to which he has contributed in order to get his rights in another fund. There should be some allowance made for the man. He should receive something from the Provident Fund as well as getting the ordinary compensation under the law. You might express it in this way: A man who works for an ordinary employer is hurt. He has been carrying an accident insurance policy. He is entitled to certain payments under that accident insurance policy and he is also entitled to ask his employer to indemnify him for the loss he has suffered under the ordinary law of the land. In this case if the employee has contributed to a provident fund he should be entitled to withdraw a certain amount from that fund, and he should also be able to get compensation under the law of the land. Inasmuch as the insurer has also subscribed to the fund, in the case of the Government, the Government should not be obliged to pay twice, and it would be quite fair when a man is to take his compensation qua employee that he should not be paid full compensation from the Provident Fund. But he should not be obliged to waive all his rights to the Provident Fund in order to avail himself of his rights to compensation as against the Government who happens to be his employer.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to the Provident Fund and Compensation Act, I have had these matters up with the employees and there has not been any question raised. * The employees are satisfied. We have been trying to make the Provident Fund Act and the Compensation Act satisfactory to them. This Bill is all that they have asked for or suggested. I would think
5	p.m. that it would be better to carry out the wishes of the employees.
I take the same position to-day that I did last year. Let this Bill go through, see how it works out and if it is found that the employees are not receiving the benefits that they should receive under either of these Acts, I have no hesitation in saying that I will come back again and ask that the Act be amended so that there will be no injustice to any employees and that they may receive all the benefits under these Acts. Then again, I think we will probably have to have a new Act to apply to the whole of the railways. I would not like to interfere with the Provident Fund Act at this particular time without again taking it up with the employees. As I have been trying for some time to make it satisfactory to them and to cover every point they raised, I would not like to amend the Bill now.


Samuel William Jacobs: I pointed out to the minister last year that the law is directly against his contention. As to whether the employees are satisfied or not, that is not the question before us to-day. Sometimes the employees of a railway company are perforce obliged to be satisfied, or they may find themselves looking for a job. As I indicated to the minister last year, the decision of the Privy Council was to the effect that money paid out of a Provident Fund is no compensation at all to the employee; it is purely and simply an insurance. Why should this employee be obliged to pay into the Provident Fund, this insurance fund, and afterwards elect as to whether he is going to take the ordinary compensation which is provided for by the common law, or take this insurance for which he pays? Why should he pay a penny for this insurance if he is not going to get anything out of it? He could put his money into his pocket, he could buy two per cent, if he wishes, and fall back on the ordinary compensation law. But here he pays into the Provident Fund and gets nothing. He puts his penny into the slot and takes nothing from it. I say that if you take this money from this man as an insurance you are obliged to pay him the whole, or part of it, irrespective of the compensation to which he is entitled under the common law. As to being satisfied with it, is not a question for this House. This is a question of right and justice.


John Dowsley Reid: ,1 take issue with the hon. gentleman. The House has voted $100,000, and we are putting up that amount each year as insurance under the Compensation Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: The men have a right under the law of the land to get it. How much are the men paying into the fund?
Mr. 'REID: I admit it, but they are not paying one dollar into the compensation fund. They will receive greater benefits under the fund we are subscribing to as an insurance. I have not got the figures here, but I do not think they are paying any more.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister told us a few minutes ago, that a very large percentage of the Provident Fund is paid for by the employees.


John Dowsley Reid: They do pay a large percentage, there is no doubt about it at all. At all events, we are paying $100,000, and if the employees wish to take advantage of the Compensation Act there is no reason why they should not do so. However, I took this matter up with some of the employees and discussed it with them, and they think it is fair; I have never heard one of them complain yet. Now, until the matter is brought up and discussed with the employees and they say they are not satisfied, or until we get an opportunity of enacting a statute that will give the same treatment to an employee in Halifax as to an employee in Vancouver, I am in favour of continuing as we are. I want to do everything I can for the employees.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then agree to my amendment.


John Dowsley Reid: Agree to your amendment?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I will agree to any amendment that the employees and the management of the Government railways will say is fair and just, but so long as the employees themselves have not raised the question and say that the present plan is fair and just, I am going to accept their views and not those of the hon. gentleman.


Charles Murphy: Whan the minister says he has taken the matter up with the employees and discussed it with them, I assume that he is speaking generally. The hon. gentleman, does not, I assume, intend to convey to the committee that he has taken up and discussed with the employees the special clause covered by the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs).


John Dowsley Reid: What I have done is what any man would do. I have taken the matter up with representatives of the Provident Fund and with the employees.


Charles Murphy: Generally.
fMr. J. D. Reid.]


John Dowsley Reid: There was a representative here last year, and instead of taking it up with him I asked the solicitor of the department to go into the whole matter of the Provident Fund and deal with it, and then come back with a memorandum saying what the employees wanted, in order that I could assure the House that the employees were satisfied. He came back with this memorandum signed by eight or ten of the heads of the Provident Fund. Until I receive a complaint of some kind or another, some evidence of dissatisfaction, or some complaint such as was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) last year to show that an injustice might be done to employees, I prefer to carry out their wish as they have submitted it to me. If this is so important a matter, why has there not been a complaint made to me by the employees? I have never heard of it from the time the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) raised the question last year, and the hon. gentleman knows that every word he said then, and every word I said-indeed every word that has been said here to-day-is	taken cognizance of
by the committees of the Provident Fund. If the employees have any complaints, I am willing to come back to Parliament and apply for legislation to remedy their grievances, and make that legislation retroactive, until such time as the Compensation Act can be introduced. That is what I am trying to carry out, I do not think there could be anything fairer.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the minister wish the House to believe that he took up this question with the employees of the railway, and pointed out to them that this Provident Fund was an insurance, and that they would be entitled to that in any event, under the judgment of the Privy Council, irrespective of the Compensation Act, and did the employees who were interviewed say they were satisfied with one fund and not with the two funds?


William Findlay Maclean: The Provident Fund is not altogether an insurance scheme, because Section 12 of the Employees' Provident Fund Act provides as follows with respect to Class D:
Those who are permanently disabled from following their usual occupation in the service as a result of injuries received while on duty and actually at work in the service.
I assume that was to provide a scheme for workmen's compensation for injuries.


Samuel William Jacobs: They pay for it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Samuel William Jacobs: That is what the Privy Council decided.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not quite satisfied that the point was ever before the Privy Council.


Samuel William Jacobs: Look at the case of Miller and the Grand Trunk Eailway decided about ten years ago by the Privy Council.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I daresay some matters which involved the Provident Fund Act were before the Privy Council, but I am very doubtful whether the particular point we are discussing was ever before that tribunal.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is a matter for Parliament to say whether an employee of the Government railways is entitled to compensation from two separate funds,-that is, to be a beneficiary under the Act of last session and under the Provident Fund Act. I quite agree that he should not lose his rights under the other provisions of the Provident Fund Act. There is something in that contention.


Ernest Lapointe: The ease of Millqr and the Grand Trunk was an action for damages on behalf of an employee of the Grand Trunk who had been killed, and the Grand Trunk sought to evade its responsibility by pleading that the man was a member of such a fund as the Provident Fund (which has been created for the Government railways); that it was contributing to that fund every year, and that the employee agreed not to sue the company for any damages because of that contribution. The Grand Trunk succeeded before the courts of this country, but the Privy Council decided that the Provident Fund was to be considered as insurance, and that the agreement signed by this employee did not relieve the company from its liability.


John Dowsley Reid: In that case was the man killed?
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska!: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The Provident Fund does not apply in such a case, and the Compensation Act was brought in for that reason.


Ernest Lapointe: But the Privy Council decided that it was to be considered merely as insurance; that the employee was paying an amount every month to that insurance, and that the company was obliged to pay damages in addition to the amount of the insurance. This is the law in respect to the other railway companies. An employee of the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific is a member of a railway provident fund, and if he is killed in a railway accident, and the company is responsible in damages, he receives the amount provided for by the Provident Fund as well as the compensation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might I ask if the Grand Trunk scheme provided for a system of compensation for injuries?


Samuel William Jacobs: No; that is the common law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was it in anyway analogous to the amounts the Provident Fund provides?


Ernest Lapointe: No, the Grand Trunk was liable under the law of th#land.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assume the Privy Council was perfectly right. All Compensation Acts strictly provide that no employee may contract himself out of his rights under the Act.
iMr. JACOBS:	The Government is contracting itself out of its obligations.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the
Eailway Employees Provident Fund Act was a step in the right direction, but since that Act was passed all the provinces have enacted Workmen's Compensation Acts. Later the Government of Canada was obliged, as it did last year,, to pass legislation of a similar nature to cover its employees. Upon what principle does my hon. friend contend that these employees -in this case railway employees- are en-

titled to compensation from two separate funds?


Samuel William Jacobs: One is compensation and the other is insurance.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it would be unfair to those who contribute to the Provident Fund to enable those who suffer injuries to receive compensation from both sources. I can quite understand why those who contribute to the Provident Fund would object to that .suggestion which my hon. friend makes, and, furthermore, inasmuch as we contribute to that, I think it is perfectly right that we should take care not to treat one class of employees who suffer injuries differently from other classes.


Ernest Lapointe: Does it not seem reasonable that the employees of the Government railways should be placed in exactly the same position as the employees of privately owned railways?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: They are.


Ernest Lapointe: That is all my friend asks.


John Howard Sinclair: Allow
me to draw the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) to the fact that every employee of the Intercolonial Railway is required by law to p'ay 1* per cent of his wages into the Provident Fund. There is no necessity of his doing so when we adopt this Workman's Compensation Act, because provision is made for insurance under it on a more liberal scale than under the Provident Fund. So 'the man would be better off if we allowed him to keep his money in his pocket for he would be paying into tire Provident Fund without prospect of any return.
We are exacting from the employees of the Intercolonial Railway money which we do not exact from the employees in machine shops, in saw-mills, or in any of those industries carried on in the same territory. They get their compensation under the Compensation Act without paying anything into the fund of the company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But they contribute their money for otheT purposes.


John Howard Sinclair: Why
should we collect this money at all from the Intercolonial Railway employees?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was an insurance scheme worked out between the railway management and the employees.


John Howard Sinclair: That is true, but it does not exist now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The reason
for the Provident Fund still continues.


John Howard Sinclair: For old age purposes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For old age
purposes.


John Howard Sinclair: That is all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But so far as compensation for injuries is concerned it is not very applicable.


John Howard Sinclair: That is why I raised the point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is quite true, but I assume that the employees would still want to continue the Provident Fund for those other purposes, and I do not imagine they would want to cut down their contribution. It really helps the Provident Fund to have the Government of Canada assume all financial responsibility for injury to employees, because there will be more available for compensation for general insurance purposes.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Does -the Government of Canada contribute to the fund in the province of Nova Scotia under the Workmen's Compensation Act there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, nor to that of any province. The Bill was introduced last year to take care of Federal employees.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The case of Miller and the Grand Trunk was determined before any Compensation Board was organized in the provinces.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is so.
j Mr. MICHAUD: In the case of an employee in any industry, he insures his life in an accident company, and if an accident occurs he goes to the company and gets compensation, and he also receives compensation under the Compensation Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How does he get compensation from his employer?


