SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. WIGMORE (St. John and Albert) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 45 to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Explain.


Mr. WIGMORE:: Chapter 10, section 39 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1906, reads as follows:
To the member occupying- the recognized position of leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, there shall he payable an additional sessional allowance of $7,000.
The amendment which I propose will read as follows:	.
Section 39 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter 10, is amended by striking out the words " additional sessional " in the third line thereof and

substituting therefor the words " additional annual."
When the Act was originally passed I do not think it was the intention that the allowance to the leader of the Opposition should be a sessional allowance, considering the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada is receiving an annual allowance of $10,000 per year, together with his sessional indemnity, and members of the Government are receiving $7,000 together with their sessional indemnities. In the event of two sessions, the Prime Minister receives $15,000 a year while the recognized leader of the Opposition receives $19,000 a year. I think that would indicate that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the Act that the allowance of the leader of the Opposition should be annual the same as that of the members of the Government. That is my explanation.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-STATEMENT BY MR.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E, GUSS PORTER (West Hastings): Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) a day or two ago in the House in discussing the Grand Trunk Acquisition Bill. That statement found its way into the Ottawa Evening Citizen in its issue of the 4th inst. The statement in question is reported1 in that paper, as follows:
Mr. Archambault declared that in one in stance the whole Canadian National railways schedule had been interfered with for political purposes. He read letters [DOT] and newspaper articles dealing with the case of R. H. Thompson, of Mont Eagle Valley, Ont., who declared that because the C. N. R. train had been cancelled at Bancroft for the purpose of carrying people to E. Gus Porter's picnic at Marmora, his daughter whom he was taking to hospital at Toronto had died.
Neither the Citizen nor the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres can be accused of originality in regard to this statement as it first appeared in a notorious publication known as Jack Canuck. So long as the report remained with such a disreputable publication as that, or in the hands of the hon. member for Ch.ambly-Vercheres, I did not consider the matter was such as to call for an explanation from myself. Both the statement and the inference from it seemed to be too silly to require any contradiction.
But the matter having found its way into Hansard and also into the respectable public press, I feel that in justice to myself, and to the Government managing the railway in question, I should make an explanation. It is said, as I have read, that the whole Canadian National railway schedule has been interfered with for the purpose of helping to make a success of my political picnic. I had no idea that I had acquired any such prominent position, as alleged, that I could have control of the whole Canadian National Railway system in order that I might hold it up and use it for the purposes of my picnic. However, that seems to be the allegation and the statement is just as devoid of truth as the conclusion is lacking in common sense. The facts are that on the day in question I did not have a single thing to do with the regulation or operation of the trains on this branch of railway in any manner, shape or form; nor did the committee in charge of the picnic which was held in my honour at that time. I have made inquiry and I have ascertained the fact to be that not a single train upon that railway altered its regular schedule time on that occasion. The trains ran regularly all day long and no application was made to the railway company to have them alter or change their schedule in that respect.
Hon. gentlemen may not know that on the Central Ontario branch of the Canadian National railway the station at Marmora, where this picnic was held, was about two miles distant from the village itself and that for the accommodation of the traffic at the village a branch line has been put in between the main line and the village. On the day in question the last train of the day operating to the south ran into the village and out again, as a pure matter of business and not as a result of any interference by myself or the committee, to pick up the hundreds of passengers living south of the village and to convey them to their homes.
The result was that the train was about one hour and a half late, not more than that.; and to convince hon. members that it was not due to any concerted action on the part of myself or the committee, the train left Marmora just as soon as the people could get on board. The train had been advertised to leave at six o'clock, but as a matter of fact it left some twenty or twenty-five minutes before that hour, and did not even wait for the picnic to break up. As regards the death of Mr. Thompson's daughter, I regret that exceedingly, as I am sure every one will, but my regret is still greater in that any hon. gentleman in
[Stage Direction]
this House should make use of an incident of that kind to, as it appears to me, try and make some political capital. The hon. gentleman concludes his reference to this matter with the following language:
What must the people of the country think? The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), ex-Premier Hearst, and T. W. McGarry must feel proud that the price of the success of their political picnic was practically the murder of a suffering child.
All I desire to say in answer to that is, I should he very sorry indeed if I felt obliged to measure my conduct, or my feelings by any standard that might be set up by the hon. member for Chambly-Ver-cheres.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George E. Foster, Bill No. 43, respecting a certain convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, dated the 19th day of .September, 1907, and the convention supplementary thereto, and the French Convention Act, 1908, was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: This Bill has not been distributed and I want to see a copy of it before giving my assent to the measure.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The Bill has been distributed in French and English. The measure really explains itself but in a word this is what it means: The Treaty heretofore existing between France and ourselves was subject to determination on a year's notice to be given by either party. The French Government gave the year's notice which would have terminated the Treaty in September, 1919. They gave that notice-in pursuance of -a general policy intended to clear the decks for re-arrangements after the war was over-to all nations with whom the French had treaty agreements. There was nothing in these notifications which denoted a spirit of opposition either to existing agreements or to fresh treaties that might be contemplated-this course was adopted, as I have said, in pursuance of a general policy. Then in order not to have the Treaty lapse while matters were in a confused and unsettled condition, the French Government proposed that instead of a year's notice the Treaty should continue with a notice period of three months, and it is that substitution-having for its object the continuance of the existing agreement until conditions are such that further
CMr. Porter.]
negotiations may take place with reference to our commercial relations-that is provided for in the Bill.


Mr. FIELDING:: I think the only regrettable feature of the matter is that the three months' notice seems exceedingly short. I can quite understand however, as was mentioned in the discussion on the resolution last night, that this is merely following the general policy of the French Government; it is not aimed at Canada particularly.


George Green Foster: Not at all.


William Stevens Fielding: It is to be regretted that the three months' notice is so short because, as my right hon. friend knows, you can do very little in governmental affairs in that period. However, it is the general policy of the French Government and there is no use our objecting to it.


George Green Foster: A short period like three months does interfere with the carrying out of trade on any projected plan. At the same time, as regards France and Canada during the present confused period, there is not very much trade being done in either direction.


William Stevens Fielding: The present arrangement is better than having the Treaty terminated.


George Green Foster: Yes, and as my hon. friend has said, it is the proposition of the French Government itself.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system, be read a second time and concurred in. He said: The first amendment made by the Senate is to clause 6, which provides for the arbitration of the value of the preference and common stocks. In line 13, of that clause after the word " Canada " the following addition has been made:
The value, If any, so determined shall not be greater than an amount on which the annual dividend at four per cent per annum on the aggregate face value of the present guaranteed stock and the new guaranteed stock taken together would exceed $5,000,000. The fixing of this limit shall not be taken by the arbitrators

as any admission or indication that the value to be determined is the amount so fixed, or any other amount.
The intended effect of the amendment, as hon. gentlemen will see, is to fix a maximum annual dividend of $5,000,000 to cover both the present guaranteed stock and the preference and common stock; that is to say, $2,500,000 is to cover the dividend that can be payable in respect of the award on the preference and common stock, the guaranteed stock representing the other $2,500,000. How the $5,000,000 is arrived at I do not know. But at all events it has pleased the Senate to fix a maximum of $2,500,000 as the utmost annual dividend that can be given in respect of the award to be made on the preference and common stock. I still hold the view expressed while this Bill was before the House that it is certainly unwise to place a maximum, for the reason I then expressed, namely, that it does intimate a feeling at all events that there might be the value stated in the maximum; and for the further reason that in connection with this arbitration the other parties to it in another country cannot be directly negotiated with in this connection, and are liable, I would think, to regard a maximum fixed by the one side as taking away from the arbitration the very essence of arbitration itself. For those reasons I think that it would be preferable not to fix a maximum. In this regard it differs from the Canadian Northern arbitration, inasmuch as in that case the holders of the stocks were here to negotiate with directly, they were our own citizens to the extent of over five-sixths of the whole stock; but the holders of these Grand Trunk stocks are overseas and are in no way subject to our jurisdiction, and we cannot come in personal and direct contact with them to reach any understanding or arrangement. However, from another standpoint, it is a safeguard, I suppose, to the extent that the maximum is fixed here, and the amendment is not of such a nature that we would feel justified in opposing it.
I would point out, however, that I do not think the clause is aptly phrased. It says that the award shall-not be greater than an amount on which the dividends would exceed $5,000,000 on the aggregate preference and common stocks. I think the word " equal " would be better than the word " exceed." But I have no doubt at all that the Board of Arbitrators will have no difficulty in determining what is the real intention of Parliament in this regard.
The second amendment merely substitutes the word " stock " for the word " stocks "
in line forty-six of clause 10. That is the preferable word, and I presume the plural form was a misprint in the original.
The third amendment is to insert after clause 11 the following as clause 12, a new clause:	.
For the purpose of the valuation provided in this Act, the obligations of the Grand Trunk as guarantors of any indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company or otherwise and the claims of the Government of the Dominion of Canada against either of the above-mentioned companies or against any company forming part of the Grand Trunk Railway system shall not be treated as extinguished or affected by anything contained in this Act.
If I were asked my personal opinion it would be that this clause is superfluous. I am quite unable to understand the apprehension of the Senate that the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court might unless specially directed, value the stock irrespective of the obligation of the company whose stock it is; but I can see no injury to the Bill by the insertion of the clause, and consequently there is no reason why we should insist 'that it be removed.
I beg to move that the amendments made by the Senate in Bill No. 33, an Act respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system, be agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of limitation, I agree very heartily with the argument of my hon. friend, but I am obliged to dissent from his conclusion, for after arguing one thing he did the very opposite. I quite concur in his view that it is a dangerous thing to put on this limitation at all, for it is open to the objection that it seems to be an invitation to the arbitrators to award that sum. The Senate appears to have anticipated that objection, and they have added some words to the effect that the arbitrators must not consider it as an admission of anything. But while they have done that, the fact remains that, the mere mention of that limitation is an intimation to the wide world that the arbitrators may award that sum, and no one will be very much surprised if they do award it. I regret that my hon. friend did not follow up his views by moving that this House should not concur in the amendment. I think if he had done so he would have found the House heartily in sympathy with him.
It strikes me that the form of the amendment is strange. It seems as if some one was exceedingly anxious to avoid the men-

tion of a big round sum. What the amendment means is that $2,500,000 will be required for the interest on the guaranteed stock, and the other $2,500,000 is to represent the balance as a maximum. That other $2,500,000 simply means another $60,000,000. Why the Senate do not state plainly that the award shall not exceed $60,000,000 I do not understand, unless some one thought that the mention of that sum might alarm the people, and that it might be camouflaged by merely mentioning the interest on that sum. It is a strange form of amendment to accomplish that which on examination is found, to be its purpose. However, that is a matter of no great consequence. If they wanted to say that the arbitrators should not award more than $60,000,000, why did they not say so in plain English? I am really unable to see what good end is served by concealing the fact that it means an invitation to the arbitrators, subject to the words, it is fair to say, that the Senate iput in, to award $60,000,000 to stocks which many people think are not worth any great sum at all.
I notice there appears to be some difficulty on the part of the Government in regard to this matter. Yesterday in one of the evening papers-I won't call it a Government organ, because I am one of those who think that the only Government organ is the Canada Gazette-hut in a paper very close to the Government, there is a report of something that occurred in the Senate. It is as follows:
In the committee on the Grand Trunk Bill this morning Sir James Lougheed announced that the Government would move two amendments to the Bill, one-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is not in order in referring to proceedings in the other Chamber. Although those proceedings are published in the newspaper, that fact does not help him.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not because those proceedings were published in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker. We are at this moment considering the amendments made by the Senate, and we cannot possibly discuss them without reference to what the Senate did.
 Mr. SPEAKER: It is not competent in this House to refer to a debate in Committee of the Whole, much less would it be competent to refer to proceedings in another branch of Parliament. That is a very clear and well-recognized rule of this House.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see how it is possible, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to

your judgment, for us to consider an amendment made by the .Senate without discussing the proceedings in the Senate as respects that amendment. I quite.agree that we cannot discuss the proceedings generally of the Senate.
Mr. SPEAKER [DOT] It is competent to discuss the stages of the proceedings in the Senate, but it is not competent to make any reference whatever to debates which took place or arguments which were used in the Senate or committee of the Senate..


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, if you insist on your ruling, I shall submit to it. But I cannot see how it is possible to avoid a. reference to the proceedings of the Senate in this case. Surely I am at liberty to speak of an announcement made by the leader of the Government in the Senate with respect to this particular Bill. Surely I can discuss that. I quite appreciate the rule and I am anxious to abide by it; I simply wish to speak of a statement made in the Senate respecting this Bill.


Hon. J. D. REID:: My hon. friend is referring to a newspaper report of those proceedings.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the Senate Hansard before me, but I have no doubt that a reference to it would confirm this report.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule may be found in Bourinot, page 357. I quote:
It is also a part of the unwritten law ot Parliament that no allusion should be made in one House to the debates in the other chamber, a rule always enforced by the Speaker with the utmost strictness. Members sometimes it-tempt to evade this rule by resorting to ambiguous terms of expression-by referring, for instance, to what happened " in another place " ; but all such evasions of a wholesome practice should be stopped by the Speaker, when it is evident to whom the allusions are made.


William Stevens Fielding: I should concur at once-in the suggestion that that rule was applicable if we were dealing with a debate in the Senate. But I aim not dealing with any debate; I was proceeding to read an announcement made in the Senate in respect to this particular Bill. I submit,, therefore, with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that I do not fall within that rule. I do not see how I can be prevented-
* Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The term "debate" is not confine merely to discussion; the rule does not apply only to set debate on the second or the third reading of a Bill. It has reference to all proceedings, answers

to questions and various matters of that kind. The only thing that it is competent for this House to deal with is the records of the Senate, which our officers have the right to search and to which reference may be made. But as to debate or discussion in the Senate, the rule is very clear.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of the Interior was obliged to refer to the proceedings of the Senate. He went on to say that he did not know what they had in their mind; he did not know why they did this or why they did that. It seems to me that that was an absolutely legitimate proceeding on his part, and if that be the ease I cannot see how I can be prevented from referring to an announcement made in the Senate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The reference made by the minister was merely a matter of speculation, and in making that reference the minister was quite within his rights. The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) might also do that, but 1 adhere to my ruling that it is not competent for the hon. member to refer to a debate in the Senate.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I state that in another place a member of the Government has stated that it was the intention of the Government to amend this Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is not in order when he attempts to say the same thing in an indirect way. That also is made very clear in the rule which I have read from Bourinot.


William Stevens Fielding: I bow to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, I submit that that rule would be perfectly applicable in a matter of controversy. We have an amendment proposed by the Senate to a Bill and we are asked to agree to that amendment. Yet we are told that we cannot refer to anything that has been said in the Senate on that subject. Well, if that be the case the Minister of the Interior could not have moved that the House agree to the amendment; he could not have referred to anything that happened in the Senate. However, this is my point: Wherever it occurred and by whomsoever it was said, a member of this Government stated that it was the intention of the Government to move an amendment by which the two classes of stocks would be thrown together into the arbitration. That announcement was made less than twenty-four hours ago by a member of this Government, and I direct the attention of the minister to the fact that
no such amendment is to be found in the motion sent down from the Senate.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford, North):: Air. Speaker, I have not had anything to say with respect to this purchase of the Grand Trunk. I have always had the greatest respect for the Senate, but of all the absurd things I have ever seen in legislation, this business of appointing arbitrators to determine the value of a thing and then setting the price that they are to determine upon is the worst. Why should we appoint arbitrators to determine the value of anything, even if the thing to be valued is only a cow, and then set the price is more than I can comprehend. It is the most absurd thing I ever heard of, even if it was moved by the Senate.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	I
should like to hear the explanation of the minister in charge of this Bill as to why he wants this amendment to be adopted. He seemed to be quite definite a few days ago in the view' that there should be no changes in the Bill as presented, and no amendments. If one more vicious clause was required in the Bill, it has now been put in by the Senate. This stock that is to be arbitrated, if it is worth anything-which I very much doubt-was quoted in the London stock exchange at about $28,000,000 or $29,000,000. Why the members of the Government should invite the arbitrators to place a value of $60,000,000 on that stock is surely beyond the reasoning power of any man in this House, especially when we remember that it is the money of the people that is being voted away. Why, the Government in this Chamber were bad, but the Government out of this Chamber were forty times worse. It is a most ridiculous thing to set a limit of $62,000,000 upon stocks that are to-day absolutely worthless. There is absolutely no question that if the Government would demand payment from the Grand Trunk people that stock would not be worth one dollar, and the stocks that they are guaranteeing the interest on would not be worth half of what they are guaranteeing. We were told yesterday that the country was bone dry and stone broke; the soldiers came to the Government for assistance, but they did not have a dollar to give them. We did not have a cent; we did not have a dollar; our poor poverty-striken country was not able to make an allowance of one dollar to the soldiers. And now thirteen hours afterwards, the Government comes down with another invitation to the London stockholders to insist on

getting at least $60,000,000 for absolutely worthless stock. If I am in order, I would move in amendment that the word " dollars " be struck out of the Bill and the word " cents " substituted therefor.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In the opinion of the minister, does this amendment not suggest that the award of the arbitrators shall be made with reference primarily to the value of the stocks instead of, as I think it should be made, with reference to the physical assets that the Government is to obtain?


Mr.   SPEAKEK@: I must point out that
the minister has spoken and under the rules is not entitled to reply. Under the peculiar circumstances, however, the House will no doubt unanimously consent to the minister's answering the question of the hon. member.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This amendment, in my opinion, does not alter the intention of the Act in respect of the subject matter to be valued, namely, the stocks. I would be very sorry if it had the effect that the hon. gentleman desires-that the arbitrators should value the physical assets. A valuation based on physical assets to-day would, I am afraid, place the Government under a much greater obligation than that to which it can be possibly be made subject under this Bill. I have answered the question so far as my opinion goes; I do not think I am justified in saying anything further.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister rather intimates that my remarks had reference to the physical assets in the properties as they are to-day. When I spoke during the debate I said that I thought great care ought to be taken in laying down the grounds on which the arbitration should proceed and pointed out that there was a great difference between a valuation of the properties at the present time, with the cost of labour and material as it is, and a valuation of the properties as of the time that they were constructed.


Arthur Meighen: Even then it would
be far too high.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is
that the stocks are not really a proper basis for valuation-a proper basis for the arbitrators to proceed upon. The only sound basis is that which has regard to the property that the country is getting. The stocks may represent it or they may not. If they represent it, well and good, if they do not, surely it is the part of wisdom to see that any award which is made has reference to actual values in property.
TMr. Cahill.]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have very
grave doubts whether the House should concur in this amendment, which fixes or invites a fixation of the award at a certain amount. I think it goes far too high. During the course of the debate it was held out to us and repeated over and over again that the arbitrators might find no value at all.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) said that they did not know what the amount of the award might be; in fact, it was suggested to members of the House that the arbitrators might find that there was no value at all, and that what we were undertaking, directly and indirectly, besides the result of the arbitration, might be ample and sufficient to pay for anything that we are getting. By concurring in this amendment we are inviting the arbitrators to decide that there shall be an award of $62,500,000, and it seems to me that whatever the arbitrators may do, we are not justified in saying that they are doing right if they bring in an award of that kind. Personally, I cannot be a party to concurring in the suggestion that the arbitrators would be justified and that we say that they would be justified in bringing an award involving such an immense amount of money. I do not know that recrimination is any good or that comparisons should be made; but I say to the Government and to hon. gentlemen opposite that if we reached the conclusion that we did yesterday by such a huge majority in this House, namely, that we had not a dollar to spend to gladden the hearts and comfort the homes of our returned soldiers, and refused simply on that account to do anything beyond what we are doing along those lines, it is an extraordinary thing that the next morning we should come to this House and say that as far as we are concerned we should give away for this railroad, which is certainly not a paying proposition, $62,500,000 in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars which we are obliging ourselves to pay.


William Stevens Fielding: Might I suggest to the minister that he divide his motion? There are two amendments, and some of us may be willing to concur in one and not in the other. For myself I desire earnestly to protest against the first amendment regarding the limitation. The second amendment deals with another subject, and I think it would be well to separate the amendments and take them each in order as we take up clauses of a Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that ia the usual method. As the Government has decided to accept the amendments made by the Senate, our duty is to move conr currence. If the hon. gentleman so desires, I presume an amendment may be made and voted upon by the House.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a very common practice for a minister in charge of a Bill to move that one amendment amongst two, or three, or four, be concurred in; in fact, we ought to have them explained and concurred in separately.


Arthur Meighen: That is done where the Government intends to accept only certain amendments, but not where the Government desires to accept them all.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely the House should deal with each one separately.


Mr. CAMPBELL :: I am satisfied that the consensus of opinion of the House is strongly against the first proposed amendment. A few days ago I moved in this House that all the stocks should be placed before the Arbitration Board. I did so, as I said then, because I was firmly of the opinion that-I was going to say that there was no value in the preferred and common stocks-perhaps I might better say that the total value of the guaranteed, preferred and common stocks was somewhat less than $60,000,000, how much less I do not know. This amendment, everybody seems to be agreed, will have the effect of our stating that in the opinion of this House the total amount of the value of these stocks may be considered as being worth considerably more than $60,000,000, and I think it is wrong to give out any such impression. I am strongly opposed to that particular amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the minister not act upon my suggestion that we have an opportunity to vote upon these amendments separately? Surely the opinion of the House is not to be overruled in this -way.


Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting to an amendment being moved 'to the motion, but the proper procedure is that the Government should express its own opinion, which is as expressed in the motion. A separate vote would be obtained if a motion were made amending this, saying that the amendment made by the Senate to clause 6 be not accepted, or that the amendments made by the Senate be accepted with the exception of that to clause 6. The fact is not that I
wish to stand in the way of the House expressing its exact opinion, but the method followed by the Government is the usual method of procedure.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that we should consider the Senate amendments clause by clause, as we do in regard to any other matters that come before us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member must have the unanimous consent of the House if he desires to make another speech, as he has already exhausted his right to speak.
Mr. MACKENZIE K^NG: I wish to move an amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member cannot move an amendment, as he has exhausted his right to speak. If the hon. member is prepared to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, I am ready to put that question to the House. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. Meighen for concurrence in the Senate amendments, which was agreed to on the following division.

Messrs.
Anderson,	Mclsaac,
Argue,	McQuarrie,
Ball,	Marshall,
Blair,	MartJin,
Bolton,	Meighen,
Boyce,	Morphy,
Buchanan,	Munson,
Burrell,	Nesbitt,
Calder,	Porter,
Charters,	Reid (Grenville),
Clements,	Richardson,
Cockshutt,	Shaw,
Cooper,	Sheard,
Cowan,	Simpson,
Cruise,	Smith,
Davidson,	Steele,
Finley,	Stevens,
Foster (Sir George),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Griesbach,	Sutherland,
Guthrie,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Halladay,	Thompson (Hastings),
Harrison,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hay,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Henders,	Wallace,
Hepburn,	Whidden,
Hocken, Mackie (Edmonton),	Wigmore,
	Wilson (Saskatoon),
Maclean (Halifax), MacNutt,	Wright.-57.

Baldwin,
Burnham,
Cahill,
Campbell, d'Anjou,
Davis,
D6ch6ne,
Devlin,
Fafard,
Fielding,
Fortier,
Johnston,
Kay,
Kennedy (Glengarry and Stormont),

Messrs.
King,
Knox,
Lapointe
(Quebec East) Leger,
McKenzie, Maharg,
Marcile (Bagot), Michaud,
Molloy,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Pelletier,
Savard,
Turgeon.-28.

Fulton,	Proulx,
Glass,	Seguin,
Harold,	Totfin,
Hartt,	Trahan,
Keefer,	. Truax,
Lalor,	Vlen.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. J. A. ROBB:: I was paired with the Chief Government Whip (Mr. Middlebro). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Motion agreed to and Senate amendments concurred in.
(The list of pairs is supplied by the Chief Whips.)
Messrs.
Borden, Sir Robert, [DOT] Lemieux,
Doherty,
Green,
White, Sir Thomas, Stewart (Lanark),
Mewburn,
McCurdy,
Spinney,
Drayton, Sir Henry, Fraser,
Blake,
Crothers,
Allan,
Nicholson (Algoma), Lang,
Stacey,
Brien.
McGibbon (Musk oka), Bowman,
Rowell,
Crerar,
Hughes, Sir Sam, Kemp, Sir Edward, Middlebro,
Sifton,
Ames, Sir Herbert, Armstrong (York), Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Ballantyne,
Best,
Bonnell,
Boys,	,
Bristol,
Butts,
Casselman,
Chabot,
Chaplin,
Clark (Bruce),
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Wellington), Cronyn,
Crowe,
Currie,
Douglas (Strathcona), Douglas (Cape Breton S. and Rich.), Charlton,
Edwards,
Elkin,
Foster (York),
Fripp,

Marcil (Bonaventure), White (Victoria), McMaster,
Sinclair (Antigonish and Guysborough), Verville,
Chisholm,
Sinclair
(Queens, P. E. I.), Lavigueur,
Gladu,
Jacobs,
Ethier,
Lesage,
Fournier,
Casgrain,
Euler,
Gauvreau,
Pedlow,
Ross,
Archambault,
B61and,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Robb,
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Copp,
Delisle,
Demers,
Denis,
Desaulniers, Deslauriers, j Duff,
DuTremblay,
Fontaine,
Gauthier,
Gervais,
Hunt,
Lafortune,
Lanctdt,
Leduc,
McCoig,
Lapointe (St. James),
Mayrand,
Pacaud,
Parent,
Power,
Prevost,



PACIFIC COAST PILOTAGE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pilotage).
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have not seen a copy of this Bill which is now being distributed for the first time. I regard it as somewhat extraordinary that a Bill of such far-reaching importance to the commercial life of the country should be moved before copies of it have reached hon. members. The other night when the resolution was before the House I gave the minister clearly to understand that I at all events was opposed to it and considered it a highly important measure. The least courtesy I would expect from the minister, therefore, would be that the Bill would be placed within the reach of the members a few minutes before the second reading. The second reading now synchronizes with the distribution of the Bill, the contents of which I do not know, for I have not had time to study it. It was explained, when the resolution was moved, that this measure means that the safeguards surrounding the seamen of this country are in future to be placed in the hands of men who are "not shipmasters; and


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: We are not at
that Bill yet. My hon. friend's remarks may be apropos in a few minutes, but at present a different Bill is before the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I beg your pardon. However, I objected yesterday to the Pilotage Bill to some extent, although my objection was not as strong as it is in regard to the measure to which I refer, which has for its purpose the giving of a free hand in maritime matters to persons who are not shipmasters. The minister says that the Pilotage Bill is before us, but my remarks will stand in regard to the other

Bill when it comes up. I must apologize to the minister for being perhaps a trifle hasty in my remarks, but as I have explained, I was under the impression that it was the other Bill and not the Pilotage Bill that was before the House. The Pilotage Bill does not appear to me to be as serious as the other.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: I confess considerable ignorance of the subject matter of this measure, and as it has to do with a considerable portion of the navigation of British Columbia I am particularly interested in it and would be glad of an explanation from the minister as to the purport of the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill is to enable Canadian registered shipping operating between the province of British Columbia and American ports as far south as San Francisco, and sailing as far north as Alaska, to be relieved of pilotage. We are *simply giving the shipping owned in British Columbia the same relief that years ago was given to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and later to Quebec and Ontario shipping. As a matter of fact the law has been evaded for many years in British Columbia, and the class of shipping to which this Bill refers has not paid any pilotage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On section 1-Exempted ships:
William Stevens Fielding: Would it not meet the minister's purpose if he struck out the words "or ports' in the ninth line so that the clause would read: "Ships registered in Canada employed in voyages between any port in the province of British Columbia, and the port of San Francisco, or any port of the United States of America on the Pacific," etc.? The intention is that it shall apply only to foreign trade, but as the clause reads it would imply interprovincial trade.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I agree with the hon.
gentleman, and therefore move that the words, " or ports ", in the ninth line be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. '
James Alexander Robb: Will the minister explain
why vessels registered in Canada should be exempted from pilotage dues while the same privilege is not accorded to vessels registered in the United States? A vessel plying daily between Seattle and Vancouver and calling at Victoria, if registered in the United States, will be subject to pilotage dues, but will be exempt if registered in Canada. If it is proper to protect the lives of passengers on United States boats by providing pilotage, is there any reason why the same protection should not be afforded passengers on Canadian ships? The crew might be Canadians on both boats. The minister might clear that point uip.


