DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA SECOND SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 9-10 GEORGE V, 1919 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1028	Volume	II: Pages	1029-2096" III:	"	2097-3192	"	IV:	"	3193-3996


Volume V:: 3997-4702



VOLUME CXXXVIII


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACHiO

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons ®ebales
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 25, 1919.

[Stage Direction]
Order in Council of June 33, 1919, approving -the General Housing Scheme of the province of New Brunswick-Hon. Mr. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Council) moved, seconded by Mr. Devlin:
That the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of pensions, pension regulations and all matters pertaining thereto, and to prepare a Bill dealing with pensions for the consideration of the House, which was presented to the House on the 24th June, he commended for the consideration of the Government.
Motion .agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 154, to authorize certain School and Dominion Lands to be included in the Taber Irrigation district in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to permit workmen from rural .districts to replace those of the City of Montreal in connection with labour opeoationgf during' the (present season, in the Port of Montreal?
2.	What are the conditions required in connection with labour operations at the .ports of Three Rivers, St. John, New (Brunswick, Halifax and Portland?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	In so far as the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are concerned, the practice of 254
previous years is being followed. Practically all of the commission's employees are residents of Montreal with the exception of those employed on tugs. The latter are in large part recruited in Sorel and other points along the St. Lawrence river.
2.	The Department of Marine has no information.
AMHERST CARRIAGE FACTORY BUILDING. Mr. DUFF:
.1. What rental is paid per year to Percy C. Black and John W. Regan, liquidators of the Nova Scotia Carriages, Limited, for the use of the carriage factory building at Amherst, N.'S. ?
2.	What troops have been quartered in this building and for how long?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	$7,000 a year.
2.	Building was rented as accommodation
for Dispersal Station Military District No. 6, and to be used in case of emergency due to transportation difficulties. It has been occupied by the following units: 485 men 1st Depot Battalion, British Columbia Regiment, 27tlh April to 14th May, 1918. 49 men 12th draft Canadian Field Artillery, British Columbia Regiment, 27th April to 14th May, 1918.	355 men 12th draft, 2nd Battalion,
May 8 to May 14, 1918.


AMHERST (MINERAL WATER COMPANY, LIMITED.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-horough):: What amounts have been paid to W. H. Tennant or The Amherst Mineral Water Company, Limited, Amherst, N.'S., for supplies for the Military and Internment Camps at that place during the years 1911-15, 1915-16, 1916-17, 1917-18 and 1918-19?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: Department of Justice-by Internment Operations' Office to the Amherst Mineral Water Company, in 1915-16, $11.55; 1918-19, $2. Department of Militia and Defence- the only payments made by the Department of Militia and Defence to the Amherst Mineral Water Co. during the years men-



tioned were $12 in 1916-17, and $8 in 1917-18 for the rental of a typewriter. No payments were made personally to Mr. W. H. Tennant.
CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE. Mr. PREVOST:
1.	Was each volunteer who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force asked to declare his religion?
2.	How many Roman Catholics enlisted in Military Districts numbers 3, 4 and 5, respectively ?
3.	What were the respective number of enlistments in the said districts who were (a) born in the British Islands, and (b) born in Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2 and 3. To procure this information would require the perusal of some five or six hundred thousand files, and this cannot be done until after demobilization, as some of the documents are still overseas.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Was a vessel recently launched for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, in British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is its name and gross tonnage?
3.	For what port has this vessel sailed, what cargo did she carry, and what rate of freight was paid?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Canadian Volunteer, (b) 3,188 tons.
3.	The Department of Marine has no information.


MOTOR BOAT &quot;HELENA.&quot;
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Is the motor boat Helena at present in the employ of the Government at Sydney Harbour?
2.	If so, at what rate per day?
3.	If not, when were the services of this boat dispensed with?
4.	What is the total amount paid the owner of this boat to date?
5.	Who was the owner of this boat while in the employ of the Government?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No,
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	December 31, 1918.
4.	$17,580.
5.	Finlay MacDonald.


PAY AND ALLOWANCE BOARD.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	How many rulings, checked and signed, were made by the Pay and Allowance Board during the year ending December 31, 1918?

2.	How many members are there on the said Board?
3.	What are the powers of the said Board?
4.	What was the expenditure of the Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch of the Militia Department during the same period?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	The Pay and Allowance Board, Canadian Section, made 91,006 such rulings during the year ending December 31, 1918.
2.	There were five members on the said board, Canadian Section: Lieut.-Colonel J. W. Margeso-n, president; Major P. W. Beatty, M.C., vice-president; Mr. Cecil Arden, Mr. P. J. Waldron, and Mr. Frank Beard.
3.	The powers, of the board were amended and consolidated by P.C. 2901, dated November 3, 1918, and are as follows:
(1)	Deciding upon the validity of all applications for separation allowance received through irregular channels.
(2)	Preparing recommendations on all applications which appear to the board to be cases in which "grave injustice" would be done if separation allowance were not granted and the applicant is not eligible under the regulation, together with a report on each case; said cases to be considered and decided by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence and the Paymaster General acting in conjunction with the said board.
(3)	Deciding all cases of "sole support."
(4)	Deciding all cases under paragraphs 19-29-30-33-35 and 36 of Order in Council of 25th August, 1917 (P.C. 2375).
(5)	Authorizing the transfer of assigned pay or any portion thereof from the dependent in receipt of separation allowance to another dependent or to a person who is not a dependent if in the board's opinion there are good reasons for so doing. .
(6)	Authorizing a compulsory assignment of pay in favour of the wife or children of an officer or soldier where the circumstances in the opinion of the board warrant such action being taken, the amount of such cases not to exceed 15 days' pay of rank, working pay and field allowance" excluded.
(7)	Authorizing a compulsory assignment of pay in favour of a dependent of a member of the C.E.F. who is in receipt of the Permanent Force Married Allowance while serving therein efqual to the amount of separation allowance and the assignment which might be compelled were the officer or soldier not in receipt of the Permanent Force Married Allowance.

(8)	Appointing an interim guardian for the children of an officer or soldier, pending the appointment of one in writing by the officer or soldier satisfactory to the board.
(9)	Deciding as to the amount of overpayment of pay and allowances to be recovered and the method to be adopted in recovering same, in any case where an overpayment has been made and which the Paymaster General may refer to the board.
(10)	Preparing a recommendation in any case referred to the board by the Paymaster General where there has been an overpayment of pay or allowance, or both, of over $300, and it is considered by the said board that a refund of the whole amount, or some part thereof, should not be insisted upon; together* with a report on each case; the passing to "Suspense Account" of such overpayment or part thereof to be considered and decided by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence and the Paymaster General, acting in conjunction with the said board.
(11)	Authorizing the passing to "Suspense Account" of an overpayment of pay or allowance, or both, not exceeding $300, or any part thereof, in any case which the Paymaster General may refer to the board.
(12)	Deciding all other questions concerning pay and allowances which the Paymaster General may refer to the board.
4.	$65,701,950.43. '
Mr. P. M. DRAPER.


Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	What position does P. M. Draper hold in connection with the Printing Bureau?
2.	When was he appointed and at what salary?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	How often in the past two years has he been away from his official duties?
5.	Does he receive his salary monthly while away from office on private business?
[DOT]6. If not, how much has been deducted from salary?
7.	Is he in his office at present?
8.	If not, where is he?
(Hon. Mr. BURRELL:	.
. 1. Superintendent of Outside Printing.
2.	Appointed September 15, 1914, at the salary he was being paid in the Civil Service, $2,700.
3.	Under the direction of the deputy head, supervising printing, binding, engraving, lithographing and. allied work done outside the Government plant. Directing the work of assistants engaged in such. Placing of orders and approval of invoices. Supervising correspondence in connection with same.
2544	; j
4.	Mr. Draper has only been absent, with permission, from time to time, not exceeding the usual Civil Service holidays' period, except when attending the Peace Conference, under the authority of Order in Council approved 3rd December, 1918.
5.	Salary regularly paid on account of reasons given in No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Yes.
8.	Answered by No. 7.



INQUIRY RE QUESTIONS.

['I shall inquire.']
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I am very anxious to get answers to questions numbers 3 and 4 on the Order Paper before the session is over. On question No. 4, I asked for an answer about ten days ago, and the Prime Minister told me that the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. A. K. Maclean) was not here, and that he would communicate with him.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: No. 3 will have to stand as an order for return. As regards No. 4, I shall make inquiry. I do not know about it.



Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	When was the War Bonus distributed to the Inside Civil Service?
2.	What departments have received said bonus? *
3.	Were the same amounts distributed to every Civil Servant in each department?
4.	Was a bonus distributed to the Civil Servants in the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department, and in the Department of the Board of Pensions Commissioners?
5.	Were any bonuses distributed to the Civil Servants in the Department of the Canada Food Board? If so, when? If not, why?
6.	Is a Civil Servant who was employed in the Militia Department at the time the first Order in Council was passed granting bonuses, entitled to said Bonus, although said Civil Servant has been transferred to another Department since?
7.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant Bonuses this year?


PROGRAMME OF LEGISLATION FOR REMAINDER OF THE SESSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: I promised the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) that I would give him information as to any further legislation which might be brought down by the Government. I understand that the following legislation still remains to be placed before the House:

An Adt to amend the Dominion Lands Act. This is, I believe, a trifling amendment, and I should not suppose that it would be controversial.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This is for the purpose of embodying some or all of the recommendations contained in a report of the committee, which report was discussed in the House some time ago.
An Act to amend the Indian Act. This is merely for the purpose of enabling Indians who have served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force to be provided for and on reserves instead of upon other lands in case they desire to engage in agricultural pursuits.
Then, it has been intimated to me that the Committee of the House which has been investigating questions relative to the high cost of living may recommend certain legislation in the form of two Bills. If that recommendation is made it will be necessary, of course, for the 'Government to consider it, and probably to present to the House for its consideration the measures so proposed.
There will also be a small amendment to the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, merely for the purpose of increasing the percentage rate with respect to second-class docks to the percentage rate already established for first-class docks, that is, from 3J to 4J per cent.
There will also be a Pension Bill, which will be introduced on behalf of the Government to carry out the recommendations which have been submitted by the Committee on Pensions.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Pensions for returned soldiers?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, the committee which has been investigating the matter has dealt with the question of pensions for returned soldiers.
There will also be a resolution respecting the transfer of the port of St. John to a Harbour Commission and the conveyance to that commission of the various works which have been erected by the city in the harbour of St. John. Possibly that portion of the harbour equipment which has been carried out by the Government will also be transferred to the same commission in order that it may have entirely under its direction and control the whole equipment of the harbour.
There have also been before a committee of the House, although they are not upon the Order Paper, two Bills to amend the Fisheries Act. One of them, I am informed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries

(Mr. Ballantyne), has been dropped, but the other will probably be proceeded with.
The Minister of Finance will introduce a Borrowing Bill.
There is already on the Order Paper a Bill with respect to an annual payment to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. In addition to that, there are negotiations pending with the city of Ottawa respecting some other matters, and if those negotiations lead to any result a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the agreement arrived at will be introduced;
It is expected that a Bill making temporary provision for the holding of by-elections will be introduced. It is not the intension of the Government to proceed with the General Franchise Act at this session, but it is anticipated that a Bill making provision during a temporary period for any by-elections which it may be necessary to hold, will be presented.
There is also the possibility that the Commission on Industrial Relations will present a report which might call for action and legislation at the present session, but that is quite conjectural at present, as we have not yet received the report.
Apart from these matters, I do not know of anything further except, of course, the Supplementary Estimates, which we hope to place before the House at an early date.
Whilst the list that I have given embraces a considerable number of measures, they are nearly all of a minor character, and I hope they will not prove confrover- . siaJ. It is desirable, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree, to economize the time of the House as far as possible in order to reach prorogation without any undue delay.
Mr. D. D. .MeKENZIE (leader of the Opposition) : Might I ask whether the various measures to which my right hon. friend' has referred are ready to be presented to the House and will be brought down soon? The-list is- quite a formidable one, as far as the number of measures is concerned, but they may not be very controversial. If we do not get them in a reasonable time they promise to keep us here for some weeks. I hope that will not be the case.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope my hon. friend will find their quality so excellent that the delay will not be very great. Of the two Bills relating to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, one is now before a committee of this House, and the other has been dropped. I thing the other measures will be ready for introduction almost at once.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice) :: Are these measures in addition to the Bills already on the Order Paper?	.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the Bills on the Order Paper, we are giving our consideration to the possibility of allowing some of them to stand until the next session. My hon. friend may be assured! that we are no *more anxious to stay here during this hot weather than he is, and he may rely upon it that we shall give our best attention to the matter which obviously was in his mind when he asked his question.


Jacques Bureau: This new list does not indicate any anxiety to get through soon.


Robert Laird Borden: It shows a regard for our duty, notwithstanding the heat.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: There is now on the Order Paper a Bill to encourage the construction and improvement of highways. This is a very important Bill in my opinion, and I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with it this session.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that so far we have shown any disposition not to proceed with it, inasmuch as we sat until nearly half-past two the other morning in order to secure the passage of the ' resolution on which this Bill is based. The , Bill now stands for second reading, and I do not think my hon. friend need have any apprehension about it.


THE BRUCE REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
' On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that the press this morning gives us for the first time the famous Bruce answer to the Babtie report, in the form of an abstract, I understand, from a book published by Dr. Bruce. May we expect that the Minister of Militia and Defence will now lay on the table ithe answer itself as it was sent to the Government?


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that I made an answer on that subject either last session or the session before. At the moment I do not know of any reason why I should depart from the view which I then took. However, I shall give consideration to what my hon. friend suggests.