Mr. MICHAUD:: Under the Compensation Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He does not get it from his employer.


Pius Michaud: He would in the province of New Brunswick.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know; but he does not get it from his employer. All

employers of a certain class contribute to the Compensation Fund, and the man is paid by the province out of that fund.


Pius Michaud: Under the common law, he would get it from the employer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, under the common law he would probably get nothing, at least without a law suit.


Pius Michaud: And also under the Compensation Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was very rarely that a man ever got any compensation for injuries under the common law. The Employers' Liability Act first gave him relief from the common law limitations, and then later came the Workmen's Compensation Act.


Pius Michaud: In- this case a railway employee should be in the same position as any other employee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It should be remembered that under the workmen's compensation schemes, as in force in all the provinces, certain classes of employers contribute to a fund, and all the contributors of a given class are insured against accidents to their employees. The Government, on the other hand, contributes nothing to a general fund with other railways insuring against accidents to railway employees. Other railway companies may make contributions to the various funds in the different provinces, but we do not. I suppose there would, in any case, not be much purpose in our contributing to a fund, because we are responsible, we are in a little different position from the ordinary contributor to the Workmen's Compensation Fund.


Mr. HARRISON:: Are the Workmen's Compensation Fund and the Provident Fund separate and distinct?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Charles Robert Harrison: The minister told us this afternoon that the Government paid $100,000 into this Provident Fund last year.


John Dowsley Reid: Every year.


Charles Robert Harrison: The employees paid $167,000 last year. Is it fair that a man who has been contributing to that fund for
twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, should get no benefit from it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He will.


Charles Robert Harrison: In what way? He has to choose between the Compensation Act and the Provident Fund Act.
60.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Let me read this section of the Provident Fund Act with which the hon. member may not be familiar:
The following classes of persons shall, upon the recommendation of the Board and the approval of the minister, but subject to this Act and to the rules and regulations of the Board, upon being retired by the minister from service, be entitled for the remainder of their lives to monthly allowances as provided for in this Act:-
Class A. Those who have attained the age of seventy years after being fifteen years in the service;
Class B. Those who, after being fifteen years in the service, become physically or mentally incapacitated from following their usual occupation in the service;
Class C. Those who have attained the age of sixty years after being fifteen years in the service, and request to be retired from the service ;
. Class D. Those who are permanently disabled from following their usual occupation in the service as a result of injuries received while on duty and actually at work in the service.
Class E. Those who, previous to the coming into force of this Act, entered the service at such an advanced age as to cause them to reach the age of seventy years before being fifteen years in the service; provided that on attaining the age of seventy years they have been at least ten years in the service.
The proposed Bill does not destroy the rights of members of the Provident Fund. All contributors to the Provident Fund are entitled to receive relief under classes A, B, O and E, in any event. An employee may avail himself of his rights under class D, and he would do that only when it would be more favourable than would be the provisions of the proposed Bill.


Charles Robert Harrison: He has the privilege of
choosing whether he will come under the Provident Fund Act or the Gompensation Act.


John Dowsley Reid: This Bill really applies only when an employee has been permanently disabled and goes out of the service or when an employee has been killed. Otherwise, he has the other benefits of the Provident Fund.


Charles Robert Harrison: On some parts of the Grand Trunk system they are paying exactly along this line.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know that.


Charles Robert Harrison: I think that is the case. Of course, I have not gone into this (question very thoroughly, but it seems there is an opportunity here for an employee to be a loser.


John Dowsley Reid: I disagree with the hon. member. I have not hadl any such complaint from the employees, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that if there were anything defective in the measure, or if the employees were not receiving their just rights, the matter would be brought to my attention and would, of course, receive consideration. I want to emphasize that fact. I do not want it to go abroad that I am trying to interfere with the rights of the employees. Under the Provident Fund they have and will continue to have benefits, but this Bill improves the condition of the employees very much and they are satisfied.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How could the hon. member work out his suggestion? I understand him to say that the injured employee should receive some portion of the money he has paid into the Provident Fund, which money would be applicable to those who are entitled to compensation under class D. This does not take away the rights of the employees to compensation under the other classes, A, B, C and E, and it would be very difficult to determine what a man would be entitled to for injuries under the Provident Fund, even if he were permitted to draw compensation from both sources. I do not see what the Minister of Railways can very well do in the matter to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. There are only two contributors to this fund, the Government and the employee, and the Minister of Railways has had before him the employees in the person of the officials who administer the fund. They say to him that they are perfectly satisfied that any person permanently injured should not draw compensation from both sources. If any Act should be amended it should be the Provident Fund Act and not the one we are considering.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That may be. I am not saying which should be amended, but I am drawing to the attention of the committee the flagrant injustice of what is proposed to be done. The minister has asked me how I would suggest the thing should be done.
I say that an actuary could easily calculate what proportion the Government had contributed toward the building up of the fund, and what proportion the men.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But not how much was applicable to permanent injuries.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I presume that could be established too, but I am not prepared to discuss that this afternoon. What I want to lay before the Committee is this: It is flagrantly unjust to make compensation under the provisions of the Compensation Act dependent upon a man's renunciation of his rights in a fund which his money has helped to build up.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He does not renounce his claims upon the fund; he is only renouncing his rights in respect of a certain class of claim.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I should like to see the employees get benefits from both the Provident Fund and the Compensation

Act. We must not forget that this legislation is brought down to better the condition of employees on the Intercolonial Railway. The minister says that the employees have been consulted in the drafting of this Bill, and further, that if it does not work out satisfactorily in practice, he is prepared to amend the Bill next year. I should like to see the Bill pass, even if it was only for the clause providing that, "for the future," dependents will be paid.


John Dowsley Reid: If my hon. friend's amendment was accepted, employees might be compelled to pay more into the Provident Fund, and I should not like to undertake that responsibility. After all, the employees are contributing towards these benefits, and I think the question raised by my hon. friend is of such importance that I do not care to accept his amendment before consulting the employees. But the very fact that it might compel the employees to contribute more seems to me sufficient justification for not accepting the amendment at this time. Surely, there cannot be anything fairer than that. All the employees will read this discussion and if they desire to pay more into the fund, the Act can be amended accordingly. This Act applies only to those who are permanently injured and out of the service, and to those who are killed. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member not to press his amendment.


Joseph Read: I would suggest that as there is no great rush for thi3 Bill to be passed, .it shoo'd stand over for a week or possibly until after Easter to give the minister an opportunity of consulting with the employees. There is another point I wish to draw to his attention, and that is the definition of the word "employee." I notice there are a number of employees of the railway working at Port Borden who have not been paid according to the Mc-Adoo award. Are these men considered employees of the railway under this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say as to these men. Those who contribute to the fund come under this Bill.


Joseph Read: They are freight handlers.


John Dowsley Reid: Any permanent employee, receiving a monthly wage, can contribute to the fund and come under this Act. The men who would not contribute are those employed only for a temporary period.
604	'


Ernest Lapointe: I think the minister should accept the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Read) and let the Bill stand until he has had an opportunity of consulting with the employees. I admit that this Bill is a great improvement on the legislation of last year, and if the pressing of the amendment would prevent the adoption of this legislation, I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. The minister said last year what he has said to-day, namely, that the employees were well satisfied with .the measure he proposed, but he admits 'fjow that that legislation was susceptible of improvement.	'


John Dowsley Reid: I stated last year that I had consulted with the employees, and -they were satisfied with the legislation. Since the Act has been in operation, they have discovered the defects that were pointed out by my hon. friend from Kamouraska.


Samuel William Jacobs: They are not trained
lawyers.


Ernest Lapointe: The
minister says that he consulted with the employees last year and they were satisfied with the legislation as proposed, but now they have found the defects which the minister says I pointed out to him. He is now amending the Act to avoid the injustice it was doing to the dependents of employees. Under the old Act the widow of a man who had been killed and who had not elected to come under the provisions of the fund could not receive anything, because she had not waived her rights, so to speak, to something she was not entitled to.
My hon. friend realized the manifest absurdity of this and in the present Bill he is remedying that condition. We submit that the employees of the Intercolonial Railway or the Canadian Government Railways ought to be placed in exactly the same position as the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. My hon. friend s:ays they are in the same position, but we know that they are not. It should be a very simple matter to find out conditions as they really are before this Bill comes again before the committee, and the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) ought to be accepted; that we wait for eight or ten days and ascertain in the meanwhile how the Can adian Pacific employees are dealt with.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How are they dealt with?
&4B


Ernest Lapointe: They
are receiving compensation for damages according to the law of the land, and they ,are also entitled to benefit under the Provident Fund, which exists in the other companies as well as in the Canadian Government. Railways, and which has been considered by the Privy Council to be merely an insurance.
Mr. J.D. REID: I have made inquiries, and notwithstanding what the hon. member says, I bfelieve that the employees of the Intercolonial Railway are in equally as favourable a position as those on the other railways, and my opinion, I think, is just as good as the hon. member's, on that question. I have taken this matter up and -have had my assistants take it up during the Recess, and after consultation with the railway employees I am informed that this is what they desire. If the committee does not want to pass the Bill I would rather withdraw it this session than have any further amendments.


Ernest Lapointe: I prefer this Bill, but-


John Dowsley Reid: I would much rather withdraw the Bill than that there should be any possibility of injustice to the employees.	"\	.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope that is not a threat on the part of the hon. minister.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have listened to this debate with considerable interest and I would not like to see the Bill withdrawn, because it is admittedly a substantial improvement on the existing law and I think that the minister is entitled to some credit for progressive legislation in the interests of the men. fWhat struck me particularly was the frank way in which the minister, following his usual custom, consulted the employees of the roads through their representatives. They have approved the Bill, and as far as I have heard from hon. members there has been no protest from the men. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House deserve credit for seeking to better the conditions of the employees, but if we were to encourage a practice of suspending every Bill for a week until somebody had an opportunity of stirring up trouble, I do not see how the minister could possibly make any progress. The Bill is admitted to be in the interests of the men, and I might as well, if I desired to be factious, raise an objection to the Government giving the $100,000. All the employees are evidently satisfied, and in view of the assurance of the minister that should anything be found unsatisfactory

between now and next session the Bill could be still further improved, I think we should proceed. If the question raised by some hon. members should prove to be in accordance with the wishes of the employees, they would no doubt be given the credit to which they would in that event be entitled.


James Alexander Robb: The day before yesterday we spent debating whether or not $5,000 which it is claimed was legally paid out should be refunded, and I suppose the discussion cost the country $25,000. We spent yesterday discussing the advisability of rising an hour earlier in the morning, and that I suppose cost us another $25,000. Now we are discussing a Bill in regard to which there does not seem to me to be any real complaint from those interested, and to expedite matters I think it would be better for my good friend to withdraw his amendment and let us get through this resolution, bearing in mind that when the flowers bloom and the weather is hot we may at a late hour at night rush through millions of dollars with but little discussion, d think we should get along with the business before the House.


Joseph Read: When I requested the minister to suspend the matter for the time being I had no idea that he would threaten to withdraw the Bill altogether. I would be sorry to see it withdrawn, for half a loaf is better than no bread. The suggestion that we have no complaint from the railway men is not according to the facts. I represent a great number of railway men, and know that they are not receiving what they should under the McAdoo award. However, I am glad to hear the minister's statement that he intends to stand by the employees, and I trust he will remedy that matter. I refer to the freight handlers and others at Port Borden.