Mr. STEVENS:: On the Pacific Coast, as in other local waters, we have ferries making daily trips, and the captains of these boats are excellent and most expert navigators in local waters. They never use a pilot, but under present regulations they have to pay pilotage dues, and this Bill empowers the pilotage authorities to relieve these ships of dues. The masters of passenger boats are highly qualified men and are expert in the navigation of the waters in which they daily travel, so that my hon. friend need have no apprehension in that regard.


James Alexander Robb: Some of these boats are
owned in Seattle and registered in the United States and some are registered in Canada. Why the difference?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman's question has reference to a matter ether than that which it is intended to be dealt with in this Bill. Under the law as it now stands, the department by regulation can determine what pilotage American shipping shall pay in British Columbia waters, and the Department of Justice has so advised it. If we desired to relieve American shipping altogether of pilotage we would require further legislation. The department, however, does not desire to do this, but under the statute they are empowered to reduce to a minimum the pilotage rates on American shipping, and it is their intention td do so. I am informed that this is satisfactory to American shipping.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the Minister or
the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) tell us something about the pilotage system on the Pacific coast? I suppose they have more than one body of pilots. Are they paid by fixed salary or do they get their income by collecting pilotage dues from the different ships?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Up to a year ago the
pilotage in British Columbia waters was under two or three pilotage commissions, and the pilots were paid out of the fees

collected from the ships, and not by any fixed salary. The former Minister of Marine, Mr. Hazen, appointed, a commission, and some eminent authorities on pilotage went t'o British Columbia and made careful investigation and recommended that some system of pilotage should be inaugurated such as existed on the St. Lawrence and has recently been put into operation at Halifax.
This Bill is really giving effect to that part of the recommendation and of this new system which has been put into operation during the past few months. Pilotage will now be placed on a salary basis. The desire is to reduce pilotage which I always considered excessive, as I think many others do. We anticipate that it will be a benefit to shipping as well as to the pilots themselves.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I remember the Bill that my hon. friend refers to very well. It was before this House at a late stage of the last session. I remember discussing it with the minister at the time. I am pretty sure that it does not provide for salaries for the pilots on the Pacific coast. It fixes pilotage salaries on the St. Lawrence, and I think it has something to do with pilotage on the Atlantic coast at ports such as St. John, Halifax and Sydney. But it has not yet gone into operation. I remember telling the minister that he would find a good deal of trouble because all pilots whose salaries were not fixed would be looking for their fixation. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) will find there is no provision made for fixing the salaries of pilots on the Pacific coast in so far as any legislation of this House isi concerned. For that reason, although I have no request from, the pilots on the Pacific coast, I would be very sorry to cut down the little income-or whatever it may be, big or little-that the pilots on the Pacific coast are receiving.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is the same way with the pilots on the Atlantic coast.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Any pilot on the Atlantic coast who lost his pilotage dues is provided by this Parliament with a fixed salary. Now we are taking away the pilotage dues on the Pacific coast and substituting nothing. We are stripping them of their incomes and giving them nothing to take their places. The hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) shakes his head. If he says that he is not taking away their incomes and that he is substituting something, I will have nothing to say. We must have pilots. Some of the ships on the coast of British 
Columbia going to the United States may not require pilots, but there are ships coming into these harbours that will require pilots, and unless there is some sufficient provision made to encourage pilots to remain at that business there will be no pilots at all. I would like to be satisfied in the general interest of the country and of its shipping that sufficient provision is being made for pilots on the Pacific coast to keep them at this work. If their dues are being removed or taken away it seems that something else will have to be substituted to take their place, and I have not been satisfied on that point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The average pilot in the various pilotage districts of British Columbia receives |300 per month. I think they earn more than do pilots in other districts in Canada unless it be at Quebec and in the St. Lawrence district. In 1918, in the Victoria-Esquimalt pilotage district five pilots earned 315,131; in the Nanaimo district seven pilots earned $22,275, and in the Vancouver district nine pilots earned $27,360. The earnings in the several pilotage districts were more than sufficient to pay these pilots the remuneration which I have stated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: These were all pilotage dues?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were pilotage dues and did not include dues paid by the class of shipping which we are trying to relieve by this present Bill. Perhaps it is unfortunate but we must admit that this tax was evaded under some regulation, or pretended regulation, by virtue of which there was a remission of the pilotage dues paid by the class of shipping sought to be relieved by this Bill. In no other place in Canada do we seek to tax for pilotage dues shipping engaged in running between Canadian and American ports except in British Columbia. Ships running from Sydney to New York pay no pilotage dues. The same is true of ships running between Halifax or St. John and New York, between Quebec and New York and between Sydney and Newfoundland. If Canadian ships, they pay no pilotage dues. We simply want to apply that same rule to British Columbia. Supposing it did affect the pilots' earnings in British Columbia, I do not admit that that is a serious consideration. The important consideration is the interest of shipping. Some other means will be provided for remunerating the pilots if the pilotage dues do not provide a fund. I do not see why we need to concern ourselves so much

about the interests of the pilots, as they must be suitably remunerated in one way if not in another. There is a more important consideration, namely: What are the interests of the province of British Columbia and of shipping? We are instructed that it is very much in the interest of the mercantile business of this province that this legislation become effective. I think it is also in the interest of the development of shipping.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Whiat representations from the shipping interests has the minister received? Can he give any evidence or satisfactory proof to the House derived from recognized shipping interests that there are objections in British Columbia to paying the pilotage dues? I am not familiar with the developments in regard to pilotage which the minister appears to have found out so recently. I know that a small schooner leaving Sydney and going to Halifax has to pay pilotage dues. The minister may shake his head but I have been in negotiation, as the lawyer for a client, trying to get from the pilotage authorities of the port of Halifax, $9 paid in pilotage fees by the owner of a small schooner. I did not get the money back. They refused to give it back; they said it was the law and that the owner of this schooner bad to pay pilotage due's coming into Halifax harbour because he was in the same class as anybody else. My hon. friend seems to have discovered a new law by which a great percentage of the shipping on our coasts goes free. I think that if he will inquire he will find that boats carrying coal from Louisburg to the New England States pay pilotage coming into the harbour of Louisburg. I am not giving that as a certainty but I would like my hon. friend to inquire. If a recognized body of shipowners, or a shipping federation, on the Pacific coast represent to this Government that they should not pay pilotage dues it is a matter for serious and proper consideration. But we have not heard of any such request from them, and until we have such I think this very important class of men- the pilots-should have some consideration. My hon. friend seems to be willing to brush the pilot aside and give hi's attention altogether to the shipowner. They are both very necessary to the commerce of this country and they should both receive fair treatment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All the shipping interests in conference with a representative of the Department of Marine not very long
ago in British Columbia made a request for legislation of this character.
Section as amended agreed to, and Bill reported, read the third time and pasised.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE E, FOSTER presented a communication from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further Supplementary Estimates required for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1919, which were referred to Committee of 'Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (for the Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Ernest Lapointe: This is, a very important Bill, and I do not think it is treating members fairly to ask them to consider it under the existing circumstances. The measure was1 only introduced by leave of the House and read a first time last night. I have not had the opportunity nor the time-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, no, this Bill was introduced two or three days ago.


Ernest Lapointe: No, yesterday, according to Hansard. The Bill itself bears the statement " first reading November 7th," and to-day is the 8th.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, several days ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Here is the Bill itself and that is what it says.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: II do not care what is in the Bill, it was introduced several davs ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not caTe what Government does not dispute the accuracy of a date set forth in one of its own Bills. Corroboration of my statement is to be found in Hansard of yesterday, which contains the following:
Canada Shipping Act Amendment.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House returned, to the order, Introduction of Bills.
Hon. A. K. Maclean (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Here is the statement contained in yesterday's Hansard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, but there was a resolution which preceded that.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not speaking about the resolution, but about the Bill.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: But I am referring to the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister tells me the Bill was introduced several days ago when it was not introduced until last night.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: It is quite true the first reading of the Bill took place yesterday, but the House had intimation of the purpose of the legislation several days ago, and I assumed that what interested my hon. friend was the subject matter of the Bill. It does not matter very much whether the Bill was introduced yesterday or not if the House several days ago had notice of the subject matter.


Ernest Lapointe: At all events, I was not aware of that resolution, for reasons which my hon. friend knows, and this Bill has only been before the House since yesterday. I repeat that this is a very important Bill and I ask that its consideration should be postponed. I have another reason for making this request. I am informed by certain members that the hon. gentleman himself gave them the assurance that this Bill would not be proceeded with this session.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not correct.


Ernest Lapointe: I have given the hon. gentleman the statement that was made to me-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No hon. member was given that assurance.	^


Ernest Lapointe: -and a deputation of pilots from the St. Lawrence districts came to Ottawa yesterday and had an interview with the officers of the department. It was then agreed that nothing would be done to press this matter before the session of 1920. I say that at the end of the session called for the purpose of ratifying the Peace Treaty, which was quite unnecessary for us to do, it is absurd for us to try and proceed with such legislation as this.


Mr. CAHILL:: The steam roller again.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is my hon. friend's objection?


Ernest Lapointe: My objection is that I have not had time or opportunity to study the Bill, and therefore it is
obvious-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can answer my hon. friend definitely if he will state his objection to the Bill.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to consider the Bill and study it and then I will give my objection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend can study it in two minutes or less.


Ernest Lapointe: Two minutes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my hon.
friend state his objection to the Bill?


Ernest Lapointe: I would not
do justice to my electors nor to the mandate which I have received if I were to agree to what my hon. friend asks me to do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would point out that
the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) is exercising his right now in closing the debate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be quite in
keeping with everything about this Bill, and the procedure which has been followed with respect to it, as well as in keeping with many other transactions of the Government of which he is a member, for the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to immediately exercise that right and thus shut out everybody else from saying a word on the subject. We only received copies of this Bill a few minutes ago, and now we are told that the hon. gentleman, from the abundance of his knowledge in shipping and seafaring, must exercise his right to say all that can possibly be said about it, and so shut us out from uttering a word in regard to it.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Will my hon.
friend permit me to interrupt him? It is only fair that I should first say a few words in explanation of the purpose of the Bill, and then leave the matter open for discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These proceedings are
most irregular. I looked towards the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to recognize him when the motion for the second reading was made and he did not then avail himself of his right to speak. Now I take it, under the circumstances, the House will give its unanimous consent to the hon. member for Halifax to make his remarks at this stage.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: I do not wish
to preclude any discussion upon this matter but I do expect that when any objection is raised it shall be based upon a sound and fundamental ground. For in-

stance, the assertion that I had made a promise that this Bill would not be introduced this session is not correct. The Government is not insisting that this legislation shall be passed this session. If there was any reasonable opposition to it I would drop the Bill very quickly; but I do not like dropping a bill unless I find there is some reasonable ground for it, and the reasons which my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. E. Lapointe) have given do not impress me at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sure, if
my hon. friend had only given a moment's consideration to the Bill, he would not have made the remarks he did. I do not know of any reason why he should not be aware of what the Bill contains, notwithstanding that the first reading only took place yesterday. Every hon. gentleman knows that in the concluding days of the session certain business-usually not very important business-must be accelerated in some form or other and the House invariably assents to that course. I rather resent the idea that I am attempting to force this legislation on Parliament when there is no intention to do anything of the kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend tell me his reason for , waiting until the last days of the session before introducing this Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I moved the resolution upon which this Bill is founded four or five days ago.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not very long ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is sufficient notice to the House. In fact, the suggestion for the legislation came before me from the Department of Marine and Fisheries only a few days ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to empower the Minister of Marine to permit ships to leave Canadian ports without certificated masters and mates and notwithstanding the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. If the Bill is acceptable to the House, I purpose to amend it by providing that it shall he restricted to sailing ships and shall be operative only for the next six months. During the war an Order in Council was passed under the War Measures Act empowering the Minister of Marine to permit vessels to depart from Canadian ports without certificated masters and mates, if it were shown to him that it was not possible to get certificated officers and that the men for whom the permits were required were competent. These permits were always issued upon the representation of the Collector of Customs at the ship's port. As hon. gentlemen are aware, the War Measures Act and all Orders in Council passed under it may very quickly become inoperative, and upon the proclamation of peace there is some doubt as to the validity of Orders in Council which were stipulated to be in force during the period of the war and six months thereafter. It is a fact that in Canada to-day it is impossible to get the required number of certificated masters and mates to command ships on transatlantic voyages, there being a great many more Canadian ships, particularly sailing ships, at present engaged in the transatlantic business than at any time during the last twenty-five years. Many men have coasting certificates which under the statute are not acceptable for transatlantic voyages; but those men are to all intents and purposes just as competent to take ships across the Atlantic as men who have ocean-going certificates. During the last three years quite a number of permits of this nature were issued; for instance, from Nova Scotia ports 111 permits; from New Brunswick ports 41; from British Columbia ports 6, and from Quebec ports 2.
In the United States, as I pointed out the other day, sailing ships up to 700 tons gross can depart from any American port to any other port in the world without certificated officers. In Great Britain any freight ship may engage in coast-wise business without a certificated officer. The difficulties of navigating a ship around the waters of the United Kingdom are infinitely greater than those involved in the taking of a ship from a Canadian port across the Atlantic. I think there is a great deal of fallacy in the idea that a ship cannot be commanded except by a certificated person. I have no doubt that some day we will have enough sense to allow the man who owns a ship other than a passenger ship to send her anywhere he chooses, provided he is satisfied that the officers in charge are competent men.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the minister for the next six months to do what he has been doing during the last two years, namely, to permit ships to depart from Canadian ports without certificated officers. A great many wooden ships have been built in Canada during the war, and war conditions prevented many of our seafaring men taking



the examination for masters' and mates' certificates. Consequently we are confronted with the practical question of whether or not Canadian ships shall be refused departure from our ports if they are unable to procure certificated officers. If there is any substantial objection I shall withdraw the motion.


Mr. F. J. PELLETIER (Matane):: This Bill provides by paragraph (b):
Canadian registered vessels carrying passengers not exceeding one hundred registered tons, which ply exclusively within what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may deem to be sheltered waters within the inland waters or on the sea coasts of Canada.
Therefore this Bill deals with vessels plying on the sea coast of Canada as well as within inland waters.
Referring to what my hon. friend said in answer to the hon. member from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) as to the interview that certain members had with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, he will remember that I, together with some of my colleagues and representatives from the Quebec and Montreal pilots, saw him while he was Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he agreed with us that the matter should be postponed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Surely my hon. friend does not mean to say that I discussed with him or any one else this particular Bill? I remember the occasion he refers to, but we were then discussing a matter which had reference solely to Quebec pilotage.


François Jean Pelletier: So we were.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Bill does not refer to that matter.


François Jean Pelletier: We were discussing the question of Quebec and Montreal pilotage, together with the question of masters and mates, and at that time my hon. friend agreed to wait until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) could personally consider the question. Later on we interviewed the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and as I stated last night on resolution No. 15 relating to Bill No. 48, it was agreed that so far as pilotage was concerned, nothing would be done until the session of 1920.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I deny that.


François Jean Pelletier: I am not suggesting that my hon. friend himself said -so; I am speaking of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
[Mr. A. K. Maclean.!


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was not even present at that meeting.


François Jean Pelletier: If my hon. friend denies that, let us postpone this question until he has had an opportunity of seeing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries personally; he is in the city.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I certainly shall not agree to postpone this Bill upon the ground my hon. friend suggests.


François Jean Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I consider that this measure is without doubt a dangerous one, because it will allow unscrupulous ship-owners to employ incompetent men in certain waters.
The lives of the public, even of the men manning the vessels, would thereby be in danger, especially at this time of year. The men manning the vessels will be compelled to work with incompetent -masters and mates. The certificate of master can be obtained at any time, with few exceptions. It is true that there are some conditions and circumstances under which a master's certificate cannot be obtained, but very seldom would that be the case.
As I understand it, this legislation will apply to vessels of 100 tons. Suppose you had fifteen or twenty of these small vessels coming up or going down the St. Lawrence river and they met one or more of the big liners at -Isle au Grues on the north side of Beaujeu Bank or at lower traverse, St. Rochs, where the channel is very narrow. If a number of these small vessels are manned by men who are incompetent the lives of passengers may be endangered. This Bill is a bad one unless it is amended to apply to vessels plying only in certain waters.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What has that to do with this Bill?


François Jean Pelletier: It has a great deal to do with the Bill, because you want to put incompetent men on the vessels.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not want to do that at all.


Mr. MORPHY:: The Bill provides expressly against incompetency.


François Jean Pelletier: This matter is being taken up at the last hour of the session. The Shipping Federation is very anxious to have this Bill passed. There is a controversy-I hope my hon. friend will not deny it-between the Shipping Federation and masters and mates and pilots-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Bill did not originate with or emanate from the Shipping Federation or from the pilotage authorities of any district. As a matter of fact, it was largely suggested by myself owing to the conditions in the Maritime Provinces. The controversy in the Quebec pilotage district does not relate to this Bill. All questions about the Quebec pilotage district are trifling and unimportant so far as this Bill is concerned.


François Jean Pelletier: The Bill relates to Quebec pilots.
Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN: Not three ships leaving the port of Quebec within the next six months would apply for a permit under this legislation. Indeed, there would not be one; I have said that during the last three years only two such permits were issued in respect of the port of Quebec. I should like to hear from the leader of the Opposition; if he thinks that this Bill should not go through I will drop it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: II certainly do think so, and I take all the responsibility that may be thrown upon me for doing so.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR (Prince Edward Island):: No good reason has been given why this Bill should be withdrawn. Conditions are existing in the Maritime Provinces which require that power be given to the minister to make the law applicable in respect of some of' the inland waters. In Prince Edward Island some ferry boats have been held up because of inability to obtain certified masters, and shippers and passengers have been very much inconvenienced. These boats have been running for three years under the same men who are now in command. I think that the minister is justified in bringing down this Bill; no danger is involved to the lives of passengers, because it is provided that the minister shall satisfy himself that the person in command of a vessel shall be competent to handle the vessel in the waters that it plies in or may ply in in future. I urge the minister not to withdraw the Bill. I think it is a proper Bill, and tt am prepared to support it.
Mr. A*. K. MACLEAN: I quite agree that this is important legislation. I am not at all impressed with the arguments that have been laid against it. They are unfounded and unpractical and are made without any concern for the national interest. However, the House is to prorogue to-day or Monday. This is not a Government Bill or a measure which the ministry is pressing as such through the House; it is a matter which is
122i
entirely within my own discretion. But inasmuch as hon. gentlemen take the position that the Bill was introduced only yesterday, and inasmuch as objections, which are, perhaps, technical, but which nevertheless have some force, have been raised, I do not feel that I should press the Bill. I, therefore, wish to withdraw the motion for the second reading.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister takes the responsibility of saying that those who are opposing this Bill are absolutely void of a proper conception of the national interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I said the
grounds taken were made without any concern for the national interest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That statement is
absolutely unfounded and should never have been made. I hold in my hand the British Shipping Act of 1894, and the people of Great Britain and Ireland have been leaders and kings of shipping and kings of the seas for at least the last two hundred years, and "Britannia rules the waves", notwithstanding the hon. member for Halifax. Section 92 of the British Shipping Act, in dealing with ships that cross* the Atlantic, states:
Every British foreign-going ship and every British home-trade passenger ship, when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, and every foreign steamship carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with officers duly certificated under this Act.
Yet, when I ask that we comply with that Act, I am told by a minister of this Government that I am void of a proper conception of the national interest. It is a pity that my hon. friend was not in England for the last hundred years or so to tell the people there what fools they are to require certificated masters. This happens to have been the common and statutory law for the last thousand years or so, but the hon. member for Halifax says that it should be wiped off the slate and that it is nonsense and unfounded twaddle to be supporting such contentions. Let me tell my hon. friend and the House that when Confederation was formed in 1867, the only subject in the commercial life of this country over which we were not given complete jurisdiction was that of shipping, and that was withheld because of shipping being a world-wide commercial matter, the ocean being its home and common ground for every nation on earth. The Canadian Statute, the Merchant Shipping Act, is based upon the British Shipping

Act, and the latter is binding upon us, and our Act requires the same consideration and obligations as to masters. We must, in the case of any ship over 100 tons, burden or upwards, have a certificated master and a certificated mate. That is my ground; I am standing by the British law and the Canadian law, and it is only on the most serious ground that those laws should be departed from, notwithstanding the minister's statement to the contrary.
Motion for second reading withdrawn.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN moved that the order be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
At three o'clock the House resumed.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to
inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Thomas Wakem Caldwell, Esquire, for the electoral district of Victoria and C'arleton, N.B.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY AMENDMENT ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 36, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.-Hon. Hugh Guthrie.-Mr. J. E. Armstrong in the Chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: The Bill was passed last night with the exception of section 30A. Objection was taken to subsection 2, and the suggestion was made by the hon, .member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that all contracts for purchases should be made after tender had been called. I discussed the matter this morning with members of the Civil Service Commission, and we drafted a clause to meet that objection. I move, therefore, that section 30A, subsections 2 and 3, be amended to read:
30 a (2) All purchases made by the Superintendent of Supplies shall be so made upon requisition approved by the minister, or as he directs, and all purchases involving- the amount of $500 or upwards, shall be made in accordance with contracts entered into with the like approval after tenders have been called for.
30 a (3) All such purchases made on the authority of requisitions duly approved by the minister, or as he directs, shall be paid after audit by the accountant.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the case of Public Works Department provision is made that any contract involving an amount over

$5,000 shall be done by tender unless some good reason is given by the minister to the contrary. In the case of the Railway Department and the Department of Public Works large amounts are involved, but in the Stationary Department, purchasing envelopes, writing paper and material of that kind, you are calling for tenders only for amounts of $500 and upwards. Five hundred dollars is rather a large amount, and I think you might make it $250.


George Green Foster: I think we might take the recommendation of the commission.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, Bill No. 41 to amend the Railway Act, 1919, was read the second time.
On the motion of Mr. Doherty that the House do go into commitee on the Bill:
Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out to the hon. member for Pontiac, who has proposed to submit an amendment, that under decisions which have been given in the House for some time since the revision of the rules a few years ago, this motion is not debatable. In the public interest, however, I have deemed it wise that an exhaustive examination of the authorities, not only here but in the Mother Country, should be made for the purpose of establishing a definite practice to be followed in this House, and I hope that at an early stage of next session we may have settled for all time a proper practice in this regard. In the meantime, while I do not think it wise that the motion should be debatable, I mention the circumstance so that any discussion we may have may not be construed as a precedent.


Frank S. Cahill: I would take it, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has not considered it desirable to submit this Bill to a special committee. The clause which it is proposed to strike out from the' Bill is one that was the subject of considerable debate in committee at the last session of parliament when the revision of the Railway Act was under consideration. I have not had time to look up the debate on the question because the Bill was introduced only last night. But my recollection is that the railway employees were very insistent on having this clause inserted in the Bill.

I am not speaking positively, but I think it was pointed out at that time that the railway employees made a very strong and persistent fight that the clause should be inserted in the Railway Act. They contended that if it were not inserted certain railways that were not under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission were in a position to use rolling stock that was not up to the standard sanctioned by the commission, and that these lines endangered the lives of the employees. The employees were used to a certain standard rolling stock and equipment in the railways that were under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, and they said that when they went on a line that was not under the commission they might find the rolling stock different.
The equipment and requirements would be different. The equipment that they were used to might not be employed on these lines and it would be a great menace to their safety, because a change that they were not looking for might cause death or accident. I think the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) was on that committee, and he will recollect the insistent fight that the railway employees put up to have this clause inserted. If this clause is being amended at the instigation of the railway companies, I think the railway employees should be consulted before the amendment is made. If this clause is only being eliminated at the instigation of the electrically-operated lines it should be made to apply to the electric railways only. If that is not done I think the Government would be well advised to withdraw this legislation until the railway employees have had an opportunity of presenting their case to the Railway Committee, the Government, or whoever will be handling this proposed legislation. I beg to move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
" this Bill be committed to the Railway Committee for consideration of clauses suggested by the Special Railway Committee."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In view of the announcement that I made a short time ago, I trust that any debate on this motion will be of a limited character.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I quite appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. Cahill) said about the interests of the railway employees in the particular species of case to which he has referred. I was not here last session, but I have read the minutes of the discussion in the committee. I think he is correct in his statement that this clause was
enacted to meet the representations of railway employees engaged upon what we now call the large railways under the legislative authority of the Dominion Parliament, that
it was highly desirable, where companies were operating roads under provincial authority, that those roads so operated should be brought under Dominion authority so that the same requirements might apply to them. The reason why it is now proposed to repeal this section is that it is thought-and experience has shown-that altogether too wide a provision was made when seeking to attain that particular end; a provision which applies to railways where those conditions did not prevail at all and where it is looked upon as objectionable-and I think the objections have force-that purely local railways, merely by reason of the fact that they may have Acquired, or may be operating or leasing, some portion of a road which was originally constructed under a Dominion charter, and therefore treated as a work for the general advantage of Canada, subject to the control of Parliament and not subject at all to local control, either provincial or other control under provincial authority, should be made subject to the provision of this section. It was thought highly undesirable that you should produce that result. For instance, a notable case that is brought up of the effect of this section is the case of the British Columbia Electric Company, which as I understand it, is a company running tramways in Vancouver and Victoria.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: New Westminster.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that they also have a tramway in Victoria.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, that is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would appear that
that company is operating under lease or other arrangement-that is immaterial-two small lines of railway, one of which was originally constructed by the Canadian Pacific and the other under a Dominion charter, one road being the Vancouver and Lulu Island railway and the other Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern railway. By reason of their so operating these roads, under this section, these tramways have been withdrawn from the control of the provincial authority, they have ceased to be subject to the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission of British Cblumbia and have been placed under control of this Parliament in so far as legislative action is concerned and under the control of the

Board of Railway Commissioners in so far as the fixing of their rates is concerned.
This condition of affairs has given rise to very strenuous objection on the part of the provincial authorities, likewise upon the part of the local authorities, and I might perhaps correctly say, if I can take the representations of the representatives of the people, upon the part of the people of the province. It has been forced upon our attention the exceedingly widespread effect of this section as it stands.
There is also another very serious consideration. I do not desire to absolutely commit myself upon this question, but our attention having been brought to it, we felt called upon to look into the matter and there does arise a very serious question whether it is, under the British North America Act, open to this Parliament, by general legislation of this kind describing a class of works, to make every particular work come within the description of that class of work for the general advantage of Canada without the slightest reference to whether as an actual matter of fact in each particular case it can at all reasonably be suggested that that particular work is a work for the general advantage of Canada. It has been suggested that it is extremely doubtful whether the power vested in this Parliament to make of a work otherwise purely local a work for the general advantage of Canada and subject in consequence to the control of this Parliament by declaring it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, entitles this Parliament to declare that all works of a certain kind shall be works for the general advantage of Canada without knowledge of the conditions, and entirely without reference to the circumstances, of each particular work.
The condition of affairs to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahill) has pointed, and for which there seems to me to be a very strong reason for seeking a remedy, can be properly and adequately dealt with by taking up the case where the condition which he has pointed out exists and by declaring each one of these local railways which are being operated by railway companies under the control of Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That will subject, these roads to the provisions of a law applicable to railways which are under the legislative authority of this Parliament. The difficulty seems to result not from the fact that the condition which the hon. gentleman has pointed out calls for remedy, but from the fact that the remedy applied did not fit the particular case, or at all events did

not confine itself to fitting the particular case, but operated to bring under this Parliament a large class of works which, I think it may be safely said, was not in contemplation at all at the time. Now this condition of affairs which has brought all these railways, or tramways, of the class I have referred to under the control of Parliament, is one, I think, that calls for rectification, and there is some urgency in remedying the condition that results from the fact that these enterprises find themselves to-day either entirely withdrawn from provincial control, or at all events in a' condition of doubt as to what authority controls them. I think the remedy will be-


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: May I ask the minister whether this Bill will have the effect of withdrawing such a railway as the Quebec and Saguenay from the jurisdiction of the Railway Board?