ALLEGED IMPRISONMENT OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN SIBERIA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I wish to ask the hon. tihe Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Mewburn) a question. A few days- ago I had an interview with men returned from Siberia who had reported under the Military Service Act and were forced to board a train for Victoria against their will. They were then forced to embark on a boat for Siberia at the point of the bayonet. Some of them resisted and they were court-martialled and condemned to two years' hard labour. I understand that some of them are still in Siberia undergoing that penalty. I would like to know if the minister is aware of that fact and, if so, if instructions to that effect were given by him.
Major-General MEWBURN: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I may say that I have no such information. I doubt very much the correctness of his statement. General Elmsley will be here in two or three days and I will inquire of him about it, but I doubt its correctness. All our troops have been withdrawn from Siberia except one or two details that volunteered to stay there for one or two months. All the rest have been returned to Canada.


Joseph Archambault: Were these men forced, under the instructions of the Department of Militia, to embark on this boat against their will?
Major-General MEWBURN: They were not.


INQUIRIES FOR REPORTS AND PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and possibly that of the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell), the fact that the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Sinclair), obtained an order for the return of some papers in connection with the Seaview post office in Prince Edward Island. They have not yet been, brought down and it is very desirable that they should be. There was also an order of the House, dated June 9, for some papers in regard to the maritime seed fair. It is highly desirable that these papers should be brought down if possible.


Martin Burrell: I shall make inquiry.


Joseph Archambault: On April 14
there was an order for a return of a copy of all documents in relation to the investigation by his honour Judge F. S. McLennan; also a copy of the report comprising the evidence and exhibits. The papers were brought down but the evidence and exhibits are not in the report. I would like to have the evidence and exhibits as ordered by the House.


Martin Burrell: I shall inquire.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BUREAU.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. Upon referring to Hansard this morning I notice that the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) in his remarks attributes to me a statement which I did not make and therefore I desire to correct him. As I made my remarks in French it will not probably be possible for all the members to read what I said until the translation is made. The hon. member for East Edmonton said:
If I do rise to speak at all, Mr. Chairman, it is that I in the main agree with that hon. gentleman. I do not agree, however, that you should not increase the military force in Canada because there were military individuals in the city of Winnipeg who incited, by their presence, the civil population to acts such as have characterized the conditions of things that exists in that city at the present time.
I desire to say that I did not say anything of the kind and that my remarks do not contain anything to justify that statement which is absolutely erroneous.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine) Bill No. 148 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (transfers and mortgages of ships) was read the third time.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Major-General Mewburn for the third reading of Bill No. 137 to amend the Militia Act:
Mr. J. A. ROBB:: I move in amendment:
That the said Bill, No. 137, be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of deleting clause 1.
[Mr. Burrell.l
The House divided on the proposed amendment of Mr. Robb, which was negatived on the following division.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Doherty). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion agreed to on the same division reversed, and Bill read the third time.



BUSINESS PROFITS WAR TAX ACT, 1916, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for the third reading of Bill No. 143 to amend the Business Profits War Tax Adt, 1916.
Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I will be glad to give the matter consideration with a view
of seeing whether the suggestion is practicable or not.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT, 1917, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, Bill No. 144 to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917, was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 142 to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-schedule A amended.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 2 carry?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Read it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the desire of the committee that this clause be read again? It was read and discussed in Committee of the Whole the other day. It is a very long clause. [DOT]


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, we have sent for the hon. member for Brome who has special charge of this Bill.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Chairman, I understand that item 267a of the schedule does not allow the importation of oil necessary for the manufacture of asphalt. I have communicated to the hon. minister a letter which I have received stating that oil necessary for the manufacture of asphalt has a specific gravity of .7900 or heavier at 60 degrees temperature and up to 130 degrees. I understand also that this oil is manufactured in Canada by the Imperial Oil Company. It seems to me that by not permitting its importation we would be giving protection to the Imperial Oil Company, and I would like to know from the hon. minister if that is the fact.


William Thomas White: I may say to my hon. friend that under Order in Council of August 11, 1908, asphalt and oil for use only for paving purposes is admitted free of duty, and the only tax on these articles would be the 7j per cent war tax, which we are not removing, except from the class of goods I mentioned in the Budget speech.
I am not quite sure as to whether the oil referred to might not come wifhin this definition, but I think my hon. friend, or-those he represents, might get a ruling of the Customs Department upon the subject.
4C-04


Joseph Archambault: I understand that the clause as now drafted does not include oil necessary for asphalt purposes. Why take the duty off the other oil and leave it on this particular kind necessary for asphalt?


William Thomas White: We Shave removed the war tax on the oils mentioned in items 268 to 273 inclusive, and here we are merely removing the war tax on the petroleum that is used in the manufacture of these oils. We are not touching any other items; con>-sequently we are not interfering with the tariff as it is upon the particular kind of oil to which my hon. friend refers.


Joseph Archambault: I think it would be good policy to remove the tax on this kind of oil. I understand that the only firm manufacturing this kind of oil in Canada is the Imperial Oil Company. Why should we give protection to this company? This point could he met by adding after the word " temperature" in the second line of this item the word " to 130 degrees."


William Thomas White: I am informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that the effect would not be as my hon. friend suggests. As I pointed out when these resolutions were previously under consideration, we are going to be short on ordinary account this year; we are not going to have enough revenue to pay our. current expenditure, let alone capital expenditure; therefore, I am exceedingly reluctant to take the war tax off any item except those items which I have mentioned, embracing foodstuffs, clothing, boots and shoes, and so on. Ordinarily I should feel disposed to go a good way to meet the wishes of the hon, member, but when we are absolutely dependent upon the revenue derived from the duties on these other classes of goods, we have to be very strict with regard to the matter. If is not a question of affording protection to anybody; what we want to get is the revenue from this item.


Joseph Archambault: 
William Thomas White: Crude petroleum oil is not manufactured by the Imperial Oil Company or by any other oil company in Canada; therefore my hon. friend's amendment, if adopted, would not accomplish what he has in mind. The purpose of retaining the 74 per cent war tax upon a long line of commodities is to give the Dominion Government the revenue which it greatly needs at this time; therefore we could not afford to take off the 74 per cent to a greater extent than we have. We have taken it off those things which may be regarded as the necessities of life, and we have also had to take it off, in some cases, the raw material or fabrics used in the manufacture of goods from which we have taken off the 74 per cent. The amendment of my hon. friend is meaningless; it would not accomplish the object, he has in view, and should not be concurred in by the committee.


Joseph Archambault: If my hon. friend believes that my amendment is meaningless and would not accomplish the purpose that I have in view, will he support the amendment?


William Thomas White: I would not, for the reasons which I have given. I say that at this time we should not take the 74 per cent war tax off the items not mentioned in the Budget, because we need the revenue. The first duty of the Minister of Finance is to meet hlis Budget requirements, and if amendments are adopted taking the duty off one item here, another item there, and so on all down the list, the result would be a loss in revenue and a greater gap between revenue and expenditure. For the sake of the credit of the country, it is my opinion that we should not go any further than we have gone in making these reductions.


Mr. McMASTEB:: I think that a further worn of explanation is necessary from the Finance Minister. Item 267 of the former tariff schedule reads as follows:
Crude petroleum, fuel and gas oils, .8235 specific gravity or heavier, at 60 degrees temperature,	Free	Free	Free.


William Thomas White: May I point out that the item to which the hon. member refers was struck out in 1916, and No. 267a inserted, which is the item we are dealing with?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The word of explanation that I wished is on this point. It was thought advisable a few years ago to have crude petroleum of the specific gravity of .8235 come in free. Now we find it is considered wise to allow petroleum of .7900 specific gravity to come in free, but apparently crude petroleum of other specific gravities will not come in free. What is the explanation of the change? Is it to protect some special interest?


William Thomas White: I am informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that it is because the lighter oil could not be obtained that'the change was made. There is no question of protection so far as I am aware.


Joseph Archambault: The fact that the oil cannot be obtained does not seem to be a very good reason.


James Alexander Robb: In opposition to the amendment moved by the hon. member (Mr. Archambault), the Minister of Finance says that he requires the money and that he is not prepared to accept the amendment because it will interfere with his revenue. May I submit to the minister that he is penalizing, more than any other interest in this country, the Government itself in the person of his, confrere the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), who has a highway proposition now before the House? If we are going to encourage good roads and if the Dominion Government are going to require the oil for the purpose of good roads, very naturally the Dominion Gov. ernment will pay. Therefore, the minister is only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. Under these conditions he might very well consider the amendment.


William Thomas White: I am sorry it is impossible for me to do so, and I can call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Robb) to the fact that we are dealing in this item with crude petroleum, not a manufactured article at all, and that is all that has been dealt with in the tariff before, so far as I know.


Mr. JACOBS:: The minister says that he cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Archambault) because there would be a considerable loss of revenue under this item. Can w'e have some
idea as to what the estimated revenue would be?


William Thomas White: I have not the information. I was speaking generally with regard to loss of revenue from the dropping of the seven and-a-half per cent war tax duty. If the revenue is considerable, then we should obtain it. If, on the other hand, it is inconsiderable, there is not very much weight in the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Archambault) negatived.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I understand there is a reduction in the duty on tea of three cents per pound. Last year a duty of ten cents per pound was imposed upon tea, and the tax was made retroactive so that importers and wholesale traders had to pay the ten cents per pound on the tea they had in stock at that time. I have a communication from an important firm in Quebec, asking me to urge upon the minister the advisability of drafting the same clause as regards retroactivity in favour, of the traders this year as it was against them last year; that is to say, they should be reimbursed three cents per pound on the duty they have paid on tea they have actually in stock. The demand is a fair one, and I would ask the minister to give it his consideration.


William Thomas White: I am sorry that we could not consider that favourably. In some tariff revisions consideration is given in case of goods that are in bond, but with the article held in store and throughout the country, we do not think it practicable -to give effect to the suggestion. I am informed that, as regards goods taken out of bond, no provision has ever been made in any tariff revision for making an allowance.


Samuel William Jacobs: With respect to tariff items Nos. 27 and 28, item No. 27 is " coffee when not imported from country of growth," three cents and seven and-a-half per cent British preferential; five cents and ten per cent on intermediate tariff, and five cents and ten per cent on general tariff, and contrasting this with item No. 28, when coffee is imported direct from country of growth, the rates are different. These are two and-a-quarter cents, three cents and three cents, respectively. What is the theory by which the rates are different when the coffee is imported direct and not direct?


William Thomas White: The principle involved is one which has 'been recognized for many years and, I think, by several administrations. The object is the national interest of Canada, that is to say, that the

importation shall be direct. If that were not done, the business of Canada would be done largely by commission merchants operating from New York. The idea is not only to encourage direct importations to Canada, but to promote the interest of those engaged in trade in Canada rather than to have the business, as I stated, done through commission merchants operating, let us say, in New Yor(k.


Samuel William Jacobs: How does this affect Canada when merchants do business, say, with the United States through commission merchants or with eastern countries direct?


William Thomas White: I do not say that is inadvisable in most cases, but if the business can be done wholly within Canada, it is advisable that it should be so done and that has been recognized in all tariffs. That does not necessarily mean that it is right, but it seems to me, if we can promote trade in Canada by giving a preference, as we do in the tariff, to direct importation, it is advisable in the national interest to do so.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not, I presume, on the principle of " no truck nor trade with the Yankees."


James Alexander Robb: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to tariff items Nos. 60 and 61, where he places wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list. In justice to the milling interest of Canada, would the minister not be disposed to place flour mill machinery, oils required for flour mills, leather belting and the bags in which the flour is packed, on the free list? In support of this, I would point out that last year-I am speaking now from memory as I have not the exact figures, but I am nearly right-one of the large milling concerns in this country wanted) a carload of bags. They wrote for prices to all the cotton mills in Canada and also to cotton mills in the United States. They decided to buy the cotton in the United States. They bought one carload of cotton in the United States, imported it to Winnipeg, paid the Government $4,800, and the bags cost them $300 less than had they bought the cotton in Canada. The minister can readily understand that under those conditions Canadian milling will be under a very great handicap if he allows United States flour to come free into Canada from mills that buy their bags cheaper than the Canadian mills. That is one feature of the case. The other feature I wish to draw to the attention1 of the minister-and I know I am preaching to a man who is already con-
verted, because he has already declared himself along these lines-is that if this goes into effect, he will be doing a great injury to the dairy interests of Canada. While the minister has placed wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, he has not placed bran and shorts on the free list, but bran and shorts are on the free list going into the United States, and the result will be that the dairy farmer in the United States will have cheaper bran, shorts and middlings than the Canadian dairy farmer. The minister could square matters to a certain extent by placing bran and shorts on the free list. I should like to know his mind on this matter.