Samuel William Jacobs: In view of the threat made by the hon. minister to withdraw the Bill altogether, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. As my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island aptly puts it half a loaf is better than none.
Amendment withdrawn.


Ernest Lapointe: Last year the point was raised-I think by my friend (Mr. Jacobs) that this Bill did not provide for any service upon the Crown or upon the Board of Railway Commissioners, or the Department of Justice.


John Dowsley Reid: I know the point the hon. member refers to. Later there will be

introduced a Bill in connection with railways covering the point.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, respecting W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp,

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Thomson (Qu'Appelle).
Bill No. 36, to incorporate Grain Insurance and Guarantee Company.-Mr. Blake.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Fish Inspection Act, chapter forty-five of the statutes of 1914, and to provide that the said Act shall apply to pickled herring, alewives, mackerel, and salmon other than mild cured salmon, and the containers in which such fish are packed and marketed; that the Governor in Council may order that the provisions of the said Act shall extend and apply to any other kinds of fish, whether pickled or not, and the containers in which such fish are packed and marketed; excepting, however, fish packed in cans or other hermetically sealed containers, and fish packed by fishermen or others for their own use and not for sale or intended to he used for any other commercial purpose; that regulations may be made prescribing the size and make of such containers, and the manner in which and places where they shall be inspected and marked, and also prescribing how fish shall be graded, packed and inspected, and the place and manner and by whom fish are to be inspected, and other provisions relating thereto ; that no container shall be used unless inspected and marked in accordance with the regulations, and all fish shall be graded; that all fish imported into Canada from other countries shall be packed in containers of a similar character and equal quality to those required under the proposed legislation; and shall be clearly marked with the kind, grade and weight of fish they contain, and with the name of the country of origin, provided that when such fish are imported into Canada for exportation it shall only he necessary that the container in which such fish are packed be marked with the name of the country of origin; that with certain limitations an appeal to the minister may be made in case of disputes between an inspecting officer and the packer, owner or other person: that inspectors shall have the right to enter upon any premises, vessel or boat for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act as amended ; that penalties may be imposed, and containers and fish forfeited and seized for violation of the Act or regulations ; and that the proposed legislation shall come into force with respect to fish caught on the Pacific coast on the first day of November, 1919, and with respect to fish caught on the Atlantic coast on the first day of April. 1920.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Substantially the proposal under this resolution is the compulsory inspection of fish. The subject of course will be controversial but I wish to promote the measure a stage so that it can be referred to the Fisheries Committee to be thoroughly inquired into. I assume that the committee will ascertain what public opinion is on the matter. I do not know if it has ever been discussed in the House before in the form of a resolution or a Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a law now in connection with fish inspection, but it is not compulsory. This is compulsory inspection?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The proposal contained in the resolution is that the inspection shall be compulsory. The legislation now in existence was passed in 1914 and it provides for a system of inspection upon the request of any applicant. It is not compulsory. The results under this system of permissive inspection are as follows:
	Barrels	No. of packers requesting
	inspected.	inspection.
1915	1,320	161916	7,213	731917	8,977	801918	16,667	103


William Duff: Has the minister the localities in which this inspection took place?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I have
not that information.


William Duff: Are you referring to the Atlantic coast?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would all, apparently, be on the Atlantic coast, because I do not think there was any inspector on the Pacific coast. There an inspector was appointed in 1918. There are seven inspectors on the Atlantic coast. I give these figures to show the number of packers who availed themselves of the privilege of inspection year by year. I am informed by the officers of the department that there is quite a substantial demand throughout the country for compulsory inspection.


William Duff: Have you that report?


D50 COMMONS
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, we would have it.


William Duff: May we have it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly, I
shall see that it is made available to hon. members. I do not know that I can say anything further on the resolution. I would
like to get it passed so that the Bill may be introduced and .printed. I admit that it is a highly controversial matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From whom did the request for this legislation come-boards of trade and merchants?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Canadian Fisheries' Association is one body that made a request for it. The department sent out 122 inquiries to fishermen, coopers, packers and dealers, of whom 117 replied in favour of compulsory inspection. However, that would not indicate a great volume of public opinion behind the proposal.


John Howard Sinclair: Were
they all favourable to it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Out of 122 inquired of, 117 were favourable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To what class of that people was that inquiry sent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Fishermen,
coopers, packers and fish dealers.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the inspection refer to the barrels?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It refers to
the container.


Mr. SHEARD:: Would the minister tell
us what an alewife is?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is a fish.


William Duff: I am not quite sure what the procedure is in a resolution of this kind, and therefore I would like to have an assurance from the minister that opportunity will be given for a full discussion of this matter either in the Marine and Fisheries Committee, or in the House after the Bill has been introduced.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly,
ample opportunity for discussion will be afforded. I only wish that it was not necessary to ask for the passing of a resolution of this kind. It seems to be a great waste of time, and it is hardly fair to the House because hon. gentlemen have not the opportunity of knowing in advance what the Bill contains. However, there will be opportunity for discussion when the Bill goes to committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I represent a fishing constituency, and I do not object at all to this measure, although I have heard no expression of public opinion with respect to it. I learned last fall, however, that some fish were inspected at the Magdalen Islands by an inspector from Prince Edward Island, to which inspection my constituents objected very strenuously, contending that the inspection should be done by a man from their own district. On the whole I think this is a fair measure and that it will satisfy public opinion, but the minister will be expected to give full information with regard to it. For example, if the measure passes will there be a large number of inspectors appointed to carry out its provisions, or will the department utilize the good services of some of its present officials? In the-present financial state of the country I would not favour any wild expenditure for inspection purposes. The department should avail itself of the services of the present staff of inspectors or officers and thus avoid any additional expenditure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The system of inspection to be adopted is the really important and serious feature of the Bill. If fish were to be inspected immediately they were put in the containers, it would mean employing- a tremendous army of inspectors, which would be undesirable and make the administration of the Act very expensive. I shall read a memorandum given me with respect to that by an officer of the department:
That with respect to the fish a system of inspection similar to that applied to fruit should be adopted, by which means the packers would be required to cuire, grade and pack their fish in accordance with the standards set; that they, not the inspectors; would be required to mark the packages with the kind, grade and weight of the fish contained, but that the inspectors would be empowered to thereafter examine the fish at any convenient time or place, in order to ascertain whether they are correctly designated by the marks on the package.
That appears to be about the only system of inspection that could be worked out, and it would not be necessary under it to have a large number of inspectors.


Alexander William Chisholm: There are certain inspectors now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Seven.


John Howard Sinclair: The
trouble is that every fisherman on the coast is also a packer. The blue-book tells us there are some eight thousand fishermen whose operations cover about five thousand miles

of coast, and the difficulties in connection with administering regulations of this kind would be very great on account of the scattered way in which the work is done.
If the packers of fish operated like the packers of fruit, and there were places where fish was handled in large quantities, as is done in the case of fruit in the Annapolis valley and other points, the task would be a much easier one. I understand that in many places fruit is sold on the trees, and the packer comes along with his crew of men, and the necessary boxes and barrels, and the fruit is picked and packed under inspection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is inspected at the warehouse largely.


John Howard Sinclair: That may be so, but the conditions under which fish is packed differ greatly from those under which the packing of fruit is carried on. A man may be living in a little harbour in an isolated place. He catches the mackerel and packs it himself in barrels, which are sometimes made by himself, and the difficulty of getting an officer to go to that man's place and inspect the fish after it is packed will be very great indeed. If the inspection work is done in that way it will require an army of officials and will prove very expensive.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree with my hon. friend. But ultimately these fish are forwarded to some centre; for instance, in my hon. friend's own constituency a great quaritity of pickled fish would reach Canso at one time or another, and would be inspected there.


John Howard Sinclair: Then the inspection would be in the interest of the dealer and not in the interest of the individual fisherman.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill provides for regulations which will set up standards. The packer will assign the standard or grade of fish himself, and he will place that mark on the barrel. Later when the fish reach a certain place they will be inspected by the regular inspector.


Mr. CROWE:: Why should the proposed legislation come into force on the Pacific coast in November. 1919, and in the Maritime Provinces not until April, 1920?


William Duff: On the Atlantic coast the fishing is over in September and October, and consequently there are no more fish to inspect until the following spring. Therefore, the ensuing April would suit Atlantic coast conditions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest to the minister that this measure is capable of causing a great deal of hardship to fishermen. Take my own county. There is a large fishing establishment in the northern part of Victoria county which puts up five hundred barrels of what they call No. 1 Herring, and which they sell as such to Smith Brothers, or some other big fishing firm, in Halifax, at say $8 a barrel. The firm believe that they are selling No. 1 Herring, and they have so put it up. However we have not yet reached the millennium in commercial matters, nor the acme of perfection in square dealing. It is quite possible, therefore, that some person who desires to get cheap herring may have those herring examined in Halifax by an inspector who will say that they are not No. 1 Herring, and then the whole fat is in the fire. The people who sold those herring as No. 1 herring cannot get the price for that grade, although they acted quite honestly in the matter. I would say that the inspection must fake place before the fish is shipped, if it is to take place at all, and before delivery is taken, otherwise there will be no end of trouble, lawsuits and dissatisfaction, and much heartburning among the poor fishermen.
As the 'hon. minister is aware, deep-sea fishing is a very arduous occupation, entailing long hours and, sometimes in our part of the country, facing the full sweep of the Atlantic in all its terrors, and the fisherman has enough to contend with at present without inflicting , this inspection upon him, for it will make things worse than they are now. Therefore, in the interest of everybody concerned, I would enjoin upon the hon. minister the greatest possible caution in dealing with this matter to avoid creating unnecessary difficulties.
To-day a very excellent quality of fish is being sold in Nova Scotia, and it is in our own interest to sell good fish, for we have to compete with Newfoundland, Sweden, Norway and other countries. I hear very little complaint about the quality of fish sold in Canada brought either from the Pacific coast or from the Atlantic coast.
I would suggest to the hon. minister to do what he proposes to do about that small can and big Act of Parliament. He proposes to cut down the big Act of Parliament to suit the can. In this case, if there are too many officials and they have nothing to do I think it would be well to find something else for them to do or send them about their business. Do not try to legislate difficulties