John Dowsley Reid: Not the Quebec and Saguenay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope hon. members will understand that we are not in committee. The motion before the House is that I do leave the Chair for the House to go info Committee of the Whole. It has been moved in amendment by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee. If the amendment prevails discussion at this stage is quite useless. If it does not prevail, and the motion itself is accepted, hon. gentlemen will then have full opportunity to discuss the merits of the Bill in committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is on the amendment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity of saying a word on the subject before the House, if it is possible, because I think a solution is possible that will obviate the existing difficulty.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to have an answer to my question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member's question is one which should be put in committee. There is at present a motion before the Chair and hon. members may recall that I have pointed out in rulings heretofore given, that this motion is not debatable. I suggested that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) should have

an opportunity to make an explanation in moving this motion, but I trust the House will agree with me that it would be unwise to have a general discussion of the Bill at this stage.


Mr. DEVLIN:: The minister did not finish his statement.
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to and the Mouse went into Committee, Mr. Nesbitt in the Chair.
On section 1-application of Act to certain classes of railways repealed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I' desire to oppose the passing of this Bill for reasons which were partly set forth by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). I am of the opinion that the minister is putting forward legislation for the benefit of a couple of local companies and wiping from the statute a clause which was inserted, after a good deal of discussion, at the request of the men who operate railways in this country and who set forth very cogent reasons why that section should be enacted'. The railways of the larger grade are standardized with certain appliances and equipment, and the railway men are forced to study the rules and to understand the operation of all these various appliances and equipment, and become habituated to the use of them to such an extent that the operation of trains so standardized with such equipment become second nature to the operatives. If this Parliament, in its unwisdom, were to cut [DOT] out this salutary enactment, which was inserted for the express purpose of preserving the lives and the bodies of the railway operatives from death and accident, I think they would be doing a great injustice to those men. I am under the opinion that the minister is pursuing a most unhappy course in attempting to grant some species of favour to railways and tramways of a local nature and character at the expense of the men who operate the great standard systems of the country. What will happen in the event of the section in question being cut out? Where the operation of the standardized railway forces the men to go on to other railways that are not so standardized-railways which the law does not require to have the standardized equipment -they are thrown into a new style of operating trains where the appliances may not, and often are not, present. Through habit, they look for certain appliances, levers and aids to the operation of the train, having been habituated to the use of them, but they find them lacking and an accident
happens. It does seem to me, Sir, that the minister is going at this matter in a rather left handed way. Why not let the section stand and be universal in its application to the standardized railways and put in a proviso that this section shall not apply to railways of a merely local character, railways that are not such as would ordinarily come under the operations of the Railway Board. In that way, the difficulty is overcome. The amendment that I would suggest would be to this effect:
This section shall not apply to railways or tramways operated under a .provincial charter, or otherwise of a local nature, not coming under the provisions of the Railway Board.
If you adopt an amendment of this nature you preserve in the statute that benefit to the men which I have described, and you relieve from the operation of the statute these railways of a local character and nature.
1 oppose the Bill most strongly, knowing that the section as it stands is salutary and should not be amended, and I hope this committee will refuse to pass the Bill.


George Brecken Nicholson: I wish to concur in every word uttered by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). Paragraph (c) of section 6 of the Railway Act was enacted after mature consideration and after the representatives of the railway employees from one end of Canada to the other and of the railway companies had discussed the matter fully before the special committee and before the Railway Board. What the hon. member for North Perth has said with regard to the danger that would be constantly arising from the use of non-standardized equipment if the railways were not under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board is true in every particular. And we can go further-i't is not only a case ot the railway empoyees being called upon to go from a standard railway on to a nonstandard railway, but the equipment of the non-standard railways is constantly being used" on the standard railways, the conditions of railway service making that absolutely necessary. What the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has said with regard to special legislation dealing with particular cases is perfectly true, but this is being used in the wrong direction. Instead of enacting special legislation, as the hon. member for North Perth has suggested, to take care of some local situation that may arise on a street railway, the efforts of railway employees extending over a period of ten years to secure this legislation are going

to be thrown into the discard simply that relief may be given to a street railway at Vancouver or some other point where a condition has arisen that was not foreseen. It seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Perth is perfectly logical; if any local situation demands that some exception should be made, let us deal with it in that way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: But after the railway committee of this House for three consecutive sessions, having had the representatives of the railway companies and of the employees before them, and having recommended this legislation for the preservation of the life and limbs of railway employees, it seems to me to be perfectly illogical for us to cast it aside simply to relieve some local situation.
'Mr. CAHILL: I move an amendment-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the force of what is said as to the value of .this clause if it is effective in the interests of railway employees. But I do not seem to have succeeded in getting the attention of hon. members to what I said with reference to the question of dealing with these matters by general disposition. As II remarked, there are two objections to this legislation: In the first place, it covers too much. We might relieve that objection by an amendment withdrawing tramways and so forth, as has been suggested; but there would remain this situation. As I said, it is a very serious question whether by a clause of that kind we can say that all railways, purely local otherwise, which are leased to or operated by railways under the legislative authority of this Parliament are works for the general advantage of Canada, and thereby bring them under our authority. The question arises : Does the British North America Act empower Parliament by a general declaration to say that all railways-taking that as one particular kind of work-that answer to a particular description are works for the general advantage of Canada? Or was not the purpose of that Act rather to enable Parliament, exercising its judgment with respect to each particular work, to declare it a work, if it found sufficient reason, for the general advantage of Canada? That question has never been categorically passed upon by the courts, but it was raised in connection with a section of a former Railway Act which provided that every railway that crossed a railway, which latter railway
tMr. Nicholson.]
was under the legislative authority of Parliament, was a work for the general advantage of Canada, and therefore fell under the legislative authority of Parliament. ,hat legislation was subsequently repealed, but it was claimed that in virtue of that Act certain local railways that crossed what I may call Dominion railways were withdrawn from the control of provincial authority. When that case reached the Privy Council the judges there said that they did not find it necessary 'to determine that question because the particular legislation under which it had arisen had been repealed. But they certainly were very careful to avoid recognizing that that legislation did effectively bring those local railways under the authority of this Parliament. They contented themselves with saying that even if those provincial roads had by that legislation been brought under Dominion authority, the subsequent repeal of the legislation left them where they originally were. I commend that to the consideration of the committee. If in face of that situation any considerable portion of the committee is still of the opinion that we had better rely upon this uncertain general legislation rather than get rid of it, leaving ourselves free to attain the object desired to be attained in a way which will certainly attain it, that is, by particular declarations in regard to particular roads,-if the committee prefer that, I have no desire at this stage of the session [DOT] to insist upon this legislation. It has been brought forward at the present moment only to meet what is a very acute situation relative to this particular case, and because the conditions of this particular case have drawn attention to the fact that in all probability there must be quite a few similar cases throughout the country, and have made it clear that at all events this section in its present form is too broad. However, as I have said, if that does not satisfy hon. members, and they still feel that they ought to oppose this legislation, I will not insist upon it at the present time.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In order that the committee may realize the importance of the subject which they are now discussing, may I be permitted to read paragraph (c):
Every railway or portion thereof, whether constructed under the authority of the Parliament of Canada or not, now or hereafter owned, controlled, leased, or operated by a company wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, or by a company operating a railway wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parlia-

merit of Canada, whether such ownership, control, or first mentioned operation is acquired or exercised by purchase, lease, agreement or other means whatsoever, and whether acquired or exercised under authority of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province or otherwise howsoever; and every railway or portion thereof, now or hereafter so owned, controlled, leased or operated shall be deemed and is hereby declared to 'be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
When this subject was before the committee it was very fully discussed1. As the memlbeT for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) pointed out, representatives of different railway organizations appeared before the committee and strenuously opposed any important amendment of the clause as it now appears in the Bill. Take a railway like the Quebec Central, comprising about one hundred miles of line running through the province of Quebec. That railway is allowed to make whatever regulations it wishes to make with regard to the control of its rolling stock, and the workmen on that road seriously opposed the suggestion that they be placed in a different position from that occupied by workmen engaged on other roads throughout Canada. It should be a comparatively easy matter to amend this section in some way so that we should not interfere seriously with such roads in British Columbia as the Minister of Justice has mentioned. I am convincedi, however, that it would be a serious position for Parliament to take to allow this section to be expunged from the Railway Act.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister has not
decided to report progress on the Bill, I would move in amendment:
That the following be substituted for section 1 of the Bill:
1. Paragraph (c) of section six of The Railway Act, 1919, chapter sixty-eight of the statutes of 1919, is hereby amended by inserting after the word " railway " in the first line thereof the words " except electrically operated railways."


John Dowsley Reid: That would not help the matter out at all, as the hon. member will realize when I refer to the case of the Niagara and St. Catharines railway, which is part of the Canadian Northern system. If my hon. friend's amendment is pressed, the matter will be ten times worse than it is [DOT]* now.


George Green Foster: We are nearing the end of the session, and having regard to the field of discussion which the Bill seems to open up, it is not the intention of the Government to insist stitongly on its passage. If it is the opinion of my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, that nothing
very catastrophic would occur between now and the next session 'of Parliament if we do not adopt the measure now, we would facilitate business by withdrawing the Bill and going on to other business.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have twice announced my readiness to withdraw the Bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: There seems to be an impression that this amendment was suggested or brought on for the benefit of some railway company. That is not the fact. The British Columbia Electric apparently is quite satisfied to be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, but the people of British Columbia, represented by the Attorney 'General of that province, as well as the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster and Burnaby arid other municipalities, are not satisfied that the control of street railwaays in the cities of interurban lines should be taken out of the hands of the Provincial Government. So that this amendment is suggested by the province and by the municipal authorities, not by any railway company. We are in this position in British Columbia: a public utilities commission, appointed by the province, has for some time been considering the question of fares in Vancouver, North Vancouver and New Westminster, on inter-urban and city street car lines. This proposed legislation was not known to the authorities of British Columbia; as hon. gentlemen will remember it was approved by a special committee. When it is said that something is going to be done heie without the knowledge of the railway brotherhood, I point out that this particular enactment which is complained about was put through without the knowledge of the provincial authorities. One of the members of the Opposition suggested that the provincial authorities should be notified and that they should have an opportunity of being heard, but they were not notified; they did not know anything about it. The Public Utilities Commissioner went on with his work until a few weeks ago, when he heard of this enactment and his inquiry has since been adjourned from time to time pending the settlement of this question. On the other hand, the B.C. Electric have submitted tariffs to the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Board is apparently going to attempt to assume jurisdiction. We have this conflict between two authorities, therefore, and the result is a great deal of unpleasantness and discontent. The people of British Columbia think that provincial rights have been and

are being interfered with without opportunity being given to them-to the provincial or municipal authorities-of being heard. I wanted to clear up that one point.
Now, very eminent counsel have expressed the definite opinion that this section is unconstitutional. If that is so, you are . going to have lawsuits. There is going to be a lawsuit in British Columbia which is bound to go straight through to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the opinions which have been expressed are sound, then this section is not going to do anybody any good. It is clear that under the British North America Act a declaration has to be .made in each particular case; that is, Parliament has to have its mind on the particular case in question and declare a particular railroad to be one for the general advantage of Canada. Now, that section is bad, and if this amendment is passed, Parliament can take up the case of the Quebec railroad or any other railroad which it desires to bring under its jurisdiction.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Act says distinctly that any one railway may be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is where the
constitutional question comes in; that is where this legislation is absolutely bad. I .speak on the authority of an eminent counsel when I say that this section is going to be declared ultra vires of this Parliament. It will not do the brotherhoods any good-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It will do them good
in connection with other roads.


William Garland McQuarrie: If it is unconstitutional, it will not do anybody good. This is a public question. I repeat that this legislation is brought on not by the B.C. Electric or by any other railway company, but by the provincial and municipal authorities of British Columbia.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move, Mr. Chairman, that you do now leave the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the committee rose without report.

[Stage Direction]
BILL, TO AMEND AN ACT IN AID OF [DOT] PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE SALE OR USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend an Act in aid of provincial

legislation prohibiting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Mr. Speaker, before
you put the question-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The mover of the motion has the first right to speak provided that he desires to exercise that right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that this Bill, if honourable gentlemen recollect the explanation given when it was introduced, calls, perhaps, for very little further on my part at the present moment. This Bill is an amendment to the Act in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors, which was passed in 1916. It will be remembered that that Act, in substance, prohibits the importation, the sending or bringing into any province of intoxicating liquors to be used in violation of the law of that province. The present Bill is designed to extend that prohibition to the manufacture of intoxicating liquor-and, in consequence, prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor-for the purpose of its being used in violation of the law of any province. The draftsman, in drafting the Bill as it is before the House, did not quite grasp the purpose that was desired, and, therefore, the Bill as printed enacts this prohibition of manufacture of intoxicating liquor, the manufacturer:
knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will or shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province in which such intoxicating liquor is manufactured. -
That wording would limit this legislation by making it applicable only to a particular province. The section should read, and I purpose moving so to amend it when we get into committee:
To he thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of any province.
When we get into committee, I also purpose moving an amendment providing for the method of disposal of liquor that has been seized as having been dealt with in violation of the Act. As will be seen, this measure adopts no new principle, but merely extends the principle of the Act that it amends so as to make the rule, which the Act lays down as applicable to importation, applicable to. manufacture also, and it strikes at no liquor except such as is to be used in violation of the law of a province.


John Hampden Burnham: Some time ago I served notice of an amendment to Bills. Nos. 26 and 27, but since doing so I have had a conver-

sation with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). I understand him to recognize that whatever, under these Bills, would [DOT]apply to a provincial referendum on the subject of intoxicating liquors would apply equally to any subject of referendum regarding which .a province may make a request-with, of course, the usual reservation in such cases. This recognizes the general principle of a referendum with Federal aid where necessary and requested. I am content with that, and I would therefore ask leave to withdraw my amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has merely given notice of an amendment, and therefore, no withrdawal is required.


Mr. PORTER:: I do not desire to make any objection to the provisions of Bill No. 27 in fact, I believe the provisions as contained in this Bill are a
4 p.m. proper exercise of the powers vested in this Parliament, that any legislation along this line should be enacted by this Parliament upon which the responsibility rests and that such powers should not be transferred to any other Parliament or legislative body. Nevertheless, I do not want to be taken as in any sense consenting to what I consider a violation of the principle established in this Bill by Bill No. 26, which is to follow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, .and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Nesbitt in the Chair.
On section 1-manufacturing intoxicants, knowing, etc., that they are to be unlawfully used, forbidden:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move:
i That subsection (al) he amended by striking out the word " the" in the third line of the subsection and by substituting the word <" any " therefor, and by striking out in the fourth and fifth lines of the subsection the [DOT]words " in which sucl\ intoxicating liquor is manufactured."
So that the eubsection will read:
'-manufactures any intoxicating liquor knowing or intending that such intoxcatiing liquor will or shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of any province.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree with the object of the provision; but may there not be some difficulty in establishing the knowledge or intention of the manufacturer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the provision of the Act that is now being amended, it is on the party accused to establish that he did not sell the liquor with the "knowledge", referred to, and it will now be on him to
establish that in manufacturing it he had no knowledge of any contemplated use in violation of the law. The burden of proof will be upon the accused to establish the condition of his own knowledge. That is not an unusual provision in statutes which make it essential to an offence that an individual should have certain knowledge, and to put upon him the burden of proving what his knowledge was.


William Stevens Fielding: I take it the prosecution could only be instituted after the article had been dealt with in violation of provincial law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be exceedingly difficult, I think, to succeed upon a prosecution where that had happened. If one were in a position to know, before the thing had actually been carried out, that that was the intention, he might institute his prosecution. I think it is comparatively easy for the party accused to demonstrate his innocence of any knowledge that it was going to be used in violation of the law. Now, with regard to sub-section 2, of section 1, I move that it be amended so as to make section 4 of the Act, which is amended by this sub-section, read:
On any prosecution for the violation of section one of this Act the accused person shall be *deemed to have known or intended that such intoxicating liquor would be thereafter dealt *with in violation of the law of any province in which such liquor was manufactured or of any 'other province into which such intoxicating liquor was sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported, unless he proves that he had good reason for believing that the intoxicating liquor would only be dealt with in a lawful manner.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be better legislation to repeal the law and then reenact it in concrete form?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps that would be better, to substitute for the present subsection 2 of this Act the following provision: "Section 4 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor" and so on. That is, to reproduce section 4 with the added words which I have just suggested. The effect will be that section 4 will in future read so as to cover the case of manufacture as well as the case of sending or transporting the liquor.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Having heard the explanation of the minister, is it your pleasure that the clause as proposed be amended ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not wish to obstruct the minister's Bill in any way, but as a practicing barrister I must say that I am

not in favour of that part of it that casts the burden of the evidence to be adduced at the trial upon the accused. It is not necessary for me to say that the Supreme Court has held that the violation of the Temperance law is a criminal offence. When we are dealing with the question of selling liquor in violation of the law, we are dealing with something which is a crime, and the principle of British justice has been that every man has been presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Now we establish a crime in connection with this Act and we say at once that he is guilty until he proves his innocence. I wish to put myself on record as opposed to that system of trial in whatever form it may come up. I think the temperance people, myself amongst them, should be satisfied to be left in the same position exactly as any other man who has to prove a crime. They should be left to prove that an accused man -is guilty. I think that would be better temperance than going the length of putting a man on his trial and declaring him to be guilty before the evidence is heard. As an old lawyer who has had a great deal to do with the criminal law, I want to put myself on record as being opposed to this change in the well-established principle of our criminal law.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) in that regard. The decisions in the Ontario Court of Appeal are altogether in line with the argument advanced. In the cases of Regina v. Baird, and Regina v. Sproule, the Court of Appeal, after due deliberation held that no conviction under the Canada Temperance Act could be made without positive and affirmative testimony, and that negative testimony was not sufficient. It was held that it was the duty of the prosecution to establish by evidence that was credible and worthy of belief that the act complained of had been committed. I do not think it is fair to turn upside down the well-known principle of which the hon. gentleman has spoken and to provide that a man placed on trial should be required to prove his innocence. It is the duty of the State to bring home to the accused the act with which he is charged. The principle of the law which presumes a man to be innocent until proved guilty should be upheld in the public interest and to safeguard the liberty of the subject.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place, the principle has been established, in the Act

which we are amending, and we are only extending the 6ame principle to cover the addition that this amendment makes to the Act. The second thing that I would like to say is that this does not put the burden of proof in reference to any act upon the accused; but when it shall have been proved- that he manufactured* the liquor, or that he sold the liquor, and it comes to be a question of whether or not he knew the purpose for which it was to be used, this will put the burden of proof upon him-if you can call it a burden to prove what his own knowledge was. These are facts that are within the knowledge of the accused and which it is particularly easy for an innocent man to clear up. It is a very general provision, where the guilt is made to depend upon knowledge on the part of the accused to throw upon him the burden of proof as to what his knowledge was. That is the only burden of proof that is put upon him.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move to amend the Act by adding a clause as clause 3. This will have the effect of amending section 4A of the Act.
This is a section, 4A, providing for the seizure of all liquor that has been the object of a violation of the law and declaring how that liquor is to be dealt with. The purpose of the section to be added is to make provision for dealing with liquor that has been dealt with in contravention of this law and where the owner cannot be found. It has been found by experience that when liquor has been seized under circumstances that clearly indicate that it has been sent into the province in violation of the law, nobody comes forward to claim it, and you cannot find any person against whom you can get an order made in regard to the disposition of the liquor. It is proposed by thi's section to make provision for disposing of the liquor under these circumstances. The new clause is proposed to be added after section 4A and is as follows:
(1) When any intoxicating liquor is seized and brought before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or any magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, and the consignor or consignee or owner thereof or person entitled thereto or claiming the same cannot be ascertained, and if no person establishes a claim to the possession of such intoxicating liquor within a period of fifteen days after the seizure thereof as aforesaid, or within such extended time as the judge of the sessions of

the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, may allow, or as may otherwise be allowed by any competent tribunal, then the judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace who issue! the warrant in execution of which such intoxicating liquor was seized, or, in the case of the death, absence or inability to act of such judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, any other judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, may adjudge and declare such intoxicating liquor, together with all kegs, barrels, cases, 'boxes, bottles, packages, containers and other receptacles of any kind whatever found containing the same, be forfeited to the Crown.
(2) As soon as any intoxicating liquor and the receptacles containing the same are forfeited -to the Crown, the judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two ot more justices of the peace, by whom such forfeiture is adjudged and declared shall immediately transmit to the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue a notice in writing specifying the quantities and descriptions of the intoxicating liquor so forfeited, and shall order that such intoxicating liquor shall immediately be deposited in a Customs bonding warehouse within the province wherein such intoxicating liquor is forfeited as aforesaid, to be disposed of as the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue may direct.


William Stevens Fielding: What method of disposition of the liquor would that contemplate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume the minister might dispose of it by destroying it, or seeing that it was used for legitimate purposes. I think the provision is so worded as to be in accordance with the provisions of the* law dealing with liquors that are forfeited under the Inland Revenue Act. We put these liquors into the hands of the Minister of Inland Revenue to be disposed of as he may determine, and I doubt not he will dispose of them in the same manner in which articles of the sarnie kind forfeited under the Inland Revenue Act are disposed of.
M^. McKENZTE: I do not quite understand the limits of the jurisdiction of the magistrate or the authority that is authorized to deal with this liquor. In Nova Scotia we have a provincial law which is very much akin to this provision. That is, if liquors are found anywhere in the province and nobody claims them within
thirty days after they are received, an order can be made by the magistrate who issues the warrant, or the summons, to deal with them as any other liquors that are illegally used under the Nova Scotia Temperance Act are dealt with. That is very plain. But the procedure proposed here would appear to rather conflict with it. I do not quite understand why the order can only be made by the man who tried the case. There must be an information laid under proper jurisdiction with respect to this liquor. I would understand that the man who tried the offence should make the decree or order to dispose of the liquor; but does the minister say that the clause means that one magistrate may try the case and declare the liquor forfeited, and that none of the other courts mentioned may issue an order for the destruction of the liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In principle it is the
magistrate who issues the warrant who makes the order with regard to this liquor, but if he should die or be unable to act, some other magistrate having similar jurisdiction may make the order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not at first catch the nature of the provision. If it is, as the minister explains, it is all right.
Ssubsection 1 of amendment agreed to.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Nesbitt: The
next is sub-clause 2-disposal of forfeited liquor, as read by the minister. Shall that carry?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is one provision
that I have been trying to grasp, I do not think it is exactly right as at present worded. I do not see how a man could be said to be claiming a thing when the officers of the law cannot find him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause reads that
if the officers cannot find the owner, " or any person entitled thereto, or claiming the same"-that is to say if they cannot find anybody who claims it. and so on.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the clause is
rather unhappily expressed.
Subsection 2 of amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER: There are two Bills yet on the Public Orders that we have to deal with, and I will move that we return to Public Orders and take up those Bills. Bill No. 26 to amend the Canada Temperance Act, from what I have heard, is to be

debated, and therefore will stand for the present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Fielding (for Mr. Jacobs) Bill No. 9 to amend the House of Commons Act and to provide that polling days of elections shall be public holidays was read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 7 to amend the Adulteration Act (respecting Bran and Shorts or Middlings) -Mr. Sutherland, was considered in tCom-mittee, reported and read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Nesbitt in the Chair.
Department of Labour-Further amount required to defray expenses of National Conference, and for printing of proceedings, $5,000.
["-and in the small portion of Sunday that we have used up in a good cause, I think we shall be able to prorogue about four o'clock in the afternoon.\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.48 a.m. (Sunday).\nMonday, ,November 10, 1919."]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What particular conference does that item refer to?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Conference that was held at Ottawa and which my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) attended.
Department of Labour-Amount required to defray expenses of Canadian delegates and advisers, to International Labour Conference at Washington, $2'5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Green Foster: I do not know that the doctrine of Cabinet solidarity could be pushed so far as that. I have no knowledge of what has taken place at the Conference, except what I gather from the newspapers. But different sides are represented, labour and employers, and it is natural that there should be some difference of opinion between them, and we can only expect our delegates to use their best judgment as to how they shall vote.
 *


William Stevens Fielding: Might we not have some explanation as to what is expected to be accomplished by the Conference? I am aware that the Conference had its origin in the Peace Treaty, but I really think the House has had very little explanation regarding the Conference itself.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will see if he has read the newspapers-[DOT] and I know he has-that the Conference is at present discussing the forty-eight or forty-four hour week. The object aimed at is to get international agreement with reference to the weekly hours of labour. That object, if it can be gained, has certainly very great advantages. In fact, it is hoped that as a result of the deliberations of the Conference on the range of subjects connected with labour that an international agreement may be reached thereon. I am sorry that, not being at the head of the Department of (Labour, I have no special knowledge of the proceedings and can give my hon. friend only a general idea of what the Conference is expected to accomplish.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not putting my
question in any critical spirit.


George Green Foster: No.


William Stevens Fielding: I _ realize that these
labour problems are of such vast importance that we should try to find solutions for them. The Conference, of course, has neither executive nor legislative power in itself; whatever it might do could only be made effective by subsequent legislation on the part of the nations concerned.
~Sir GEORGE FOSTER: I think'so.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish I could see any reasonable hope of such international agreement as my hon. friend suggests. The object of the Conference is a good one at all events.


George Green Foster: We must make progress by degrees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the
Acting Prime Minister know how much longer the proceedings at Washington are likely to last?


George Green Foster: When you'get
a meeting of labour men belonging to one nationality, and try to make an estimate as to how long they will talk, I think it will be admitted that you have a pretty difficult problem on your hands; but when you consider that the deliberations will be participated in by representa-

tives of twenty-eight different nationalities and that many different languages will be spoken, it is beyond my power to make an estimate of how long it will take them to come to an absolute conclusion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that the *law officers here have expressed the opinion that any legislation affecting the length of the workman's day or the number of hours of labour per day is a provincial question; and if I remember correctly, the Prime Minister made a statement, to that effect in the House last session. Even if this conference should decide on an eight-hour day, then, any Canadian enactment in that regard would have to be made through the different provincial legislatures. May I ask whether there was any consultation with the respective provincial governments concerning the appointment of delegates to attend this conference on behalf of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provinces, of course, were not entitled to delegates as provinces, but the different Provincial Governments were asked to send, and I believe all did [DOT]send, representatives selected from their officials, in some instances provincial minister of the Crown, to accompany the representatives of Canada as experts and to be entitled, m the absence of the titular representative of Canada, to act in his place. The province of Quebec sent their inspector of industrial establishments, the officer who has charge of all matters connected with labour questions.
Additional amount required for the remainder of the fiscal year to defray expenses of the Director of Coal Operations and staff in Alberta, and for printing, stationery and clerical assistance, not otherwise provided for, $25,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
nature of the operations that are being carried on under this head? The four items which we have been considering involve a total vote of $60,000, and all the items represent activities which are more or less outside the Department of Labour. The criticism that one hears from many sides is that the Department of Labour is not really carrying on the work for which it was established; that it is delegating the greater part of the work to commissions and outside organizations. A great deal of public money is being spent on work which is supposedly part of the work of the Labour Department but which, in reality, is being carried' on by bodies wholly independent of that department. This last item seems to be of that nature.


George Green Foster: Perhaps it would be nearer the truth-I do not .say it offensively-to say that the department is carrying on all the old-time activities and is also stretching out in new directions. Really these services are activities which have been proceeding during the war period under the War Measures Act. As the War Measures Act will in part, cease when the ratifications of peace are deposited some time this month, it was felt that the charging of these items to demobilization account under the War Measures Act could not be continued. This particular item arose out of the utter disorganization of the British Columbia coal mines this side of the mountains. These were put under the control of a director who has been working for over two years. He is doing the work very efficiently as a public service, but we must, of course, provide for the necessary expenses. I assure my honourable friend that this work has been very successful in mitigating the labour troubles in that district and in ensuring a more or less continued operation of the mines. I believe that the mines are presently operating with afhity and with success.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The strike in the United States has not affected the mines in this country?


George Green Foster: Not as yet; we are very hopeful that it will not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister remarked that after the ratifications of the Treaty of Peace had been deposited in Paris, the War Measures Act would be suspended "in part". In what respect will the Act be continued?


George Green Foster: I used the words "in part" as a cautionary measure. I am not a lawyer and I am not sure how long the War Measures Act may remain in operation, having regard to the fact that we are still in a state of war with certain enemy countries; and that will be the condition until all the different treaties are agreed upon and finally ratified. The Treaty with Bulgaria has not yet been ratified, although it is well up to the point of agreement, but the treaties with Hungary and with Turkey are no further than the period of negotiation. I am not the Minister of Justice; therefore it is well that I should put in the words "in part".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister not think that we ought to try to get out of the state of war as soon as we can?


George Green Foster: Absolutely so.