William Thomas White: With regard to the first question of my hon. friend, there is a great deal to be said for the proposition that when a product is on the free list the duties upon the raw material, machinery, plant, etc., used in the production of that article should be reduced or wholly removed. That is a matter that I think, with respect to this particular case, ought to be taken up on the general revision of the tariff which we have in mind. The matter has been drawn to our attention by some engaged in the milling industry, and they have been satisfied with the statement that the matter would receive consideration. I do not mean to say that any intimation has been given as to what will or will not be done; that would be improper. I simply mean that this is a subject that should receive careful consideration on the general revision of the tariff. I am informed that no hardship is likely to result to any of the millers this year; therefore, the matter might very well wait. I think the same might >be said with regard to bran and shorts. I think we shall be in a much better position after an investigation of the tariff situation this fall to deal with these questions. We will then know more, probably, of what the United States is going to do. I hope my hon. friend will be content with the assurance that these matters will receive consideration in connection with the next general revision of the tariff.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I wish to say a word
in support of the position taken by the hon. member (Mr. Robb). I would point out to the minister that this is a question which does not concern the millers alone. It concerns the dairying interest, one of the largest interests in the country, an interest whose operations extend from the At-

lantic to the Pacific. The minister has very properly, in spite of previous ill-founded views upon the subject, made the North American Continent an economic unit so far as wheat is concerned. To be consistent with himself, he must now make the North American Continent one economic unit so far as the by-products of wheat are concerned. If he does not do that, the Canadian dairy farmer may find himself in a disadvantageous position as compared with his American competitor, as regards bran and shorts. In one part of the country, let us say in the West, where there is a considerable amount oi milling done, there may be market conditions which will enable the American dairy man to buy free of duty bran and shorts, the by-products of Canad/ian wheat milled in Canada, while in another part of the country the Canadian dairy farmer may find that bran and shorts are selling cheaper south of the line than in Canada, but he cannot bring those products in for feeding his cattle because the duty prevents it. 1 do not think that' is a condition which should remain in abeyance until a general revision of the tariff. The Minister oi Finance speaks in a somewhat light vein oi a general revision of the tariff, but I think when the different appetites fostered by protection are all clamouring to be satisfied, he will find it a long, hard and troublesome task, and it may be months, if not years, before the general revision of the tariff is carried out. Under these conditions I would impress upon the minister that in order to be fair to the dairy interests of this country, he must not, while he puts wheat upon the free list, allow the by-products of wheat to remain taxed.


Mr. OOPP:: I have been asked by gentlemen engaged in the canning business to ask if the minister could not see his way clear to putting tin plate on the free list. Apparently tin plate is not included in item 343, which refers only to tin, in blocks, pigs or bars; tin strip waste, and tinfoil. The point is made by these gentlemen who use tin plate in the containers used in putting up fish and other food products, that the present duty should be either reduced oi abolished; but apparently, according to a communication I have received, the duty has been increased. Tin plate is an article that is used in these containers for putting up the food of the people, and I would ask the minister to consider whether it cannot be put on the free list.


William Thomas White: This matter has been drawn to my attention by some of the
canners, but their objections did not appear to me to be forcible at all. They have a very substantial so-called protection in the tariff to-day; they are doing well, and there is no reason why they should complain. That has been admitted by some of the leading cannersi. The result of this slight duty upon tin plate means the establishment of a great tin plate industry in this country, perhaps at more than one point. Let me tell my hon. friend what has happened. The Imperial Munitions Board had a large plant in the city of Toronto called the British Forgings. That has been taken over by the Baldwin Company, the great manufacturers of tin plate at Swansea, in Wales, and they expect to employ 2,000 men in the tin plate industry at Toronto. This industry may be established in Canada at more than one point. The duty on tin plate is very little more than on a revenue basis, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he say in all good nature to the canners that they have no reason to object at all; they are doing well, and they should not stand in the way, if any of them are, of the establishment of a great industry in this country.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: The information of my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) as regards bran and shorts being cheaper on the other side than in Canada is not correct.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Let me correct my hon. friend. I did not say that the price on the other side was lower; the point I was making was that it might be lower than in any one part of this country.


John Albert Sexsmith: I have been in pretty close touch with the situation for the last ten years, and my opinion is that if bran and shorts were put on the free list it would tend to increase the price in Canada, because for years they have been selling at a higher price on the other side.


James Alexander Robb: Does not my hon. friend
know that bran and shorts are now on the free list going into the United States from Canada? That has been the case for the last two or three years.


John Albert Sexsmith: The fact remains that the price in the United States has always been dearer by several dollars a ton.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have under my hand a memorandum which I received from some gentlemen interested in mining. Possibly the minister or his able assistant has received a visit from these gentlemen. They request that the implements required by the prospector in mining be put on the free

list. They say that the mining industry in Canada ought to be encouraged. Our basic industry, of course, is agriculture, but we have other great resources in our forests, our fisheries, and our mines, which haye hardly been scratched as yet. The main representation in this memorandum is that the implements the prospector uses should be put on the free list, or at all events should be in the list- of items on which there is only a low tariff. The hardest stage of mining, they represent, is at the beginning; it is then the most encouragement is needed. It will be understood that after the failure of many mines in different parts of the country which were represented to the public as splendid prospects, it is rather difficult to get the necessary capital to exploit a really good find. Are we to discourage those who really have a good mining prospect, from developing it? I think that the minister should take these representations into consideration, if not now, at all events when the general revision of the tariff is under consideration, when the minister will no doubt hear the proper representatives of the mining interests.
TJie prospecting stage is the most difficult one in the mining industry. The mine, first of all is acquired. Then it is searched and prospected and the implements for drilling and for finding the gold, silver, oil, shale, or whatever it may be, is put into motion. It is at this particular moment that the prospector ought to be helped. He has had difficulty in getting the necessary capital to prospect the mine. The Government should help him in getting his implements at a low rate. I am told that there have been many failures in the country not because the prospects were not favourable but because of the enormous expenditure caused by the high tariff and by the fact that the manufacturers add the tariff to the price of the machinery. The miners become discouraged and stop prospecting. We must view favourably the mining industry. There is something of a venture in it but ultimately the country derives great benefit out of that venture, j Once more I ask my hon. friend, if not presently, at least when he takes up the tariff revision, to consider the case of the I prospectors. I regret not having this memorandum under my hand; it is in my office, i but it gives specifically the articles which these prospectors would like to have placed, , if not on 'the free list, at least, on a low tariff list.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend might send me the list of articles that he 1 
has referred to. The tariff at present gives free admission to a very wide range of machinery and plant used in mining. I could mention half a dozen items embracing a very large number of such articles.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will send the memorandum to my hon. friend.


William Thomas White: I should think that a mere description of articles required by prospectors would not be proper to be embodied in the tariff. But if my hon. friend will send me a list I will consider it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will do that.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to renew a question which I asked yesterday and which the minister said he would answer when the Bill was before the committee. My hon. friend then stated that he did not quite understand my question, x suppose it was my fault.
Sir THOMAS WHITE * I could not hear my hon. friend
' Mr. E. LAPOINTE:	I shall have to go
back to my native way of conveying my thoughts. The question is in regard to the reduction of freight on agricultural implements. The hon. gentleman has said that : to afford a temporary relief to the farmers : of the West he had obtained from the rail; way companies a reduction of freight on agricultural implements. The manager of a firm has applied to the officials of the [Canadian National railways under the schedule of the new rates and he has been told that these rates will come into force only after the first of September next. That gentleman tells me that the larger proportion of the implements must be delivered j to the farmers before that date to be of any I value to them this present year. I would ask the hon. gentleman if the arrangement [DOT] which has been entered into with the raif-, way companies will only apply after September first.


William Thomas White: When I said I
did not follow my hon. friend it was not because he was not expressing himself very clearly, as he always does, but because of the acoustic properties of this Chamber.
I looked up Hansard and I understand from his remarks now, which I have heard, what he has in his mind. Most of the agricultural implements that1 will be sold this year have already been sent to the West. This arrangement was come to as of September 1st after consulation with the railways, and I may say that it was also broached to the manufacturers as to the date and September 1 was agreed upon. It is not

.possible to change it now and I do not think it necessary to do so. The manufacturers will get the benefit of it after September 1st and in view of what I have stated as to the shipments of agricultural implements prior to that date I do not think it is an important question to-day. That is as I understand the situation. Besides the reduction can only be made on the order of the Board of Bailway iCommissioners and this date has been, decided upon as the date upon which it shall come into effect.
I am afraid the question could not be reopened.


James Alexander Robb: That makes it clear that it
will be of no advantage whatever to the farmers this year. I suppose this understanding about September first was arrived at in fairness to the men who had already shipped machinery, or would ship during June, July and August.


William Thomas White: The manufacturers will lose to a certain extent by reason of the date not being fixed earlier. My hon. friend (Mr. Eobb) says that this reduction in the freight rate will be of no advantage to the farmers because it does not go into effect until September 1st. I submit he is wrong as to that. We are seeking to bring down the cost of agricultural implements. This bringing down of the tariff, it has been contended, will give an advantage to the Canadian farmers because American-made implements will be entered at the lower rate of duty. The reduction of the freight rates was to put the manufacturer in as good a position as his American competitor. The advantage, whatever it may be, will come to the farmer not immediately by reason of the reduction in freight rates, but by reason of the reduction in the duty, and we are able to give that reduction in duty by reason of bringing about for the manufacturer a reduction in freight rates which puts him on the same basis as his American competitor. The tariff changes come into effect as of June 6th, but the reduction on freights twill not take place until September 1st. The hon. gentleman (Mr. E. Lapointe) who raised the question was speaking, not on behalf of the farmers, but on behalf of a manufacturer of agricultural implements. They alone are concerned in the question as to when this reduction comes into effect, but as far as the farmer is concerned he will get whatever benefit will come from the reduction of the tariff on June 6th.
Mr. MoMAST'EB: In the few remarks 1 made upon the Budget I pointed out to the minister that if these freight rates from i Ontario points were reduced to 'western 1 points and were not reduced to eastern (points there would be a discrimination against the farmers whom I have the honour - to represent in this House. I see the Commissioner of Taxation energetically shaking his head. Do I understand from that, that the minister, in collaboration with his advisers, has decided to do the fair and decent thing with the eastern farmers and to arrange with the railways the same reduced rates in agricultural implements pro-j ceeding in an easterly direction from the point of manufacture?
| Sir THOMAS WHITE: I answered that,
I thought, fairly when the resolution was in Committee. My hon. friend chanced to be absent from the House, but I will be glad to repeat the explanation. The reason we were justified in asking that freight rates should be reduced was because the freight rates from Chicago to the Canadian West were lower than from competing points in the East.
Now, that is not so. The rate from Chicago to Nova Scotia is not lower than the rate from Toronto to Nova Scotia. The rate from Chicago to Begina or Winnipeg was lower than the rate from Toronto or Montreal to Begina or Winnipeg. The only rate situation which required to be dealt with was the Western; with regard to-the Eastern, there is water competition, as was pointed out the "other day. The Eastern farmer gets precisely the same benefit from this tariff reduction as the Western farmer. Whatever advantage accrues to the farmer, comes from the reduction in the tariff, not from the reduction in the freight rates, because the manufacturers get the benefit of the reduced freight rates to offset the reduction in the tariff. If my hon. friend is right in his contention that the price of agricultural implements is higher by reason of the duties that have been imposed, then if we reduce those duties the price will drop to the farmer. Therefore, the Eastern farmer gets the benefit of that reduction just the same as the Western farmer, if my hon. friend is right, that what is taken off the tariff must reduce the price of the article.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thank the minister for completing his explanation, which I did not hear in its entirety before. I am still unconvinced; in fact, I am very much convinced that it is highly improper legisla-

tion to arrange with the transportation companies that the rates payable on certain merchandise shall be lower when they go West than when they go East. It is an improper thing to do and is bound in the long run to cause dissatisfaction. If a man in the Eastern Townships is buying a fanning mill, let us say, in Toronto, when he finds that there is a special diminution of the freight rate on that article to a competitor of his who farms near Regina, while he has to pay the whole rate, naturally he will be dissatisfied. I do not doubt the truth of the minister's statement that freight rates as a rule are higher going West than going East, but that, to my mind, does not answer the objection in principle which I have raised to the differentiation of freight rates in favour of one part of the country.


Mr. RENDERS:: I wish to call attention to the fact that for years the complaint in the West has been that there is discrimina-j tion in freight rates against the West in favour of the East, While I do not wish to * raise any barrier to the East retaining as I low freight rates as is possible, yet I wish 1 lion, members to understand that the freight i rate reduction now made will not give the Western farmer any advantage over the : Eastern farmer, when the fact is taken into consideration that there was discrimination . in favour of the East for all these years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know that I gave the care to this freight rate situation that I should have given, but I certainly understood that whatever freight rate concessions were given were to apply all over the country. I could not agree to the freight rate on a tractor, for instance, from the city of Toronto going west being different to the freight rate on that same implement going east. If that is the intention of the Government, I certainly wish to have my views recorded against it. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) says there was always discrimination. I did not understand anything of the kind, and would not be a party to it. But if there has been any discrimination in the past, that is no reason why it should be perpetuated. There should be the same rates all over the country, no matter in what direction the freight is moving.


William Thomas White: There is no discrimination against the East in the arrangement we made. It was an anomalous situation under which manufacturers in the East were at a marked disadvantage as compared with their Chicago and other American rivals in this business. The

East has the advantage of water competition, as I pointed out. The rate from Chicago to Nova Scotia is not lower than the rate from Toronto to Nova Scotia; on the other hand the rate from Chicago to Regina' was lower than the rate from Montreal to Regina. We have equalized that situation, and the eastern farmer gets the benefit- and this is the point, I submit-of the reduction which has been made in the duties 1 on agricultural implements.


Mr. MAHARG:: I cannot for the life of me understand why members on the opposite side of the House claim that western farmers will get an advantage over the eastern farmers. They are in no way being benefited by this decrease in freight rates. That decrease was made simply that the duty might he lowered on these implements, and the eastern man gets just exactly the same advantage of the reduced tariff as does the western man. The only advan-; tage that comes to any of them is through \ the reduction of the tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Exemptions from duties imposed by sedtion three of Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, 1915:
William Thomas White: I have two
amendments to propose, Mr. Chairman. After 569 on p. 5, I want to insert item 581, and then I want to add at the end subsection (w):
Crude cotton seed oil for refining .purposes.
In other words, I want to ask the committee to concur in the taking off of the 74 per cent from two further items, one No. 581 and the other on cotton seed oil. The reason for the change is the same in both cases. We took the 7i per cent off clothing. No. 581 covers velveteen and some other cheap fabrics-because the French Treaty governs all the expensive fabrics used in the manufacture of these garments -and as we have taken the 74 per cent off the finished article we want to faike it off those fabrics. The cotton seed oil is used in the manufacture of cottolene and some other articles. We took the 74 per cent off the finished product; we now want to take it off the raw material which enters into its production.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has just mentioned the French Treaty. I understand it will expire in September.