in order to give them work; have greater care for the fishermen than furnishing unnecessary labour for too big an army of officials.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree with the point my hon. friend makes, and I apprehend there will be a great deal of criticism in reference to this Bill just upon the point to which he refers. However, if the Bill is eventually adopted, I hope it will not work an injury to the fishermen. If it results in placing upon the market a better fish it will also result, I think, in higher prices being secured by the fishermen.
Resolution reported, read and concurred in.
Mr. A. K. Maolean thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41 to amend the Fish Inspection Act:
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Weights and Measures Act, Chapter fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to define more clearly what officers are included under the term " inspector," and the ratio and proportion of the foot, French measure or Paris foot, to the Dominion standard measures; and also to provide for the appointment of a Superintendent of Weights and Measures, with prescribed duties, for the examination of inspectors and certificate of qualification required; and for the fixing of inspection divisions; and further to prescribe by regulation when and how often weights and measures and weighing and measuring machines are to he inspected, verified and stamped1; and that the Governor in Council may prescribe a fee to be charged for a specified period, not to exceed one year, instead of a fee for each inspection and verification ; and further, to prescribe penalties for selling or delivering anything by weight, measure or number short of the quantity ordered or purchased1; or for knowingly using any counterfeit weight, measure, weighing or measuring machine, or having, selling, or dealing in the same, except such as can, after adjustment, be admitted to verification.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The changes proposed in the Bill are not very numerous. The Weights and Measures Act heretofore was administered in the Department of Inland Revenue, but last year it was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. One of the amendments is to substitute the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue in the Act for that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is a slight amendment in reference to the 
French measure or Paris foot. Iln the province of Quebec the French foot is used in land surveying, but only in such cases, I understand. The French foot is defined under the amending Bill as equal to 12.780 inches instead of 12.79, a correction of .001. This amendment is made at the request of the Incorporated (Society of Surveyors in the province of Quebec. Another amendment proposes annual instead of bi-annual inspection, but-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the hon. minister leaves the former amendment, does it change the length of the surveying standard of measurement in the province of Quebec? It seems to me that in the description and measurement of lands that are already sold or may be under sale it may create a difficulty and possibly involve very serious losses.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think you could get much of a lawsuit out of .001.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know of a very serious lawsuit which arose out of the fact that the drip from the edge of the shingles on the roof of a man's house fell on to the other man's land. It was a case of trespass, so it does not require very much to cause a lawsuit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If there was any danger of the amendment provoking a lawsuit, it perhaps should not be in the Bill. If my hon. friend will think over the matter in the meantime, I shall be glad to have his views. The Bill will also provide for an annual instead of biennial inspection, but there will be power in the Bill to make regulations to the effect that scales which are not used frequently need not be inspected so often. One of the reasons for making an annual inspection is that in the case of public scales, mine scales, grain elevator scales, etc., which are in constant use, it is felt that the inspection should be more frequent. The law as it now stands requires the payment of the inspection fee immediately after the inspection is made, the Bill purposes giving power to the officers of the department to make arrangements by which these inspection fees may be paid annually. For instance, in the case of elevator companies which may own twenty to fifty elevators, it may not always be convenient to have the inspection fee paid at the place where the elevator is located.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In many cases there may be no responsible representative

of the company there present to whom the money can be entrusted. It might not be convenient to make immediate payment, and such companies would like the privilege of paying the fees annually from their head office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the head office?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: This
resolution provides for the appointment of a superintendent. Has the minister any person in view, and what will the salary
be?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This provision 'was made necessary because the Act was administered by the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue. That position has been abandoned, and as there is now no such officer as Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, it is necessary to put somebody in his place to administer the Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the French foot going to disappear, or is the Bill to be founded on this resolution simply defining it so as to make it tally with the Government standard measure in the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Paragraph 2 of the Bill will repeal the old section and substitute the following:
The foot, French measure or Paris foot, shall he held to oontain twelve inches and seven hundred and eighty-nine thousandths of an inch standard measure.
That is the standard for land surveying purposes in Quebec only.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is it intended to make the standard in the rest of the Dominion conform to the present standard in Quebec?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, Quebec is the only province in which the French foot is the standard measure in land surveying.	t


Charles Murphy: You would not apply it in Ontario?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Is it the intention to insert in the Bill this provision which is contained in the resolution:
-and further to prescribe by regulation when and how often weights and measures and weighing and measuring machines are to toe inspected, verified and stamped ; and that the Governor in Council may prescribe a fee to be charged for a specified period, not to exceed one year.
Does that apply to measures of all kinds? For instance, in the drygoods business yard measures made of brass are used. These
are and must be stamped by the Government at the time they are purchased and before they are put into use. Must they, under this Bill, be examined periodically in future? A yard stick made of metal cannot be stretched or varied, and as it has the Government stamp on it, why should it be necessary to have a periodical inspection of measures of that kind? There are no doubt other measures that are in the same class. Once a measuring article of that kind has been approved by the Government, it cannot vary unless a man deliberately cuts a piece off, and that would be absurd.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think this would include a measure of that kind.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think it would be wise to except measures of that kind in the Bill, because otherwise there would be no end of trouble to men using them. Inspectors would be coming along at irregular intervals and charging merchants fees for inspections that would not be necessary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think the Act applies to that at all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The resolution says "measures."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member might bring that matter up on the second reading when the Bill is printed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know whether the measures of electric currents and the inspection of meters come under this department or not. They used to come under the Department of Inland Revenue and they likely come under this department now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is under the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I think a different set of officials inspect electrical measures.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When did that come under the Department of Trade and Commerce? It used to be under the Department of Inland Revenue.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If this is not in the minister's department. I hope whatever department has charge of the work will take note of what I have to say. In our pert of the country there is the greatest possible dissatisfaction in regard to these meters
964.

and the calculating and reading of meters. It is believed there is a great deal of filching from the public by reason of defective meters, and there is no proper inspection at all. If I want to get a meter in my house tested, I do not know where to go. We have no inspections and we have no official who takes any cognizance of this sort of thing.
When you take into consideration that there are hundreds of thousands of these meters all over the country, on whose readings men are paying out large sums of money, it can be readily understood how important it is that they should be tested and kept in proper order. So far as I know, there is no system of inspection at the present time, and I take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the minister.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of the proper officer the remarks of the leader of the Opposition, and I shall ask him to write my hon. friend a letter. There is an inspection of electrical plants by Dominion officers, but whether that includes an inspection of household meters I cannot say. I would think, however, that meters are inspected at some stage or other by a federal officer, but whether that is done at the installation or from time to time thereafter I do not know. I would think that there ought to be in every city some official who would be available to any householder for the purpose of testing the meter. I shall be glad to look further into the matter.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: Are not electrical meters under provincial jurisdiction, just the same as the wiring of houses and buildings and all that sort of thing?


Mr. FAFARD:: The resolution proposes to define more clearly the ratio and proportion of the foot, French measure, or Paris foot. I understand that the Paris foot is the standard measure now. Why are we making a change?


William Findlay Maclean: I think the hon.
gentleman was not in the House when we were discussing this matter a moment ago. The change is being made at the suggestion of the Incorporated Society of Surveyors of the Province of Quebec. At the present time the Paris foot is defined as the equivalent of 12-79 inches. It is proposed to make it 12-789 inches.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: It is 12-789 now. I do not think it ever was 12.79.

Resolution reported, read and concurred in.
Mr. Maclean (Halifax) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the Weights and Measures: Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Customs and Inland Revenue Service-salaries, including Commissioner and Chairman, Board of Customs at $6,000, Assistant Commissioner of Customs at $4,©00, Assistant Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue at $4,600 - Contingencies, $43,000, $4613,387.50.
John Dowsley Reid: The salaries are the same as last year, except for the statutory increases, and an increase of $1,000 to the commissioner, and $500 to the assistant commissioner.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: Is the bonus included in that?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Edmond Proulx: What is the reason for the increase of $1,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. McDougald is a deputy minister, and all the deputy ministers got an increase of $1,000 this year.


Edmond Proulx: Does not the minister think that is a large increase?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so.


Edmond Proulx: It seems a large increase to me, especially in view of the finances of the country at the present time, faced as we are with a deficit. The deputy ministers are already getting a large salary, while officers in other departments who have families to maintain are getting only $1,500 or $2,000. These men certainly need an increase more than the deputy ministers, who are receiving $5,000. If a man cannot live on $5,000, he will not be able to live on $6,000. I think the Government should give more consideration to the under-paid, rather than to those already enjoying high salaries, but the Government seems to think more of the higher salaried officers.
I for one am opposed to such an increase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have any changes been made in the staff? Have there been any deaths or additions to the staff?


John Dowsley Reid: The staff is exactly the same, with the exception of the addition of the minister's private secretary.

Customs.-Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary Customs buildings and rentals, $4,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: There
is an increase of $110,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That is to provide for increases in salaries during the coming year. In the Inside Service there is an annual increase provided for under the statute, whereas increases to the Outside Service are given by the department, and there has always been each year a certain amount put in the Estimates to allow for these increases. Instead of $110,000 it has generally been $200,000 or $300,000, but this year it has been reduced to $110,000 in order to allow of increases to those who, it is considered, are entitled to them having been in the service for a number of years. When the re-organization of the Civil Service is effected and the Outside Service is put on the same basis as the Inside Service, the statute will give them an annual increase of $50 or $100, and there will of course be no necessity for a vote' such as this.


John Howard Sinclair: How
many officers are now in the Outside Service and how many were there a year ago?


John Dowsley Reid: The information will be available in a moment or two.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much of this
$4,000,000 is applied to rentals and temporary buildings?


John Dowsley Reid: I am unable to say offhand how much the rentals amounted, but they are practically all made through the Public Works Department. We have not a record of them in the Customs Department. If we want an examining warehouse in the city of Montreal, the Public Works Department secures the premises on our information as to the number of surface feet that we require, and other specifications, and the rental is paid through that department. Only occasionally, and in the case of a very small building is this work done through the Customs Department.


Charles Sheard: What proportion of this $110,000 represents salaries? Does it embrace any increase in salaries for the coming year? The reason I ask is because on inquiry I was informed that the entire salaries of the Civil Servants must be adjusted to a general ratio of increase. I think we ought to be informed as to what
percentage is salaries, and what percentage rentals, and if the amount includes increases.


John Dowsley Reid: The increase of $110,000 is intended for increases to the officers of the Customs Department on the outside staff and not for any special salaries. The hon. member probably knows that during the present fiscal year ending March 31 salaries in the Outside Service were increased by way of bonuses out of the war vote put through last year. This $110,000 is not for that bonus, but for increases that are given every year. The departmental staff presents to the minister.a report showing what in their opinion each member of the staff should receive by way of increase. In the past we voted about $300,000 or $400,000 for increases, but as I have stated we have reduced it this year. In my opinion, however, it should be as much as it was last year, but the bonus is to be considered. If we were to give every member of the outside staff about $100 increase it would take at least $300,000 The hon. member asked for the number of employees last year and this year. On March 31, 1918, there were 3,351 in the Outside Service, and at the present time there are 3,283, or 70 fewer than there were a year ago.


Charles Sheard: Does the minister say that the war bonus is included in this amount?


John Dowsley Reid: No. Last year the Government gave the Outside Service a bonus which was taken out of the vote of $2,000,000.


Walter Davy Cowan: The war bonus would have to be considered apart from this?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Walter Davy Cowan: I understand that a number of Civil Servants from various parts of Canada gathered recently and decided to ask for increases. Will these increases satisfy those men?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter will have to come up later on in the session. The Civil Service Commission are now classifying the Outside Service and will probably put it on the same basis as the Inside Service. Parliament will have to consider whether we are to continue bonuses or increase salaries under this classification that is being made. We are not in a position to decide this matter just at this mojnent and are making this vote the same as last year.


John Howard Sinclair: Did all the outside officers share in the bonus?


John Dowsley Reid: All up to $1,880, but not over.


Alexander William Chisholm: Only the officers who are permanent and not those who have been employed for six or seven months?


John Dowsley Reid: All that were employed, both permanent and temporary, previous to April, 1918.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do I understand the minister to say that those, such as messengers, who are employed in the House during the session received the bonus?