Mr. MYERS:: Is this Director of Coal
operations in Alberta at present directing the distribution of coal?


George Green Foster: His duty was to direct the distribution of coal, arrange satisfactory wages and their payment, and determine what the cost of coal should he to the consumer having regard to the expenses of operation. In fact, his powers were wide; they gave him directive authority over both operators and miners.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: The reason I asked the question was that at many points in Saskatchewan there are no cars. In some places even schools are being closed. The Government should take some steps at once because the state of affairs is very serious owing t'o the extreme weather conditions in the West at the present time. In fact, I had a telegram from Kerr-Robert yesterday saying that the people had no oars; that the schools were closed, and that there was dire need of fuel.


George Green Foster: The Government is keeping track of the coal situatioh in the West as well as in the East.


Mr. CALDER:: A telegram was received from the Provincial Treasurer of Saskatchewan yesterday in reference to the coal situation that had arisen in Saskatchewan on account of the very cold weather during the last three or four weeks. That telegram has been transmitted to the Labour Department, and I understand that the Labour Department has got in touch with Mr. Armstrong who is in charge of this work. I have no doubt at all that he will take the matter in hand with a view of seeing what can he done. This is a purely temporary situation and has arisen as a result of very cold weather conditions extending 'over a short period.


John Dowsley Reid: I should like to say a word or two with reference to the shortage of cars. For some time I have been receiving telegrams from the West complaining about the shortage 'of cars for the shipment of hay, coal and wheat. That has been going on not only for the last few weeks, but for a year. The reason for the shortage is this. In the past there was generally a surplus of American cars in Canada, but the American Government since it has had charge of the situation, has been keeping our cars in the United States and there have been in the neighbourhood of 20,000 more Canadian box cars in the United States than American cars in Canada. Yesterday the way in which
[Sir George Foster. 1
the car situation stood was this: There are now located in the United States 1,830 Canadian livestock cars and 43,661 Canadian box cars, to offset which we have only 158 livestock cars and 21,240 box cars of United States railroads in Canada. In other words, yesterday there were 22,000 Canadian box cars in the United States over and above the number of American cars in Canada. I have been taking the matter up by wire in the strongest possible terms with Mr. Walter D. Hines, representative of the American railways. The railways themselves have been doing everything possible to get those cars over here, but we have not yet been successful in reducing that great difference. We are still continuing our efforts, and perhaps it might be well to read a telegram that I received yesterday and that will show exactly the position I have taken as regards the shortage of empty cars in the West. I took the matter up with the Canadian Railway War Board on account of the complaints from the West about not getting cars for livestock, and this is the reply I received:
Nov.
Hon. X>r. J. X). Reid,
Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ontario.
7.
Supplementing telegrams and telephone conversation yesterday re Alberta livestock shippers complaints further report just received from Canadian Pacific railway reads as follows :
" There is undoubtedly a shortage of stock cars in the Canadian Pacific in Alberta and the cause of it is perfectly well known to Messrs. Kenny and McDaniels and to the Calgary Livestock Exchange a great proportion of the stock market has been 'going to Chicago via Portland and American connections are not in position to supply any cars for it. There are fifteen hundred Canadian Pacific stock cars south of the line and connections have been unable to make prompt return on account of delay in cleaning and disinfecting after unloading which delay they assert is due to shortage of labour and to the cold weather. The feed situation in Alberta was well known to everybody associated with the stock business but they waited until the advent of winter to throw thousands of head 'of cattle on the railway companies for transportation in addition to the movement via Portland there is a heavy movement to St. Paul and Chicago out of Union stock yards at Winnipeg. Other Canadian railways are supplying cars for this movement and American connections state they are not in position to send up cars. The result is that the whole burden of the traffic is thrown on Canadian Pacific. Our wire yesterday gave information showing considerable improvement in return of Canadian Pacific stock cars from Soo line this board has been in touch with United States railroad authorities continually about accelerating return of cars which efforts now appear to be bearing fruit. Stock cars have been and are being rushed from eastern

*Canada as fast as available in absence of stock cars box cars have been placed at disposal of Alberta shippers in ratio of three box for two stock when and where they would use them and in fact investigation shows that railways Rave been leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to cope with extraordinary situation brought about by conditions already described. Board is informed that Kenny and McDaniels have telegraphed you withdrawing their complaint.
The Canadian Railway War Board.
I think it is an outrage and a disgrace for the railroads of the United States to keep 22,000 Canadian cars over there and to use them, when they know that we in -Canada are suffering for lack of those cars.
I only want hon. members and 5 p.m the people of this country to
know that the Railway Department, the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways have for a long time been taking every means possible to get those cars back. But Walter D. Hines, who is in charge of this, seems utterly to ignore all appeals we make in the interest of humanity and doing justice to our country to give back to us the cars to which we are entitled.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would it not be feasible for the Minister of Railways to increase the per diem rate at which those cars are now being charged, to double or treble it, if necfessary?


John Dowsley Reid: The international rates are fixed. Supposing you did that, how are you going to collect the rates? The cars are there, and if you start endeavouring to force the United States Government in the way the hon. member states or in some other way of that kind, they will put some restrictions on our traffic going into the United States, and the result might be disastrous to international shipping. I am satisfied that if those means or any other that might be suggested could be adopted, the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways would take those means to get the cars.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am satisfied that the minister is doing what be can in the matter.
Mr. MoMASTER:	Before returning to
the item under discussion, in reference to which I desire to ask some questions, I might say that if the Minister of Railways would pay a personal visit to Washington and bring the same pressure to bear upon the senators in that country as he was able to bring to bear upon those .at home


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McMASTER:: when he wanted to
buy the railway-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: he might get his
cars back-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: and he would have used his voice and his influence to good purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: Allow me to say that I had no influence with the senators, and I would be sorry indeed to feel that they were susceptible to influence on the part of any individual or corporation. If the hon. gentleman seriously entertains the opinion to which he has given expression, then all I can siay is that it is a reflection on the Senate. However, I am pleased to observe, in passing, that there were sufficient senators of sound judgment to pass so invaluable .a Bill.
Mr. MoMASTER: The senators


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the Chairman rule the minister out of order too?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He was decidedly out of order in speaking about what happened in the other Chamber. Now, to come back to the item under discussion. I understood from the minister that the director of coal operations was doing his work as a matter of public service, receiving no remuneration. I desire to register an emphatic protest against our being asked to pass an item of $25,000 in the absence of more detailed information. If we were asked to pass items in connection -with any regular department, the Government would place before us the number of clerks employed and the salary of each, and would give more details 'than we have in regard to this somewhat extraneous work undertaken by the Department Of Labour. I submit that when work is done outside of the ordinary functions of a department there should be full and accurate information 'as to how the money that is asked for is to be spent. This item does not tell us whether the Director of Coal Operations is to get any salary or not. Perhaps he is, but we have no information to that effect. We are not told the number of his staff and what their salaries are. The minister says that he is not a lawyer, but to poor and honest members of the legal profession $25,000 is



a considerable sum, and I repeat with emphasis that we should not be asked to pass this item without a great deal more in the way of detail than we have.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Probably the busiest man in Alberta is the gentleman to whom reference is made in this discussion. In the province of Alberta we have one-twelfth of the world's coal, although few .members realize that fact. We have hundreds of mines, and during the war we were obliged to depend to a great extent on alien labour. These people were, to my mind, somewhat unreasonable in their demands for wages, and victuals the richness of which would heretofore have spoilt their stomachs they spurned and grumbled at. They say now that they must have tomatoes out of season, green onions in winter, and so forth, and Mr. Armstrong has had considerable work to do as a mediator. I can assure the hon. member that he has been a very busy man. During the last four years we have had trouble continuously, always on the verge of strike, and these conditions create a good deal of work for the director and his staff. He has a Staff in the city of Calgary, and they coveT a territory from the city of Edmonton to Lethbridge, and in the Crowsnest Pass. And it costs money to travel. No sooner is a disturbance settled "in one end of the country then they have to journey to another. Altogether, from the nature of the work that these men have to carry on, I would say that the estimate is a very conservative one.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The member who has so kindly given this information to the committee quite ignores the purport of my remarks. I am not saying that this estimate is either too little or too much, nor do I say that the work of the Director is either good or bad. I do not know anything about the matter, and I merely suggest to the committee, quite properly as I think, that if we are asked to pass an estimate of $25,000 in connection- with this work we should know just what it is for. Is it for salaries or indemnities, for stationery, or for what else? I think we should have more details. Certainly, more information would be given us if the work were done under the department itself; and I think, a fortiori, that in this instance we are all the more justified in asking for detailed information.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: A what?


Andrew Ross McMaster: A fortiori,-a very usual term.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: In Assiniboia?


Andrew Ross McMaster: And also in Carleton, N. B.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend, on principle, is quite right. I have h(?ard the same appeal made just as fervently as he has made it to-night on innumerable occasions, and by members on each side of the House alternately.


William Stevens Fielding: You never made it yourself?	.


George Green Foster: Generally the
protestations come louder from the Opposition than from the Government side of the House, for which I suppose there is a natural reason. Now, my hon. friend, being satisfied that his principles are right, and having made his protest, is faced with this fact, that the Minister of Labour is not at the present time here and that I am acting pro tern, with an imperfect knowledge of his department. If 'the hon. member, however, will take my moral and other responsibilities as well as those of the Minister of Labour himself, for a fair and just expenditure of the small sum which is required, and allow the item to go through, he will have an easy conscience and. will sleep well, and we shall be able to proceed to the consideration of other items. Now. could not my hon. friend stretch his good nature far enough to allow'the item to pass?


William Stevens Fielding: A soft answer turneth
away wrath.
Dominion Lands and Parks-Amount required to provide relief by way of necessary supplies of food, clothing, fuel, etc., also fodder for animals to needy settlers of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan by co-operation and agreement with the provincial governments or otherwise, and under regulations to be made by the Governor in Council, $2,000,000.


Mr.   OOWAN@: I had expected that this
amount would be larger and I am therefore not at all surprised that at least $2,000,000 should be asked for. Like every one else, I like to see the necessity for relief removed. I understood either the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Cal-der) or the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to say that negotiations had been opened with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta looking to the establishment of an irrigation scheme in that part of' the country to remove the ever recurring demand for relief there. I would like to ask if they have started these negotiations, and, if so, what progress they are making. It seems to me that something of that kind should be done in a very comprehensive manner.


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion's part in what my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) calls negotiations has already been pretty well performed; at all events, it has been in progress of performance "'for many years. The Dominion Government has for a period of many years-indeed, dating back to the first of the century, or close to that time-undertaken the survey work in connection with irrigation projects. Back as far as 1894 control was asserted by this Parliament over the surface waters of the three prairie provinces. Growing out of that control, which was necessarily a Dominion jurisdiction, the Dominion Government established a system of surveys with a view to ascertaining what were legitimate, and from the business standpoint likely successful, irrigation projects. As a result a survey was made, followed by actual engineering supervision of any construction enterprise entered into, and there has been very considerable progress made in the way of actual irrigation projects in these three provinces.'
That has largely been, of course, by the Canadian Pacific Company on the one hand and by what is now known as the Canada Land and Irrigation Company on the other. The latter is a combination of what were * formerly three companies engaged in the same work. The Canadian Pacific irrigation schemes now embrace, not a considerable area having regard to the; amount of land that needs irrigation, but quite an area. Many farmers in Western Canada now are on Canadian Pacific irrigated land and doing remarkably well. The Canada Land and Irrigation Company have encountered many reverses and delays. It is, perhaps, more correct to say that the companies now comprised in the Canada Land and Irrigation Company encountered these reverses. The war came on and the whole investment of these concerns seemed to be at the point of being wrecked. The Government, however, came to the assistance of the companies by way of a loan, the agreement for which is of a rather complicated nature. The Government are amply secured and the agreement which was made has. vindicated itself abundantly, the consequence being that the whole of the enterprise and of the work already done were conserved, and now the monies advanced by the Government are in process of being repaid. The Canada Land and Irrigation Company, under Mr. Hays' management, has made most substantial progress and is now at the point where there does not seem to be any good reason why quite an area of the land that they seek to irri-
123i
gate will not be in shape for sale and for actual irrigation next spring.
All this work is supervised by the Irrigation Branch of the Department of the Interior. No land is allowed to be included in any system of irrigation and no land is allowed to be sold until the whole scheme of irrigation has been approved and until, as regards each separate parcel, the soil content and the plans of the company as to how much of the land is irrigable and can be used to advantage, are examined by the department. As regards the progress of these two concerns, very much practical work has been done and its value is largely demonstrative of what is possible in other areas.
The Dominion Government, as a matter of policy, has taken the ground that actual irrigation construction is noi a Dominion responsibility. It is a provincial responsibility or a local responsibilty of some kind. We have met with some resistance in pressing that principle but I think I am not going beyond the mark in saying that the principle is now accepted on the part of the province of Alberta any way and I do not know that it is seriously resisted on the part of the province of Saskatchewan. There is no immediate difficulty in the case of Manitoba. The government of the province of Alberta are naturally anxious that they do not become involved in responsibilities until they know the exact nature of the project that they are asked to endorse. They are anxious also that the Dominion Government continue to press on this survey work with the utmost possible speed and that the Dominion's imprirualur foV each separate project be given just as soon as the information can with the greatest rapidity be obtained.. That is being done. I think I can say that we have spared nothing in the way of expense so long as we have felt that the money was being properly expended to hasten this survey work. Because we have done that we have made a great deal of progress. Our part of the contract, if you can call it a contract, is well advanced. I do not think there is any reason to fear that the part that must be taken by the provinces will not readily be taken just as soon as the projects are at the stage where each province will have to decide what it is going to do about it.
In the matter of bringing about a solution of the dry area difficulty in western Canada by irrigation, let us not deceive ourselves. There does not seem to be any possibility that the supply of water that will be avail-

able for Canada from the rivers that are within reach of irrigable land, or rather land that is drought stricken, will be anything like sufficient to take care of all the land that ought to be irrigated. We will just have to use that supply of water to the utmost possible advantage and to see that none is diverted where it will do less good than it might have done if it had been directed somewhere else. That is a problem and a responsibility that the Dominion Government must shoulder and is shouldering. It is very probable that only a fraction of the land that would be much better of irrigation in western Canada can be irrigated by the available water supply.


Mr. AKGUE:: Before that item is passed I would like some information in regard' to this expenditure. When will it be available to the settlers?


Arthur Meighen: That is the real point. The arrangements made this year have taken some time but there has been nothing in the way of a hitch. There is an agreement between the Dominion Government and the province of Alberta and I believe that with the province of Saskatchewan there is a separate agreement. The arrangement is this: In 1915 the Dominion Government took the whole- responsibility of relieving the needs of the drought-stricken areas where actual relief had to be furnished to keep the people alive, to keep them supplied with essentials until spring and with seed. That responsibility .was assumed both as regards homesteaders who had not received their patents and as regards owners and it involved a very great outlay. In 1915 the conditions were somewhat analogous to what they have been in 1919. In
1917	in these regular drought areas there was only what might be called a half harvest-no, there was not even that. In
1918	there was a failure

not total, but almost-and very considerable hardship. In 1919 there is a complete failure and very great hardship. With these three reverses, one following on the other, we have conditions that parallel the conditions of 1915. It did not seem right to me that the Dominion treasury should meet this expenditure entirely, and I am glad to say that the provinces have met us in a fair spirit and we have come to an arrangement. It is agreed that where expenditures must be made they shall be made by the provinces and through provincial administrative machinery. They supply the organization to do it, see where it is essential, and provide for it where that is the ease. Wherever they make the actual outlay for relief,, we bear half

and they bear the other half. In the case of unpatented homesteads, they take the lien in our favour and pass it on to us; where it is patented l^nd they take the lien in their own favour. Whenever they collect money on these securities they give us half and when we collect money we give them half. They are credited with half of our collections and we with half of theirs, so that if all the money is collected we will each get our part; if there is a loss we both share it. That is the Whole principle of the transaction.
Mr. ARGUE.: Are these payments to be made in one year or two?


Arthur Meighen: The payments will be
due in one year. I am far from saying they will be made in one year; they never have been. We have lost veky little but it takes a long while for the payments to be made.
I think the provincial government this year are keeping down advances for relief to the minimum. We know that to be their intention; they are going to confine the relief given to certain staple necessities and to nothing else-that is what I am informed. They lose one-half of whatever is lost, so I think that is sufficient security for us.


Ira Eugene Argue: That is not the situation
to which I wish to draw attention. Take the drought-stricken areas where the merchants in the villages -and towns have been carrying these farmers through for the entire year. ,When it came to the end of the year and they should have been paying their bills, they had not got a dollar for the purpose. If the Government lends them money to carry on for another year, and then request the re-payment of the whole of it next year, the .merchant who carries these people on his books must continue to do so for another twelve months. I would like to know if the Government could not collect fifty .per cent of the indebtedness in 1920 and allow the farmer this year to pay off fifty per cent of his indebtedness to the merchant who has carried him?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the
Government is likely to get the advantage of the local merchant in the collection; we never do. The local merchant will get his fifty per cent all right, Anyway, under the plan that will be in vogue now,, that will have to be taken care of by the provincial government. Under the arrangement they will look after the re-payment in the case of -all unpatented homesteads, which class is variously estimated at from ten to seven-

teen per cent of the total number who need relief.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: Who supplies the seed?


Arthur Meighen: The provincial government, through the municipalities supplies the seed altogether for patented homesteads, and we supply it for unpatented homesteads.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: Is the distribution to be made through the municipal councils? The reason I asli is that if it be done that way unnecessary expense will be avoided. The farmers at the present time are in poor circumstances and I would therefore suggest that in the interest of economy the distribution be made through the municipal councils.


Arthur Meighen: We bear no expense at all ourselves, but of course the expense has increased. What the province is doing is this: in the main they guarantee the municipalities, and the municipalities provide the essential necessities themselves, under the control of the province, the province guaranteeing the municipality at the bank and holding- the municipality responsible. The only time we come in in such cases is when the province is called upon to pay by reason of its guarantee. If the province is not called upon to pay, then we have nothing to pay. In Alberta, especially, there is very little organized territory in the municipalities as yet, so that in that province the arrangement cannot be carried out in that way. In that case they simply use the regular provincial officers; but where they have a municipality they use it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It would be interesting if the minister could tell us what percentage of the last advance made in this fashion has been returned?


Arthur Meighen: There never was an advance made in this fashion. The advance to which the hon. gentleman doubtless refers was made in 1915. I cannot recall the exact figures but I will give them approximately and as closely as I can. In 1915, $12,300,000 was advanced for relief and seed grain. Of that amount about $7,500,000 was for seed grain and about $5,000,000, for relief. The total amount returned at the last inquiry I made was about $9,500,000. That includes seed payments. There have been more returns made since, so that there would be about $3,000,000 and interest outstanding. The larger portion of that was for relief; in that class of cases we had to
take a last lien: in the case of seed grain we took a first lien.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: In addition to what the
minister has said I may explain that there is no doubt about the security in the case of these loans, because the Government has taken a first lien on the land.


Mr. MAHARG:: What provision is being made for the issue of grain for next spring?


Arthur Meighen: My present intention
is to recommend that we follow the course that was pursued last spring. That is, where the seed is to be furnished to unpatented homesteads we arrange to have our agents recommend each individual case to the bank designated by the homesteader. The homesteader selects his own seed and gets his money from the bank at a rate of seven per cent, giving his note and his lien, and then we guarantee a return of the principal and five per cent interest.


John Archibald Maharg: Is it the intention of
the Government to give assistance to the needy settlers again this spring?


Arthur Meighen: Does the honourable
gentleman mean for seed?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes, for seed.


Arthur Meighen: Entirely as regards
unpatented lands. Where it is essential we will have to see it is done, and I recommend its being done on the same plan that was adopted this year.
Advances to soldiers settling upon the land and cost of administering the Soldier Settlement Acts of 1917 and 1919, including clerical assistance. Further amount required, $20,000,000.
Mr. 'McKENZIE: Perhaps the minister would be pleased to give us an idea as to how many soldiers have settled on the land in each of the western provinces, and the average amount of iloan that the Government has granted to these men.


Arthur Meighen: The number of soldiers who applied under the Act for qualification certificates as farmers was 38,851 up to the 18th of October last. Of that number 29,474 applicants were approved by the Board. The amount of loans approved up to that date was $45,120,233. The total of the loans already approved is about $20,000,000 over the vote; that is why we are asking for this $20,000,000 to continue the advances. The maximum loan authorized is $7,500. In rare cases a loan of $8,000 is permissible under the Act. The average loan granted is

$3,296. Loans "were granted! for the following purposes:
On purchased lands:
For land purchase	$25,089,265
For improvements	 3,118,038
For stock and equipment. . . .	8,876,733
On Dominion Lands		5,007,003
To settlers on their own land.... 3,029,194
The number of applicants recommended for agricultural training was 1,743, and <the number taking training is 702.
The hon. member asked as to the number of men settled in each province. I am not sure that I have that information before me, but, as might he expected, the three western provinces have the largest number. When I last examined the figures the province of Alberta had the Largest number, the province of Saskatchewan came next, and then Manitoba and British Columbia. Ontario had, however, a rapidly increasing number, reaching, I think, close to that of the western provinces. The Maritime Provinces are increasing too, the figures being substantial for each province. I will get those figures for the hon. member before the House adjourns.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Where are the men undergoing their training?


Arthur Meighen: We utilize the provincial agricultural colleges mainly; but we have establish at 'Sherbrooke, Quebec, and at another eastern point training centres where we have lands leased for the purpose, and we also have men in training on farms where we supply them with a Little assistance if they are married men to support their dependents on a very limited scale,-not at all on the scale of the Civil Re-establishment Department. We do not give these men the regular agricultural college training course at all, but a practical training course of three months, in fact, just such a course as will make them useful on the land. The regular agricultural college course is intended to make a good farmer a better farmer; our course is intended to make a man who is not a farmer at all practically useful on a farm.
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-To carry out the recommendations of the report of the committee on Bill No. 10 (Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment), $40,000,000.


Mr. PROULX:: In the expenditure of this money I think the department might utilize the Soldiers' Aid Commissions in some of the provinces, especially in the way of looking after the unemployed and those who are disabled. Those commissions have been engaged in that work for three or four

years, and I am assured by the secretary of the Ontario Commission that they would be disposed to continue it.


James Alexander Calder: I have already received a communication from the Soldiers' Aid Commission of Ontario to the effect that they will be willing to co-operate in every way possible. I have my doubts as to whether the expenditure of this money should be placed under a provincial organization, because after all, those commissions in the various provinces are provincial. We are providing here a fairly large sum of money and it is absolutely necessary to surround the expenditure of that money with adequate safeguards to insure its being spent for the purposes for which it is intended. The Government as yet has not had an opportunity of considering what should be done in the way of establishing the necessary administration to look after this work, but it seems to me that whatever kind of administration is established, it will have to be of such a character as to make certain that this money is used entirely for the purpose which the House had in mind when we were discussing the matter the other day.
Some suggestions have been thrown out that probably the Patriotic Fund organization might act. Personally I have very grave doubts as to the advisability of that. On the other hand, it might be that we have some existing machinery that would be able to carry on this work without duplication. All I can say to the committee at the present time is that the expenditure of this money must be guarded with the greatest possible care. I think there is no doubt in the minds of any member of the committee as to the intention of the House in approving of this suggestion. Every precaution should be taken to see that the money is not squandered or wasted in any way, and the Government has the matter under consideration and will endeavour to establish whatever machinery is necessary, or to use whatever machinery exists with those objects in view.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am afraid that we are just a little too close to six o'clock to get through this item, because it is a very important one and we want definite information in regard to it. Is this $40,000,000 made up of an itemized statement, or is it just a guess; and is much of it to be taken up by what the minister has been prone to call commitments-how much of it goes to payments for which the department is already committed, or is it all available for

new cases that may arise? Can the minister give any general information as to how we arrive at the $40,000,000 ?


James Alexander Calder: In our report we made a series of recommendations, all involving the expenditure of money. In respect of certain items the estimate, I think, is approximately correct. For example, one ol our recommendations was that gratuities heretofore paid to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force should be payable also to Canadians who enlisted in the Imperial forces, minus the gratuity which they received from the Imperial Government. The committee went into that fully and estimated that the cost involved in carrying out this recommendation would be in the neighbourhood of $9,000,000. The committee recommended also that we should refund the fares paid by the wives and children 'of soldiers who returned to Canada prior to the armistice. Since the armistice the Government has paid such fares and it was thought just that those who returned prior to the armistice should be treated on the same basis. We know that about 17,000 dependents returned before the armistice, and that about 34,000 have returned since. We know what the actual cost has been, and we estimate that to carry out this recommendation will involve an expenditure of about $1,000,000.
Mr. McKENZIE.: What machinery does the minister propose to establish for the purpose 'of getting at the persons he has to deal with under these items?


James Alexander Calder: There will be no difficulty about that. As soon as the announcement was made in t'he press that these two" recommendations had been made, applications commenced to come in. We have had a very voluminous correspondence with those whose dependents returned prior to the armistice. Our various soldier organizations are interested in both these questions. They all know that the committee has made that recommendation, and, as I say, applications will come in rapidly. As to the gratuities to Imperifds, the Militia Department have on record the list of all those who served in the Imperial forces; if not, they will be able to get the necessary information.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think they
have such a Tecord. I had one case of an Englishman by birth who left this country and joined the Imperial forces. He was killed, and I communicated with the Government on behalf of his widow, who lives
in my constituency, with a view to their looking after her. The answer I got was that the IMilitia Department had no record of this man because he had joined on the other side.


James Alexander Calder: That may be so. They have some records here, but I have no doubt that others will have to be obtained. 1 take it, however, that every one who is entitled to this gratuity will apply for it at an early day; then jit will be simply a question of ascertaining whether or not the applicant is entitled to the payment, and, if he is, of seeing that the payment is made. That covers these itwo items. Then, the report made a series of recommendations, grouped, because of the impossibility of arriving at a definite estimate. One of our recommendations is that men undergoing medical treatment during a fairly long period in hospitals under the control o(f (the Department of 'Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should get their clothing free. I suppose if the committee had had time they would have been able to arrive at an estimate of Ithe expenditure involved in carrying out this suggestion, but they did not take time to do that. Again, we recommended that a man whlo had been taken on the strength of Ithe vocational branch of the department and who was afterwards discharged because of the fact that he should not have been taken on should receive the pay and allowances provided for those who take vocational training. Sometimes when a man comes to Ottawa to take the training there is every indication that he is entitled to do so. There is sometimes delay in getting the necessary medical and other documents, and pending the completion of these the man may be taken on strength. Then, possibly a week 'afterwards, it may be found that the man was not entitled, under the regulations of the department, to take the training. It was decided by the committee, after hearing very full evidence on that point, that in such cases the pay and allowances should be given as I have stated. .There are hot very many cases of that kind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 1 wish to make a brief plea, before the minister proceeds any further, on behalf of a class of soldiers who at the present time do not get gratuities. I am impelled to do this because the minister said, when the report was under consideration, that the acceptance of the report would not bar the door to further suggestions. I know that the matter was considered by the committee, but I ask the minister to

consider it again. I refer to Canadian-naturalized citizens, many of 'whom had been in Canada for many years, had married * and were bringing up families here, some of them men of forty years and upwards, who when the call came rallied to the colours in the respective European countries to which they belonged. There they were fighting the battle of Canada-because the cause was a common one-in August, September, 1914. I have one case in mind of a man who was fighting the battle of Canada in the French army as early as September, 1914. That man, who for ten years had been a Canadian citizen, comes back with both hands maimed. He does not receive any gratuity. Had he been an English reservist who had re-joined his regiment in England and gone to the Continent in the British Expeditionary Force, he would have been entitled to gratuity. Why should such a distinction be drawn? I do not think that there should be a distinction, and as a matter of justice and of equitable treatment of all I would ask the minister to give the case of such soldiers further consideration.