William Thomas White: Not quite.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The French Government have denouncd the Treaty?


William Thomas White: No, I think it would be improper to say that the French Government has denounced the Treaty. The French Government desired to put themselves in the position that they could, for their own purposes in the rearrangement of their fiscal system, terminate the Treaty if they so desired on shorter notice than one year. The result is they served notice-I am speaking from memory-that they would have the right to denounce the Treaty on two months' notice. So that after September 1st the position is that the French Government may declare the Treaty at an end on two months' notice. My own view is that what they have done amounts virtually to a denunciation of the Treaty, but the Dominion Government has left the matter to the French Government. We have not raised any question as to what they have done, and we are hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement will be made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I sincerely hope the Treaty will continue in effect. If not, I hope the Government will take proper measures to obtain a new treaty-possibly a more favourable one. I was very much struck yesterday on reading some statistics published in the latest issue of French-America to see the increase of trade between France and Canada during the period of the war. Indeed, before the war there was a marked increase, due to the Treaty, but since the war, and especially during the last two years, our exports have reached enormous figures. Of course, the war period now being over, we cannot expect to maintain those figures. But still we have opened so many new channels of business with that thrifty and industrious nation that we should be able to maintain part of our export trade with it. I am therefore pleased to hear my hon. friend say that the Treaty has not been formally denounced and that it may continue after the month of September. If it does not I urge my hon. friend to get in touch with the French authorities with a view to obtaining a bette' treaty.
Mr. MdMASTER: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to what seems to be a mistake in section 4. The minister takes the duty of 74 per cent off item 90; that item is bananas, and the 74 per cent was never imposed upon bananas. In the explanatory schedule appended to the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, 1915, there is a list of articles exempt from the customs war tax of 5 per cent ad valorem, preferential, or 74 per cent ad valorem, intermediate and general, provided for in that Act. Item 90a includes bananas, so that you cannot take off a duty which you never imposed.


William Thomas White: I am informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that 90a covers wild edible berries. Item 90 in the tariff covers more than bananas; it covers a number of other things from which we are now taking off the 74 per cent. If the provision is left as it is bananas will not be changed, but the 74 per cent will come off these other items-mangoes, blueberries, strawberries, wild raspberries, and so on.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then the clause is very imperfectly drafted, because it refers to " goods enumerated in the following tariff items." " Goods " means all the goods enumerated in the item; therefore there would appear to be a little sloppiness in the drafting of this section. The same may be said of other items. For instance, item 120 has reference to anchovies, sardines, sprats and other fish, whereas some of these fish did not have the 74 per cent duty placed upon them. I recommend a checking over of this paragraph (v) so that these mistakes may be corrected.


William Thomas White: I am informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that the course which he has followed is precisely that which has been followed in the past. Item 90 covers a number of articles on which the duty of 74 per cent has not been imposed'; if we say that 90 is to come within the exemption, the effect will be that all the goods mentioned in that item shall be exempt. To do it in any other way would, I think, lead to confusion. These items have been checked and rechecked, though what my hon. friend said with regard to bananas having been on the free list is quite right.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The member for
,Queen's, P.E.I. (.Mr. J. E. Sinclair) has suggested a change which would make the thing clear. If you say that the goods enumerated in the following tariff items in schedule A upon which the tax levied by such and such an Act has been imposed, then you will avoid the somewhat absurd procedure of taking the duty off articles on which duties have never been placed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read in a reliable
Toronto paper the other day that Canadian strawberries were sold in Buffalo at 20 cents a box and in Toronto at 40 cents a box. Can my hon. friend explain that?


John Archibald Maharg: If a revision of the
French Treaty is to be made, and a revi-

sion of the tariff is to be taken up in the interval between now and the next session of Parliament, I suggest that the minister have in mind the fact that a number of the articles which come in under the French Treaty might be termed luxuries. Silk, I believe, comes in under that treaty at a duty of 20 per cent, while under the general tariff, woollens, cotton and the like are subject in some cases to a duty of more than twice that amount. That is a consideration that ought to be had in mind when the tariff is being finally revised.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.-
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.

Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: I wish to inform the House that a conference was held yesterday with the managers appointed by the Senate with respect to amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill No. 19, (Letter A of the Senate) to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, and I beg leave to give the House the result of that conference as follows:
Your managers beg to report that they duly held the conference with the managers appointed by the Senate with respect to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill A of the Senate, an Act to consolidate and amend the Hailway Aot, and that the managers for the Senate have agreed to recommend that the Senate do agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to clause 32'5 of the said Bill with respect to the powers of the Railway Board with respect to tariff rates, but that the Senate managers insist upon their refusal to agree to the amendments of the House of Commons to clauses 374 and 376 of the said Bill, with respect to the powers granted to companies under special Act, and' with respect to the connection of telephone lines with other systems, respectively.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I might, perhaps, ask
my hon. friend if in view of this, I hope, temporary deadlock, he can tell us the Government policy in respect to the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I merely wish to make the report to-day. The Government will now have to consider what further action they take with reference to proceeding with the Bill before the House at a later date.



SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 95, to assist returned soldiers in settling upon the land-the Minister of the Interior-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last in Committee of the Whole, it had been fully considered, but certain clauses were allowed to stand. We will now take up the clauses which were allowed to stand, beginning with clause 2.
On section 2-interpretation.


Mr. MOW  AT@: Has the Government considered a resolution which was discussed in this House in the early part of the session regarding the advisability of erecting model villages which would be suitable for returned soldiers, and which would be placed in the vicinity of cities in each province? The Bill seemed to be approved by the members, but the minister in charge asked that it be allowed 'to stand to be taken up later after the Government had given consideration to this question. The scheme combined the good qualities of three or four Bills, namely, the Housing Bill, the Good Roads Bill, the Pensions Bill, and the present Bill to assist returned soldiers in settling upon the land. I do not know whether its having all those good qualities has made it so that it has been considered sufficient to stand on its own merits, but in view of those advantages, I would ask what the Government's policy is in regard to the matter.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The nature of holding, which evidently the hon. member must have had in mind in his resolution and to which he now again refers, is what is described as "small holding farming." We had a committee in Ontario make investigations and report to us on the wisdom of entering upon the purchase of small holdings and the best plan on which to do so. That committee was headed by Mr. Bailey, Agricultural Commissioner for the province, and it made its report. One difficulty connected with the proposal of my hon. friend would be the probable absence of sufficient local market for any number of soldiers, occupying and working such small holdings in such numbers as would constitute a village, to make a living. They would require, in vegetable growing at least, to get a far larger product than could be sold locally, and the further one gets from

the larger markets, the less profitable is the enterprise. There is no particular advantage in a province like Ontario in keeping soldiers together in villages. There are some disadvantages. In the West, in more remote parts, where they are anxious not to become isolated, we encourage the selection by soldiers together of areas of land; we have those areas inspected, and if pfoven suitable for the purpose, we reserve them from entry by others and also from entry by other soldiers. We have special regulations covering that work, but it would not look to me to be likely a feasible venture to encourage farming in such groups as would constitute villages close to towns in Ontario, fox the reason that it would be better, in carrying on small-holding farming to have the limited number that can possibly engage in it-because the number is very limited, it is limited by the market-spread throughout the whole area of the market. That, at all events, is the substance of the report of the Small Holdings Committee. We cannot take many along that line, and I may say that we are aiming to give special advantages in this kind oi farming to perhaps incapacitated soldiers, not including in that number those who have merely slight incapacitation, but such men as blind soldiers and those in a like position of comparative helplessness. The field of small-holding farming is so limited that we feel we ought, in our encouragement, to give the right of way to that class of men, and I purpose to-day moving an amendment to section 61 enabling the board to make special concessions in the case oi blind and otherwise incapacitated men.


Mr. MOWAT:: The view of the ministei extends only to farming, but there are innumerable cases where men, who have never been farmers and who will never make farmers, have given up their little businesses to go to war and who have found when they have come back that the business is gone, and they are practically thrown on the world. They have not a trade to turn to; they had only their businesses and they are gone. It is those men that it was hoped would be benefited by their being given on a rentable basis suitable houses. The only economical way to build those houses would be in .a village or group where the men could turn perhaps to small gardening or mixed farming in a small way, I)ut generally to other occupations and where, with the help of their pensions, they would be able to live comfortably and respectably for the rest of their lives. The trouble in most of the large centres is that
houses are difficult to obtain. Most of these men are domestically inclined. They want houses; they want to bring up their families in comfort, and the aim of this would be to allow those who are not farmers to have these homes and to pay back to the Government the money expended in the course of twenty years.


Arthur Meighen: It is quite true that my reply had to do only with farming, for the reason that this Bill has to do only with farming. That is the reason my department could have nothing to do with any other class of occupation. I expressed the view, earlier in the debate, that, if possible, the taking care of the administration of any other assistance should be by local authorities with possibly some subvention from the Dominion, but that the administrative duties shall be locally rather than federally performed. Our housing plan rests also upon that principle.


Mr. M. CLARK:: With reference to the remark of the minister a moment ago I gather that the idea of community centres is not absolutely lost to view.


Arthur Meighen: We do not lose to view the soldier community, in the sense that they can communize in farming, providing we maintain the principle of individual responsibility. Notwithstanding persistent and repeated pressure we have consistently resisted any inroads upon that principle. We will not accept any communal responsibility. There must be individual holding of land and individual responsibility, but we reserve areas where men who are friends may go and buy land, but when they take their land they are separately liable for all the obligations.
I beg to move that the words "of His Majesty or" be inserted at the beginning of subsection 2 of section 2. The effect of the amendment is this: The definition of settler under the Bill as it stood was not wide enough to include a man who was in the Imperial Forces, having enlisted in the Imperial Forces in England. If a member of the Flying Corps, for instance, enlisted in England, and did not get out of England, if he was held for service in England against air raids or the like, the definition did not cover him, but if he enlisted in England and went out of England the definition did cover him. The effect of this amendment will be to cover him if he did not get out of England.


John Archibald Maharg: Is that the only amendment to this section?


Arthur Meighen: This section was held over at the suggestion of my hon. friend that I might give consideration to -the point he-/raised as to admitting men who were still in hospitals and not discharged as a result. I am taking care of that by an amendment to section 63.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the benefits of this Bill extend to domiciled citizens of Canada wfrb at the outbreak of the war joined the armies of the Allies and served in the field with such armies?
Mr. M'EIGHEN: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-free soldier grants:
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move to insert in line 41 of page 7 after the word- "on" the words "or the purchase of." Clause 15 as it stands provides that a soldier entry shall not be granted to the man who is in receipt of the other assistance from the board on private property, that is to say, a man who had obtained a loan on his own land, or a loan with which he was buying land. We do not intend to give the double assistance. An exception is made where the board decides that for special reasons it can be done-to cover the case of a man, say, who gets a small advance on a very small acreage, perhaps between his soldier entry and the lake, where the whole would not make anything more than an ordinary farm. The section as it stood was not wide enough to cover the case of the man who had bought land from the board at all. It only covered the case of a man who had got a loan on land he owned. This amendment will make the section wide enough to cover the case of the man who had got land from the board by purchase. We do not intend to give the double assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to
On section 25-limitations as to advances to settler to discharge encumbrances:
Arthur Meighen: In view of the representations of various members of the committee at the last sitting, I have decided to recommend to the committee that the amount permissible to be loaned to a man who owns his land for the clearing of encumbrances thereon be raised from $2,500 to $3,500. I therefore beg to move that the word "three" be substituted for the word "two" in line 8 of page 12.
fMr Maharg. i


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: What position would a returned soldier be in who had purchased a farm in the older settled part of the country a year ago and was seeking assistance from the board?
Mr. MEiGHEN: He could get a loan up to $3,500 to pay off encumbrances on that farm. He could also get $1,000 for improvements and $2,000 for stock, provided he does not go over $5,000 altogether. That limitation is placed so that the board will not be mainly a loaning concern instead of a settlement concern.


John Archibald Maharg: I am pleased the minister has gone as far as he has, but I cannot understand why there should be any discrimination between the man who purchased a farm before going overseas and the man who is now securing a farm. There should be no discrimination whatever between them as regards assistance from the board. As a matter of fact, the class I first mentioned are the ones who have made the sacrifices financially, and they should receive the first consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 59-power of board to estimate land apart from buildings, and to vary amount as to balance due:
Arthur Meighen: In the case of clause
59, I moved the amendment at the last meeting of the House but held the clause over so that members could consider them. One amendment I fully explained at the last sitting. It enables the board to divert not only from the improvement loan to the stock loan, so long as the maximum is not exceeded, but from the stock loan to the improvement loan. The second amendment is of very great consequence in British Columbia. In British Columbia, in fruit land farming, there is not very much use for stock. What they have use for principally is not equipment and stock but fruit trees and this amendment enables the board to divert from the stock and equipment loan to the land itself provided there are fruit trees on the land, the fruit tree improvement of the land taking the place of stock. Of course, the maximum cannot be exceeded in any case. It enables the fruit farmer of British Columbia to have a substitute for the advantage that the prairie farmer gets in the way of stock assistance, the substituted assistance in his case being the security of the fruit tree improvements on his location.