John Dowsley Reid: I am only talking about the Customs Department.


James Alexander Robb: I understand that for some time there has been a staff of accountants from the United States e-mployed making a survey of the different departments so as to advise the Government on the increases that are demanded, and this at considerable expense, notwithstanding that the Government had a report three or four years ago from accountants from Great Britain. What I particularly desire to draw to the attention of the minister, and more especially to the attention of the hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), is the fact that we are starting to-night to vote Supply to this Government. It seems to me that before the Government ask for Supply they should first give to the people of Canada a correct and complete statement of our financial position. We should have a statement of the debt of the country, the assets that would be deducted therefrom, temporary loans, treasury bills and all the outstanding and unsettled obligations and engagements in connection with pledging the credit of Canada, including railways, docks and steamships; in short Mr. Chairman, whatever engagements the people of Canada are pledged to. I think it is due, not to the Opposition, but to the country as a whole that we should have a complete, fair and honest statement before any considerable amount is voted.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is perfectly right in saying that Parliament should have that information at the earliest possible date. I am glad the hon. gentleman mentioned it this evening and I shall draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) to his remarks to-morrow morning. The Minister of Finance will take advantage of the opportunity, no doubt, when the House is in Committee 
of the Whole on the resolution by which he is asking for a vote of $350,000,000, to give a full Statement of the financial position of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: Will tne minister give us any information in regard to the accountants who are employed?


John Dowsley Reid: The Civil Service Commission had in hand the reorganization of the Civil Service, and they employed a staff of accountants. I could not say where they are from, I never made any inquiries, but I would suggest that the matter might be brought up when the vote in connection with the Civil Service Commission is under consideration. If the information is wanted at an early date I will have it brought up in Supply again.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a request from my constituency for an additional custom house at Port Felix on the Atlantic coast. This is a fishing village with something like 1,500 inhabitants who are engaged in the inshore and deep-sea fisheries. A number of small vessels are going in and out of that port but there is no custom house nearer than five miles at White Head. It is not convenient for the inhabitants to go that distance to do their business with the custom house. They are also shipping fish to the United States, and some statements have to be filed and entries made in regard to these shipments. It is quite a cost and a burden to have to drive five miles to make these entries. These small customs offices on the coast are very inexpensive. The salary of the officer is a mere trifle, something like $200, and it would be very little compared with the convenience it would be to the people of that locality to have a customs office there. I would be obliged if the Minister would ask fhe inspector in that district to go into that matter and see if anything can be done to promote the convenience of the merchants, shipowners and others in that district.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall have our inspector make an investigation to see whether we should be justified in establishing an office there. Of course, every office -we open means more expense to us.


John Howard Sinclair: The salary would be very small.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister be able to tell me about the number of the customs warehouses in the province of Nova Scotia, or -what might be regarded as private warehouses? There is a great deal

of complaint about the improper use of customs warehouses in that province. It is said that liquors are stored in these warehouses and that in some manner they find their way out of them. The complaint is made that warehouse licenses are given to men who are engaged in the liquor business. There is absolute prohibition in Nova Scotia, and to find that large quantities of liquors are stored in Government warehouses, or in warehouses recognized by the Government, creates a great deal of adverse criticism. Last year I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister of Customs himself (Mr. Sifton) who is not present now, and he told me that no further recognition would be given to such warehouses. That you can find in Hansard. But they are still in existence and they are still a terrible nuisance particularly in that part of the country from 'which I come. I trust that the Government will not encourage the illicit sale of liquor by recognizing these warehouses. I would like to know how many such licenses there are, for what period they have been granted, and whether it is the intention of the Minister to cease granting them in territories where absolute prohibition prevails so far as it can be carried out by provincial enactment?


John Dowsley Reid: The policy adopted when I was Minister of Customs-and I think it is still carried out-was to grant no bonded warehouse licenses in any province without the consent of the provincial authorities. I remember cases where a private individual would apply for a bonded warehouse license-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what I am
complaining about.


John Dowsley Reid: -and our answer would be that it would only be granted -after getting permission from the local Government. In Nova Scotia there are no bonded warehouse licenses granted, . I venture to say, without such permission, and in that way we feel we are only giving effect to the provincial prohibition law. There may have been bonded warehouses where a person had a quantity of liquor stored when the Prohibition Act came into force, and possibly it may be a case of that kind to which the hon. gentleman refers. In that event we would allow the person to have a license until he sold the liquor on hand; but under no conditions would he be allowed to replenish the supply unless the necessary permission was forthcoming from the local Government. I can assure the hon. gentleman that no licenses have been
granted in the province of Nova Scotia since last session, unless through the instrumentality of the provincial license board, or whoever is entrusted with the enforcement of the provincial liquor law.
/Mr. McKENZIE:	I asked the minister
to state positively whether there are any bonded warehouses licenses outstanding today. I think there must be, and in that event I want the names of those who hold them. If there are no such licenses then the parties interested are imposing upon a credulous public, because they say they have the necessary authority. They certainly	have	such	places	and	thereare	liquors in	them. I	can
assure the minister that there is no such thing in Nova Scotia as a board, or a body of men, with authority to license anybody to sell liquor. Absolute prohibition exists there, except that medical men may sell liquor for sacramental purposes in accordance with the law. The municipal councils can also appoint a few vendors, as they are called, who are licensed to sell on a doctor's certificate. I believe that in the city of Halifax there is a board who have the power of appointing vendors within the city, but that is the extent of their jurisdiction. Apart from this, no body of men is authorized to grant licenses or deal in the liquor traffic in any way. The complaint of the good temperance people of Nova Scotia, particularly those of the county of Cape Breton, is that bonded warehouses or other places are loaded up at night with liquor brought in surreptiously in cars, under the pretext of being carloads of pressed hay. Upon complaining last session, the Minister of Customs assured me that these licenses would be cancelled altogether, but I find that that has not been done. I may tell the minister that in the county of Cape Breton there is a great deal of serious complaint about this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: There must be some mistake, because no licenses have been granted by the Customs Department except what we call Class 2 Bonded-Warehouse Licenses, which are endorsed " Storage of Liquors not Allowed." Now, as to the charge which the hon. gentleman makes, he knows that the bonded warehouse is in the custody of an officer of the department, who alone keeps the key, and if access to that bonded warehouse is desired it must be obtained in the presence of the officer. Under Dominion statute liquors cannot be shipped into the province of Nova Scotia, neither can any one in the

province import them. It is suggested that someone in the city of Montreal, or the province of Quebec, where the right exists to load and ship liquor, has consigned a carload of liquor, under the guise of being a carload of pressed hay, to someone in Sydney or North Sydney, and that the officer in charge of the bonded warehouse, the only man who has the key, is in league with the owner of the liquor, and permits it to be taken into the bonded warehouse, and afterwards smuggled out and sold to people in the locality. I cannot come to any other conclusion from the statements which the hon. gentleman has made.
I can hardly think that the officers of the Customs Department would allow anything of that kind to go on. The whole responsibility for the observance of the law is in the hands of the officer, the man who has the key of the bonded warehouse. My officers sitting beside me tell me that at the present time they do not know of any licenses that have been issued for bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia for the storage of liquor. It is possible that some person may have had a license prior to the Temperance Act coming into force, and was allowed to keep his liquor in bond until it could be disposed of, but if the law is that liquor cannot be sold in Nova iScotia, it. is still there, otherwise the officers of the department are not carrying out their duty. As a result of the statements made by the hon. member tonight, I shall at once instruct the officers of the department to see what bonded warehouses are still in existence where liquor can be stored, and if there are no such bonded warehouses, then they must ascertain whether there, is any possibility of liquors being stored in bond. Because I quite believe the hon. member has been informed-probably it may be from stories not founded on fact-that liquor is going in in that way, and of course if any officers are implicated they would not be entitled to remain in the service. But I can hardly believe they would do that. It is quite possible that liquor is being shipped into Nova Scotia in violation of our prohibition law, just the same as it is being shipped into every other province. There is no doubt that liquor is being shipped from the province of Quebec, where there is no prohibition, into all the other provinces in violation of the law, but I feel that when we investigate we will find that liquor is not going into any building under the control of the Customs Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am informed that in the town of New Waterford, for instance,

there is a private bonded warehouse; that in the town of Glace Bay there is more than one bonded warehouse; and I think that in the town of North Sydney, from which I come, there is at least one bonded warehouse, if not more. When the owners got their licenses I do not know, but they have had them for a long time. The Temperance Act, with its prohibitive clauses, was passed in 1916, and, except for a certain period in the city of Halifax, there was no part of the province where licenses could be issued or where liquor could be legally handled. I do not think there is any good ground in a prohibited area to allow the continuance of these licenses for nearly nine years, and unless the minister can find that there is very good reason for it they should be cancelled altogether. Because I tell him on my responsibility as a member that these bonded warehouses are refuges for the illicit handling of liquor. I am not making any charge against any officers, because I have not any information, but this thing is going on under the eye of the officers Whether they have any complicity in it I am not saying for one moment; all I say is it is going on and it should be stopped.


John Dowsley Reid: My officials tell me that there can not be a bonded warehouse at New Waterford because it is not a customs port. They hand me this official report of March 31, 1918, and inform me that no licenses for bonded warehouses have been granted since. This report gives the receipts for the attendance of officers at bonded warehouses for the twelve months ending March 31st, 1918, and the number of bonded warehouses. Of class 2, where liquors are not allowed to be stored, I find that in Halifax there are 29, in Sheet Harbour 1, in Lunenburg 5, in La Have 2, in Sydney 1, in Yarmouth 1. These are licenses granted for the storage of goods other than liquors. At Halifax they have warehouses of class 3, that is, general warehouses where half a dozen merchants can store any goods in bond except liquor; at North Sydney there is 1.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who has it?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot give you that information; but whoever has that bonded warehouse has no right to have liquor in it, and if the officer in charge allows liquor to go into that bonded warehouse he should not only be dismissed, but he should be prosecuted for violating his office. In Sydney there are two bonded warehouses of class 3. Now, it may be possible that in North Sydney or Sydney some

official may be in league with the licensee of the warehouse. I have seen in the press, no doubt the hon. member has seen it too, that in some of the provinces-I do not mean Nova Scotia, but provinces west of Ontario, and probably in Ontario itself

charges have been made against Government officials that they were guilty of conniving with men engaged in the illicit handling of liquor. Possibly such a thing might happen with some of our officers in Nova Scotia, and in that way the information coming to the hon. member might be correct. As he has brought the matter before the House and shown that there may possibly be collusion on the part of our officers I shall make it a point to at once have a thorough inspection of all these warehouses in every province, and if there has been any such collusion in the past the officers should receive the treatment they deserve; but if we cannot find any dereliction of duty on their part, the very fact of the hon. member bringing the matter to the attention of the House, and our inspectors being instructed to investigate every bonded warehouse throughout the Dominion of Canada, will have the effect of stopping anything of that kind in the future.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the minister to say then, that there are no bonded warehouses in the province of Nova Scotia where liquor can be stored. I am quite sure that there have been a good many such warehouses, but whether they exist to-day I do not know. I know a case in a certain town in Nova iScotia where the bonded warehouse was in the cellar of the hotel.
In some mysterious way the liquor seems to find its way from the cellar up to the bar where it is distributed to the customer. I do not think that is going on in that particular hotel at the present time, but it was certainly an abuse of the bonded warehouse system. The minister, I understand, read us a list of bonded warehouses, and he said that in not one of them can liquor legally be stored. The inference I take from that is that there is in Nova Scotia no place under the control of the Dominion Government where liquor can legally be stored. Am I right?