James Alexander Calder: That matter has received consideration and, I dare say, should receive further consideration. I wish to direct attention to one representation that was made to the committee-I am not sure that it is well founded-and that is this: that although a man came from Greece to Canada, say ten years ago and settled down here and became naturalized, he had not completely severed his Greek citizenship. If he were a Greek reservist, and Great Britain were at war with Greece, although he had become a naturalized Canadian, he -would still be subject to the call of Greece. Does the hon. member see the point?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I see the point, but-


James Alexander Calder: I understand that the
statement was made to the committee that that was true of French and Italian reservists. So long as those countries remain under a system whereby when their people go out to other parts of the world to settle they continue to carry their citizenship with them and to be subject to military law, our position in regard to such people is quite different from that in dealing with our own citizens, citizens within the British Empire. There is a distinction there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a distinction for which the soldier is in no way responsible. I have in mind a French reservist who was

naturalized in 1900, who has been for many-years a voter in the county which I represent, and who at the outbreak of war, although he was a married man with half' a dozen children, immediately went over to France and took part in the war. I think it is very hard that he should not receive-the same treatment as if he were an Englishman who had enlisted.


James Alexander Calder: If England had been at
war with France, where would that man have been?


Andrew Ross McMaster: As a Canadian citizen, I think he would have been in Canada. I do not think he would have enlisted in either army.


James Alexander Calder: He would have been subject to call, even although a Canadian, citizen.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think questions of what might possibly happen between two allies which have fought as one in this war should influence the committee in doing justice to individuals. The question is not whether the policy of France was a wise policy or not; it is a question of justice to individuals who have rendered equal service to the country's cause.


James Alexander Calder: I quite agree with the
hon. member.
Progress reported.



Alexander Kenneth Maclean: By leave of the House I beg to move concurrence in the Senate amendments to Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918. The amendments are not very important, therefore I think we should accept them. The first amendment is on page 2. The clause as it now stands provides that if any position is abolished, the incumbent of that position is put on an eligible list for the class of position from which he was laid off. That-means that if the position is abolished, he will be eligible for appointment to the same kind of position. The Senate adds this:
Or for any other-position for which he maybe qualified.
That, I think, is fair. The next amendment provides for the elimination of the word " organization " which occurs in clause 7 on page 3 of the Bill. The purpose of inserting the word " organization " in this clause was to give power to the commission to organize departments. The Senate moved to strike that out. As it is a

matter which in any event the commission would not be able to reach for a year or more, I think the amendment might be accepted. Another amendment is this. Under the Act as it stood in 1918, the Governor in Council had the power of appointing deputy ministers and members of Royal Commissions. By error this clause was deleted from the Bill, and this amendment is simply to restore the clause. There can be no objection whatever to the amendment.
Motion agreed to and Senate amendments concurred in.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Steele in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: The last item under consideration*was No. 544, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIEi: The minister had not quite finished his statement of particulars in regard to this item. He accounted for $10,000,000, and there is a balance of $30,000,000. Perhaps it would save time if he would tell us how he intends to administer the whole fund.


James Alexander Calder: The administration will naturally fall to the departments that are particularly charged with carrying out the work to be done in accordance with the recommendations. For example, the Militia Department would1 naturally be concerned with gratuities; the rebate of transportation to dependents who returned to Canada prior to armistice would fall to the Immigration Department, which has been dealing with that problem-; while in regard to free clothing to patients in Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals, the department itself would take care of that work. The same is true of pay and allowances to trainees taken on the strength and afterwards not approved by that department. In regard to functional sub-normal cases, the committee recommend :
There is an urgent necessity for the establishing of a means to take care of these problem cases. In view of the highly technical and difficult nature of the question they recommend that the Department S. C. R. should take immediate steps to institute a thorough inquiry to determine the need and to recommend the means of best dealing with this difficult problem.
They further recommend that in the interim, or until such time as proper provision is made for the care of such cases, the department be authorized to expend the money necessary to make provision for these cases.
From the evidence that came before us, there is undoubtedly a large number of men1-we could not get anything .like .an estimate of the number- who have been discharged from the .army, who are not disabled in the ordinary sense, who are not being cared for by the department, and yet are sub-normal. I may give an example-of a man who came before us,' and I am sure there was not a member of the committee who did not feel that he should be in same institution. While he was not disabled in the ordinary sense, you could see written all over his face that he was certainly very sub-normal. He was out trying to get employment here, there and everywhere, and he struck us as being the type of man that must .be taken care of for some time in order to be brought back to normal mentality and strength. It was intimated to us that there were a good many cases of that kind throughout the country, and if this recommendation is carried out the department will have to. get in touch with them and wherever necessary make proper provision to take care of them. These men should not be .allowed to struggle for themselves for some months at least. If they are, I am afraid the consequences to them will be disastrous. It is exceedingly unfair that they should not be taken care of. As to what the expenditure will be, I am sure, as this committee can understand, it is very problematical. The committee has also recommended, and it seems to me that the House might very well leave it to the Government, that steps should be taken at once to ascertain what general policy should be.followed in regard to these men and what provision should be made to properly care for and treat them in order to bring them back, as far a.s po.ssible, to a normal condition. It seems to me that if the experts get to work at once and bring down recommendations as to the establishing of institutions or the placing of these men under proper care, or something of that kind, the Government should not delay in doing whatever is necessary. Again, recommendations were made in reference to certain classes of pension cases, more particularly of widows with families. It was felt that under existing conditions pensions did not go far enough. The committee felt that at this time they could not open up the whole pension system, and consequently made a general recommendation that provision should be made for necessitous cases until

the House has a further opportunity to consider the whole question of pensions. There was a further provision for the cashing of cheques of Canadians of the Imperial forces, in regard to which the expenditure will not he very large. Then' there were two concrete suggestions, one as to loans to re-trained disabled men for the tools and equipment which they require to establish themselves in a new line of work for which they are under training. This does not mean that they are to be established in business, but if they have been trained to be carpenters, blacksmiths, .shoemakers, or to engage in some other trade, a loan will be advanced to provide them with necessary tools. The other suggestion was for loans to disabled men for the purpose of training and education. It was represented that while certain men, such as university students or others who had been taking an educational course, might be getting a pension by reason of disability they had not the earning capacity to acquire what they needed in order to proceed with their education, and it was (Suggested that provision should be made .for loans in necessitous oases of this kind which would be considered on their merits. It is deemed advisable that loans should be given. There was a further suggestion in .regard to the probable unemployment situation during the coming winter. According to the evidence submitted to the committee, there are some 30,000 returned soldiers out of employment at the present time. We did not, of course, obtain, nor do I think it was possible to obtain, any evidence as to the proportion who were actually looking for employment, but the estimate of those not in employment was placed at 30,000. It was also estimated that anywhere from fifty to sixty or seventy thousand returned men would be out of employment during the winter, but it does not necessarily follow that all of these men will have to be provided for. All that the committee suggests is that necessitous cases of real hardship should be dealt with, every one being considered on its merits, and the necessary machinery established. The Government has not had time to consider what form that .administration will take, hut I can only repeat that I consider it very essential that whatever machinery is established should be established in .such .a way as to prevent this money being unnecessarily expended.


Alfred Thompson: I desire to bring to the attention of the committee a matter that has reference particularly to

the territory I represent. It is referred to on page 34 of the report, Part VIII, Written Proposals Received, paragraph 2, and is embodied in a Memorial under date August 29, 1919, of the Yukon Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Committee.
The memorial recites that quite a number of soldiers have returned to the Yukon and that the conditions affecting returned soldiers in the Yukon are as follows:
1.	That the Territory is essentially a mining
country.	.
2.	That the Territory during the war gave to its utmost both in men and money, almost to the breaking point.
3.	That the Territory received no benefit whatever from- war-time industrial activity; and that the Goverment Land Housing schemes are not possible of practical application here.
4.	That the Territory affords little employment during the winter months, and that many of the returned men have not sufficient funds to carry them through the winter.
5.	That the lays corporation of the Territory have considerable placer mining ground, which could be worked profitably .by "returned soldiers during the winter months, and there is other ground in the Territory that might be prospected during the winter months to advantage if the returned soldiers be given financial assistance.
Therefore 'be it resolved, that this committee prays that the necessary provisions be made at the forthcoming session of Parliament, whereby the sum of Thirty thousand dollars ($30.000) be appropriated for the benefit of Yukon returned soldiers, to assist them in becoming reestablished in their former occupation of mining, either in working ground on which discoveries have been made, or with a view of making new discoveries of gold and silver, in each case an agreement to be entered into with the returned soldiers, receiving assistance, whereby the amount so advanced by the Government shall he a first charge against the property he may acquire, or the mineral he may recover.
The committee believes that such a scheme will not only he beneficial to the community generally but will be the only solution of the problem of the unemployment of the returned soldiers in this Territory during, the coming winter.
That memorial was submitted to the committee of which my hon. friend (Mr. Calder) was chairman and it is recorded, as I have said, at page 34 of the report. In glancing over the report, however, I do not find that at has been specifically dealt with, and I would be glad if the minister would tell us as to whether he has been able in any degree to meet the wishes of the soldiers who have returned to the Yukon.


James Alexander Calder: The committee had those suggestions under consideration together with many others. The report itself indicates that the committee has reached certain conclusions, for it has made some recommendations, and that, as regards cer-

tain suggestions that came to it, it simply states that it could not see its way clear to make any recommendations in the House, I am sure the hon. gentleman will see that if provision was made for the men engaged in the mining business in the Yukon you would have to make similar provision for those who desire to engage in prospecting or mining in other parts of Canada. You could not do it for the Yukon alone. If you did it in the case of a miner you would also have to provide for the fisherman, the lumberman* or any one else anywhere else in Canada. It is because every suggestion proposed action along similar lines for practically every occupation that the committee finally came to the conclusion that it could not make a recommendation to the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have asked the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), who was chairman of the committee which had this particular matter in hand, and who no doubt conducted that investigation with an ability equal to that shown by him in submitting the findings to the House, for a concise subdivision on this $40,000,000 which is to be voted to meet some of the recommendations in the committee so that I, and the committee, might know exactly what is to be done with the money. He has given a general outline of what is to be done. If I understand him aright there is nothing provided to meet any of the real demands that were made by the Great War Veterans' Association. They want some provision that would enable many returned soldiers to settle down and establish themselves in business. We have in the Land Settlement Act made very generous provision for the settlement of soldiers who are going on the land-expensive enough, dear knows, both to the country and to the soldier-and it is only to be hoped that it will be a success; if it is not it will be rather a bad thing for the soldier and an expensive experiment for the country. For the present let us hope that it will be a success and that the soldier, who is settled on the land will hawe no reason for complaint. I think he will have to admit that	he has been
generously dealt with.	But the large
body of men who are not inclined to settle on the land but are anxious to set-'tle down in other callings will realize that they are not so generously dealt with. The man who is disposed to be a farmer gets as high as $8,000. The Government has power to give that amount, and I think they have gone as high as that in some
cases. The man who wants to be a merchant, a tradesman, a fisherman, or perhaps a manufacturer, thinks that he should get the same consideration, or at least some consideration; and that was the basis of his application to the Government and to the committee, as I understand it. The opinion is that this concession should be made not so much by way of a donation or charitable assistance or anything of that kind. However, we have the report of the committee, and the only money that is provided is this $40,000,000 which is to be expended as the minister has just outlined. While this report is before the committee we studiously avoided talking in any way that would sound like politics or like seeking party advantage if party advantage could be gained. But as a representative of the people I am bound to tell the minister that I do not regard the investigation before the committee as absolutely fair. I do not regard it as fair in its inception, because the Government, of which the chairman is a distinguished member, had decided some time before July 27 last what they were going to do; that is they had decided that they were not going to do anything beyond those lines. That decision is found in a letter written by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) 'on that day to the officials of the Great War Veterans' Association in Ottawa and addressed to iMr. MaoNeil who was, I believe, the secretary. The hon. minister (Mr. Calder) seems to indicate that he does not quite agree with this statement of mine.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. gentleman permit me?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will permit the hon. gentleman to ask a question or something in that line, but I will not allow him to make one of his explanations which rather break up what one has to say.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman has attempted to state the position the Government took. I merely wish to correct him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The better way wouid * be to read the Prime Minister's letter.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman will find that it only refers to cash gratuities.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That suits my purpose precisely. Because this is cash, as I understand it; we have not yet reached the stage when the currency of 'Canada would be tan bark or anything of that kind.


James Alexander Calder: A great many of the suggestions were based on the payment of cash gratuities.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: year we have set apart twenty millions or so for technical education, notwithstanding the fact that we have lived without it since we became a nation. I think, Sir, that if it were a choice between the interest of the returned soldier and technical education, we [DOT]ought to have allowed technical education [DOT]continue as it has gone for the last fifty years and let us have for the returned soldier the millions of moqey that were voted for that purpose. Housing schemes are a splendid thing if we have the money to spare for that purpose, but if we have to decide between the pressing and growing needs of the deserving returned hero, and making grants to the provinces for the purpose of advancing loans to the municipalities at a low rate of interest to help men to build houses who never sdielt powder and never took any part in the war, it would have been more sagacious for the Government to have kept that money and applied it to the interests of the soldiers. If all this money was to go to the erection of houses for the accommodation of soldiers, it would be a different matter, but that is not the case, the money goes -entirely beyond the control of the Government and into the hands of the provincial authorities, and anybody who complies with the requirements of the provincial and municipal authorities may obtain loans from that appropriation. These are but a few things which go to show that we might have been more conservative and looked farther ahead into the expenditure of money and have had to-day vastly larger money supplies in dealing with this very pressing question so that we could have held ourselves in a position to say to the soldier: We have the money, you need it, and if there is justification we will give it to you. Instead of that we are in the position of saying: you do need the money, and you are justified in looking for it, but we have not got the money to give. I submit, therefore, that this 140,000,000, while a very large sum of money, does not, according to the details given by the minister, in any way go to meet the demands that are made upon us by reason of the representations of the Great War Veterans' Association and the evidence which was submitted to the committee. However, we have nothing to do but to accept the conditions. Those conditions were accepted by a very large majority, the members of the House evidently indicating by their votes that they were perfectly satisfied with the provision that was thus being made for the
returned soldier. To me it was a disappointment.
Yesterday we had many hon. gentlemen speaking very strongly, eloquently and forcibly in support of something being done for the soldiers. I was sorry to see that there are evidently greater considerations than those which the .soldiers advanced; there are greater things than the needs of the returned soldier-things that are more influential in the matter of votes. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has only to pull out his old musket and say: "Look here boys, there is one remedy for all these things'. If there is the slightest sign of weakness in our followers, we have a trick that will bring you to your milk-we shall resign." That flag was flown to the breeze, and every one faithfully filed up behind. Let the soldier look out for himself. ,.It was Safety First with hon. gentlemen on the other side.
I am very sorry that on account of the financial condition of the country, as found by this report, wre are not in a position to do better for our returned soldiers. I hope that the minister (Mr. Calder) will see to it that the very best administration is employed in disposing of this money as far as it goes. I have no doubt that he and his *colleagues will endeavour to the best of their ability to see that no money is wasted, and that the most pressing needs of the returned men are met as far as this little amount of money will meet them. With those observations to clear up exactly what my own views are on the subject, I have no objection at all to the passing of this item.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: While the item is about to he passed, I, as a member of the special committee, desire to enter a protest against the language of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) for many reasons, but particularly for the reason that he hg,s forgotten that although the question of cash gratuities engaged the attention of this special committee, that committee also dealt with extensions of the work being carried on and improvements therein as well as with loans in connection with the reestablishment of the returned soldier. The hon. gentleman, for some reason or other difficult to conceive, has attempted to reflect on the members of that committee by stating that they were intimidated by the musket of the chairman of the committee


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not on the committee at all.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member has suggested that the members of that special committee were obsessed with the idea that as the Government had come to a certain conclusion, they themselves, being slaves, must perforce come to the same conclusion. On behalf of that committee I resent the aspersion and cast it back. Who selected that committee? Its vote was unanimous. Does the hon. leader of the Opposition pretend to say that his followers-the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. E. Lapointe), the hon'. member, for Westmorland (Mr. Copp), the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm), were swayed by the musket of the chairman, were slaves and assisted in framing a report for the benefit of this Government? I hold them in higher esteem. I give them, credit for being honourable members of this House, attempting to do the best they possibly could in the interests of the country in general, and for the returned soldier in particular. It seems to me that it ill lies in the mouth of the hon. gentleman to cast aspersions not only upon members on this side of the House, but upon his own followers to render them infamous.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing of the kind.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like the hon. gentleman to take a little of his own treatment. I submit that in effect he said exactly what I have stated, and there is no other meaning to be taken from his words. But he forgot that there were members of that committee whom he had selected from his own side of the House, and who unanimously agreed with the other members of the committee that this report was the best they could recommend at this critical time in the history of the country. Yet the hon. leader,, of the Opposition stands up, for the purpose of cheap popularity, to try to make a point which recoils upon his own friend's with added force. Why, Mr. Chairman, with the number of discontented soldiers that apparently are to be found-though not to the same extent, I believe, as is generally thought^what would have been more popular for the committee to do than to have granted every reasonable demand of those soldiers? Popularity sought and popularity gained by going against one's honest convictions would be an infamous popularity. It is not right, I submit, for the hon. gentleman to say that the members of that committee entered upon their

work with a closed mind. On the contrary I assert that every member of -that committee-and every one of them is just as honourable as the hon. member who defames them-entered upon that inquiry with perfect honesty of purpose and with the intention of sifting to the bottom every just and reasonable claim put forward by those men who fought so valiantly for this country and the world at large, and that they entered upon the inquiry not with the knowledge imputed to them of the exact condition of the country's finances, but entered upon their task as men of probity and honour determined to do everything within the bounds of reason for the returned soldier. The hon. gentleman, in his very last sentence, condemns himself when he admits that he is very sorry, indeed, that the country's financial position would not allow the committee to do what he would have liked them to do. What is there in this parliamentary life that will enable the recognized leader of a once great party to defame members-honest men, men working with a set purpose to do their very best in their country's interests-and while defaming members on this side of the House to sully his own nest by heaping opprobrium upon those whom he himself appointed to the committee? The thing is impossible to understand, Mr. Chairman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Perth North (Mr. Morphy) is usually a man of some moderation, but to-night he seems to be badly afflicted with some degree of vituperative force. When the hon. gentleman is in a cooler mood, if he will do me the honour of reading Hansard, he will see that I did not say any of the things that he has attributed to me.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I took notes while the hon. gentleman was speaking.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there was any design about that committee I put the whole blame on the chairman. I am not doing my hon. friend the injury, or the honour, of thinking that he had very much to do with the corralling in which he was a victim at the end. He was in the hands of a very shrewd politician, who pointed out to him the evidence from which only one conclusion was to be drawn. The witnesses were put on the stand and the play was set in such a way that my good friend, with all his honesty- and no doubt he is an honest man^-had no alternative but to do just what he did, and which was all brought about by the shrewd politician who stage-managed the play. My

remarks were directed to him entirely, and he does not take it as approhrium, he takes it as the part which he had to play. The good old' politician and' statesman (Sir George Foster), who now sits at the head of the Government, looked around his class and counted heads to see who was the man to put in charge of this committee to bring, in the report that he wanted, and he said: " I think you, Mr. Calder, qualify for this job. You go and do it."
He went, and he did it splendidly. Do not let my friend suppose for a moment that I am casting any opprobrium on him or on the gentlemen from this side whom II named as members of the committee. They were possibly very cunningly misled into the conr elusion that they reached.


James Alexander Calder: There is just one weakness in my hon. friend's argument. The member for West. Lambton (Mr. Pardee), the member for South Essex (Mr. Brien), the member for Inverness (Mr. 'Chisholm) were not there to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They were there for days and weeks; they went into this matter just as did every other member of the committee. So that my hon. friend forgets his own friends who were there and who should have had their eyes open all the time to watch me very closely.


Ernest Lapointe: They surely should.
Mr. 'CALDER: In all seriousness, though, it is true that the Government, as a Government, had to come to a conclusion, as a matter of policy, on the question of a general cash grant to returned soldiers and did come to such a conclusion prior to the appointment of the committee. It is only that point that is referred to in the letter of the Prime- Minister; it is only that point that was referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and by the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), when the matter first came up for discussion in the House at the present session. But hon. members realize that that was not the only question that came before the committee. A hundred suggestions of all kinds came to us, suggestions involving the payment of cash gratuities, suggestions regarding loans for all sorts of things, suggestions regarding other benefits of various kinds, as well as from fifteen to thirty suggestions connected with the improvement and extension of existing work. We had before us a many-sided problem, and because the committee unanimously came to a conclusion on the one point that I have, mentioned does not mean that they had not very important work to do, or that their findings indicated anything in the
nature of a preconceived judgment on the question they had to deal with.


John Archibald Maharg: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but one of the statements made by the House leader of the Opposition did not go down any too smoothly. I refer to his remark that it was evident yesterday from the vote that we were all perfectly satisfied with the report of the committee. There were aj. least a few who were not perfectly satisfied with that report, and they were probably less satisfied with the amendment that came from the Opposition. If my hon. friend was not satisfied with the report, why did he, as leader, not see that the amendment submitted by the Opposition meant something? It was a very significant circumstance yesterday that a number of seats on the Opposition side that were vacant about the time that the vote was taken were perfectly warm shortly before "that. When you put all these things together you can easily see which way the cat is jumping. It has been said of those of us who sit on the cross-benches that, because we vote first with one side and then with the other, we are just changing the coin from one pocket to the other. Well, if conditions continue as they are the cross-benchers may themselves be forced to fake a little of the initiative. If we are not perfectly agreeable with the way things come from our friends on the Government side, and we find that the Same applies to hon. members on the other side, then, as I say, it will be the duty of cross-benchers to take the initiative in matters which come before the House. The only reason why the report of the committee went through without opposition was the assurance given by the Government that they would be prepared to make.provision for every case of necessity that was brought to their attention. They also gave us their assurance that the door was not closed; that they were willing to consider everything that might come up, with the exception of cash gratuities or bonuses. It was only because of that assurance that there was unanimity in the adoption of the report so far as the Government and the cross-benchers were concerned. We shall have another session of Parliament before long, and the sincerity of the action taken by the Government in the intervening time will have an effect upon our attitude with regard to this report. When the next session comes and the opportunity presents itself, this matter can again be taken up.
iocs


James Alexander Calder: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know that we have any power to change a resolution of this kind at this stage without a new resolution being framed and sent to the Governor General for his assent. I think, as a matter of practice, it is difficult to change the purtpose of any appropriation after it has received the assent of the Governor General without sending it back for his further assent, beioause the moment we change a resolution, it becomes a new resolution, and the appropriation is for a new' purpose. We cannot increase the vote or switch it into any other channel than that which was announced in the Estimates when they received the 'assent of the King through the hands of the Governor General. The only thing we can do is to strike the item out altogether or vote a smaller amount. That is my recollection of the rule. I wish, however, to say to the bon. member from Maple Creek (Mt. Maharg) that the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday was that the report go back to the committee. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (,Mr. Fielding) pleaded with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. C'alder) who had charge of the Bill to accept one or all of the various suggestions that had been made by hon. gentlemen who addressed the House and the committee. Various propositions were made, all by hon. gentlemen supporting the

Government, suggesting ways and means by whic-h money ico-uld be raised for the assistance of the soldiers. Those propositions did not come before the special committee, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) thought that when the suggestions w'ere not accepted by the minister who had charge of the proceedings, the only thing to do was to move that the report he referred hack to the special committee so thalt they would have the advantage of considering those suggestions with the view to accepting or rejecting them as they thought proper. If the hon. member for Maple Creek thinks that we had no purpose, he is very much mistaken. The very last thing that should be done by any hon. member is to attribute improper motives to any other hon. 'member. I am not imputing any improper motives to the hon. member for Maple Greek; I suppose he is quite in earnest; but I say to him that the amendment which w'.as presented to the House and which he helped to vote down wras full of purpose, namely, to put before the committee the various propositions that w'ere made by hon. gentlemen who support the Government. The only thing we could do was to ask those hon. gentlemen who had made those propositions to submit them to the committee. The hon. member for Maple Creek, by his vote, said: I am satisfied with what has been done; I will not let the report go back; I will not give effect 9 p.m. to any of the propositions that w'ere made in the speeches of the hon. gentlemen; I am prepared to let the thing go as it is and to trust to what the Government is going to do. That is his position and that of every hon. member who voted dow'n the amendment we made. I regret that consideration was not given to the various propositions that were put forward and which did not come from this side of the House. We were watching with eagerness to see if some profitable, proper and practicable suggestion would be made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I would be very sorry to say that all the speeches which were made by hard-headed business men on the other side of the House did not contain .any meat that would be worthy of investigation and consideration. We thought those suggestions were worthy of consideration, and for that reason we moved that the committee should have an opportunity of looking over them and seeing if they could pick something out of them to add to their report. The hon. member for Maple Creek

denied the committee that opportunity and denied the soldiers the advantage of getting some good out of a rehearing by the committee.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not feel like sitting still under the accusation of the hon. member who says that I stated that they had no purpose in their .amendment. One of the reasons why I voted against it was that their purpose was very evident, so evident to me and to a number of us that it did not take us very long to come to a conclusion. The purpose that we saw in it was such that we did not consider that it was our duty to forward matters along that line at all. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that they were watching with the greatest eagerness the way in which matters were going, and the "eager" part of it extended almost to the eye of an eagle, for it was quite evident that they would not let, anything pass. They got in at the psychological moment, according to the opinion of some of us. I think, however, we are in the main all very well agreed that we want as liberal an interpretation of the .report .as is possible, and it was only for that reason that I said anything to-night.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: I would like to draw the attention of the committee to rule 13, which says:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion.
References to the debate yesterday and to the motion and amendment moved then are scarcely relevant to the item under discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due deference, I think the item under discussion now is in relation exactly to the subject that is being discussed. In fact, the minister has just asked us to broaden the terms of this item in its phraseology so that there may be no mistake in including the discussion of yesterday.


Michael Steele: It relates to the same subject, but a resume of the discussion that took place yesterday would not be relevant to the item under discussion.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not desire to make any resume of yesterday's discussion; but inasmuch as some reference has been made to the purpose of the amendment which I had the privilege of moving, I should like to point out to the committee that the purpose of that amendment was exactly what 124
it appears to be on the face of it. A number of hon. members had made important speeches to the committee, and I was particularly impressed by suggestions that had been made by different hon. members-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


Michael Steele: I think I must insist upon the rule being deserved, without desiring to curtail the discussion at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I am trespassing in any way, I shall say nothing further beyond mentioning that the suggestions made, and which the minister said that he would like to take into consideration, were the suggestions I had in mind when I moved that the report should be referred back to the committee to consider those matters. In the same connection, to show the sincerity I had in moving the amendment-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen will permit me, I think they will be quite satisfied wyith what I am about to say.
I think it is unnecessary for the minister to seek to broaden the terminology of this particular item to carry out the purpose that he has in mind. I am sure all of us will be ready to construe the resolution in the widest possible sense so as to permit him to do the things which he wishes to do under the recommendations of the committee. I think he will find that the recommendations are sufficiently numerous and important to enable him to meet any case that really will come within the range of the matters which he wishes to consider.
We on this side would be glad to have him feel that it is in that spirit that we should like to have this matter viewed. I hope the minister will feel that no exception will be taken on this side to his giving the language of this resolution the broadest interpretation possible in administering the vote.


George Green Foster: I would call attention to the following item which we have passed:
Legislation-House of Commons. To provide payment for the sessional indemnity of Members of the House of Commons, that is to say, for days lost through absence caused by illness, public business, or being engaged in necessary farming operations or on account of death, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Cap, 10-Payment in case of death to be made as the Treasury Board may direct, $10,000.



I move to add in the first line after the word " of," the word " Senators." Both the Senate and the House of Commons are joined in the Act itself, and it is simply an error that the words " Senators or " were omitted from the clause.


William Stevens Fielding: Has not this item been reported to the House? If it has we cannot change it.


George Green Foster: It has not been concurred in. The motion can be made on concurrence.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I desire to make a
statement in refefence to some charges that have been made against the Dominion Can-ners by the leader of the Opposition, I may perhaps be allowed to read the following statement: " On the 6th of October, 1919-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. I made a motion in this House for papers in connection with this matter and they have not yet been returned, and it would be improper to discuss the question until the papers are brought down. In any event, the subject which the hon. gentleman is about to raise is certainly not debatable at the present time.


David Marshall: I do not know whether I am in order or not. The statements made by the hon. gentleman were so ridiculous, however, that I think I am entitled to say a word in regard-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to insist upon it. The question which the hon. member raises is not debatable at this stage.


An hon. MEMBER:: You made the
charge.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Be brave.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


Arthur Meighen: A question of privilege is in order at any time in the proceedings of the House, and I suggest to the hon. member that if he desires to make a statement he do so as a matter of privilege.