Mr. ARTHURS:: That will not necessarily be confined to British Columbia?


Arthur Meighen: No; I presume some fruit grows even in the county of my hon. friend, but the request for it came from British Columbia. It applies everywhere.
Section as amended agreed to.
Reconsideration of section 63-regulations that board may make:


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move in amendment to this clause to:
(a) strike out the letter ("L") and substitute for it the letter " n " at the beginning of the fourth line on page 29 of the printed Bill.
This applies to the last of the regulatory powers at the end of the section. Then I desire to move that power be given to make regulations prescribing:
CL) authority and procedure for the inclusion within the expression " settler" of persons who, toeing otherwise qualified to be settlers, are not yet discharged from military or other service.
The only way that can be done at this stage would be to give the board power to make regulations enabling them to consider, on certain conditions, as settlers men who are not yet discharged because of their being disabled, the intention being that if a disabled man is not discharged for that reason but is certified by sufficient medical authority to be, in all probability, an efficient man later on physically and, if he passes the qualification board, he may reserve a soldier entry without having to wait for his discharge. It will be along these lines, I fully expect, the regulation will be made. This meets the point that was raised in reference to clause 2 of the Bill. The second power proposed to be given to the board, is to make regulations prescribing:
(m) with respect to (blind or other partially but seriously incapacitated settlers special provisions for assistance in settlement of small holdings or otherwise inclusive of the remission of interest in whole or in part.
It is not without some earnest consideration that I move that amendment. I realize that the first purpose and function of soldiers' settlement is not in any way to compensate the soldier. That is the function of the pension board. At the same time the best occupation for certain classes of seriously incapacitated men is to engage in small holding farming even if they should not get any money from it. Apparently it is pretty well conceded that some occupation for blind people is essential; otherwise life for them is a greater and greater burden. There are among them those who would like to go into poultry farming ot something like that. There is no other body constituted under the Government to take care of that work so well as the soldier settlement body. Consequently, it appears that it would be the duty of the board to deal with cases of that kind. The only way in which we can possibly deal with them will be to give power, perhaps adaptable to each individual case. No regulation can' be made so hard and fast that it will apply everywhere. It may be that in one case remission of interest may be made for a certain time or it may be that in another case remission should be made altogether. It may be that in another case the interest may be reduced or a very small loan made for some small farm. The only way I feel that we can cover it now is by giving the board power to make regulations which will enable them to deal with the very few persons-because they will be comparatively few-who come within this class so that they may be put in a position to occupy themselves to the best advantage.
Section as amended agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to state before the committee reports, a few facts relating particularly to the subject brought up by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey). I wish to give the committee the . progress we have made in the way of securing land from the Indian reserves. These lands are surrendered and taken over by the board at a valuation fixed by a representative of the Department of Indian Affairs and a representative of the board. Then they are sold at a valuation that will total the amount that the lands cost the board. It is in connection with these lands particularly that the clause that gave rise to some discussion in the committee has to do; that is the clause which provides the basis upon which lands may be proportionately divided if taken in bulk. We do not buy in bulk as a practice; we buy the individual parcel that the soldier has already selected but we buy Indian lands in bulk. Then we have to divide them and fix the valuation for each parcel sold in order that the total will amount up to the total cost to the board of the land. The lands so far acquired since we began this work are as follows:
1.	Piapots Reserve 24 sections surrendered. $20 per acre. Valued by Messrs. Graham and Govan.
2.	Piapots Reserve 24 sections, unsurrendered. Valued at $12 per acre. Valued

by Messrs. Graham and Govan. Negotiations for surrender proceeding now.
3.	Upper Sumas Reserve 150 acres at $80 per acre. Valued by Peter Byrne and Mr. Stacey, M.P. Negotiations for surrender proceeding.
4.	Cowesses Reserve 2,223.56 acres valued at from $10 to $21 per acre. Valued by Graham and Govan, land surrendered.
5.	Ochopawace Reserve 381 sections at $9 per acre valued by Messrs. Graham and Govan. Negotiations for surrender proceeding.
Negotiations also proceeding for portion of Crescent Lake Reserve and Mistiwasis Reserve where 5,028 acres are probahly soon to be surrendered.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Has the land which is being opened in the Porcupine Reserve been surveyed in the ordinary manner, or have special surveys been made?


Arthur Meighen: The land has been surveyed in the ordinary manner, but I think a new survey is being run through. What is important is that the land is being laid out for sale differently from other land; I do not know that a very extensive survey is necessary. We are opening it for soldier entry only and reserving, immediately west or immediately east as the case may be, eighty acres more to be held against that quarter-section for the purchase of the man who settles on it if he shows he is going to develop his 160 acres. In the meantime some method will be adopted whereby he can use it.


John Archibald Campbell: Is the land being surveyed on the principle of community surveys?	,


Arthur Meighen: No.


John Archibald Campbell: Is it intended to survey any of the lands being taken over by the board along those lines?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman refer to community surveys?


John Archibald Campbell: Yes,


Arthur Meighen: Then my answer is in the negative. The hon. gentleman may refer to a new system of community survey that has been pressed upon the board where, by means of a triangular survey, like lines from the centre of a circle, the houses are all brought together, and the same acreage is obtained for each man, viz., 160 acres. The adoption of that system has been pressed upon the board, but never accepted for the reason that there are very grave objections to it; we are not anxious to break

the uniformity of the surveys of Western Canada.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: When the Bill was before the committee on a previous occasion I asked the minister a question, but his answer was not very clear. My question was if it was probable, or if the minister intended, in the near future, to extend the advantages of this Bill to soldiers who had never left Canada. I realize that the principle he is proceeding on is the correct one in giving those who have seen service in France and England the preference, but I would like to know if, in the near future, those advantages are likely to be extended to the others?


Arthur Meighen: I would not like to say definitely that they will be. I would say that probably the next class to which the advantages will be extended, if Parliament ever sees fit to do so, would be the class to which my hon. friend refers. I hope I shall not be deemed visionary if I hold out the prospect that if the general scheme meets with reasonable success, and the money invested in it commences to return with anything like fair regularity, it may prove the basis of a far wider settlement than soldier settlement; it may prove the foundation of a very general scheme of farm finance. If we can look forward to that prospect without being considered visionary, I think the next step in advance will be the admission of that class of soldier not already included.


Mr. STACEY:: Referring again for a
moment to the Indian Reserve question, when the minister was enumerating the Indian reserves surrendered or to be surrendered I only caught the name of one British Columbia reserve. May I ask if steps are being taken to secure the surrender of such lands in the Okanagan Valley?


Arthur Meighen: Enderby is the only one I can give at the present time. I do not think the Mistiwasis reserve is in British Columbia.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen to report the Bill:


Mr. PEDLOW:: I notice in connection
with the compulsory purchase of lands that gazetting is considered sufficient notice of the intention of the board to proceed with expropriation, which means publishing a copy of the notice in the Canada Gazette. That publication has but a very moderate circulation throughout the Dominion, and I think there should be some supplementary notice sent to the parties interested. I also

notice that under paragraph 3 of section 36 a copy of the notice has to be published in a local paper, but I would submit that in addition a copy of the notice should be sent by registered mail to the party or parties interested in the land to be expropriated by the board. I think it is only fair and reasonable that proper notice should be given by the board of their intention to proceed with expropriation.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out, before the minister replies, that a motion to report a Bill is not debatable. Therefore, if the hon. gentleman desires to ask a question he cannot do so unless the minister withdraws his motion to report the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I will ask leave to withdraw the motion and then give the hon. gentleman an answer. If he will turn to subclause 3 of section 36 he will find the following provision:
The board shall, in addition to such gazetting, publish like notice to that gazetted four times, with intervals of not less than five days between each publication, in one newspaper having a circulation throughout the district wherein such settlement area is wholly or partly contained, and mail *wo copies of the Gazette in which such notice first appears to the registrar of deeds in said district.
So that we have first the gazetting, secondly the newspaper advertising, and thirdly the registration at the registry office which is all that anybody ever gets even in the case of a caveat on his land. We could not undertake to mail a notice to the owner because we do not know who the owner may be. A search at the land office would not necessarily disclose the owner; there might be various men in different parts of the world interested. We cannnot make that a condition precedent at all, but we'take every other precaution which is reasonable, possible or practicable.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine), Bill No. 149, to provide for a loan not exceeding five million dollars to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, was read a second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-The Crown may advance $5,000,600 to Corporation:
Mr. LEM.IEUX:	I received some time
ago, as I suppose did other members of
the House, a letter from a gentleman-I forget his name now-protesting very strongly against the site of the proposed deep water piers. Can my hon. friend give the Committee some explanation?
Mr. BALLANTYNE:: I do not think I have seen the letter that the hon. member refers to, but there is a considerable difference of opinion as to whether the new deep water piers ought to be erected, in what is known as Burrard's Inlet-that is, the harbour proper-or in what is known as False Creek, or the Kitsilano Indian Reserve. Hon. members who represent the city of Vancouver rather favour False Creek, but other gentlemen do not. So the matter will stand in abeyance until I can myself visit Vancouver at the end of August and go over the situation very carefully, taking the best engineering advice and ascertaining the views of the harbour commissioners, in order to be in a position to report to the Government where the development should take place.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister tell the Committee if the harbour commissioners own the place where those improvements are to be made?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The harbour commissioners, who are acting as trustees for the Crown lands there, own all the foreshore rights of the harbour proper, that is, Burrard's Inlet, with the exception of areas in regard to which there is a dispute between the Canadian Pacific railway and the harbour commissioners. That matter is receiving the attention of the Government, but a large portion of the harbour, that is, the Crown lands up to high water mark, is owned by the Government and managed by the harbour commissioners, and where we intend to put these piers the Government undoubtedly own the foreshore rights.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that there is a dispute about some foreshore rights in the province of British Columbia, and that the matter is now before the Privy Council. Would that dispute affect the harbour rights that the harbour commissioners have to deal with?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As far as I have been able to go into it, and I have done so very carefully, I cannot find any disputed territory at all, except that in dispute between the Dominion Government and the Canadian Pacific railway. There is ample room for further development there, even if we could not come to a satisfactory arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Rail-

way Company. It is a very large harbour, as the hon. gentleman no doubt is aware, and if we erect our deep water piers where we intend to locate them, provided Bur-rard's Inlet is definitely decided upon, they would be where we now own a grain elevator and also & pier. There is no question about the Government owning the foreshore rights there. I have not heard anything about provincial rights as pertaining to the authority of the Federal Government or the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that the Government of British Columbia gave some lands to a railway company, and a question has arisen as to the extent of the grant, the Provincial Government contending that the grant does not cover the foreshore, and the company claiming that it does. I was wondering if the foreshore of this harbour was involved. I may not understand the situation properly, but I understand the minister to say that the Government have a couple of piers there and an elevator. Would those be within the zone of jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners when they take charge? Or perhaps they have already taken charge?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not before me the operating expenses of the harbour, but I will get them for my hon. friend. They were far more than $610,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not object to this Bill or to the principle which it embodies. In this connection I want to remind my hon. friend that when I went to Japan some years ago I found that the great complaint of Canadian exporters, especially exporters of wheat and lumber, was with regard to the high freight rates on the Empresses and the other steamers plying between Vancouver and Victoria and Yokohama. I was told in Japan that there was a great opening in that country for our lumber and our wheat if the rates were fair. Can the minister give the Committee some information on that subject? I should like to know also what is the personnel of the commission at Vancouver and what are the salaries paid.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As to my hon. friend's first question, of course it is beyond the control of this Government to fix the rates on Japanese steamers plying between the Orient and Vancouver. I do not know, either, whether we could control the rates charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on their steamers. So far as the general policy of the Government steamers is concerned, Mr. Hanna and his board of directors and steamship manager have full control of the operation of the steamers and of the fixing pf rates. I did, however, intimate to Mr. Hanna that as these Canadian merchant vessels are being paid for out of the public treasury, they must be used solely in the interests of Canada and in the development of our export trade. I further stated to Mr. Hanna that if Canadian exporters had certain exports to send to other countries the rate on which was say, $25 a ton, and if the farmer on his grain or the manufacturer on his finished product coul'd not afford to pay more than $20 a ton, Mr. Hanna would be justified in giving them that rate, even though he could get the higher rate at $25 a ton. If the granting of this special rate would enable the products of our farms and industries, mines, fisheries and forests, to go to overseas dominions to the United" Kingdom or to
foreign countries, I expressed the opinion that Mr. Hanna would be justified in giving that rate. If we are to obliterate in time our enormous national debt, we must expand our export trade, and I am quite sure that our merchant marine will assist in doing that. Mr. Hanna has instructions from the Government to use his discretion is to that the rates shall be; he may lower the rates, if necessary, to enable the products of Canada to be sent abroad.