John Dowsley Reid: The information given to me by my officials is that in Nova Scotia there are no bonded- warehouses in which liquor may be stored by any private individual. The hon. member might catch me just a little if I said that there is no liquor stored in any of those bonded warehouses, because if a customs officer in Nova Scotia gets word of a carload of liquor that is there against the law, it would be his duty to seize it and put it into a bonded warehouse. There might, therefore accidentally be some liquor there that was seized and not yet disposed of, but unless it is there under a seizure or at the request of the local government or on their authority. I do not think there is any liquor stored in any bonded warehouse in Nova Scotia. At all events we are not granting and will not grant licenses for bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia without the consent of the local government. I remember cases where licenses have been requested from Western Canada for the purpose of storing liquor. I think one request came from Manitoba, the party stating in his letter: There is no license board here and no one has any authority. I replied that authority would have to be secured from the deputy minister or the minister of the department, and I think in one case the party was successful in getting that authority. Licenses may have been granted on the suggestion of the local government of Nova Scotia, but if the Government of Nova Scotia has not consented, then I do not think there is a license in that province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think the Government of Nova Scotia has, since 1910, consented to the granting of any license to any person in that province to keep a bonded warehouse for the purpose of storing liquor. I should like the minister, through his officials, to inquire into the matter. If there are any such licenses, or if the Government of Nova Scotia has consented to the granting of a license to any one for a bonded warehouse for storing liquor, I have a right to know it. I do not believe that such is the case.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the hon. member has that right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be very much surprised, because the Government of Nova Scotia has been strongly in favour of temperance and been passing strong temperance laws, particularly since 1910, if that Government or any member of it has given permission to, or helped directly or indirectly any person to get a license for the purpose of evading their own law. If there is such a case, we want to know it, and I want, if possible, to know if the Government of Nova Scotia or any official of the Governent is participating in any such transaction.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member that there should , not be any such licenses, and I will write him a letter to-morrow, stating just what the situation is in Nova Scotia. When the prohibition Order in Council came into force, the only licenses that I remember were granted were licenses in St. John and Halifax for ships' stores or for export, but as soon as we passed that Order in Council, those licenses were cancelled. I remember the matter coming up about St. John. There were in St. John some firms whose whole business had been the s'torage of liquor for selling to vessels entering the port and going out again, and they felt sore in regard to the matter. Their licenses were allowed to continue in force only until they got rid of their stock, and then their licenses were cancelled and they went out of business. I shall be very much surprised if there is a license for storing liquor in Nova Scotia. The official sitting beside me, who has charge of those licenses, says there is none.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will
see that a vigorous campaign is instituted against the existence of such warehouses he will be doing a great service to the cause of temperance in Nova Scotia and will win the gratitude of the good people who are putting forth great efforts to suppress the evil of intemperance in that province.


John Dowsley Reid: I will certainly
do that, and I will say further that I cannot understand how any one is going to get liquor into that province, because the Government railways cannot carry that liquor except in violation of the law. I gave orders that they were not to carry it, and that the officials were to have a vigorous compaign to see that no one was allowed to ship it in under the guise of some other article. No matter whether the liquor is being shipped to the province or in the province, it is in direct violation of the law, and I will again ask the officials to watch the matter very closely and to see that every possible precaution is taken to prevent violation of the law, either by transportation or importation.


John Howard Sinclair: As the
minister has mentioned the carriage of liquor by the railways, I want to point out to him that it is generally consumed by some person on the railway before it reaches its destination. I have noit the slightest doubt that nearly every train leaving Montreal for the Maritime Provinces con-

tains illegal packages. In 1916, the Government passed a law prohibiting the exportation of liquor from a province like Quebec, in which liquor can legally be sold, into a province like Nova Scotia which is a dry area. The law was made very positive that no liquor could legally be carried by the railway from one province to another in violation of the law of the province to which it was sent. At that time the question arose as to who was to prosecute, and a long discussion took place in the House as to how that should be dealt with. The attention of the Minister of Justice was drawn to the fact that the violations occur, let us say, in the city of Montreal, and the prosecutions in the Maritime Provinces are under the control of the municipalities, and it would be very difficult for a local municipality to prosecute a wholesale merchant in Montreal who had illegally shipped liquor into Nova Scotia. We, therefore, put into the Act a clause making it the duty of the Justice Department to carry on these prosecutions and to see to it that no violation of the law of 1916 took place.
That step was hailed with" great delight by the temperance people throughout the Maritime Provinces, and the clergymen thanked the Lord that we had a Government that not only passed a law prohibiting the carriage of liquor, but also gave us the Minister of Justice of Canada to enforce that law. It looked very good on the face of it. Ever since that Act was passed it was known by everybody down there that liquor was going into the Maritime provinces every day; there were two trains every day, and my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has told the committee that the liquor was packed in the centre of carloads of hay, and' that great quantities were shipped in that way. This has been going on for the last three years, and the other day I ventured to ask the Acting Minister of Justice how many prosecutions had been brought by the Minister of Justice since 1916, the year in which the Act was passed. And what do you think was the reply? The answer was, none. The Minister of Justice has done nothing, .although the railway has carried the liquor and the railway employees have been drinking it as it went along. The Minister of Justice has gone to sleep, and the good people who prayed for him and thanked the Lord we had such a minister have been deceived.


Donald Nicholson: The accusation just made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is a very sweeping one, and if it is correct some recogni-

tion must be taken of it. I gather from what he says that information has been laid before the Justice Department by some responsible person, that violations of the law have taken place, and that the Justice Department has refused or failed to act. If that is the case, the House and the country should know it. If it is merely a case of hearsay, the House and the country should also know it. I do not think the hon. member would suggest that the Minister of Justice should go down to the province of Quebec or the province of New Brunswick or Nova iScotia and act as detective while the cars are being unloaded, but if any responsible citizen has laid an information, as the law provides for, and the Justice Department has failed to act, we should certainly know it.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the hon. member for Guysborough will bring this matter up when the Estimates of the Justice Department are under consideration.


William Duff: This talk of bonded warehouses and kindred matters is apt to make us rather dry. With regard to the item under discussion, I should like to know what percentage of the item is accounted for by the statutory increases in the Outside Service of the Customs Department.
Mr. REI'D (Grenville):	There are no
statutory increases in the Outside Service. In the Inside Service, there is a statutory increase of about fifty dollars a year until the maximum of the class is reached. In the Outside Service, the matter of salary increases has been left to the minister in the past, but now the Civil Service Commission are classifying the whole Service, Inside and Outside, and it is expected the Outside servants will get a regular statutory increase. The officer at a small port might start at a salary of $1,000 a year, and rise by annual increases of $50 up to $1,500, or whatever was the maximum for that port.


William Duff: I understood the minister to say earlier in the evening that the increase of $110,000 was practically accounted for by salaries. That would be about twenty-nine per cent of $3,000,000. I do not think the increases should be as high as that.


John Dowsley Reid: There are 3,283 officers, and the increase would average about $35.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a vacancy in the staff at North Sydney caused by the death of an officer by the name of McLeod. I should like to know if anything is being
done to fill that office, and whether preference will be given to returned soldiers in making the appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that it is not necessary to fill that office, but if it is to be filled, the appointment will be made by the Civil Service Commission.
I understand that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) is carrying out the policy I insisted on when in charge of the Customs Department. During the last two years I was in charge, every vacancy was filled by a returned soldier who had served at the front, and I made about.380 appointments during that	time; I understand	that about 200 appointments
have since been made. I understand that the Civil Service Commission are giving preference to returned soldiers in every case, and they are certainly doing it in regard to my department, because I insist on it being done. I think every member of this House will agree that the men who have served at the front must get the positions if they can fill them, and they will get them.


William Duff: I am very glad to hear that the minister has carried out that policy but certainly the Minister of Customs is not carrying it out, as I can prove by a case in my county last year.


Mr.   RETD@Grenville: All appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission, and they are carrying out the policy of giving returned soldiers the preference.


William Duff: I called the attention of the Minister of Customs to this vacancy before the appointment was made.


John Dowsley Reid: Where was it?


William Duff: At Riverport.


Alexander William Chisholm: Last year a vacancy occurred in the Customs service at Port Hastings, in the county of Inverness. I called the attention of the Minister of Customs at the time to the fact that he had appointed an aged gentleman to the position without examination. The minister had assured me that whoever was chosen for the position would have to take the examination, but I do not think this old gentleman did take it; I do not think he could. What I want to ask the minister is this: In that case would it not be proper for him to have this position filled by a returned soldier? There are many of them who are well qualified for the position, and in making such appointment the minister would only be doing what was right.


John Dowsley Reid: I have just made inquiry and am informed by one of my officials that in March, 1918, a man named W. H. 'Skinner was appointed at a salary of about $300. He must surely have some other occupation, because he could not possibly live on $300. I do not know how the appointment was made, but I suppose it was by the Civil Service Commission.


Alexander William Chisholm: Was the appointment permanent?


John Dowsley Reid: I shall have to ascertain why the appointment was made and just What the situation is. In some small places it has been found difficult up to the present time to get returned soldiers. Some of these places pay small amounts ranging from $50 to $300, and they could not get returned soldiers to take the positions owing to the smallness of the salary, while in many cases no returned soldiers were available. It is necessary to get a man living near who has some other occupation, and an appointment of that kind may have been made temporarily until a returned soldier could be found. You can hardly expect a returned soldier to go into a port and live on $300. You would have to secure a man who had some other means such as a pension, but there are positions of the kind which undoubtedly would offer great assistance to a returned soldier who had been seriously wounded and whose pension, being insufficient to support him, would be augmented by some $200 or $300.
I think that is being done; in fact, I know of one ease in which a returned soldier superseded a man who was willing to give way to and help the returned man, although the salary was not large.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think this is nothing more nor less than a political appointment, because I understand that the regulations of the department call for an examination.
I had the assurance of the minister last year that there would be an examination, but it was never held, and this old gentleman was appointed. The man who filled the position previously-I think his name was Forbes-had held it for a number of years, and his son, the only support of a widowed mother, acted for three or four years before his father's death. One would expect that it would be only natural for the department to allow this young man to continue in the service, as he requested to be allowed to do, until he could have an opportunity of taking an examination. The department did not see their way clear to grant this request but appointed this particular friend who was [Hr. Chisholm.]
a very active politician in the district, I am not scrupulous enough to say that this was very reprehensible if the Government were pretending to be appointing men to office on account of their political persuasion. But when we have a Government who claim to have ,abolished patronage and who appoint men to positions of this kind although they have not fulfilled the regulations, I certainly must take exception to their action. They are not living up to the standard which they have set. Apart from this however, there are several soldiers there who have been home for some time and, if I mistake not, there was a returned man in the vicinity at the time the department made the appointment. I suppose the soldier did not care to make application for the position, but there are soldiers there now who would be glad to get it. It is not necessary that the soldier should be a cripple in order to get an appointment. If he is back from the service and is working on a farm I think it would be only a reasonable recognition of the part he has played in the war to give him an' opportunity of filling any of these positions if he cares to take it. Under these circumstances, therefore, I say that this position was filled for political purposes, and for no other reason. I corresponded with this young man and told him the examination would be held, and although I wrote the department requesting them to notify him when the examination would take place- I think it was to be held in Sydney-he never received a notice. However I understand my friend is permanently appointed.