William Stevens Fielding: Not while the House is in committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Especially
when it refers to the Dominion Canners, it is not a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: The rule of the House, although I have not looked it up especially for the purpose, provides, if I recollect, that privilege is admissible at any time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the House is sitting.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: I have not purposely consulted the rule either, but it is a matter of familiarity that on the calling of the Orders of the Day a member may rise to a question of privilege when the Speaker is in the Chair. He may not do so, however, when the House is in committee. The real difficulty is that we have not had the opportunity that would come in the natural order of our parliamentary business of discussing matters of the kind on the motion for going into Supply. Parliament has not had that privilege this year, and apparently we are not going to have it.


David Marshall: Are we not in supply?


William Stevens Fielding: On a given subject, but not in general Supply, which affords us an opportunity of bringing matters of public concern before the House. I say as a matter of complaint against the Government that in the conduct of the business at this session they have not given us that privilege.


David Marshall: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no. Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Lapointe: We won't stand for it. Order.


Arthur Meighen: We have only gone into-Supply once, and that was to-day, and if the hon. gentleman wanted an opportunity to survey or review any question he could have done so then.


William Stevens Fielding: Is not this one of the days on which we are denied it?


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: I was under the impression that it was; at least I was so informed. However, I had no grievance of my own.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out that only within the last five minutes the Chairman denied me the right to discuss a matter appertaining to the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Michael Steele: Order.
The hon. member is in error when he states that I denied him the right to discuss a question relating to the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. My ruling was that references such as he was making to a debate which occurred yesterday, in explanation of

the vote that was taken then, were not relevant to the item under discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out, then, that anything relating to the Dominion Canners is not relevant to any item in the Estimates before us.


Georges Henri Boivin: The leader of the Opposition having raised a point of order-


Mr. HOCICEN:: Which leader?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: The Grand Master.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The leader of the Opposition having raised a point of order in reference to the statement which the hon. member for East Elgin proposes to make, I must rule that it is not competent for that hon. member to make that statement at the present time.


David Marshall: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I quite.understand why the leader of the Opposition does not wish to hear what I have to say.
Legislation-House of Commons-To provide for clerical assistance to the leader of the Opposition from 1st November, 1919, to 31st March, 1920, $1,041.67.


Avard Longley Davidson: I should like some information in regard to the item providing for clerical assistance to the leader of the Opposition from November 1, 1919, to March 31, 1920, $1,041.67. To which leader of the Opposition is this assistance to be assigned? At the last session of Parliament an item of $2,500 was included in the Estimates for remuneration for a clerk or secretary to the leader of the Opposition, and I desire to know whether or not this is to be an additional remuneration for that particular clerk, or whether there is a new clerk, and to which of the leaders of the Opposition he is to be assigned. Apparently there is a tendency to double up salaries right along this session. We have two salaries for the leader of the Opposition. Are there also to be two salaries for clerks of the leader of the Opposition?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As is indicated, the item in question is to cover the salary for the remainder of the year 1919-20 for clerical assistance required in the office of the leader of the Opposition. It does seem to me that the leader of the Opposition, who is a public servant, ought to be the best judge as to the clerical assistance which is required in his office, When the leader of the Opposition made representations to me that additional assistance was required, I thought it was only
124J
just to him, and in the public interest, that his wishes in that respect should be met I did not feel it incumbent upon myself to go beyond the leader of the Opposition. I felt that his desire ought to be sufficient and that it ought to be met. I do not know that there is anything further that I can say, except that this is the explanation of the additional amount for clerical assistance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the present time the only clerical assistance in the office of the leader of the Opposition is one clerk who acts as secretary. The leader of the Opposition has the right to name his secretary. I think hon. gentlemen will realize that if the position of leader of the Opposition is to be filled in the way in which it ought to be filled, and if the occupant of that position is to do the work that should be performed, at least more than one stenographer is necessary in an office which has the amount of correspondence and work that has to be carried on in that office. I might point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Davidson) who spoke to this matter that it is very important that some one should be in the office of the leader of the Opposition who can write letters in .French as well as in English, who can translate letters that are received in either language and who can converse in either language with gentlemen who oome to the office. Were I as familiar with the French language as I should like to be, possibly I could carry on that correspondence myself, but if correspondence is to be carried on in both languages, the leader of the Opposition should be provided with a clerk in his office who can assist with the translating of letters. That was the reason of the representation I made to the hon. the Speaker of the House, and he immediately saw that in the interest of the public business it is absolutely necessary that the leader of the Opposition should have two .clerks in his office. I am sure my hon. friend has very little conception of the work pertaining to the office or he would not have been so quick to ask this question.


Avard Longley Davidson: I have no intention of being niggardly about the matter at all, but my question was prompted by the reflection that the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had performed the duties of leader of the Opposition with perfect satisfaction, I think, to the country and that he had got along very well with one clerk. If the young incumbent of the position can rise to the traditions of his predecessor he will

' more than fulfil the expectations of this House and of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend, I think, will hardly expect me to be able to fill the position of leader of the Opposition now or for any time to come as the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier filled it; hut I would point out that the work of this Parliament is growing all the time and that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as leader of the Opposition, was provided with one clerk by the Government,, had to employ, day in and day out, year in and year out, other clerical help and to pay for it out of his own pocket. This position is unfair to any leader of a party. Unfortunately, I am not in the position where I have means to pay out of my own pocket for assistance to do public work. I cannot fulfil the duties of this position as-they ought to be fulfilled if I am not to have thte necessary clerical assistance. I am ready to give all my time to the service of my country. It is not unreasonable to ask that the Government be permitted to assign two clerks to the office.


Avard Longley Davidson: If the continuance of the hon. gentleman as leader of the Opposition depends upon the employment of another clerk I shall not object, because I am very anxious that he should continue to fill the position.


Ernest Lapointe: Very clever.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to income -To provide for payment of expenses in connection with, acquisition of the Grand Trunk and associated railway systems, $50,000.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the class of expenditure that is expected to be covered by this item?


Arthur Meighen: I did not know myself that the item was in until I saw it just now, but I know the class of expenditure which should be covered by it. It would be legal-assistance, and, I would presume, necessary witness fees. In a word, II will describe it as the expenses necessary to investigations.


William Stevens Fielding: At the arbitration?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, in connection with the arbitration.


William Stevens Fielding: Does that include both sides of the arbitration?


Arthur Meighen: No, we have nothing to do with the expenses of the other side.


William Stevens Fielding: Except that we are the other side, too.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite may be, but we on this side are not.


William Stevens Fielding: We are, in the broader sense of the word. The whole Parliament and the people of Canada are the stockholders, or will be, of the Grand Trunk.


Arthur Meighen: "Will be."


William Stevens Fielding: And therefore in the
broader sense we are the Grand Trunk Company.


Arthur Meighen: Not until we are. That is later on. In the meantime we pay our expenses and they pay theirs.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope it is so, but we will see later on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
question of the Grand Trunk was under discussion the other evening reference was made to certain statements in the Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin and I would ask the Minister of the Interior to allow me to deal with that matter for the purpose of correcting a false impression. I happened to read from the Journal of Commerce and later on the minister mentioned that I had omitted a certain paragraph, that I had read part of the article which suited me but that I had not read another part of it.


Arthur Meighen: If I am to be allowed to continue the debate to and fro I have no objection. The question as to whether we are to enter into a debate upon the subject is one for the committee and the Chair.


George Green Foster: Unless it is absolutely necessary, and character and standing depend upon it, I should press for the business of the House to go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all deference to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) I would say that it is a case where a character and standing may be said to depend upon it. It will not take more than a minute.


Arthur Meighen: Then the hon. gentleman will raise no objection to the matter of the Dominion Canners coming up, for I assure him that character and standing are much more in point in connection with that matter than in connection with this. Yet, in that he raised an objection and had it ruled out. Now he wants to have his own objection negatived.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Dominion Canners is not a member of this House.


William Stevens Fielding: Any matter relating to the Grand Trank comes within the scope of this item because the words " in connection with the acquisition " include the

whole business, and any body who wants to may open the whole subject. I do not.


Arthur Meighen: The rule of the House against reference to a previous debate in the same session applies.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it applies in this case. The debates on the Grand Trunk subject are all one.


Michael Steele: While
the leader 6f the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) may be quite walling that certain things should be done and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) that other things should be done I fear that the responsibility of keeping the committee to the rules of the House rests with the Chairman. As long as the rules are not transgressed the Chairman will not object.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
mentioned that I had read some extracts and had omitted others, and that apparently there was design in the omission.
In the unrevised Hansard of November 4th, page 1785, the minister (Mr. Meighen) is reported as saying:
But he took care not to read it all; he explained to the House that he would not read' the rest of It and he simply let it go at that. I will read a little of the rest of it, and perhaps hon. memlbers will then understand why he did not read the rest of it.
The minister read this quotation:
'No similar issue has ever come before the State Department, it is understood. There is some disposition to believe that the ownership of the stock of the Panama Railroad by the Government of the United States furnishes a parallel case. The statement has been made that the Panama railroad as a corporation is subject to the same control by the Pan-American Government as any other private enterprise, and it is probable that this will be the attitude of the United States as to the Grand Trunk system.
While the minister read that extract he failed, however, to read the following which appears in the paragraph subsequent to it:
The situation in Panama has special features due to the peculiar relations of that country with the United States, which would not apply in a controversy with Canada.
The clause that the minister did not read later on, when he was accusing me of having omitted certain clauses, absolutely takes away the force of the clause which he did read and which he led the House to believe I had omitted designedly. What I wish to make perfectly clear is that if I did not read the whole article, it was because the part I read was the pertinent, and the only pertinent, part. I wish to add that the minister having omitted to read the part
which he failed to read, I shall not .be as uncharitable towards him as he was towards me by saying I think he had any design in so doing.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman reads a clause in which the side of the case is presented which might show cause for interference. The clause I read was the only clause that seemed to be the view of the article, because it said that having considered both sides it was probable that the view would be taken that the United States Government had no concern in the matter at all. That is the clause that sums up the view of the article itself.
Dominion Lands and Parks.-Further amount required to meet uncollected portion of advances of seed grain made in the Western Provinces by the chartered banks to holders of unpatented Dominion lands under the guarantee of the Dominion Government, also including commission payable to banks for collection, fees to secretary-treasurers of municipalities and officers of the Provincial Departments of Agriculture and1 clerical assistance, $450,000.
1 promised the leader of the Opposition before dinner to give him the figures as to the applicants for loans under the Soldier Settlement Act by provinces. The number of loans accepted in the several provinces is as follows:
Prince Edward Island..	..	200
Nova Scotia	 310
New Brunswick	 362
Quebec	 350
Ontario	 960
Manitoba	 2,236
Saskatchewan	 3,053
Alberta	 4,967
British Columbia. .	..	..	..	2,172


William Stevens Fielding: This does not have
much bearing upon the item we are considering.


Arthur Meighen: It is only fulfilling a
promise made to the leader of the Opposition.


John Archibald Maharg: Was the item $450,000 passed?


Michael Steele: It has
not yet been passed.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was going to ask
for some information from the minister with respect to that item. Perhaps he will make .a general statement that will obviate asking other questions.


Arthur Meighen: This item is to take
care erf calls that may be made upon us by the bank in respect of advances made by them for seed grain to unpatented homesteaders last spring. The amounts ad-


John Archibald Maharg: Does any portion of this amount represent the one per cent interest that the party is Charged, or is it exclusive of that?	'


Arthur Meighen: No, this is the amount which it is estimated will b,e required to answer the claims of the bank in respect of our guarantee, not for any of the one per cent that they get in respect of money which they themselves collect direct. The moneys tef cover that -were voted last session. The total amount voted in that regard was $22,000.
Resolutions reported.
On motion for concurrence in resolutions passed in Supply:


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to call attention to a point that arose between my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and myself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the hon. gentleman raising a point of order?


William Stevens Fielding: No.
Mr.	SPEAKER:	I	have no doubt	the
House will give unanimous consent, but there is no doubt that the motion, under Rule 77 (a), is undebatable.
Mr.	FIELDING:	I	am	content to	say
that my hon. friend was mistaken and to await another opportunity of dealing with the matter.
Mr.	MEIGHEN:	I	am	content to	saythat I	was not mistaken,	and I will	also
await another opportunity to demonstrate that.


George Green Foster: I beg to move that after the word "of" in the first line of the motion relating to sessional indemnity there be inserted the words, "Senator and." The reason is obvious.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question very properly arises that this widens the designation of the vote, and therefore the motion would not be in order. On the other hand, I think it is clear that the motion relates to a purely clerical matter, and in the preparation of the printed copy of the Votes the practice has always been followed of including the words "Senator and." I think if that view were accepted it would be competent to make ithe amendment, otherwise it would not be proper to move it at this stage.


George Green Foster: I make the motion on two grounds: One for the reason which you have stated, Mr. Speaker, that it has been the custom; the other, that in the second part of the resolution it intimates that "Senator" is partly included, because the subject is under the Senate and House of Commons Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion for concurrence agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26 to amend the Canada Temperance Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as was explained when it was introduced, has for its purpose to enact a provision, applicable throughout the Dominion of Canada, in virtue whereof the importation- and, as the Bill was originally introduced, the manufacture also-of intoxicating liquor will be prohibited in the particular area designated, conditionally upon the majority of the Dominion electors in such areas voting for such prohibition. The area selected is the area of a province. The provinces are not dealt with nor referred to in this legislation in their quality of provinces having legislatures possessing separate and distinct legislative powers. I think it important to say this, because there seems to have been considerable misconception and misapprehension with regard to the effect of this legislation, and it has been referred to as legislation whereby this Parliament sought to confer or devolve upon provincial legislatures legislative powers belonging to this Dominion. I want to make it perfectly clear that the legislation has no such j>ur-

pose and will ha-ve no such effect. The legislation is Dominion-wide. Its substantial provision is that throughout this Dominion, wherever a majority of the people occupying the geographical area which constitutes any province vote in favour of prohibition of the importation of intoxicating liquor into that area, then in virtue of this Bill, legislation of the Parliament of Canada, prohibition of that importation shall come into force so far as that area is concerned.
The legislatures of the provinces are mentioned in the Bill only so far as they are designated as the bodies upon whose resolution the taking of the necessary plebiscite of the people occupying the area of any particular .province will be instituted under the provisions of this Bill. It does not purport to confer any legislative poiwe'r whatever upon the provincial legislatures. Their request is treated as sufficient to justify the setting in motion of the machinery provided by this Bill solely upon the ground tjiat it is assumed that the members composing any of those legislatures, being the representatives of the people occupying a provincial area, are in a position to know and express' what may be the desire of their constituents as regards simply the setting in motion of the machinery under this Bill. It raises no question of the powers of the legislature, nor can there properly arise under this Bill any question as to what are the powers of a provincial legislature.
Of course, this legislation can only stand if it be legislation upon a matter over which this Parliament has jurisdiction. The subject matter of this legislation is the importation in general of these intoxicating liquors, and, of course, included in that, the importation from the area of one province into the area of another. Certainly it cannot be suggested that provincial legislatures have any legislative authority over that question. I am confining myself to the question of importation, whether from outside of Canada or as between provinces, because, as I mentioned at the outset, though the Bill originally contemplated the prohibition either of manufacture or of importation or of both, the conclusion has been reached that we should amend-and I purpose when we go into 'Committee to move to amend-this Bill so as to>
make its provisions apply only to prohibition of importation. The reason for which I purpose to make that amendment is to he found in the legislation which was passed by this House this afternoon, and which I have no doubt will be passed by the Senate. That
legislation applies to the question of the manufacture of intoxicating liquor the rule laid down toy the Act passed1 by this House some years ago with regard to the importation of intoxicating liquor into a province, and so applying that rule, it prohibits the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of being used in any way in violation of the law of any province. As a result of that legislation, without any plebiscite whatsoever we have in any province which prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor prohibition of manufacture in that province of any liquor to be sold therein, and indeed to be sold in any other province where there is such prohibition of sale.
There is in addition to this amendment another amendment I purpose to make which is not without importance; that is to say, in order that a request emanating from the people of a province, transmitted through their legislative representatives, should be entitled to be acquiesced in by this Parliament, such request must come from a province which itself has already prohibited within its borders the sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The reason why we have come to the conclusion that this provision should be introduced is, I think, obvious on a moment's reflection. There would certainly be no reason and no purpose in enabling the people occupying the area of a particular province to ask this House by a vote of their majority to prevent the importation into that province of intoxicating liquor if within that province the sale of intoxicatng liquor was permitted. Under these conditions, the effect of the prohibition would be simply to make a protection for the manufacturer and vendor within the limits of the province. That is certainly something that the Government would not ask this House to do; it is certainly something that I am sure the House would not be prepared to do no matter who asked them to do it.
I hope that I have made clear the purpose of this legislation. I hope I have made clear that we propose to restrict it to the question of importation, and that with regard to provincial areas in which the sale of liquor is prohibited. I emphasize also the fact that we do not by this legislation seek either to enlarge or to diminish-neither of which things could we do even if we tried

the legislative powers of provincial legislatures.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have
only one word to say to the minister (Hon. Mr. Doherty) about this Bill. I am afraid
1!W6

that if we divide up, so to speak, our customs laws into sections; if we have one class of customs laws in force in one province and another in another, considerable inconvenience will result and we shall not be able to effect the prohibition which the minister intends. If Nova Scotia complied with this Act and secured legislation prohibiting the importation of liquor into that province, and New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island had an open coast and open custom houses to receive liquors, it would be extremely difficult to keep liquor out of Nova Scotia. That illustrates the possible situation in all other parts of Canada. If Alberta passes a law prohibiting the importation of liquor into that province, and if at the same time liquor is allowed free access into British Columbia, it will be found very difficult to keep it out of the interior provinces. The genius of our customs laws is that they shall be universal; that they shall apply to the whole area of the country. Such a condition as I have indicated would make it exceedingly difficult to carry out the idea of temperance in provinces which take advantage of this legislation if other provinces choose to leave their coast open. I submit, therefore, that a prohibitory law, in order to be effective, must be universal.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult, I am sure, to adopt any Bill in relation to the liquor traffic concerning which some astute lawyer could not raise grave doubts. The experience of the past is that no class of legislation is so productive of disputes as to the respective constitutional authorities of the Dominion Parliament and the local legislatures as legislation .affecting the liquor traffic. Into that aspect of the question I do not care to enter;' I take it for granted that the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) has taken a course *which, so far as his best ability and judgment goes, will stand the test of constitutional dispute. There is, however, one phase of this Bill to which, speaking for myself only, I take exception. I think that the proposal to require a plebiscite of the electors of any province is a grave mistake. This question of prohibition is part provincial and part Dominion. It is, provincial because the provinces have power to dio a great deal toward creating the prohibition, though they cannot, perhaps, use the word in its broad sense. On the other hand, there are some things which the provinces, cannot do-matters affecting importation, manufacture and the wholesale trade, which must

necessarily come, within the control of the Federal authorities.
In so far as my hon. friend is desirous of guarding against any invasion of provincial rights, I quite sympathize with his purpose. But it is a grave mistake to require the people of a given province to take a plebiscite on this question. My hon. friend says that the provincial legislatures ought to be capable of judging whether the people want something of this kind; therefore they are allowed!-to do what? Simply to ask that a plebiscite be taken. I think they are capable of doing more than that. If this legislation is to depend to any degree upon the action of any provincial authority it will be sufficient to let the legislature speak for the province. Let me give an illustration. There is no question that the people of Nova Scotia are in favour of prohibition. We have had, in one form or another, strong temperance legislation for many years. For a long time the Scott Act was in almost universal operation in that province; if I am not mistaken, there was a time when all jmt three counties were under the operation, of that Act. Then, in later years provincial legislation was enacted which seemed to be stronger than the Scott Act, and only for that reason the Scott Act was repealed in some counties. But to-day the legislature of Nova Scotia is strongly committed to prohibition; the province is unquestionably in favour of prohibition. Again, and again., in elections where the question has been raised, the people have given strong expression to that view. My own constituents, I am sure, require no plebiscite; their view is unmistakable; and so it is with the province at large. Why, then, should we ask the province to take a plebiscite? If the province is to have any say in the matter let the legislature of the province speak for the people, and let their voice prevail. This requirement to take ,a plebiscite will be a disappointment. Some provinces will not go to the trouble. It is an expensive thing; it isi a bother; it is a worry to the temperance people. I believe that the country will say that they ought not to he put to the expense and trouble and worry of a plebiscite. Whether the state of public opinion in the other provinces is as clearly indicated as it is in Nova Scotia, I cannot say, but I have already pointed out that a plebiscite would be quite unnecessary in my province. We have had plebiscites. We had a local plebiscite; we have had a Dominion, plebiscite; we have had legislation, Dominion and local; and to have the people of Nova

Scotia take another plebiscite on this question would certainly not be regarded as helping the camse of temperance. I strongly urge the minister, if he wants to take account of the views of the provinces-and I quite concur in his desire to do that-to accept the vote of the legislature of the province as the declaration of what t(he province wants and not put the people to the trouble of taking a plebiscite in a matter of this kind.


John Hampden Burnham: I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding), although I am supporting this prohibition measure and the Government. A legislature or any other representative body must speak on the policy for which it was elected. For a legislature to go out of its way to make a request concerning .something which they were not instructed in by the people would simply be high-handed legislation and might lead to very' great trouble. As I say, I am supporting the Government in this, not because of any conviction that prohibition is right, because I think it is morally wrong. God is not a prohibitionist, and I propose to follow Him as long as possible.
I am speaking now simply to bring to your notice something that has been referred to, that bears very strongly upon the temperance sentiment of Ontario at least. -And that is something that was said by the Dominion Alliance to some of the members regarding this very legislation which is now contemplated. The Dominion Alliance has this to say about this legislation:
The measure now before Parliament will please no one, accomplish little or nothing; it will allow the reinstatement of the liquor traffic in Canada, and set province against province in a way that every true Canadian should strongly deprecate.
I hold no brief for the Dominion Alliance; but it is a very important body, and it strikes me that what it has to say in the matter should be well considered by those who are thinking of the matter.


Edward Guss Porter: Mr. Speaker, I am not unmindful of the danger one always runs in discussing in any public place, especially in the legislative halls of Canada, this question of temperance. No matter how remote the question may be, one is very apt to be blamed, whatever position one may take, by either one side or the other. It has been my intention since Bill No. 26 was read the first time in this House on October
7, to oppose the passage of that legislation through the House. The statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) on the motion to read the Bill the second time removed many of the objections that I had to the legislation. Perhaps the greatest objection to the Bill was removed when the minister stated that the Bill would not, in its original form, have any application to the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in any province for export. The Bill as it now comes before the House has been altered in many important respects, and now that it is confined simply to the importation of liquor into any province that has already declared its desire for prohibition, I shall confine the remarks I have to make to that branch of the Bill alone.
I regret th-at I find myself in a position where I feel obliged to oppose a measure of this kind, and in opposing it, I want to be clearly understood as not advocating the cause of the Liberty League or of any other association; nor, in fact, of the particular interests that are aimed at by this Bill, either at their request or by their influence or, so far as I know, with their knowledge. Nor do I desire, in opposing this Bill, to make any attack upon the interests of temperance in this Dominion or in this province, I rather approach the matter from a very much broader point of view. I do not think that the question of temperance is involved in this legislation except in a very general way. My objection to this legislation is based very largely upon the fact that it is in violation of the constitution of this Dominion. I know that the Minister of Justice has made a statement to the contrary, but lawyers all differ.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Even judges.


Edward Guss Porter: And courts of law, as well. Notwithstanding the opinion advanced by the Minister of Justice, I would invite the attention of the House to section 121 of the British North America Act, upon which I rely in making this statement, and which reads:
All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, he admitted free into each of the other provinces.
Any article, therefore, that is the manufacture of one province shall, according to the clause of the constitution that I have just read, be admitted free into another province.


Edmond Proulx: Does that not mean " free of duty?"


Edward Guss Porter: I do not take it so. If that had been the object of the constitution, it would have said so. The clause to which I have referred says that it shall be admitted free, without any qualification whatever, and I take it that the clause of the constitution which I have read means exactly what I have said. If that be the meaning of the clause, then I say that it is not within the jurisdiction of
10 p.m. this Parliament to impose any restriction upon any one province in regard to its sending any article of its manufacture into another province or receiving any article manufactured by another province. Intoxicating liquor is a manufactured product in the province of Ontario, in which there are some seven or eight very large distilleries manufacturing that product, and after the passage of this Bill, they will continue to manufacture it at least for export. By this legislation it is pro' posed to prohibit the importation of that manufactured product into, say the province of Quebec or any other province that may pass prohibitory legislation, and I do not believe it to be within the jurisdiction of this Parliament to do that. A case very similar to the point raised here has already been tried and determined by the Appellate Court, the highest court in the Commonwealth of Australia, in whose constitution a similar provision is made, admitting the product of one state of the Commonwealth into another either by sea or land traffic.
Legislation was passed fixing a different fee for the vending of wine in one state from that ifor the sale of similar wine manufactured in another state of the Commonwealth. That case was carried to the highest court of the Commonwealth. It was held that there was no jurisdiction in the State to pass such legislation, and the judgment of the magistrate in the first instance dismissing the case was upheld by the unanimous decision of the court. That, I may say, is the only direct case in point which I have been able to discover, but it seems to me to be so analogous to the case in hand that it would be very dangerous in the face of that, and in the face of the ordinary reading of the clause, to proceed with legislation of this kind. It is bound, it appears to me, to provoke a very great deal of litigation in any event. If the Bill were passed with that clause in it restricting the importation, I doubt not that interested parties would take up the question and it would be subject to

litigation probably for a very long time and with very considerable expense.
In addition to this, I take the further ground that, inasmuch as power is vested in this Parliament alone to legislate in regard to the question of importation, that power cannot be delegated to any other legislative body in the Dominion. In his remarks the Minister of Justice stated that the passing of this proposed legislation would not transfer the authority to the Provincial Governments. I cannot understand that statement in view of the effect which it is endeavouring to accomplish by this legislation. As matters stand now, any legislature in the Dominion has the right to apply by petition or resolution to this Parliament to pass enabling legislation just the same as would have to be passed after a referendum'had been taken under this Act. No legislature in Canada requires such legislation as this to give it power to come and ask Parliament for enabling legislation, and I argue therefore that there is no necessity for this measure. It does not accomplish v_any purpose. But even if it does, what does it do? As conditions are now, upon a petition or resolution being presented to this House by a Provincial Government, this House, dn its wisdom, can say "yes" or "no". But if it is passed, this Act declares that upon a referendum being taken and a majority voting in favour of prohibition, then that prohibition shall come into force by Order in Council. While this Parliament will be the legislature in which enabling legislation will finally have to be passed, yet by the passing of this Bill it puts itself in the position in which it cannot say " no"; it must say " yes ". Its position now enables it to say either "yes" or "no.", as Parliament may deem wisest and best. Now, legislation that has that effect of taking the power out of the hands of this Parliament and, if I may use the expression to emphasize my point if possible, tying it hand and foot so that it can give only one answer, is tantamount to handing over to the province that may submit a resolution to Parliament the power to compel this body to act in a certain way. If that is nob ^delegating the authority of this Parliament it is at least curtailing it to such an extent that Parliament cannot deny any application that may be made in a matter of this kind.
For these two reasons upon the legal aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the further progress of the Bill through the House. Even if this proposed

legislation is within the province of Parliament, again I say I do not think it desirable. I do not think that it is wise for this Parliament to proceed with it, for a number of reasons which I shall endeavour to enumerate. I recognize, and I trust the Government recognizes, with the example that we had only a few short days ago, that, from the amount of sympathy any legislative body receives from any province-or from a certain province, I may say-for passing prohibitory legislation, experience teaches that such legislation does not meet with gratitude on the part of those in whose favour it is enacted; and also teaches the lesson that it is treated in a spirit of revenge by those against whom it operates. And while I do not wish to prophesy, if I were asked for an opinion upon the question, I would say that this Government would probably receive similar treatment, as a result of a similar action to that taken by the legislature of Ontario.
My first objection, therefore, to the further progress of this legislation, apart from the legal aspect, is that no one is asking for it. So far as I have been able to discover, there is not a province in the Dominion of Canada that has asked for this legislation. The temperance people-if I read correctly the extracts from the paper of the Dominion Alliance- do. not want it, and as the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) said, they have condemned this legislation as not accomplishing any purpose in the interests of temperance.
I am satisfied that those who are opposed to prohibition are not asking for this legislation. No one seems to be asking for it. Everybody seems to be opposing it, speaking for these two bodies, and yet the Government thinks it wise, with the history that I have already referred to before them, to press this legislation upon the House.
I take further objection that legislation such as this, so drastic in its nature, should not be pressed or passed by any Government without a direct mandate from the people asking that it be done. There is no mandate from the people for legislation of this kind. It is a very good rule to be observed in Parliament as well as in private life to wait until such time as one is asked for -a favour of this kind before granting it. It appears to me that by passing a measure of this kind the Government is handing out to the people of Canada something that they have not asked for and something that they have declared against.
The same object can be accomplished by any of the provinces desiring it without the aid of this legislation as can be accomplished by it. This legislation, from what I have been able to glean from members of the Cabinet and others, seems to be anticipating trouble in the future in regard to the question of temperance and to be an endeavour to shift the responsibility of this Parliament upon the shoulders of some other Parliament in order to avoid that trouble. If, as I have stated, under the British North America Act, power is granted exclusively to this Parliament to legislate in regard to total prohibition of importat-tion of intoxicating liquors, it is the duty of this Parliament to preserve that power. We have a duty to perform in exercising that power and I hope that we will, as men, when the question comes before this House, take the full responsibility that rests upon us, having that power and having that duty to perform. I do not believe it is fair to the members of this House or to members of the legislatures that any attempt should be made to shift the responsibility of this Parliament upon the shoulders of some other legislature. Whatever duty we have to perform we should perform without fear, and whatever responsibility is attached to that we should be willing to bear. For that reason, I for one am opposed to any endeavour to shift that responsibility or to give that power to any legislative body. I * am quite ready and prepared when the question comes before this House, if it ever should come before this House while I am in it, to take my share of responsibility in saying whether prohibitory legislation should be passed in regard to this great question or not. I think every hon. member of this House should be prepared to treat it in the same way.
There is in the province of Ontario a very large interest represented by the distillers. As I stated in my opening remarks,
I have no interest particularly in them; I am not speaking on their behalf at all; but there is a very large interest in the seven or eight distilleries in that province. There is one very close to my own riding in which millions of dollars are invested. The business affords a good market-asplendid market-for the products of the farm not only in, grain, but. in the hay and cattle that are raised upon the farm and that are consumed at these distilleries. They offer a good market for the products of the farm. They contribute a very large amount of revenue to the Government of this country.
Mr. McMAS'TER: What is the hay used for?