Rodolphe Lemieux: gist of the question. I am told that, if sufficient pressure were brought to bear upon' the steamship companies and lower rates were given to our Canadian exporters, you would find in Japan and 'China a splendid market for our great West. I do not wish to say any more on the subject, because I think I am a little out of order, but it is a matter of interest for British Columbia and for the West, first, to have excellent port facilities at Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert, and second, the most important point, to get cheaper freight rates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-plans, etc., must be approved.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister purpose having any supervision over the laying out of this work before money is advanced? Will its destination be fixed? It is a well established doctrine in connection with votes of money by this House, that the Government shall continue to have some control over it. That doctrine was propounded here the other night in connection with votes even to the provinces, and although this is in the form of a loan, it is important that the House and the Government should continue to have control over the money and to see that it is properly expended.' I observe by 'this Bill that plans of improvements are to be submitted to the Government, but mere plans would not, in my judgment, be sufficient unless the Government has some actual supervision over the carrying on of the work above and beyond what the plans may show. Is it the intention of the Government to check those plans and improvements, in order to satisfy themselves, by physical measurements and inquiry, whether or not they can really give their sanction to improvements proposed to be made by the use of this money?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Before replying to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), it just occurred to me that I did not answer one of the questions of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) who asked me about the personnel of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners. The chairman is Mr. F. Carter Cotton, who draws a remuneration of $2,000 a year. The other commissioners are Mr. Fullerton and Mr. S. McClay, who each get $1,500 a year.
It is my intention to strengthen the harbour commissioners of that port. Those gentlemen have performed very good services, and thanks are due to them for what they 
have done, but the chairman is quite an old man now. Therefore, it is wise that we should appoint a chairman younger in years than Mr. Cotton, and it would also be well to appoint a returned soldier as one of the commissioners. I have not a definite slate to put before the committee just now, but before prorogation I hope to be able to suggest new names to them.
As regards the question of the leader of the Opposition, it is the intention of the Department of Marine to engage one oi the most expert marine engineers that I know of in this country, Mr. A. D. Swan. We shall engage the best engineer we possibly can. But in any event it is the intention of the department to have very minute, detailed specifications drawn by an engineer who is thoroughly familiar with harbour development; then public tenders will be called for; those tenders will have to be submitted to me, and the lowest tender, provided that the tenderer can do the work in the right and proper manner according to the specifications, will be awarded the contract. But besides any engineer that the harbour commissioners of the port of Vancouver may have, my department will engage one of the best marine engineers we can get to see that these plans are carefully carried out according to the plans and specifications that are going to be prepared. I can assure my hon. friend that the same care will be exercised in the development of the port of Vancouver as has been exercised in the development of the ports of Montreal and Quebec.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood that when a commission already existed it appointed its own officials.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The appointments are made by the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On section 7-advances to be a charge against revenue and property of corporation after debentures issued under chapter 54, statutes of 1913:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see that the security which the Government takes for the loan is debentures of the corporation. Now it i3 the practice in business to secure company debentures by a mortgage, because the debentures themselves do not create a lieu on the property. The only property the harbour commissioners will own will be the land and the improvements. I? it the intention of the Government to take a mortgage on th.s property as collateral security?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Inasmuch as the Crown will own the foreshore rights and all the wharves, sheds, elevators and other facilities provided at these ports, a mortgage would give us no additional security. When the resolution was under discussion I stated that the harbour commissioners for Montreal and Quebec give to the Dominion Government debentures maturing in twenty-five years, bearing interest at from three to three and a half per cent. Under the Bill that passed the House recently the rate of interest is increased to 5 per cent. When these debentures come due the Federal Government takes them up.
I am going to advise the harbour commissioners of Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec that the Federal Government will look to them not only to pay the interest on the money loaned, -but to set aside a sinking fund to take care of these debentures, instead of the Federal Government having to take them up. They ought to manage their revenue so as to be able to do this. There would be no additional security in taking a mortgage, because the Crown will own the foreshore rights and whatever facilities are provided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood that in
the Act of incorporation certain foreshore rights were vested in the corporation?


Mr. STEVENS:: It is quite true that that was provided in the Act of incorporation of 1912, but an amending Act was passed the following session whereby the sole ownership of the bed of the harbour below the high tide mark was vested in the Crown. So no lands can be alienated except with the consent of the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If these rights are vested in the Crown it makes a difference.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. A K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 42 to amend the Weights and Measures Act be concurred in. He said:	The Senate
have amended this Bill as it passed this House by adding to section 5 of the Bill the following paragraph:
(i) the construction of cans or other vessels used for the purpose of the sale of milk by measure, the manner of inspection thereof, and
generally for giving effect to the provisions of this Act respecting the use, verification and inspection of such cans or other vessels.
This provision which the Senate has inserted appeared as section 52 of chapter 52 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, the Weights and Measures Act, and I see no objection to its being inserted.
Motion agreed to, and amendment concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon, A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 150, respecting the Patent Act, the Trade Mark and Design Act, the Copyright Act and the Timber Marking Act.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Explain.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: The Patent Act, the Copyright Act, and the Trade Mark and Design Act were administered up to a year ago by the Minister of Agriculture. The deputy minister of that time was Mr. O'Halloran, whom hon. gentlemen opposite well know. Last year the then Minister of Agriculture was desirous of making Mr. Grisdale his deputy minister because he was a man experienced in agriculture. He therefore assigned .to Mr. O'Halloran duties in connection with the administration of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act and other Acts. Under an Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act, Mr. O'Halloran was created solicitor Of patents and given the administration of those other Acts. These branches of the Department of Agriculture were later transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Bill proposes to give authority to the Governor in Council to place these branches under a minister, like any other branch of the public service, but for the time being they are being administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was apparently at the time thought that the designation of solicitor of patents was the proper term to apply to the chief officer administering the Patent and Copyright Acts. It is now proposed to change the designation of the administrator of the office to that of commissioner of patents and also to make sure that he has the rank and status of a deputy minister. Mr. O'Halloran has for a long time been a deputy minister and it would hardly be fair to him to take from him that rank.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why was it taken from him?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of Agriculture desired as Deputy Minister of Agriculture a gentleman who was experienced in agricultural matters. The Bill proposes to make Mr. O'Halloran commissioner of patents, with the rank of deputy minister, and that the office and rank shall remain so long as Mr. O'Halloran is in the public service. It is not 'for the present deemed desirable to enact that the office and rank of the Commissioner of Patents shall always continue. It is to do justice to Mr. O'Halloran. He will, retain the status of a deputy minister while he is in the public service, and he iwill be designated Commissioner of Patents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. O'Halloran is the victim of circumstances. First of all, I never saw much of a connection between the archives and the patent branch, copyright and agriculture. But, at the time of Confederation, Sir John Macdonald saw fit to unite in the Department of Agriculture those various branches of the public service. Since that time a very fortunate change has taken place. The Archives Branch has gone where it ought to have been from the first-under the .Secretary of State-and patents, copyrights and trade marks where they should have gone from the beginning. But then the Department of Trade and Commerce did not exist-the child was born since. The administration of these various Acts belongs, properly to the Department of Trade and Commerce. When I was in the Government the late Minister of Agriculture and Sir Wilfrid Laurier discussed many a time the propriety of making this transfer. Mr. O'Halloran has always been a faithful public servant. Although he was. not himself a practical farmer, yet when he was at the head of the Department of Agriculture, he always gave ample satisfaction to the great farming community of Canada. He was a most courteous gentleman and most assiduous in the discharge of his duties. But Mr. O'Halloran being a lawyer by profession, and a very distinguished lawyer-both he and his father before him-he would naturally prefer, as between the two branches of the Department of Agriculture, to accept the position which is now left to him as Commissioner of Patents. I wish to say this because the other day T congratulated the then Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), upon the appointment of Mr. Grisdale. I thought
fMr. A. K. Maclean.1
it was an excellent appointment, because Mr. Grisdale is a practical farmer known all over 'Canada, and has studied the latest methods of the United States Department of Agriculture. My hon. friend knows the progress that agriculture has made in the Western States through the progressive policy of Mr. Smith, the Secretary of Agriculture in the United 'States, and as a result of the various advanced methods employed by the department. Mr. Grisdale is a man who could go into any country and, as a practical farmer, play his part with the greatest credit. Therefore, it was a good appointment when Mr. Grisdale was named Deputy Minister oi Agriculture for the Dominion. I think likewise that Mr. O'Halloran will be an excellent deputy head, or commissioner, for the new branch that is added to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Ewen Sinclair: I notice that this Bill deals with the administration of the Copyright Act, but I am somewhat disappointed that no provision is made in it relating to copyrights. There has- been a good deal of complaint in the press and on the part of authors throughout the country that they are not properly protected by the existing copyright law and I expected that the question of copyright would be dealt with .and that something would be done in that connection. I would like to ask the minister whether the Government intends introducing legislation to improve the existing Copyright Act in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) apparently does not know that a Copyright Bill was introduced in the Senate this year on behalf of the Government. Progress was made up to a certain stage but opposition to the Bill developed and lately little progress was made. Personally I think we should have in this country legislation upon this subject and I regret very much, indeed, that greater progress has not been made with the Bill in the Senate. If for any reason the Bill should not pass the Senate, the Government propose to introduce legislation again next year and probably it will be introduced in this Chamber. I blame myself largely for considering the introduction of the Bill in. the Senate. It happened by reason of the fact 'that in the early days of the session we were quite busy here while the Senate were anxious to get some work and I thought progress might be made by giving them the Bill. Personally,
I am very strongly in favour of the Bill

and if it is not passed in 'the 'Senate it will be taken up next year.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Governor in Council to determine to what department Patent Office to be attached.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the administration of this Act under the Trade and Commerce Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think likely it will remain permanently under the Trade and Commerce Department where it is now. It was thought that possibly this branch might be placed under the Department of Justice, but subsequently the view was taken that the Department of Trade and Commerce was the proper one to administer it, and it is under that department now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the Commissioner of Patents enjoy the same salary and status as before?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have any new officers been appointed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): In order to expedite the introduction into the House of the Pension Bill which the Special Committee on Pensions has already 'reported upon, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to place upon the Order Paper for this day, under Government Orders, the resolutions providing pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval, Military and Air Forces who served in the war that began in August, 1914, and who were killed or suffered disability while so serving.
Mr. SPEAKER:: This can only be done by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval, Military and Air Forces, who served in the war that began
in August, 1914, and who were killed or suffered disability while so serving; and therein to provide,-
1.	That there shall be a commission to be known as The Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, to consist of three commissioners appointed by the Governor in Council.
(a)	Each commissioner shall hold office for ten years, but shall be removable at any time for cause; he shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of seventy years, and, if not disqualified by age, shall be eligible for reappointment ;
(b)	One of the commissioners shall be appointed iby the Governor in Council to be Chairman of the Commission;
(c)	The commissioners shall devote the whole of their time to their duties under the proposed Act, and shall not accept or hold any office or employment inconsistent therewith.
2.	That the Chairman of the Commission shall be paid a salary of seven thousand dollars per annum, and each of the other commissioners shall be paid a salary of five thousand dollars per annum. Such salaries shall be paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
3.	That the salaries or other remuneration of the officers, clerks and employees of the commission, and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of the proposed Act, shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.
4.	That the commission shall award pensions to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability in accordance with Schedule A hereto.
5.	That the commission shall award pensions to or in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with Schedule B hereto.
6.	That the commission shall also have power to pay pensions, allowances and gratuities or other grants awarded in virtue of the Militia Pension Act, or any amendment to that Act, or awarded to or in respect of members of those forces who served in connection with the Fenian Raids or the Northwest Rebellion.
7.	That the Governor in Council may transfer to the commission full power and authority and exclusive jurisdiction to consider, award, pay, administer and deal with any pensions, allowances, gratuities or other grants authorized by any other statute or law of Canada.
8.	That when a person who was domiciled and resident in Canada at the beginning of the war has been awarded a smaller pension than he would have been entitled to under this proposed Act for a disability incurred during the war in any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces other than the naval, military or air forces of Canada, he shall, on resuming his residence in Canada and during the continuance of such residence, be entitled to such additional pension as will make the total of the two pensions received by him equal to the pension he would have been awarded in respect to such disability, had he been serving in the military ^ service of Canada.
9.	That when a person in any of !His Majesty's naval, military or air forces other than the naval, military or air forces of Canada or in the naval, military or air forces of one of His Majesty's Allies, who was domiciled and resident in Canada at the beginning of the war has died during the war or thereafter as the result of a disability incurred during the war or demobilization, and his widow or children
[Stage Direction]
have ibeen awarded a smaller pension than they *would have been entitled to under this proposed Act in respect of his death, such widow and such children if they were domiciled and resident in Canada at the beginning of the war, shall be entitled during the continuance of their residence in Canada to such additional pension as will make the total of the two pensions received by them equal to the pension that would have been awarded if the person aforesaid had died in the military service of Canada.
Mr. BO WELL:: The resolution now before the committee is to give effect to the report of the Committee on Pensions which has been considering this matter ever since the House opened, and upon this report the Government will introduce the Bill which that committee has already prepared and reported to the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you not already a Pensions Board?


Mr. BOWELL:: This is to give it statutory authority.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has a report of that committee been submitted to the House?