John Dowsley Reid: I hardly believe the Minister of Customs would countenance political patronage. At all events the appointment was before the Civil Service Act came into force, and at that time it was necessary to fill the position by the minister. He had to take recommendations from the best source that was available to him, and no matter what means he took to obtain the best man he could, he would be open to criticism.


Joseph Read: I desire to say a few words on this question. I think the whole country has gone crazy on this matter. If I had an enemy, or if I wanted to do the soldiers a dis-service, I would endeavour to get them into the Civil Service. If there is any calling in the country more degrading than another, it is the Civil Service. Put a man into the Civil Service, and, as a general rule, you spoil him for anything else. But apart from that, he is bereft of all ambition and his career

is destroyed. You might as well commit economic suicide as enter the Civil Service. There are soldiers coming across the seas who are persuaded by this propaganda -whether it is political or otherwise, I do not know,-that the Civil Service is a desirable thing to get into. But I would not put a dog into it.


William Stevens Fielding: There being no statutory increases for the outside service, by what method is it proposed to discover who are entitled to increases and who are not? What is the modus operandi by which increases are granted?


John Dowsley Reid: During the time I was Minister of Customs,-and I suppose the practice is the same at present and will continue unless we can get the classification through the present session,-the position was this: The officials of the department, that is, the commissioner, the assistant commissioner and the inspectors, knew those who were entitled to increases and made a list which they submitted to the minister, and I think in almost every case the recommendations were acted upon. Some one may ask: Why some and not others? In posts where men have reached their maximum their salaries remain stationary. Under the old Civil Service Act there were several classes. There was a maximum for inspectors, one for assistant inspectors, messengers, etc. That is why I say it would not probably apply to every officer in the outside service.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has told us that all these appointments are to be made by the Civil Service Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I can understand how the Civil Service Commission can make an appointment after examination. If they want to fill a position they can examine the applicants and find out the one best qualified. But there is another class of cases where that cannot be done. In my own constituency the position of harbour master of Canso became vacant a few months ago.


John Dowsley Reid: That is in the Department of Marine.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not care where it is; I want to get at the principle upon which the commission act. To my knowledge there are three or four applicants for the position, all good men, but not one is known to the commission. How are the commission to decide between these
three or four applicants, a thousand miles away, men they never saw and know nothing about? Is it by some rule of thumb in the office here? It would not be proper to correspond with anybody down there; it would not -he proper, under the system which my hon. friend says is such a splendid one, to ask me who is the best man, and I would not venture to say anything about it. But how do they arrive at a decision in a case of that kind?


John Dowsley Reid: Again I must ask my hon. friend to bring that up on the Civil Service item. But there have been a good many appointments in the department I am administering.


John Howard Sinclair: Without examination?


John Dowsley Reid: I never ask them that at all. The only inquiry I make when a man is sent to me to fill a position is whether he is a returned soldier. If I get the answer "yes," T ask no questions as to what steps the commission have taken in examining him for the position. I know he is qualified in one way and I am willing to give him a six months' trial. If he does not prove himself to be qualified he must then make way. As long as they are carrying out that part of the law I feel satisfied that we have a proper system of examination.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend has not dealt with my point. I think he will admit that there are a number of appointees in his department that are not subject to examination; for instance, those at small ports where there are salaries of $200 or $300. He must be satisfied that such appointments are made by the commission without knowing anything about how they are made. Let us put aside altogether the question of the returned soldier, because if a returned soldier is available for a position everybody will say, let him have it. The case that I mention is one with which a returned soldier is not concerned at all. None of these men is a returned soldier. Every one is well qualified for the position. Then, take a case in the department of my hon. friend where there is no clerical work to do and no examination. How do the commission arrive at a decision where there are two or three parties applying for the same position?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no
trouble about that. Take a small port in Nova Scotia. There are several applicants

for a $300 position. The commission suggests that the inspector go to the place, examine the applicants, take their papers and send them back to the commission. Then, the commission may decide which man they believe is the best. - In addition to that the inspector himself can examine the applicants after the Civil Service examination has taken place. It is no trouble for the Civil Service Commission to hold an examination in several places in Nova Scotia. In a small place where the salary is only a few hundred dollars they can depend on the inspector examining the applicants and making a report as to their qualifications.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In the case to which my hon. friend from Guysborough refers, the position of harbour master of Oanso, of which I have no knowledge, the Civil Service Commission would ask for applicants. An application form would give the age, previous occupation, and qualifications of each applicant and he would also be required to give three references. If they did not seek advice from any other source they would arbitrarily decide which of the applicants would seem to be the best qualified for the position. It may be a very arbitrary method of reaching a decision but that is what they do. In the case of appointments to the post office, particularly rural post office, the commission always seek the assistance of the inspector for the province. I imagine that in most cases the inspector would make some personal inquiry himself before advising the commission. In the case of a harbour master I do not think there would be any provincial official with whom Ithe commission could communicate.


William Stevens Fielding: Returning for a moment to the question of salary increases in the outside service, my hon. friend says they are made on the recommendation of the commissioner, the assistant commissioner and the inspector. In regard to the minor offices throughout the country the commissioner could not really know anything about them except by correspondence and the assistant commissioner would be no better off. The only official who would have any knowledge of the efficiency and the services rendered by these various officers would be the inspector. Can we assume that such increases are always made on the recommendation of the inspector?


John Dowsley Reid: The commissioner would have some knowledge of the amount

of work in connection with these offices from the reports sent to the department.


William Stevens Fielding: Of the volume of business.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean the volume of business. Returns are sent to the department of the clearances of vessels and the work performed in the different ports. You might have a case where an officer might probably have received $150 at the time he took the position and When there would be only a dozen clearances during the year. But the work would have increased very much at that particular port. We would have that information in addition to the report of the inspector himself.
Then, of course, the inspector would be better able to judge because there are places where, although the record did not show much business done, the person appointed as preventive officer might have to travel over a long piece of coast in order to prevent smuggling. In the gulf of St. Lawrence there are cases of that kind, and the inspector would know what work the man was performing and be able to make a report concerning it. The commissioner would have to depend a great deal on the information which he gets in this way, and upon his own knowledge of conditions when he placed an official at certain work. I do not know any other way in which an estimate could be arrived at. This is what has been depended upon in adjusting the salaries under the rule for the last twenty-five or thirty years. Now the Civil Service Commission are endeavouring to see whether they cannot introduce an improvement, under which the officials in the outside service throughout the Dominion would be placed on a more satisfactory basis.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with my hon. friend when he says that the revenue is not to be the only measure of usefulness. There are many places throughout our coast line where the collection of revenue would be sipall, but the service is important because of its preventive character, and if you did not have these officers there the revenue would lose a great deal. But the point I was coming to is, how the minister and his officials, whose good purpose I am perfectly satisfied with, can obtain any knowledge of the operations on the coast except through the inspector, and I am leading up in my own mind to the question whether these things are done through the inspector or otherwise. If my hon. friend says it is done through the inspector, I think that is a fair answer.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a
report from the collector of the port as well as from the inspector. In the province of Nova Scotia, as in the other Maritime Provinces, all these officials in the out ports are under one particular collector who makes a report to the commissioner of the work performed by each. It is the only way that I can see whereby we can come to a conclusion as to what is fair.and right in the matter of remuneration. There may possibly be cases where there has not been absolutely fair treatment, but I think while I was administering the department the officials as a rule were satisfied that the staff was being fairly treated, and I believe that policy will be continued.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With respect to the vacancy in the port where I live, did I understand the minister to say it is not intended to fill it?


William Findlay Maclean: I remember having a communication from some person in North Sydney many months ago in respect to this position, and I was informed upon inquiry, I think by the Customs Department, that it was considered unnecessary to fill it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This man McLeod was the customs officer at the railway station, and another officer may have been transferred to take his place. If that is so, I have nothing to say, but there should be an officer there.
Customs: - Miscellaneous - Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, etc., 5200,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a large increase here. To what is it due?


John Dowsley Reid: It represents the regular increase based on the higher cost of materials and labour.
Customs :-To provide for expenses and maintenance of revenue cruisers and preventive service, 5105,000.


William Duff: What is the reason for the increase here?


John Dowsley Reid: The Customs Department had a large Steamer, the Margaret. It was a new boat and had only arrived on this side of the Atlantic a few months before the war broke out. The Naval Department requisitioned the steamer and took it to Halifax where it was placed on service in adjacent waters. This vessel has now been brought back and re-commissioned for her regular route.


William Duff: How many steamers are
there engaged in this service, and what work do they perform?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote covers other vessels besides the Margaret. If I remember aright, we bought a steamer for cruising operations around Sydney. I can recall a discussion which took place with reference to that vessel when I was Minister of Customs.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That was the Alert.


John Dowsley Reid: That was the Alert. There is no danger now of illicit operations because importations of liquor are prohibited.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the Alert still sailing the seas?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. DENIS:: How many of these revenue cruisers are there?


John Dowsley Reid: There are the Margaret, Alert, Winamac and Zaidee.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This item is also for preventive service. Are we to understand that the preventive service is carried on exclusively by the revenue cruisers, or is it done by other means?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote also provides for the salaries of the chief preventive officer, Mr. Wilson, and his staff, and their expenses.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say if the vacancy created at Boyls-ton by the dismissal of an officer some time ago has been filled?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot find the names of any Government officer at Boyls-ton.


John Howard Sinclair: I am told there was an officer there, but he was dismissed.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no officer there now.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there any intention of appointing one?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. minister inform me as to the duty of the preventive service in a case like the following: According to press reports a large cargo of whisky, or alcohol and white whisky, was wrecked on the coast of Nova Scotia and considerable quantities of it were taken inland and cached; some of it has since been discovered. Does the preventive service operate at sea to prevent smuggling; does the Customs Department get any

revenue out of this liquor when it is found; and are they taking any steps to find it, or are they going to leave it to Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: The vessels that I have just mentioned are employed in that service and it is the duty of officers in command to seize any such liquors. I noticed that item in the newspapers. The people who cached that whisky did so before the preventive officers arrived on the scene, otherwise they would not have had a chance to seize it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is it too late now to get the revenue from that cargo?