Edward Guss Porter: For feeding the cattle. They buy large numbers of cattle, feed them upon the refuse from the distilleries, and they buy hay to supplement that feed. The distilleries also provide a large amount of revenue for the particular municipalities in which they are situated. What this legislation means is in a very large measure the destruction of these industries. It will affect them most seriously. But I would not argue that for one moment as a reason why this legislation should not be passed if I were convinced that such legislation was in the interest of the people of Canada as a whole or that the people desired it. Until it is demonstrated to this Parliament that the people are asking for legislation of this character I think it would be well for Parliament to hold its hand and not force upon the people something that they have riot asked for but that they have, in the way I have already spoken of, condemned.
Another objection I raise to this legislation is that the precedent set in transferring or delegating the power- of this Parliament to some other legislative body is a most dangerous one. The power of this Parliament-during, the twenty years, or nearly twenty years, that I have been in it-is one of the things*, I might say the principal thing, that Parliament has been molt jealous of in guarding and protecting; and if Parliament once gives way to the delegation of its power to any other legislative body I think what may reasonably be expected is that those other legislative bodies will be hereafter continually endeavouring to encroach upon the power of the federal authority and seeking to acquire as much of that power as it might be possible for them to do. It is a dangerous precedent to set. It seems to me this Parliament should retain the power in its own hands, fulfil its own duties, and bear its own responsibilities. This legislation, even prohibiting the importation alone, is a discrimination. It is legislation in the way of discrimination in favour of one province against another. Did the same condition prevail in all the provinces of Canada, then one could understand such legislation being applied; but where there is a different condition existing in a very great number of the provinces, and when this legislation says that although liquor may be imported in one province it cannot be taken into another, or that people living in another province cannot avail themselves of a Canadian product manufactured at their own door, or next door to them, but that they must send the money-

if they are bound to have intoxicating liquor-to some foreign country, and import into a wet province, we will say, any amount of liquor they may desire, it seems to me that is bad legislation in the way of discouraging the manufacture at home and discriminating in favour of one province as against another. -


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman take into consideration the fact that this Government, through the Canada Temperance Act, delegates to the counties the right to enact restrictive legislation?


Edward Guss Porter: That may be so, but the fact that it did so on one occasion does not justify it in doing a wrong a second time.
Mr. J. E. ARMiSTRONG: What is the difference between giving that power to a county and extending it to a province?


Edward Guss Porter: I say the principle is the same; it is vicious in' both instances and should not be given at all. I had intended, Mr. Speaker, making a motion in regard to this matter, but as I think the same object can be attained when the Bill goes into Committee of the Whole-if it does go-I shall not make the motion now, but will reserve what further remarks I have to offer in that regard until the Bill reaches that stage.
Turning to the Bill itself, it seems to me that it would be impossible, if the measure goes through in the form in which it is now presented, in the event of a referendum being carried by a prohibitive majority vote, that that legislation could ever be enforced.
I think it is a well-known and' recognized fact that in regard to legislation of this character there must be a strong body of public opinion behind it, in order that it may be properly and effectively enforced. Now, by the provisions of this Bill, a majority of a single vote would be all that would be required to compel this Parliament to say that this legislation .shall go info effect. I do not believe that such legislation is wise legislation.
Then, pointing out what I conceive to be another defect in the Bill, let me say that under the provisions of this Act a province, by simply passing a resolution, may come to this- House and demand a referendum. All the expense of providing the machinery for that referendum-of preparing the voters' lists and everything in connection with it

 must be borne by this Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: They do not come to this House; they go to the Governor in Council.


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, they go to the Governor in Council. That expense, as I say, must all be borne by the Federal Parliament. Now, I cannot see the justice of imposing that obligation upon the Federal Government, whose revenue is contributed to by every province in the Dominion, and to compel every such province to contribute its part towards passing prohibitory legislation in any one province. It occurs to me that it would be much fairer, and it would be just, if a province seeking legislation of this kind were required to hold the referendum itself and to undertake all the expense and trouble connected therewith; and after that referendum had been held-if such a thing is necessary at all, and I argue that it is not-then to come to this Parliament, [DOT]and, having paid its own expenses, paid its [DOT]own way, ask for the enabling legislation. It seems to me that that would be the fair thing to do.
Another feature of this Bill that does not commend itself to me is this: The amended Bill, or the measure that is now before the House, contains a provision which the original Bill did not contain-that a vote for the passing of such enabling legislation shall not occur oftener than every three years. Follow that out to its logical conclusion. Take the several provinces in the Dominion. The province of Ontario comes to this Parliament, we will say, at its next session, with a resolution which says: " Hold a referendum and pass this legislation." The Federal Government is in the position then that it must support that referendum, and, if it is carried, pass the necessary legislation or Order in Council to give effect to the wishes of the province. The very next year, the province of Quebec may come along with another resolution, and the same thing has to be gone through with again and the same expense incurred. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, or any of the other provinces may be coming along, one session after another, and -we will have the spectacle of a referendum going on in this country, probably for the next eight or ten years, before all the provinces will have been dealt with, and by the itime the whole body is -served under this Act the three years prescribed in the case of the first province will have expired and it will foe coming back again-that is, supposing the referendum to have been defeated. That is not a desirable position and yet it seems to me it is the logical and real position in which -we will be placed by such legislation as is proposed here.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that this legislation will have the effect that I have already stated of transferring or delegating the power of this Parliament to another legislative body, or it is hypocritical. It professes to make such a transfer; but if there is something in the Bill that I have not fully appreciated and that still leaves a card up the sleeve of the Government by which they may defeat that purpose, why, I have not discovered it. I believe this legislation constitutes a transfer of power from this Parliament to another legislative body. If it does not do that, then I say it does not do what it professes to do. Furthermore, if this Bill does not grant absolute power to a province to force such legislation, then it is hypocritical in regard to the temperance people, because it purports to give them something which in reality it does not give them. For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the further passage of this Bill.
Mr. .T. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton): Mr. Speaker, the member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) appears to be exercised over curtailing the powers of this Parliament, but he must admit that since 1878 the Canada Temperance Act has been in force and that the expense connected with the carrying out of that Act has been borne by this Parliament, no matter where that expense has been incurred. I am sure that the present legislation is merely extending that principle one step further so that the provinces may be assisted in bringing about legislation which they believe is in their interests to have enacted.
The member for West Hastings calls attention to the fact that we have not a mandate to carry out this legislation. But we are merely providing means, as I understand it, whereby a mandate can be given in the different provinces.
It is generally understood that on Tuesday next peace will be officially declared, Mr. Speaker, and after that date we expect that the Order in Council which has been in force for the past few years governing the importation, manufacture and sale of liquor in the different provinces will become inoperative. Consequently it is the duty of this Parliameirt to provide legislation similar to the legislation which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has now brought forward in order that those provinces	which intend	to	bring about
prohibition of the liquor traffic within their boundaries may be in a position to do so. This Bill provides all the necessary

machinery to effect that. The Federal Government will be compelled to accept a resolution passed by any provincial legislature and to submit a referendum, and if the people volte in favour of total prohibition it will he the duty of this Parliament to prohibit the importation of liquor into that particular province.
It i.s not my intention to take up any more of the time of the House, but I have an amendment which I would like to submit in connection with this Bill, which is seconded by the hon member for Macdonald (Mr Hendexs) and reads as follows:
That clause 152- of Bill No. 26, an Act to amend the Canada Temperance Act, be amended by adding at the end thereof paragraph (a), which reads as follows-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member knows that he would in any event not be in a position ito move that amendment at this stage. It will be quite proper for him to do so when the Bill is in committee.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I merely wished to say that I give my cordial support to the Bill, believing that it is in the public interest and that the people of Canada will heartily support it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member (Mr. Doherty) desire to reply?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Justice is closing the debate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, I do not want to cut off debate, but I feel it would be less than courteous on my part not to make answer to the very interesting observations that we have heard on this Bill. With regard to the remarks of the leader of the Opposition as to the disadvantages of having what he describes as a customs law not * applicable to the entire country, while I cannot look upon this measure as a customs law, I quite concur in the proposition that, of course, if importation were absolutely prohibited into any part of the Dominion it would be more certain that intoxicating liquor would not get into any particular province. But we are not dealing, with anything in the nature of a customs law. The purpose of this Bill, as I pointed out, is to enable such provinces as desire that their own provisions prohibiting the sale of liquor within their areas should be strengthened and fortified by the prohibition of importation of liquor into their midst, and having that in mind, and proceeding upon the principle that in the

matter of a law of this nature it is highly important that it should be enacted to be operative only in a province where public opinion will stand behind it and make it susceptible of real enforcement, we necessarily reach the result that, if different provinces should be of 'a different opinion as to whether liquor should come into their midst or not, we have to face the difficulty which the hon. gentleman suggests.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) said that he recognized the difficulties or the dangers of litigation probably arising with regard to any legislation dealing with the prohibition question. I think that the address we have had from the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has quite justified the statement of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. But of course, if we are going to deal with the subject of prohibition, we have to face the fact that questions may be raised as to the constitutionality of our legislation.	*
I have given to the question the best consideration of which I am capable, and I have had the valuable assistance of other legal members of the Government and of the law officers of the Crown. It appeared to us that we kept within the limits prescribed to us by the constitution in drafting this legislation.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) etxpressed the view that instead of resorting to a plebiscite it would be more desirable to let the Legislature of the province determine this question, and upon its authority have importation prohibited. If that were possible constitutionally, I quite recognize that there would be advantages in that course. But an attempt to do that, would, I think, not only give rise to constitutional questions-, but might enable such questions to be successfully raised and our legislation to be declared unconstitutional. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Potter) has made an argument which demonstrates that proposition. It is not in our power to delegate to a Provincial Legislature power to enact a measure upon a matter which, under the British North America Act, is not within its legislative jurisdiction.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not suggest that the Legislature should be given any such power. My point was that a petition from the Legislature was just as effective as a petition by way of plebiscite.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, the petition under this legislation does come from the Pro-

vincial Legislature. The Act provides that upon the resolution- or petition of the Legislature we shall set the machinery in motion.


William Stevens Fielding: In neither case would there be an enactment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but even though that petition had not the form of an enactment, we would, by providing that the petition should bring our law into force, proceed to enact legislation immediately effective to govern the people of this country, at the option of a Provincial Legislature. It would only be an indirect manner of submitting the existence and force of our laws to the action of a Legislature.


Edward Guss Porter: Do I understand the minister to argue that under this legislation the provinces will not have the right to come to this Parliament or to the Governor in Council and demand certain legislation? In other words, this Parliament cannot say a thing once a Legislature takes certain action. Is that not a power on the part of the province to force this Parliament to legislate in a certain manner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is what Parliament is saying toy this Bill: We think that a resolution adopted by a provincial legislature is a sufficient expression of opinion on behalf of the people of the province in ques-tkn to justify this Parliament in conferring upon the Governor in Council the power to enable the people of that province to express th-eir views upon the question. The action of the legislature in that case merely takes the place of the twenty-five per cent oLthe electors who must petition under the -Scott Act; and that provision is made simply for the sake of convenient and practical operation. It would be imposing a very onerous condition to ask that twenty-five per cent of the electors of a province join in a petition. On the other hand, it might be said that to accept the petition of a smaller percentage would be accepting a petition not representative of the general opinion of the country. It is true that the members of a legislature are elected to perform certain functions, and we cannot and do not pretend to confer upon them any additional power to legislate with regard to their province. But they are representative of the whole body of the people, and this Parliament points them out, so to speak, as a body sufficiently representative of the people of the province to- justify the Governor in -Council in accepting their intimation that a plebiscite would be desirable as expressing the general view of those people.


Edward Guss Porter: Can the same result not be obtained without this legislation at all?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What result?


Edward Guss Porter: Can the results sought to be obtained by this Act not be obtained by the provincial Parliament petitioning this Government for enabling legislation? This Government could then deal with the matter without this legislation -at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Frankly, I do not understand my hon. friend's reference to passing legislation to enable legislatures to do things. The Order in Council which will be passed under this law can in no way be described as legislation enabling a legislature to do something . The proclamation that will issue will go directly to the people; it will have nothing to do with the legislature. The hon. gentleman ought to remember that, while all of us form part of the people of some province, we also form part of the people of the whole of Canada, and this is legislation for the whole of Canada. If a majority of the people in each of the areas that constitute the geographical area of a province say: We do not want liquor to come into our community, then under the law of the Parliament of Canada, without the slightest legislative intervention of any legislature, that prohibition will come into effect.


John Hampden Burnham: It is local option.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is- local option, with the area enlarged. Could it be said that the provision of the Scott Act that the sale of liquor should toe prohibited in counties where the majority of the people said they did not want liquor sold was a delegation of legislative power to that county or that county council? The question whether legislation of this kind involves a delegation of power was threshed out in the case of Russell and the Queen. There precisely the arguments that are, now -being made were urged; that Parliament was delegating its power and that Parliament could not delegate its power. Well, I abundantly agree that Parliament cannot delegate its power.
But it was there held that it was no delegation of power on the part of Parliament to enact provisions of law on its own authority, as the Scott Act does and as we are doing, and to make the condition of those provisions becoming operative in particular sections that the majority of the people should express their desire that they should become operative. The legislation is absolutely sound; it is law throughout the Dom-

inion; but the condition of its operation in a particular area is that the majority of the people in that area should say that they desire it. To meet what may be a very desirable end of having a legislature deal with this, we would have to do the impossible thing of delegating our powers to the legislature, and I quite agree that the hon. member for West Hastings has demonstrated the unconstitutionality of any endeavour to do that. But in reply to him I would say. as I said at the outset and as I will try to make clear now, that we are not delegating powers of this Parliament at all. The legislature as a legislative body plays no role here; nothing that it does here makes law; but this Parliament, if it enacts this legislation, decides that in its opinion, if that body of men who are elected for certain purposes by the people occupying the area of a province, express to the Government of this country the view that .those people desire a plebiscite, then the Government of this country may and shall-


Edward Guss Porter: They can compel the
Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They can have no mandamus to do it; but it will be the clear duty of the Government to issue the proclamation ordering the plebiscite. Why? Because this Parliament has said to the Government: That is sufficient evidence to justify you in doing it, and this Parliament tells the Government to do it. It is not the province that is making the Government take this action; it is this Parliament that by its enactment says: Upon such action by that gathering, we tell you that it is a proper thing to order a plebiscite; and when the Government comes to do that it will not be because the legislature of a province has made the Government do it, it will be because this Parliament said that under those circumstances the Government ouglht to do it. The Government will be doing it as the executive of this Parliament, carrying out the will of this Parliament. There seems to me to be in the minds of many people a confusion which appears to result from this that, whenever you mention a province, you are necessarily mentioning it as an entity entitled to have a legislature of its own, sovereignty to legislate about certain particular subjects. No doubt if you are reading the British North America Act and concerned with questions of distribution of legislative powers, that is what the problem is. But the area of the province of Ontario, or of the province of Quebec, or of the province of British Columbia, is part of the area of Canada;

the people of each one of those provinces form part of the people of Canada; and this is legislation by the Parliament of the whole of Canada on a .subject,
11 p.m. that is, the subject of interprovincial importation of any liquor and importation from the outside also- because this prohibition, if it comes into force, does not merely prohibit taking from one province into another but will just as effectively prohibit importation from outside into that province. I mention that because of one of the arguments brought forward by the hon. member (Mr. Porter).
It seems to me that, because we choose to designate the area within which the population, whereof may, by a majority, determine that it wants this as coterminus with the area of a province, it does not necessarily follow that we are in any way concerned with the powers of the legislature of that province which could not under any circumstances make any laws about this interprovincial traffic or about the importation of liquor. It can be no more said that we are affecting the powers of the legislature than that the .Scott Act affects or touches, increases or diminishes, the power of the county council of the county which passes the Scott Act.
The hon. member for West Hastings referred to section 121 of the British North America Act, which section declares that all the produce or manufacture of each province must pass free into every other province, and he argued from that that there was no power anywhere, I should take it, without amendment of the. British North America Act, to interfere with the passage of the produce or manufacture of one province into another. In the first place, you have the use of the word " free ", and that on its face indicates that what the legislation was thinking of at the time was the imposition of anything in the nature of duties or restrictions of a fiscal nature upon products. That is confirmed by the fact that the particular section forms part of a number of sections dealing with fiscal questions. We had occasion to .go very carefully into that question when we originally passed the Act which we amended this afternoon, the Act which has a very long title and which people, in order to avoid that long title, have come to oall the "Doherty Act." Section 121 of the British North America Act, which contains the word " free," forms part of subdivision 8, and the title of this subdivision is "revenues; debts; assets; taxation." If in a portion of the British

North America Act dealing with taxation, you find the provision that goods, the manufacture of one province, must be admitted into another free, it seems to me that it is an undue extension to extend that to mean, as the hon. member's interpretation would, that if the most noxious thing that one could conceive, the most absolutely deadly poison, were manufactured in one province of this Dominion, it would be beyond the power of this Parliament to say: It shall not pass outside of that province into another. 'The article is looking at the subject from the point of view indicated in the general title, and the general title, with the use of the word " free," puts the matter beyond doubt. While I say that, I say it with all respect to the hon. gentleman, who himself points out that lawyers sometimes differ. I am going to agree to that, and ll do not put down my opinion in any dogmatic way. But it is the opinion which I entertain very strongly, and I feel that if this is good legislation there is no ground for hesitation in passing it because of that particular article.
The hbn. gentleman referred to an Australian case. I am not familiar with it, nor with the provisions of the constitution of the Australian 'Commonwealth.
But on the very face of the case as he explained it to us, that was a question as to whether one state within the Commonwealth had a right to differentiate between the amount of fee that it would imipose upon goods manufactured in another state, and that which it would impose on goods manufactured -within itself. Well, just so soon as any one of our provinces says it will put on a tax on certain things manufactured in the next province which it will not impose on things manufactured within itself, then you will have a case analogous to the one cited and there will no doubt be a judgment similar to that one. The hon. gentleman sipoke of Parliament's hands being tied and having no possibility of saying "no" when the petition comes. Parliament will not have anything to say in any*event on the subject. The petition or request will go to the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council will say "yes," because this Parliament has told it to say "yes"

not because the province is compelling Parliament to accept its petition.
The hon. gentleman made some reference to the fate that befell people who enacted legislation on provincial lines. Well, I would be sorry to take as lugubrious a view as he does as regards the consequences. But after all that is not the question before
us. The question before us is: Is this good legislation? If it is we ought to pass it even if we pass on to our own political funeral. The hon. gentleman also protested against an endeavour to shift our responsibilities upon other legislative bodies. Having, as I hope, made it clear that we are not delegating our powers to any legislature, I think it is equally clear that we are shifting no responsibilities upon any one. We here to-night are taking the full, entire and complete responsibility of enacting a law which recognizes that-if a majority of the people of a province do not want liquor in their midst from outside they need not have it. And for my part I am sure that all of us will have no hesitation in assuming the responsibility of determining that question one way or the other. There is no shifting of responsibility. This is a question upon which the will of the people themselves should he allowed to be exercised. The people living in the different areas that constitute the provinces should have the right-I was going to say the privileges, but it is better to describe it as a right-to say for themselves whether liquor should go in among them or not.


John Hampden Burnham: Where does the minister connect the people he is speaking of now with the provincial legislature?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not connect them in the remotest degree.


John Hampden Burnham: How does the minister connect the people of that provincial area he is speaking of with the body which, for convenience, we call the provincial legislature?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the operation of this law is concerned I do not connect them at all. I deal with them as Canadian people. It is the Dominion electors who are going to vote on this question, and it is in their capacity as Dominion electors that they will do so; and if the legislature express the opinion that the people of a province desire a plebiscite, then I ask \hat Parliament shall justify the Government in accepting that as sufficiently representative of the desire on the part of the people of the province to have a plebiscite. It would be quite competent for any legislature to express its opinion as to whether it would he desirable that a law which it cannot enact should be enacted by the body that has legislative power to do it. When the legislature expresses that opinion, Parliament says to its executive: You will be justified in 'allowing the people


Edward Guss Porter: But this Parliament would be depriving itself of its power to say " yes" or " no."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Every time this Parliament enacts a law it deprives itself of the power of saying anything to the contrary until it chooses to repeal that law. And after this Parliament passes>
this law, if it ever changes its mind and wants " no ", it will have nothing in the world to do but to repeal the Act.
The hon. gentleman referred to difficulties regarding injustice to manufacturers. I have pointed out that we have dropped the manufacturing question entirely, and their cattle can go on being fed on the various things that arise out of the benefits of having distilleries, so far as this Act is concerned. He also spoke of this as a discrimination against a manufacturer in an adjoining province in favour of the outsider. I have already pointed out that prohibition on importation from one province to another will also prohibit importation into that province from outside of Canada.
There is an objection on the ground of expense. Now, this is Dominion legislation. The people who vote on these plebiscites will be exercising a right conferred by the Parliament of Canada, a right which no other body but this Parliament could confer, and this legislation is being enacted, as it should be enacted, because it is good legislation for the Dominion. It is good that in the Dominion the people should have an opportunity of expressing their will upon this subject, and having that will respected. That being so, on what ground could we ask the province, which cannot legislate on the matter, to pay the expenses in connection with the exercise by citizens of Canada of a right conferred upon them by the Parliament of Canada, because that Parliament believes that it is good for the people of the different provinces to exercise that right.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my ability, to reply to the observations that have been made on the subject, and I have done so with no desire to be dogmatic but to give my reasons why condemnation of this Bill is not justified.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Steele in the Chair.

On section 1 of the Bill, covering section 152 as proposed to be added to the Canada Temperance Act, subsection 1-Upon receipt of resolution of Legislative Assembly or of Yukon Council requesting vote on prohibition or importation of liquors, the Governor in Council may issue proclamation.


William Stevens Fielding: I should like to draw
attention to a point dealt with by the hon. member for West Hastings, and also by the Minister of Justice. I want to say however, that I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that the only body which proposes to legislate on this matter at the present time is the Parliament of Canada. When I say " legislate " I mean passing a law. A resolution is not legislation. I quite agree with that view. But what strikes me as remarkable is the distinction that the minister has drawn between the legal effect of a petition from the provincial legislature and a petition from the people. My suggestion was that if it was deemed desirable to have an exnression from the provincial authority the legislature itself should be the authority to express that opinion instead of securing that expression through a plebiscite. The Minister of Justice concurs in my view that it would be very desirable, but he says that if we allowed the legislature to make that request we would be delegating our power.
It is only on that point that I want to say a few words. I respectfully submit that there is no question of delegation in one ease or the other; in both cases it is simply a petition, there is no actual legislation. In the case I suggest the legislature might pass a resolution or petition asking the Dominion Government to enact this law or to carry out the provisions of a law already enacted. In another case a resolution of the legislature is passed to be followed by a plebiscite. In both cases it is simply a petition. In the one case it is the petition of the legislature and in the other it is the petition of the people, but in neither case is it a legislative enactnfent. In neither case can it be deemed a delegation.


John Hampden Burnham: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he is not, in that case, substituting the opinion of a small body of men for the opinion of the whole people?


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, but that does not affect my point. It will not affect the constitutional position. My point is that neither in one case nor in the other is there

any delegation, or anything more than a mere petition, and, as respects the constitutional position, whether that petition comes from the legislature, or in the form of a plebiscite, it is precisely the same thing. If it is proper to accept the result of a plebiscite, it would be proper to accept the judgment of the Legislature of the province. That is my contention. I can see no possible difference between the two. The Minister of Justice says that all we would do would be to substitute the legislature for the twenty-five electors under the Canada Temperance Act. Is the legislature the body to be substituted for that purpose? If that is all we want why not take the executive council? That is a representative body. The legislature is not twenty-five electors; the legislature represents the whole of the electors and if you only want something to substitute for the twenty-five, why not take the executive council? But the main point I desire to make is this: We have had plebiscites enough on this question. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) is quite correct when he says that nobody wants this Bill. Certainly the temperance people do not want it and speaking from the point of view of my own province, I am sure the proposal for another plebiscite will not be viewed with favour. If it be deemed necessary to get an expression of opinion from the province it would be much better and much more satisfactory to everybody to accept a resolution from the provincial legislature rather than to take a plebiscite.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to point
out what to my mind is the distinction between what the hon. gentleman suggests, namely, that we should legislate and that upon the request of the legislature this law should operate-<-


William Stevens Fielding: We will already have legislated, and we will only have to bring the law into effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion is that
the Act bringing it into effect should be dependent upon the legislature's request.


William Stevens Fielding: True.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The distinction between that and our making it dependent upon the vote of the people themselves is that if we now enact the law and say that it shall be operative within the province if the legislature ask for it, we in effect confer upon the legislature by an Act of its own as a legislature the power to impose upon the people of the province the law that we have
enacted. If we pass the legislation in that way it will be the action of the legislature that will subject the people of the province to this law. That in whatever form it takes, is in substance putting into the hands of the legislature the power of determining whether the people of the province shall or shall not be subject to this law that the Dominion Parliament has enacted. While we in form will be enacting the law, the decision that will subject the people of the province to it will he the decision of their legislature. Now, that legislature has no power to subject the people of their province to the operation of any law unless it is a law the subject matter whereof comes within the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act, and this subject of importation does not.
That, whether it is sufficient or not, is a reason why, to my mind, the concrete action suggested by the hon. gentleman would make our legislation unconstitutional. Proceeding as we do, no man in any province of Canada becomes subject to this law by reason of the decision of any other legislative body. We are merely making an expression of the people a condition of our law becoming operative.


John Archibald Maharg: We have heard it said repeatedly that the Government is not by this action expressing the will of the people. Take a hypothetical case where the Government or the Legislative Assembly might be hostile to prohibitory legislation; they might be thwarting the will of the people. The people themselves might be in a large majority and wish this step to be taken but the Government or the legislature [DOT] might refuse to take the step. Would there be any remedy at the hands of the people if that condition arose?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would not be the Provincial Government that would have to take the step; it would he the legislature. The remedy that would be in the hands of the people in that event would be to elect another legislature.