Mackenzie Bowell: Yes, it was submitted this morning. The Government now is submitting this resolution in the terms of the report of the committee, and proposes to introduce the identical Bill which the committee has already reported to the House. The members of this committee will be interested to know-and I mention it as indicating the consideration which the Pensions Committee has given to this matter

that twenty-nine meetings were held to consider the various aspects of this pension problem, and at least three sub-committees investigated particular phases of the question. The conclusions which are embodied in the report of the committee represent the mature judgment of its members. I cannot say that all the clauses of the Bill and all the conclusions in the report were agreed to by every member, but I can say that the majority of them were accepted unanimously, and where that was not the case the great majority of the committee were in favour of the conclusions reached. So that we have before us the considered conclusions of a very large and responsible committee of the House.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has asked if we have not already a Board of Pensions Commissioners. Yes, we have. The House will no doubt be interested in a brief statement of the legislation relating to pensions for our overseas military forces-. The first provision made for such pensions was by two Orders in Council of the 29th of April, 1915. These orders provided for the payment of $264

per annum for total disability for the rank and file, and a similar amount for widows or dependent widowed toothers -of those killed, and a scale of four degrees of disability. If hon. members are interested in the full Teport of the committee they will find it in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings at page 431 and subsequent pages. That was the situation when the House met in the early part of 1916. A committee was then appointed to 'take into consideration this whole matter of pensions to dependents and to disabled soldiers. That Committee, after very careful consideration, recommended a substantial increase, and the Government, by Order in Council, gave effect to the recommendation. That Order, passed on the 3rd of June, 1916, increased the total disability pensions for the rank and file from $264 to $480, and to $382 for widows and dependent widowed mothers, and the scale of disability was extended from four to six degrees. The provision made by that Order in Council continued in force during 1916 and the greater part of 1917, but owing to the increasing cost of living, which became very manifest in 1917, and the representations
5 p.m. which were made to the Government that the existing scale was inadequate, the pensions were increased approximately 25 pet cent by Order in Council of 22nd of October, 1917. The increases were from $480 to $600 per annum for total disability, and from $382 ito $480 per annum for widows and dependent parents, and the scale of disability was extended from six to twenty degrees. This increased scale went into effect as from the 1st of April, 1917, and was in force when the House met last year.
The Committee of last year gave consideration not only to the amount that we should pay by way of pensions, but also to the pension legislation embodied in the existing, Orders in Council, and its report to this House was accepted and subsequently given effect to by the Government by an Order in Council, passed in. December, 1918. When the pension schedules were before the Committee last year they considered that the existing scale was as large as they were justified in recommending to the House. It appeared from the evidence given before the Committee last year that our then scale of pensions was higher than that in any of the other countries at war- that Canada was at the top of the list in providing pensions for dependents of those who had fallen in battle and for those who had been disabled in the service of their

country. During the year, however, it was strongly represented to the Government that in the case of pensioners with families the allowance for children was not adequate, nor was it adequate in the case of orphan children. Therefore by Order in Council in January last an addition was made to the amount allowed for children of pensioners and for orphan children. That was the situation when the matter came before the Pensions Committee for consideration this year. The Committee heard many witnesses and received representations from the Great War Veterans' Association and other organizations interested in returned soldiers-patriotic societies, boards of trade, and all classes who desired to appear and state their views with reference to the scale of pensions. They also had communications from various organizations and from many individual pensioners and thleix [friends. All these representations were carefully considered by the Committee. The result is embodied in the report of the Committee and in the resolution now before the House.
At present our whole pension legislation is embodied in Orders in Council which have been passed during the war under the War Measures Act. No doubt there was advantage in having the legislation in such form that it could be readily changed to meet changed conditions, but the time has come when, in the judgment of the committee-and the Government concurs in the conclusion-this legislation should be embodied in a statute which will not be open to change except by the Parliament of Canada. We already 'have the Board of Pension Commissioners, which was established to administer the existing pension law as embodied in these Orders in Council. The object of the Bill which will be based upon this resolution is to create this body as a statutory body, to put into statutory form the existing regulations, and to set forth in that statute the scale of pensions now recommended by the committee.
When the committee came to consider the existing scale of pensions this year they decided that certain changes should be made. Under the schedule now in force, which may be found in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, hon. members will see that the allowance for total disability is $600, for a private and corporal in the militia, and for all ratings below petty officer in the Naval Service. Under the regulations as they stood prior to this report, a married man without children received an additional allowance of $96. It was the view of the Pensions Committee that
that was not a sufficient additional sum to allow in the case of a married man, and they recommend that the amount be permanently increased from $96 to $180 a year, which is an increase from $8 to $15 per month.
Another permanent increase which the committee felt should be made was in the case of the eldest child of a widowed mother; widowed mothers have found it exceedingly difficult to get along under the existing scale of pensions. We decided that the existing pension with respect to the eldest child was not adequate and we propose to increase it from $12 to $15 a month, or from $144 to $180 a year. Then, we have recognized in the past that an orphan child stands in an exceptional position, and it was considered that there should be an increased allowance in that case also. We have in the past provided that the allowance for the first orphan child should be double that for the first child of a widow. We continue that provision, and thus increase that allowance from $288 to $360 in the case of the orphan child. These increases affect all ranks; there is equality of pensions so far as it relates to the allowances for the wife and for children of the men of all ranks.
The committee felt that owing to the present abnormal cost of living some additional provision should be made in respect of the regular pension. They did not feel justified in recommending a permanent increase, because our pensions are already higher than those in force in any other country. They recommend that for this year a war bonus be granted to certain classes of pensioners. They propose a bonus of 20 per cent to men suffering total disability, increasing the amount from $600 to $720. The bonus also applies to all suffering a lesser degree of disability; it is scaled down in proportion. Then, it is proposed that the widow's pension, which is now $40 a month, shall be increased by a war bonus of 20 per cent, making it $48 a month. If she has one child, thus entitling her to an additional $15, the amount is * brought up to $63 a month, as compared with $52 per month under the present regulations.
The committee recommend also that where a man is totally incapacitated there should be an increase in the allowance which may be granted by the Board of Pension Commissioners to that man for personal care. Members of the committee will realize that there is a difference between total disability and total incapacity; a man may be totally disabled, according

to the pension regulations, but still be capable of earning something, and the regulations provide that in that case such earnings shall not be deducted from the pension. For instance, a man who loses both legs is considered as totally disabled; but we can understand how a man in that condition might be able to earn, in certain occupations, a substantial sum in addition to his pension. So that total disability does not imply absolute helplessness. Now, if the man is helpless, the existing regulations provide that he may be given an additional allowance of $300; the committee recommend that that be increased to $450. Thus a helpless man, suffering total disability, might receive, under the new regulations, $720, including the war bonus in respect of total disability, and, in addition, $450 in respect of his helplessness, or a total of $1,170. If he were a married man he might receive $180 more, which would be $1,300, with any further allowances, of course, in respect of children, on the scale provided.
Hon. members will see that there is a very substantial advance upon existing pension provisions, and it indicates the view of the committee as to what should be done for our Canadian soldiers. One of the results of this advance to privates is that we brought their pension up to a standard which is higher than that of the non-commissioned officers. We, therefore, purpose raising the pensions of non-commissioned officers up to a standard which will make them equal to the increased pensions of the privates. I am sure the members of the committee will agree that the members of the Pensions Committee were right in doing so, and that explains other increases in the pension schedule. It was absolutely necessary and only fair to bring the pensions of a non-commissioned officer up to that of a private, so that we have equality of pensions to that extent. The changes I have briefly outlined are the changes in the pension schedules for those who now come under our pension regulations. As the law now stands we take the income or earnings of a -widowed mother into consideration in fixing the amount of her pension. If a widowed mother is earning $20 per month, the Board of Pension Commissioners would allow her only $20 a month in order to bring her income up to $40 a month, the reason being that $40 per month is the basis upon which the pension is granted, it being the estimate of the amount required to maintain a woman under the conditions provided in the pension regulations. The committee

reached the conclusion that that was not fair to the widowed mother; that if she was able by her own effort, energy and ability to supplement her pension by her own earnings we should not deduct her earnings from the amount of her pension. Therefore, the new legislation provides that the personal earnings of a widowed mother shall not be deducted nor considered in awarding the amount of the pension. That is one important change.	,


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: No matter what the amount of her earnings?


Mr. ROWELL:: No matter what the amount of her earnings. Certain municipalities in Canada have effected insurance upon the lives of soldiers living in those municipalities who went overseas. Under the existing regulations, the Board of Pension Commissioners felt themselves compelled-and I have no doubt they were rightly interpreting the regulations-to take into consideration, in awarding a pension to the dependent mother or father or brother or sister of a soldier not only their income and their ability to support themselves, but the amount of the pension received on the life of the soldier who was killed in action. You will recognize there is a clear distinction between a pension granted to a widow in respect of the death of the husband and a pension granted to a father or mother in respect of a child. In the case of the pension granted to a widow in respect of the husband, the pension is absolute, no matter what the financial condition of the widow may be, because it was the duty of the husband to support her, and the State, recognizing that fact, grants the pension regardless of her financial position. But when you come to pensions for dependent parents or dependent brothers and sisters, the pension is granted only in case the parents or other relatives are in a dependent condition and would be dependent upon those children for support, and there was reasonable ground for believing that the children would be contributing to their * support. In that case the financial position of the parents must necessarily be taken into account. In considering the matter from that standpoint, the board felt that they must take into account the amount of the life insurance placed upon the life of the soldier by the municipal corporation which insured his life and which is paying the insurance to the parents, in many cases, at the rate of so much a month. The committee reached the conclusion that that was not right; that if a

municipal concern undertook to effect insurance upon the life of a soldier for the benefit of the parents, the Dominion Government should not, so to speak, apply that on account of the pension which we should pay. We, therefore, provide that the insurance money paid under a municipal insurance of the kind I have described shall not be taken into account in awarding a pension.


James Arthurs: Why should that not
apply to all insurance effected upon the life of a soldier?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The committee did not
consider themselves justified in extending it beyond the limit I have mentioned. That, of course, can all be discussed when we get into committee on the Bill.
In addition to the changes I have mentioned, the Committee has recommended some other very important changes, and I want to mention them now so that the Committee will have time to consider them before the Bill comes into Committee. We had strong representations made to us that Canadians or any men domiciled in Canada, who enlisted and fought in any branch of the Imperial service and who returned to Canada to reside, should be entitled to the same treatment as Canadians serving in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. There are many different classes that come under that general description. The claims of the Canadians who served in the Royal Air Force have been strongly presented to us. Until the last month or two of the .war we did not have a Canadian Air Force, and our Canadians, therefore, were encouraged to enlist in the Imperial Air Forces, where they fought so magnificently in the cause for which our Canadians were fighting. It was represented to us that it was not fair to those Canadians who fought in the Royal Air Force to come back here and receive a smaller pension than our Canadian boys who fought in our infantry, cavalry or any other branch of our service. Many Canadians, with the approval of the Government of Canada, enlisted in the Imperial Motor Transport Service and other branches of the Imperial 'Service. We had also the case of British reservists who were residing in Canada, and were called out at the opening of the war and who fought overseas. Many were killed in action, their dependents still live in Canada; others were wounded and have returned to Canada to reside. The Committee gave this matter a great deal of consideration, and they reached the conclusion that, on the whole,
the fair and right thing to do was to supplement the disability pensions of all our citizens who fought in any branch of the Imperial Service, and who have returned to Canada so long as they remain in. Canada, and of the dependents of those who have fallen, so long as these dependents remain in Canada, by a sum sufficient, together with the pension granted by the Imperial Government, to bring their pensions up to those paid to disabled members or dependents of members of our Canadian forces.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does that apply also to French reservists who were in Canada and who served in the French army?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am just coming to that. .Then the committee had presented to them the question which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has raised. After giving that matter very careful consideration-of course, we could not deal with one of our Allies on a different basis from the rest-the committee reached the conclusion that in the case of widows or orphan children of any of our Allied reservists who were domiciled in Canada before the war broke out and who are now domiciled in Canada, their pension shall be supplemented so long as they remain in Canada, so as to bring it up to the scale of our Canadian pensions for widows and orphans. All our Allies are put on the same basis in that respect.	'


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will that apply to the men themselves? In the case of a man, for instance, domiciled in Canada who served in the French army and lost a hand, would the very small pension he would receive from the French Government be supplemented?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The committee decided no in that case. The committee thought they had gone as far as they were justified when they decided to supplement the pensions of all who had fought in the Imperial forces, for it was the same army as the Canadian army. The committee thought that if they made provision for the widows and orphans of the Allied reservists they would be doing the fair thing. The French pensions, I might say, have recently been substantially increased, so that a French reservist residing in Canada now receives in case of total disability a pension of $480 a year. A revision of the French pension law took place either the latter part of last year or the first part of this.	.

Mr. MdMASTER: That would make it all the cheaper for us to do justice.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have mentioned already that our pensions are higher than the pensions paid in any of the countries that took part in the war. Hon. members will no doubt be interested in the following comparative table
of pensions paid by Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, United States, South Africa and Belgium, together with the revised French pensions:
Rank and File.
Statistics Oct., 1917, New Zealand.	Statistics 1917, | France.	Statistics Oct., 1917. United StatesYearly rate.	Yearly rate.	Yearly rate.$505.00 253.00 379.00	$240.00	$360.00 180.00112.60	300.00379 00	240.00 for widowed mother.130.00	120.00	first child, 150.00	second child, 60.00 each additional child up to two.195.00	112.60 if wife was separated from soldier and not entitled to pension.	240.00 first child, 120.00sec'd child, 120.00	third child, 60.00	each additional child up to two.Not to exceed	No special allow-	Not to exceed130.00.	ance.	240.00. A total disability pensioner who is bedridden or who has lost both hands or both eyes, may be paid $100 a month, but there shall then be no extra allowance for attendance.No information..	6 classes	Compensation for partial disability is a percentage of total disability equal to the reduction in earning capacity.
JItaly
Yearly rate. $243.00
121.50
]f without widow or children, pension award ed to parents.
Statistics
1918,
South Africa.
dow's pension while minors.
Yearly rate.



(Translation).



FRENCH PENSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Echo de Paris, March 5, 1919.