John Dowsley Reid: The whisky is gone; that is the trouble.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I suppose the preventive authorities will take care of that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure it is the intention of the hon. minister to have an efficient service from those boats.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: II take it for granted that wherever he is paying out public money for the preventive service it is his intention to get value for it? I would like to find out something about the Alert- not thS old stories they used to tell about her, for I believe she has quite reformed and is leading a much better life, and far it be from me to remind her of her old sins. But suppose a steamer is attempting to smuggle liquor from St. Pierre, which is a little island only sixty miles from our coast where they have the right, under the law of France, to handle liquor, I presume the Alert is maintained for the purpose of preventing that smuggling, and is presumed to have sufficient speed to overhaul any steamer trying to get away from her. I would like to know the horse-power of the Alert, her age, tonnage, and particularly her speed, and also some information about her seaworthiness, because I am told that the Alert is not of much use beyond lying in harbour and cruising on fine days when the sea is very, very calm, and that when it comes to chasing she cannot chase herself very far. I think men who have very fast boats and know they can outsail the Alert go over to St. Pierre, load up with liquor and smuggle it into the locality. I would like the minister to make inquiry and see whether he is getting value for the money he is paying for the maintenance of this boat.


John Dowsley Reid: I will be very
glad to do that. Of course, it was difficult to get any steamer during the last two or

three years. The officials say the Alert has been doing good work in preventing smuggling in that locality.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If they are ready to
give me information I will be delighted to hear of one thing the Alert has done.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will remember, when she did good work according to his statement. The hon. member will remember the trip which he discussed in this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh, yes. This is a new Parliament; perhaps they did not hear about that. The hon. member knows that she was in this service at that time and he was paying the salaries of the crew. Under his supervision she was permitted to load with rum at North Sydney, and it was used for corrupting the electorate in the northern part of Victoria county. That is the service she rendered.
Mr.'REID (Grenville): The ho'n. member said she did well. A few minutes ago the leader of the Opposition brought up a question as to whether there were any licensed bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia, and the statements I made in answer were what I had from the Customs Department, which were correct. However, I communicated with the Inland Revenue Department in order to see whether there might be any possibility of bonded warehouses under that department. I now have an official of the Inland Revenue Department beside me., Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) will understand that I know nothing of the Inland Revenue Department so far as its administration is concerned. The Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue tells me that in Nova Scotia there are the following bonded warehouse licenses issued by the Inland Revenue Department: John A. McKay, New Waterford; Pius Gannon, North Sydney; A. S. Taylor, Glace Bay; The P. Doherty Co., Ltd., Sydney; H. Con-ter, New Waterford; G. Martinello Co., Ltd., Sydney; Mayflower Bottling Co., Ltd., 'Sydney; King Bottling Co., Glace Bay; John A. McRae, Glace Bay; Michael Nolan, Glace Bay; Mendel Maganet, Glace Bay; Felix Dipenta, Sydney; G. Martinello Co., Ltd., Sydney. The Assistant Commissioner tells me that these parties had licenses issued to them prior to the passing of the Order in Council prohibiting the importation or sale of liquor throughout the Dominion of Canada.
They had a quantity of liquor in store, and the licenses were extended simply in order that they might hold the liquor in

store. Instructions were sent to the officials of the Inland Revenue Department that those people were not to be allowed to take in any more liquor than what was in store at the time the licenses were granted, and they were to hold it until they could export the liquor or dispose of it in accordance with the laws of Nova Scotia. The liquor had to be exported or sold or destroyed; it was not allowed to be disposed of in any other way. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the information I had from the Customs Department is correct, and if the information the hon. member has given to the House is correct, namely, that some of these bonded warehouses are allowing liquor to be put into them in violation of the law-because they cannot accept it in accordance with the law-then some official or officials in the Inland Revenue Department or some officers who have charge of the keys of the bonded warehouses must be in collusion with those who own the bonded warehouses. The statement of the hon. member in regard to the bonded warehouses is very serious, and it is the duty of the Inland Revenue Department to investigate every bonded warehouse in Nova Scotia and other places where there are bonded warehouses in order to find out whether there is any truth in his statement. If those bonded warehouses are in existence, some means should be taken to see that the liquor is exported or destroyed or disposed of in the province legally, and those bonded warehouses should be got rid of at the earliest possible moment.


John Howard Sinclair: The
bonded warehouses mentioned by the minister are all in the island of Cape Breton. Can he give us the names of owners of bonded warehouses on the mainland of Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: McCullough and Creelman, Truro; the National Drug and Chemical Company, Halifax. The latter have a bonded warehouse for medicine. No others appear on the list in Nova Scotia. Something may not be altogether right in the list I have given, but we shall have a thorough investigation into all those bonded warehouses. I promise the hon. member I will send one of our best officials to investigate the whole situation in the bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia, as well as in bonded warehouses in other parts of the Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand a reference was made to an extension of the licenses. Have they been extended, and if so, for what period of time? How
much intoxicating liquor was there in those warehouses at the time the prohibition Order in Council was passed and that extension was given, and how much is there now?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot this
evening give the hon. member that information. Those licenses were granted a year ago, and the assistant commissioner of Inland Revenue tells me that the minister in charge of the department informed him that those licenses will not be renewed; that the parties who have those licenses must, prior to the expiry of them, dispose of the liquor, either by exporting it'or by disposing of it in the province legally. Otherwise the liquor will be destroyed .


John Howard Sinclair: When were those licenses issued?


John Dowsley Reid: The first of April a year ago.	,


John Howard Sinclair: Was not the Prohibition Order in Council passed a year ago?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not remember the date now. Even if it were passed about that time, if a large quantity of liquor was stored in those warehouses, the licenses would have- to be renewed.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister''1 to say, at some period in this discussion, that the licenses were renewed. Are we to understand that they were new licenses that were given to those people within the year, or were they licenses that were renewed?


John Dowsley Reid: They were old licenses that had been in existence prior to April 1, 1918, and that were renewed. None of those was a new license issued either by the Minister of Customs or by myself within the last year.


John Howard Sinclair: When
will those licenses expire?	,


John Dowsley Reid: On the 31st of March, and they cannot and will not be renewed without the consent of the Government of Nova Scotia.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose' the minister has, in his department, information as to the quantity of liquor that was stored in those bonded warehouses a year ago and also the quantity there now.


John Dowsley Reid: An officer of the department has a full record of what was

there at the time and what has been disposed of since, and he should be able to put his hand on it in five minutes.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister give that information to the House when his Estimates are taken up again?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is, in my part of the country, a general impression that liquor was put into those bonded warehouses for a purpose. Notice was given by the Government that on a certain date a certain Order in Council would be passed, and there was a most desperate rush to get hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of liquor into those bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia, although the people who shipped it in had a full knowledge that the Order in Council would be in force on a certain date. The impression is that, by some influence or another brought to bear upon the department, those licenses were either renewed or permitted to exist under those circumstances after those places were filled to the rafters improperly and illegally, and with the full knowledge that the Order in Council was to be passed. There is a feeling abroad amongst the temperance people in that part of the country that is not at all amicable to the department, because the officials of the department are blamed, justly or not, with being in league with those parties and helping them to move their liquor into those places from which it is being doled out. It cannot get out except when an officer is there. All those people who have those licenses are old-time rum sellers, and it is the most extraordinary thing that only such people have those licenses, when for the last ten years, indeed, for the last twenty years there has been no permission to sell liquor in that province. We had the Scott Act in 1910, and the minister knows how old the Scott Act is. For the last thirty years,
I might say, there have been no means of selling liquor in the county of Cape Breton except illegally.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad of the discussion this evening. I am satisfied, from what the assistant commissioner tells me, that everything has been done to prevent illegalities in all the provinces. The prohibition order came into force about the middle of March last year, and I have no doubt that large quantities were shipped in immediately prior to that. People would import it in the hope of selling it to the local governments for medicinal purposes,

for instance. Of course, attempts are made in different parts of Canada to violate the law. The result of this discussion to-night will be vigorous efforts on the part of officers of the department to ascertain just what is going on and to take greater precautions, if that be possible. When the stocks in these bonded warehouses are disposed of, the licenses will be cancelled, and no more will be issued.


Joseph Read: How many of these bonded warehouses are there in Prince Edward Island, and what are the names of the parties controlling them?


John Dowsley Reid: There are none in Prince Edward Island for liquor; only for tobacco.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose these licenses and the renewals are in writing? When the minister brings down the information that has been asked for, I should also like to know what was the quantity of liquor stored in these warehouses at the time the licenses were issued, also the quantity on hand at the present time; and the form of license, so that we can see the conditions under which the sales are to be made.


John Dowsley Reid: I will bring down that information, and will also give it personally to my hon. friend and to the leader of the Opposition, because it is in that part of the country where a large number of these warehouses are. If we ascertain the quantity on hand when prohibition came into effect, and the quantity now on hand, we shall be able to find out whether there has been any collusion or not, so far as those figures will show; but it must be remembered that if there has been collusion the parties would probably try to cover it up. At all events, I shall bring down the information.
Excise-Travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, etc., $100,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What accounts for this increase?


John Dowsley Reid: It is on account of the extra expense in travelling, hotel bills and so forth.
Excise-Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco, $125,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What does this item for stamps mean?


John Dowsley Reid: It is for printing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not all the printing done under contract with the Finance Department?


John Dowsley Reid: The Finance Department have a contract with the American Bank Note Company, but this department pays for its share of the stamps.


John Howard Sinclair: Has a settlement ever been made with the merchants in connection with the stamps on matches? There was a good deal of confusion in connection with the new law. It was not clearly understood when it was coming into effect, and the dealers were instructed to stamp all the matches they had in stock at a certain date. Some of them did so, at a considerable expense. Then they discovered that the Act was not to come into force until some weeks later, and that they had spent their money needlessly.
I understood that a refund was to be made. Has the department ever settled with these people?


John Dowsley Reid: The Assistant Commissioner tells me that all these cases have been settled satisfactorily.
Excise-Preventive service-Salaries, $110,-
000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How does the minister account for this decrease?


John Dowsley Reid: Distilleries have been closed up, and not so many officers are employed.


William Duff: Have many seizures of illicit stills been made by the department?


John Dowsley Reid: Since prohibition has come into force the seizures have increased by 1,100 per cent.


Alexander William Chisholm: Has the department appointed any officers whose duty it is to look after these illicit stills?


John Dowsley Reid: Now that the illicit stills have increased by 1,110 per cent, the hon. gentleman can readily understand that it takes more officers to hunt them down than were required before prohibition came into effect. The department is doing everything it can to put an end to these illicit stills. If it were not for these illicit stills, we could get along with considerably fewer officers.


William Duff: Where are these illicit stills located? How many seizures have been made?


John Dowsley Reid: In Ontario there are 37; in Quebec, 25; in New Brunswick, 1; in Nova Scotia, 3; in Manitoba, 6; in Alberta, 13; in Moosejaw, 7; in Vancouver, 11; in Victoria, 2.


Joseph Read: Are there any in Prince Edward Island?


John Dowsley Reid: No. The seizures were ten last year, and this year 110.
Excise-To enable the department to supply methylated spirits to manufacturers, the cost of which will he recouped by the manufacturers to whom it is supplied and to pay rent, power, freight, salaries, etc., $400,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is the desire to have this item of $400,000 stand.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the whole item will have to stand.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any great
urgency about these votes for excise? We need not go over it all again. The Chairman will remember that we have discussed it all except this item of $400,000. I am willing that the next, $500, shall.be dealt with and carried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What became of Mr. Vincent, Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue?


John Dowsley Reid: There is now only one deputy minister. Mr. Vincent was given his salary of $5,000 for this year and is receiving the salary of deputy minister as in the Estimates.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.03 p.m.
Monday), March 31, 1919.