John Archibald Maharg: That takes time; it means four or five years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is true. If the legislators of the province do not do what the electors would like to have done, it is inherent in our constitution that the electors must wait for the remedy which is to substitute new representatives.
Mr, E, LAPOINTE:	The same thing for
thi^ Parliament,


Charles Joseph Doherty: The same thing for this Parliament. I can understand that there may be that objection but we must find some method by which the request can he met. Now if we impose the requirement we must have a petition that in some way will be representative of some volume of opinion in the province. If we impose the necessity of 25 per cent of the electors of a province signing that petition we would be imposing a most onerous condition upon the portion of the population that may desire to have the plebiscite. It was from that point of view that we thought we could not follow out the idea of the Scott Act as applicable to counties, and we looked around to see what would be the easiest method of getting an expression of opinion that would be entitled to respect as representing the volume of opinion in a province. It seemed to us that the legislature, after all, is a body of men selected by the people from all over the province, and in this regard, and as a rule, I think you can take the majority of the legislature as being representative of public opinion in the country. It does happen, however, that public opinion changes; that the members of the legislature perhaps do not change quite as quickly, and that public opinion gets a little ahead or perhaps sometimes falls a little behind, and you may have a moment at which the majority of any parliament or any legislature does not actually represent the people. On the other hand, prohibition after all is not a thing that is vital this year and ceases to be vital next, it is a measure which must be in effect for a considerable time after it comes into force. It may be annoying to the people of a province to find after they do desire this plebiscite that they have elected members who will not carry out their will, but it will only delay the matter for a short time.


William Stevens Fielding: I oppose the plebiscite altogether and therefore am not going to argue it; but if you only want machinery to start the plebiscite why not take the Governor in Council of the province? There is a body that is constantly meeting, and all they have to do is simply to grant the plebiscite if desired. Surely the government of a province is big enough for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there is a widespread impression in the country that this Bill is in the nature of prohibition throughout the Dominion. If I understand the minister aright, and read the Act aright, it has nothing to do with Dominion prohibi-

tion. Neither has it really anything to do with provincial prohibition otherwise than being in the nature of an enabling measure which permits the provinces to take a plebiscite under certain circumstances.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not permit the
provinces to take a plebiscite?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean it permits the Dominion to take a plebiscite for a province at the request of that province, It is not a measure of Dominion prohibition and not a provincial prohibition measure. As a prohibition measure therefore it is humbug. In other words. . .


George Green Foster: What would my hon. friend have?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend's doctrine apparently is that all things in this world are divided into three classes-Dominion things, provincial things, and humbug. He says this is not a Dominion measure, and because, in his opinion, it is provincial it is necessarily humbug.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a prohibition measure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, as a provincial
measure. The hon. gentleman's proposition is that a provincial measure, conditional for its effect upon the will of the people, is necessarily humbug as a prohibition measure. This is a Dominion-wide measure of conditional prohibition and it is for the people of every section to have it if they want to have it. The principle of this measure is the recognition of the right of the people to have their own will carried out, and that is what my hon. friend describes as ''humbug".


Edward Guss Porter: I would like to call the attention of the minister to section 152 which is under consideration, providing that upon receipt of a resolution the Governor in Council shall issue a proclamation for a vote. Is not that contradictory? And should not that be read subject to subsection 2 of section 156?


Michael Steele: I might be permitted to point out that we have not yet reached the sub-clause in question. I think if we consider the Bill subclause by subclause we will make better progress.


Edward Guss Porter: I understood you to call section 152.


Georges Henri Boivin: Only the first portion of it.


Edward Guss Porter: The clause to which I have reference begins by saying that "upon the receipt by the Secretary of S*ate" of a resolution passed by any legislative assembly, that such and such a thing shall be done. I am not raising the point for the purpose of criticising but rather with the idea of improving this legislation, if I may be permitted. In view of the fact that subsection 2 of section 156 of the Act declares that a poll shall not be held within three years, should not section 152 be read sub. ject to that subsection? It seems to me that puts the matter beyond question, otherwise the provisions would appear to he inconsistent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite clear that what the hon. gentleman suggests is necessary, but I have no objection to accepting the suggestion; it will ptrhaps make the provisions clearer. I therefore beg leave to move to insert at the opening of section 152:
"Subject to subsection 2 of section 156."


Mr. CALDWELL:: Who is to bear the expense of the plebiscite, which the province will take?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The province will not take the plebiscite; the Dominion will take the plebiscite and bear the expense.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the minister kindly explain the proposed amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) pointed out that by a subsequent provision of section 156 a petition cannot be made within three years of a previous petition, and as it presented itself to the mind of the hon. member there was an inconsistency between that provision and this in its general terms, that upon the receipt of a request by the Secretary of State a proclamation should issue; and no doubt in terms there is that contradiction. In other words, section 156 creates an exception to the general rule, and, deferring to the view of the hon. member that it would make the meaning absolutely clear if we said: " Subject to the provision of section 156," II move the amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no such section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is not at the present moment. If the hon. member has before him what I caused to be printed, the Bill containing the amendments that were contemplated to be made, and which has been distributed:-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Michael Steele: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. LAFORTUNE (Jacques - Cartier). (Translation) :	Mr. Chairman, a very
active campaign has been carried on, in the several provinces of the Dominion, during many years; against intemperance; associations of every description, organizations of every nature, the municipal authorities and the clergy are leagued against the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and I am myself a member of those associations. I am a temperate man, having never made use of liquor or tobacco.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I have lived up to this time without making use of either, and my health has been all the better for it. Why talk of a referendum, Mr. Chairman? Is not public opinion sufficiently known? Has not this temperance question been fully discussed by the people of the different provinces, and is it not a fact that prohibitive measures have been enacted by all the legislatures? Why should we seek a further expression of public opinion? Why should we burden the country with another heavy expenditure when it is admitted that our financeis are in such a woeful condition? I am satisfied that the people's opinion on this question could never be better known than it is at present, and I claim that an appeal to the people is by no means necessary under the circumstances.
I shall refer, for instance, to the beautiful province of Ontario which recently started a great agitation in order to secure the complete elimination of alcoholic beverages. The western provinces, the Maritime provinces and the province of Quebec have also moved in that same direction. Yes, Mr. Chairman, fabulous sums were expended towards restricting th*>
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Such being the facts, would it not be foolish, now, to say that, if the provinces are not satisfied, a plebiscite will be demanded and the people called upon to render their verdict or, in other words, that we shall spend thousands of dollars to learn what we alreaday know, nay, what we have known for a long time, namely: that the liquor traffic is the most pernicious source of all the crime? which are perpetrated? No, you will never succeed in making the people more sober as long as the manufacture and the import

ation of alcoholic beverages are left untrammelled. A province may happen to pass a regulation, a law .prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, but the adjoining province may abstain from doing so. Hence, the drunkards, being unable to secure on the spot what they want, will go and get it in that adjoining province, and so, drunkenness and intemperance will persist, and our penitentiaries and jails will continue getting a full quota of criminal, and our .asylums, their full quota of destitute. Such is the result of the manufacture and sale of spirits in the country. May .1 add that, if we were to admit the principle set forth in the Bill now submitted to the House, we would be undoing heretofore the work accomplished by the several temperance organizations in every province of the Dominion, and that work would have to be taken up once more, as though nothing had ever been done. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that if spirits can be manufactured and imported from one province into another, they will continue to flow as they did in the past, we shall see them in quantities in the cellars of those who pose as being apostles of temperance though addicted, to drinking. While the blessings of temperance are being preached, heaps of barrels, cases and jugs will be seen everywhere. The use of intoxicating liquors results in destroying the force and vitality of the race, and it is our duty to fight that pest in every possible way.


Michael Steele: (Text): Order. We are discussing section 152 of the Bill and rule 13 prescribe that speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Mr. LAFORTUNE. (Translation): I do not quite understand. If Mr. Chairman would kindly repeat that remark in the language which I speak, it would be easier for me to catch the meaning of it.
'(Text). Would you be kind enough, Mr. Chairman, to repeat what you have just stated? I may then probably be in a better position to see whether I am .right or wrong. I do not want to discuss your ruling, Sir.


Michael Steele: My ruling was that as the clause of the Bill now before the committee is number 152, the hon. member should confine his remarks to that clause, inasmuch as rule 13 says that speeches in Committee of the Whole must he strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: The whole Bill is found in section 1.


David Arthur Lafortune: That is what I understand, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Steele: So long as the hon. member's remarks are strictly relevant to the clause under consideration he is quite in order.


David Arthur Lafortune: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: "Carried," "carried."


David Arthur Lafortune: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentlemen who say: Carried, carried, may have their cellars replete with all their requirements, .and as a rule, this class of people are such .as are the most enthousiastic temperance supporters in the country. They are prone to meddle with other people's business, but they draw the line at their own shortcomings.
Our hospitals are taxed to their capacity with patients, unhappy victims of conditions resulting from intemperance and who a,re now depending upon the State for their care and treatment. The .great majority of public inmates in our asylums for the insane are men or women whose health and minds have been wrecked through the same evil which is also responsible for numberless oases of dire want and hardships of all kinds.
In the constituency which it is my privilege to represent, a by-law was passed by the .municipality prohibiting the sale of liquor, and although this was followed by strong action in order to have the by-law repealed, the majority of voters decided that the new order of things was to endure and as a result, local option was continued.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have had many poor mothers approach me who begged for my support, saying:	Pray, dear sir, when
before Parliament, insist upon the passing of a law of prohibition for the country as a whole. Since my husband has no longer the opportunity of patronizing the corner saloon, how things have changed! Myself and my children a;re 'beltter cared for; every day of the week is a working day for their father, whereas formerly he ill treated me - and all his wages were spent on liquor. Now he hands me his wages every Saturdy evening, and instead of
f
staying out at night drinking and playing cards until four or five in the morning, he comes bade home early, takes a good night's rest, and we are happy.
Mr. Speaker and hon gentlemen, who now are paying such a religious respectful attention to my words, you are not without being aware as well as myself, if not better, that this is a fact, and you appreciate that this is a common happening at the present time throughout the land.
But no sooner does the thought of carrying out any reforms or doing away with a bad habit, occur to their mind than people are seized with a dread of the strong arm of trade, they are afraid that the manufacturers, importers, distillers of intoxicating liquors, powerful and wealthy men as they are, having their say in an election, may turn round and oppose this Government. So they say: Let us hold with the hare and run with the hounds; let us assume no responsibility.
I venture to say this to the hon. minister, who is now following my address (Sir George Foster). Do not act the coward; take the initiative and bring down a Bill providing for total prohibition, so as to relieve the situation; but you shrink back, because you will not take the responsibility before the electors of this country.
A few moments ago, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was put in a similar predicament to that I find myself in. His feelings were somewhat hurt by the remarks made by the hon. leader of the Opposition. I sincerely say that I have much respect for the hon. Minister of Justice, but let me tell him, voicing as I do the sentiment of my electors, that he is not in earnest about this measure .being passed into law. He wants to temporize, he wants to relieve himself of responsibility. My hon. friend said to himself: Let us keep watch over the situation and we shall abide by the decision taken by the provinces; we shall bring the matter up again, and when a general election is held we shall perhaps 'be absolved by the .people.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there are in my district 'very important concerns, which manufacture intoxicating liquors, there are influential distillers, but I intend to say to them, in due time: "My duty first, last and always." If you are able to do away with me as a representative of the people, very well; but I shall have discharged my duty at any rate; I shall have no qualms of conscience over the efforts I have put forth to reform bad habits, to make my electors more temperate and more thrifty,

but I do not disclaim responsibility for the stand I take here, as a representative of the people. In the meantime, I say this to the hon. minister: The Bill that you brought down some time ago, does not tally with the request, coming from the people of the Western provinces, from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. All the provinces in this Dominion of ours advocate the passage of a law -for total prohibition by Parliament. It 's the trend of public opinion. Protestant ministers of every denomination have never relaxed their efforts and the Roman Catholic clergy likewise have bent all their endeavours towards the bringing about of the conditions now prevailing; under their leadership, the cause of temperance has made very substantial progress. They trusted that this Government, at the present session or at the next one, as soon as an opportunity offered for expressing their views, would have taken a decided stand and passed an Act providing for prohibition.
When those clergymen learn by the press, on Monday morning, that the provinces still enjoy their rights of option between prohibition and the traffic in intoxicating beverages, they will be grieved sorrily, and I venture to say that you are far from coming up to the expectations entertained by clergymen of the two largest religious denominations in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


David Arthur Lafortune: In regard to that
temperance issue, there is practically a consensus of opinion in this fair Canada of ours; however, I admit that perhaps there are pros and cons. Many people say that it is not -so great an evil to allow farmers, labourers and everybody else to take a little drop before meals. Many people maintain also that we should try to spread temperance by moral -suasion, good order and example, that it would be easy toy those means to check this liquor evil and to promote temperance which makes for the happiness of the people. But I do" not subscribe to that opinion, Mr. Chairman.
For over fifty years, this' temperance question has -been discussed under all its different aspects before large public gatherings, and yet we have made very little progress. Why? Because of this old saying: "Habit is second nature," and the man who has been addicted for years to intemperance, finds it very hard to break a settled habit,
I am prepared to admit that a few people

-could be reclaimed, but it would -be a small minority indeed, whereas if the members of this Administration were willing to cooperate and help in solving this liquor problem, we should get far better results
Mr. Chairman, it is stated that if the Government puts a stop to manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquors, they would be- deprived of a large amount of revenue, that there would be a falling off in the duties collected, if we are prevented from importing alcoholic liquors into Canada. With all due respect I -answer: No. I assert that the sums that are annually spent by the Government for the maintenance of the judiciary and the criminal -machinery -and for the upkeep "of prisoners in jails throughout the country, exceed -considerably the revenue derived from that branch of trade.
I say that prohibition would result in abating to a great extent the number of criminals, of patients in the hospitals, of destitutes kept in the poorhouses and in the workhouses at the expense of the State and that, far from being the loser, the State would realize, thereby, a substantial benefit. Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take into consideration the -many joys which we sh-all have brought to the homes of our people if we succeed in checking this evil, and the happiness of the whole population would then mean ample and more than ample compensation for the lost, of revenue entailed, a revenue which was derived from that line of trade. Under the circumstances, why should we hesitate any longer? I consider, Mr. -Chairman, that this question is most important for the electors whom I have the honour to represent, and I should consider that I was recreant to my duty if I failed to do my utmost to prevent the enactment of this measure which, far from promoting the cause of temperance, rather t-end3 to encourage the use of intoxicating liquors.


Ernest Lapointe: It is now Sunday.


David Arthur Lafortune: If it is,
I shall stop.


Ernest Lapointe: Move the adjournment.


David Arthur Lafortune: I move that the debate be adjourned and that the committee rise and report progress.


Michael Steele: Do I understand that the hon. member wishes to move the adjournment of the debate?


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Steele: It is not in order for the hon. member to move the adjournment of the debate in committee.


David Arthur Lafortune: Then I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Georges Henri Boivin: I declare the motion lost.


Avard Longley Davidson: I suggest that this oration might be finished at the next session of Parliament.


David Arthur Lafortune: The hon. member has a right to say anything he likes, but I am not bound to do what he proposes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. gentleman who has the floor will permit me, I suggest that there is nothing to prevent his going on with his speech when the committee resumes at a subsequent sitting. But it is now Sunday morning, and we are not in the habit of sitting on Sunday.


David Arthur Lafortune: In our country, Mr. Chairman, we never work on Sunday. It is the law of our province and the law of God.


George Green Foster: I see no objection to proceeding with the Bill. Other legislatures do these things, and I do not see why we may not. It is all very well to make a kick against doing this kind of work in Parliament on Sunday, but I do not suppose there are any of us who do not do some work pn Sunday, may be not as meritorious as this. I think the committee had better go on and finish its consideration of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. friend, who has given us so much pleasure and himself so much pleasure in the address which he is making, will remember that we are all mortals and not try us too long, to satiety at least, with his very pleasant and very able speech. He might draw it a little shorter.


David Arthur Lafortune: To me, this is not a question of pleasure; it is a question of duty. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not very generous; I have never interfered when he has taken up three or four hours in making a speech to the House. It is not my desire to speak against time; the question is too important for that, Mr. Chairman. I feel it my duty to do the best I can to convince hon. members that they are wrong; that is my only desire.
(translation): What have we seen, Mr. Chairman, since mitigated prohibition was imposed in the several provinces? A great number of stills were seized which had been hidden in cellars, or in barns, in the woods or in the fields, and by means of which intoxicating liquors were made, with the result that the provincial laws forbidding this manufacture were eluded and frustrated.
What have we seen in the province of Ontario as well as in the other provinces, not excepting Quebec? We have seen a great number of .seizures made by the ' revenue officers, who also found large quantities of intoxicating liquors in cellars, in underground recesses, in the fields and in the woods. Those liquors, manufactured underhand, are not alcohol, they are real poisons.	.
And this is tolerated by the Government. When things have gone so far as to make it necessary for them to do away with such conditions, they talk about a referendum, and the advisability of consulting the people. We shall see, then, do they say, what people's opinion is, .as though we were unaware of .the fact that thi.s opinion
i.s well moulded into shape and was put on record whenever an opportunity offered for the people making its voice heard.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I claim that this Government is unwilling to face the situation .and instead of introducing la prohibition Bill it brings down a half-measure which will not be satisfactory to the electors of the .Dominion.
*Several of the hon. ministers and members would like me to take my seat forthwith, so. that this half-measure .might be allowed to pass. Well, I must tell them that in spite of all the work which they may have done in behalf of temperance, they are not serious when they pretend to be temperance men.
Great work was achieved by associations of ladies who held meeting, travelling all over the country, in their endeavour to have temperance laws enacted in order to uplift public morality; but those ladies will find that they are not given a fair deal when the Government denies them its help, when they are losing the fruits of their labour, of the efforts, which they put forth during more than ten years and when the result of their activities is reduced to nothing


Edmond Proulx: You are in favour of this Bill?


David Arthur Lafortune: No, no, I am obsolutely opposed to the Bill which is now before ns, because it does not go . far enough, because it leaves the people free to drink as they used to in the past. The Canadian people want no such legislation.
I shall now follow the advice of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I was bound to register any protest against this Bill, and I think I have done so in such a manner .as to warrant my electors in giving me credit for my efforts in that direction. Those will be my concluding remarks. I shall now resume my seat, thanking, at the same time the hon. gentlemen for having so intently listened to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that the Bill be amended by substituting the Roman numerals "IV" for the Roman numerals "III" in line 8 on the first page. This is a printer's error. I further move to amend section 152 as reproduced in the Bill, by inserting in the fifth line of the section after the word "territory" the words "in which there is at the time in force a law prohibits ing the sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes." I announced this amendment and Explained the reason for it in moving the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move further to amend section 152 by striking out subparagraph (a). This is carrying out what I said about limiting the scope of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: Notwithstanding what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has said, I do not think it is a good precedent to create, for this House to continue to sit on the Lord's Day. That has never been done during the fifteen or *sixteen years I have been a member of the House, and for my part I protest against continuing the work of the House at the present time.


David Arthur Lafortune: I also protest very earnestly against this method of procedure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out the letter (b) in the 18th line of section 152 because as there is now but one paragraph, there is no occasion for the lettering.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out the words "or prohibitions" in lines 23 and 24

on page one of section 152. There is only a question of one prohibition now.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out the words "or prohibitions" in line 4 on page 2 of section 152.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out the words "or prohibitions" in line 17 on page 2 of section 152.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out the words "or prohibitions" in line 22 on page 2 of section 152.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the minister proceeds further, I should like to understand clearly the significance of this legislation. As I understand it, at the present time there is an Order in Council which prohibits the importation and manufacture of intoxicating liquors anywhere in Canada. That Order in Council will expire when we get out of the state of war. There is, I believe, an impression which, I think, the hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) shares, that this legislation is in the nature of a measure which will continue that prohibition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to understand that that is not the case, that this Bill does not continue that prohibition. If this Act were law to-morrow there would be no greater measure of prohibition in Canada than there is to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No greater than at present under the War Measures Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And with the War Measures Act abolished.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With the War Measures Act abolished there would be this greater measure of prohibition, that if the people of the province so expressed their will the importation of intoxicating liquor into any area of the province would be prohibited.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a year hence.	[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the people chose to wait a year. This law will not force anything on any one. It gives to all what they are willing to take the trouble to get.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assuming that the Order in Council were out of existence

and this law were in existence, then unless the people acted under it of their own initiative there would be no prohibition in the Dominion and no further prohibition in the province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I want to be clear on. As a prohibition measure it seems to be a humbug, it is not prohibition in any province or in the Dominion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member looks upon all conditional legislation as humbug, perhaps he is justified in his assertion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I move that at the end of section 152 there be inserted the following subsection:
152 (a) The said proclamation shall be issued within three months after the receipt by the Secretary of State of the copy of the resolution referred to in the preceding section.
There is not time limit in the Bill, and this merely fixes the time limit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The amendment says
that the proclamation " shall ' be issued in three months. I think that in all legislation in which the King is supposed, to act the word " shall " is never used, but the word " may ".


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am willing to accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 153 of the Act-Proceedings thereafter to be the same as are prescribed for bringing Part II of Canada Temperance Act into force. Returns to be made to Governor in Council, who shall declare prohibition in force if more than one-half of total vote is in favour.
Edward Guss Porter: This section provides that the Governor in Council shall declare the " prohibition or prohibitions " in force if . more than one-half of the total number of votes cast are in favour of such prohibition. This means that a single vote in favour of a referendum would be sufficient to compel the passing of an Order in Council. This is not a fair proportion, and I think it should be three-fifths. I therefore move that the words " more than one-half," in line 36, be struck out and the words " three-fifths " be substituted.
Amendment negatived: Yeas 8; Nays 26.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that this section be further amended by striking out, in lines 34 and 36, the words, " or prohibitions."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 154-If prohibition of manufacture declared, the manufacture of liquor is forbidden.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to strike out
sub-clause 1 of this section, as we have abandoned the question of prohibition of manufacture. I move further that we strike out the figure 2, at the beginning of the second subsection, which now becomes the only provision in the section.


Mr. DAVIS:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if this is a private conversation? I cannot hear a single thing, and I am in the dark as to what is going on, although I have stayed here till after midnight and well into Sunday morning to hear what is taking place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am moving to strike out the figure 2 in section 154; it now becomes subsection 1 by the disappearance of the pre-existing section 1, which I moved to be struck out a moment ago.


David Arthur Lafortune: Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to draw your attention to the fact that there is a law known as the Lord's Day Act, in which it is enacted that the Lord's Day shall mean the period of time beginning at 12 o'clock after noon on Saturday and ending at 12 o'clock after noon on Sunday.


George Green Foster: The point is not pertinent to the section under consideration.


Georges Henri Boivin: Until the House adjourns it is still Saturday.


David Arthur Lafortune: Then how long does Saturday run

until 2 o'clock Sunday morning?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It depends upon how long the hon. gentleman talks.


David Arthur Lafortune: Well, allow me to state that this is very irregular. It is unChristian.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to amend .subclause A by striking out the words in line 48, " or. deliver, or cause to be delivered ". The reason for this amendment is that the clause would make legislation within the province itself, which the province can attend to. In subsection 2, which now be-

comes, as I have said, subsection 1, in lines 44 and 45, I move to strike out the words, " against the importation or bringing of intoxicating liquors into the said province So that it will read: " If the prohibition is declared to be in force


Fred Langdon Davis: Again I must ask for a little information. I am not, as I fear some members are, anxious to go home and get this thing through with undue haste. I really want to understand what we are doing, but so far I have found it very difficult to follow the proceedings. It seems that we have not the proper Bill before us, or something is wrong; the numbering of the lines is evidently different in the copy I have.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am proceeding, as I have to proceed, on the Bill as it was originally introduced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the convenience of the members, so that they would be able to grasp the effect of the amendments contemplated, I had printed and distributed a Bill showing the situation after amendment. If we were proceeding on that it would not be necessary to move these amendments, but I have to proceed upon the Bill as it was originally introduced, copies of which, I think, are available to all the members.


Fred Langdon Davis: We were not provided with them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been distributed since the Bill was introduced at the beginning of October.
On section 154, paragraph (a)-no importation, etc., allowed:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move to amend subclause (a) by striking out the words " or deliver or cause to be delivered in."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subclause (b)-no sale or contract to sell liquor to be delivered in province:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that subclause (b) be struck out and the following substituted for it:
No person shall, either directly or indirectly, manufacture or sell, or contract or agree to manufacture or sell, any intoxicating liquor to be unlawfully imported, sent, taken or transported into such .province.
The reason for changing that clause is that it dealt with the prohibition of sale within the province itself. That is dealt with by the provincial legislation and we do not
[iMr. Doherty. ]
desire to supersede or interfere with it. The proposed clause as moved makes it unlawful to sell for the purpose of the liquor being sent into another province. It will be unlawful to manufacture it for the purpose of sending it into a prohibition province.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 154, subclause 3-burden of proof on person accused:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that the clause be amended by striking out the words "or prohibitions" in lines 33 and 39.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	[DOT]
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move to further amend the Bill by adding the following as section 156:
1.56. (1) Upon the receipt by the Secretary of State of a duly certified copy of a lesolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of any province (or, in the case of the Yukon Territory, of the council of the Yukon Territory) requesting that the prohibition in force in such province may he revoked, a poll shall he held and a vote taken to decide whether such prohibition shall be revoked or not, and the provisions of this part as to the proceeding to be taken for bringing the prohibition into force, and the provisions of Part 1, with respect to the revocation of an Order in Council bringing Part 2 of this Act into force, shall apply mutatis mutandis, and the proceedings shall be taken accordingly.
(2) No poll or voting, whether for bringing into force any prohibition or for the revocation of the same, shall he held or had within three years of any previous poll or voting held or had under the provisions of this Part.
It merely makes applicable for the repeal of any prohibition in this part of the Act the provisions already made for the repeal of prohibition under the existing part of the Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I to understand that in so far as the amendment is concerned this is an Act for getting rid of prohibition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is an Act to provide for those who brought prohibition into force, because in their judgment it was desirable, the very reasonable right of putting an end to the operation of a law, which operation rested upon the expression of their will.


Edward Guss Porter: That may be done on the same class of vote as that which brought prohibition into force?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that the Bill be further amended by adding as sec-

tion 2 of the Bill, subsection 1, the following:
2.	(1) When any Intoxicating: liquor is seized and brought before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or any magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, and the consignor or consignee or owner thereof or person entitled thereto or claiming the same cannot be ascertained, and if no person establishes a claim to the possession of such intoxicating liquor within a period of fifteen days after the seizure thereof as aforesaid, or within such extended time as the judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, may allow, or as may otherwise be allowed by any competent tribunal, then the judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace who issued the warrant in execution of which such intoxicating liquor was seized, or, in the case of the death, absence or inability to act of such judge of the sessions of the peace recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, any other judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, may adjudge and declare such intoxicating liquor, together wfith all kegs, barrels, cases, boxes, bottles, packages, containers and other receptacles of any kind whatever found containing the same to be forfeited to the Crown.
This is precisely the same provision in regard to the disposition of liquor seized and for which an owner cannot be found that we made this afternoon in connection with Bill No. 27.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection 2 is likewise a reproduction of the clause adopted this afternoon. It is as follows:
(2) As soon as any intoxicating Lquor and the receptacles containing the same are forfeited to the Crown, the judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace or magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace by whom [DOT]such forfeiture is adjudged and declared shall immediately transmit to the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue a notice in writing specifying the quantities and descriptions of the intoxicating liquor so forfeited, and shall over that such intoxicating, liquor shall immediately be deposited in a Custom Bonding Warehouse within the province wherein such intoxicating liquor is forfeited as aforesaid, to be disposed of as the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue may direct.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


David Arthur Lafortune: On Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Bill, of course, can only be read a third time by unanimous consent at this sitting.
Motion for third reading agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir George Foster for the adjournment of the House:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has any time been
fixed for Prorogation or is there any' business left for another sitting?


George Green Foster: The only business that is left for the Commons is the Supply Bill which we will take up immediately the House assembles at eleven o'clock on Monday. Then there may be some business that will come to us from the Senate, but if the Upper House makes as good progress on Monday morning as we have made to-night-


Ernest Lapointe: Sunday
morning.


George Green Foster: -and in the small portion of Sunday that we have used up in a good cause, I think we shall be able to prorogue about four o'clock in the afternoon.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.48 a.m. (Sunday).
Monday, ,November 10, 1919.