[Stage Direction]
The Chamber has adopted yesterday many articles of the law on military pensions and those relating to the scale of pensions. The debate and the vote on the law will be finished to-morrow.
The new rates of pensions are based on the degree of disability as ascertained by the commissions of demobilization following a sliding percentage of 5 per cent by 5 per cent up to the unit 100 per cent, representing total disability. Here is, according to the three main grades of the scale voted by the Chamber, what are going to be the new pensions for each rank as compared with the present rate:-
10% Disability.	50% Disability.	100% Disability.	-	Present Rate.	New Rate.	Present Rate.	New Rate.	Present Rate.	New Rate.Frs.	Frs.	Frs.	Frs.	Frs.	Frs.Private	100	240	500	1,200	1,200	2,400Corporal	130	' 243	583 33	1,215	1,395	2,430Sergeant	140	246	666 66	1,230	1,655	2,460Sergeant-major	150	240	750	1,215	1,785	2,490Aspirant (Midshipman)...	160	252	791 65	1,260	1,850	2,520Adjutant	170	255	833 33	1,275	1,915	2,550Adjutant-chief	170	260	916 65	1,300	2,045	2,600S.-Lieutenant	250	300	1,250	1,500	2,985	3,000Lieutenant 	308	365	1,542	1,825	3,645	3,650Captain	383	440	1,917	2,200	4,185	4,4000. C. Battalion	500	575	2,500	2,875	5,025	5,750Lieut.-Colonel	617	680	3,083	3,400	6,000	6,800Colonel	750	840	3,750	4,200	7,200	8,400General of Brigade	1,000	1,020	5,000	5,100	9,600	10,200General of Division	1,167	1,260	5,833	6,300	12,600	12,600Exceptional	Normal	ReversionRate.	Rate.	Rate.Frs.	Frs.	Frs.Private	800	500Corporal	875	600Sergeant	
1.100	950	700Sergeant-Major	1,050	800Aspirant	1.075	850Adjutant	1,100	900Adjutant-Chief	
1,400	1,150 [DOT]	950S-Lieutenant, ler Echelon	
.	
1,500	1,200	975" 2e " 	
1,600	1,250	1,060Lieutenant, ler echelon	1,350	1,100" 2e " 	1,400	1,150" 4e " 	
2,000	1,500	1,260Captain, ler echelon	
2,100	1,550	1,275" 2e " 	1,600	1,325" 3e " 	
2,300	1,650	1,375" 4e " 	1,700	1,425O.C. Battalion, ler Echelon. . . .	
2,500	1,750	1,450" " 2e " 	
2,700	1,800	1,600Lieut.-Colonel	1,900	1,750Colonel	2,350	2,050General of Brigade	2,950	2,700" Division	3,500	3,500
[Stage Direction]
I have set forth in general outline the result of the committee's deliberations. They have made some important modifications in the regulations, and these will come up when we consider the Bill clause by clause. What I thought of suggesting to my hon. friend was this: In view of the fact that this whole matter has received such full consideration by a committee of the House composed of members from both sides, and as this resolution, simply carries out the report of the committee, which has already been approved by the House, could we not permit this resolution to pass, upon which I would at once introduce a Bill so that it may he printed and placed in the hands of the members at the earliest possible opportunity. Then when the Bill comes up, the whole matter could be further discussed. I shall be glad to answer any questions hon. members desire to ask.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see no objection to the course proposed. It would be advancing the Bill a stage, and any discussion that could take place on this resolution can be had on the Bill.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have in mind a concrete case that I presented before the committee, and which I have not heard the minister deal with, although I may have missed it. It is the case of a widow whose eldest son, her main support, was killed at the front. Her husband who was the clergyman of one of our leading churches, died while the son was overseas so this woman was robbed of both her husband and son. The Pensions Board almost immediately granted the (widow a pension of $480 on account of the loss of her son. Finding out .a little later that she was receiving from a church pension fund the sum of $300, which her husband had earned by reason of being a clergyman for many years, and which was a right coming to her outside of the war, the Pensions Board deducted $300 from the $480 'and placed the widow on their pension list for only $180. That seems to me .a great injustice, 'and I should like to hear whether the board have power to deduct this $300 which the widow was justly entitled to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question was con-
' sidered at great length by the Committee as to whether income-I am not speaking now of earnings-which a widow might receive from any source, should be deducted in awarding a pension. While there is a great deal to be said in favour of my hon. friend's view, the judgment of the Committee was that they would be depart-
256 i
ing from the principle upon which pensions are granted to parents if they took into consideration income that was not earned. Therefore the hon. member's suggestion is not embodied in the Bill. When the Bill comes up and we are considering the clauses which deal with this matter the hon. member's suggestion may be further considered.


Joseph Archambault: I would like to draw the minister's attention to an anomaly under the old regulation whereby, if a widow entitled to a pension was working, the amount she earned would be deducted from the pension. To illustrate my point, let me give a concrete case. A widow in Montreal had two sons and one daughter; her sons were earning pretty good salaries and were taking care of her. They both went to the front and were killed, and the widow was granted a pension of $80 a month. Finding that this was not sufficient to keep her daughter and herself she secured a position at $70 a month. Only the other day she received a letter dated June 21, which I will read to the House:
Madam,-I have the honour to inform you that in accordance with recent legislation passed by the Government your award of pension has been reduced to $10 a month.
This reduction will be effective from next *payment.
Tour obedient servant,
The Secretary,
Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada,
Per M.S.
So that she would get the same amount if she were not working. This is utterly unjust. If this woman has the energy and courage to earn some more money she should be entitled to her whole pension. I was glad to hear the minister state that under this Bill the amount of her earnings would not be deducted. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister for the reason that the date of this letter is the 21st June and it states that the decision is according to recent legislation. Another reason why I bring this matter up is that the report of the committee, as contained in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, does not specify this change in the legislation. I hope that in the interval this will be incorporated in the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The report presented to
the House yesterday was accompanied by the Bill and the Bill does contain a provision to meet the case that my hon. friend has referred to.


Joseph Archambault: When will it be distributed? It is not printed yet.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It will be available foi
distribution as soon as it is formally introduced and printed, and that is why I am anxious to get the resolution through.


Joseph Archambault: It is well understood that a provision will be enacted in the Bill which will prevent the deduction of earnings from the pension?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is in the Bill that the Government intend to introduce.
/Mr. McMASTER:	Mr. Chairman, I am
well aware of the difficulty that anybody who drafts a pension law encounters in the effort to do justice to the recipient of the pension and still deal fairly and reasonably yith the taxpayers. But I must say that I would like to see the Government go a little farther with regard to those men who are naturalized citizens of 'Canada and who, at the outbreak of the war, went to their respective armies and fought in the cause of freedom and of the Allies. The matter comes home to me because of a striking incident that occurred in a town in the county which I have the honour to represent. There was a Frenchman who came and settled in this country and was naturalized as early as 1900. He was a skilful military man, having spent eight years in the French army. At the outbreak of the war he was anxious to join the Canadian army, but the French consul in Montreal instructed him that it was his legal and, I presume moral, duty to join the army of France. By the end of August he was in France. On arrival there he was not able to join the regiment to which he belonged. He was placed with some 70,000 other men in taxi-cabs, omnibuses and other means of conveyance and sent by the military governor of Paris to take part in the great drive against the German army in the early days of 1914. He took part in the victorious battle of the Marne. After that, although a man of ovej: forty, he fought with a regiment composed of young men for three months. He was then on duty of a most dangerous character with his own regiment for months, after which he was employed guarding the lines of communication in the rear. While he was watching a line of railway, a bomb was thrown from an aeroplane near the railway track along which a trainload of British soldiers was coming. He ran to the bomb, which was on the point of bursting, picked it up, carried it for some yards and, just as it exploded, threw it away. He was injured about the face and the great part of both hands was blown away. IHe comes back to

Canada where his family have resided for many years. He is a naturalized citizen of Canada. He will not receive from the French Government the same pension, or nearly the same pension, as if he had been allowed, as he desired in the first place, to join the Canadian army.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the name of that hero?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That hero's name is Julien Grandjean and he lives in Sutton, in the county of Brome, province of Quebec. I think a man of that calibre should enjoy the same rights and benefits of Canadian citizenship as the man who was born in Canada and who was able to enlist in the Canadian army. I would press upon the Government the justice of treating this man and other men of the same class with the same generosity that we have treated our own native-born Canadian citizens.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Has the hon. gentleman investigated that story to satisfy himself that it is a mechanical possibility for an aeroplane bomb to lie around and wait to be picked up and to be carried off? A bomb thrown from an aeroplane would penetrate the ground for several feet so that even if it did fail to explode a man would be unable to get it out. The probability is that it was not an aeroplane bomb at all. I think that before you base an argument upon an incident of that kind it would be well to investigate and make perfectly sure that it is a true story.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have not the technical knowledge of the hon. and gallant gentleman, who has just spoken, but I can say that the facts in regard to this matter were given to me by a man whom I believe to be an honest and truthful man. I believe the story to be true.


John Archibald Maharg: The truth of the story has no bearing on the matter at all; it is the principle that is at stake. It does not matter how he was injured so long as he was injured.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have seen his hands myself. On one hand he has the little finger and thumb left and on the other he has the little finger, the ring finger and thumb left.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure we will all agree with the hon. member for Brome in appreciation of the splendid heroism of a man who has served his country, France, and his country, Canada, in the way that my hon. friend has mentioned. We cannot

speak too strongly of the courage, patriotism and self-sacrifice of the French forces. The difficulty lies in the fact that the law of France does not permit a man to part with his nationality, and he is therefore, on the outbreak of war, called up for service. My hon. friend will agree that, much as one might like to deal with cases such as he has mentioned, we cannot deal with them unless we treat all Allied soldiers on the same basis. Let me point out that the increase in our Pension Bill made in the fall of last year in increased allowances to children, plus the increases which we are now recommending, total an amount of nearly $8,000,000 a year. This is a very large additional charge upon the revenues of this country. The committee gave the class of cases that my hon. friend has mentioned very careful consideration, but we reached the conclusion that we were not justified in going farther than we have gone.
Resolution reported.
Hon. Mr. Rowell moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 158 to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Military, Naval and Air Forces.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



SUPPLY-EROSION OF PELEE ISLAND AND POINT PELEE.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion that the House do now go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. JOHN WESLEY BRIEN (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, before going into Supply, I wish to bring before the House a matter of very great importance to the constituency which I have the honour of representing, and to the country generally. I refer to the removal of sand and gravel by American and Canadian companies from the west end of Lake Erie in the vicinity of Pelee island and Point Pelee, which is causing extreme erosion oi the shores of the island and also the point, carrying away the natural protection and threatening the destruction of both the island and the point. Notwithstanding that petitions from the municipality and from private parties have been sent in to the Government during a period extending back over four or five years, yet this nuisance is going on unabated.
In the first place let me give some idea of the location of this island and this point. Pelee island is not only the most southern point of South Essex, but also the southernmost point of the Dominion of Canada, situated about thirty miles southeast of
the mouth of the Detroit river and about sixteen miles from the mainland of Canada. Formed in the course of ages by a small upheaval of rock and by the rich alluvial deposits brought down by the swirling waters of the Great Lakes as they turn their course eastward towards the Gulf oi St. Lawrence, it is one of the few places in Canada which can boast of prehistoric habitation. In ancient days the Mound Builders reared on it their structures foi defence, for memorials to their dead, and for worship. It is now the peaceful abode of eight hundred patriotic and loyal British subjects. It has an area of sixteen square miles and consists of about ten thousand acres of the most fertile soil in the Dominion of Canada, of which 9,800 acres are under cultivation. For many years it was renowned for its great harvest of grapes and the excellent native wine produced from them. It is now particularly noted for its enormous crops of fall wheat, corn and tobacco. The excise revenue collected on tobacco from Pelee island alone amounts to over $100,000 per annum.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it good tobacco?
Mr. BRIEN. Everybody uses it. Of the total acreage under cultivation, 3,600 acres consist of excellent clay land at a higher level than the lake, and the balance of 6,200 acres have been reclaimed from the marshes, which are at a lower level than the lake, at a cost of $200,000. The drainage of this reclaimed land is carried on by means of dredge cuts or canals of a width of 35 feet, and a depth of about 8 feet, and aggregating in length about 22 miles. The water is carried from these canals into the lake by means of pumping stations, of which there are five. Point Pelee, on the other hand, is the extreme southern point of the mainland of Canada. It runs out into the lake for a distance of about nine miles from the main shore, and is formed in a similar way to Pelee Island, consisting oi alluvial soil at the extreme point, and ol decayed vegetation at the base. Nature has thrown her protecting arms about both the island and the point in the form of embankments of sand and gravel which rise to a considerable height above the high-water level and slope off into the lake to a distance of from one hundred to one hundred' and fifty yards in places, and in other places to a mile and a mile and a half, and even two miles. The current of the Detroit river divides at the north end of the island depositing there sand and other material that may be brought down along its shores, and then converges at the south end wher#

it forms a considerable sandbar. The same condition prevails around the Point, so that two great sandbars exist, one to the south of the Island and the other to the south of the Point.
These bars contain millions of yards oi the very best sand and gravel, washed and ready for use, that can be found anywhere. These two deposits of sand and gravel have attracted the eyes of speculators for years back, with the result that leases and patents have been granted to certain parties, both Canadians and Americans. At the present time all the leases have been cancelled, but there are two patents still in force. They are for water lots on the two bars I have mentioned, which are the keys to the natural protection of both the island and the point. One of these patents is controlled by an American company and the other by a Canadian company. As a consequence millions of cubic yards of sand and gravel, during the last ten years, have been exported to the United States without this country receiving anything in return.


Arthur Meighen: What part does the American company control?


John Wesley Brien: The American company
controls the sandbar off the Island and the Canadian company the sandbar off the Point. The method in operation is to use large steam <. barges, equipped with sandsucking apparatus, which have a capacity of from 500 to 800 cubic yards, and can be loaded in two hours. This sand and gravel is carried to the ports of Detroit, Toledo, Sandusky and Cleveland, in the United States and Windsor, Ontario. The cost of operation is about 27 cents a cubic yard and I believe the material is selling at the present time, and has been for some years, at the pmds mentioned, for $1.50 to $1.80 "per cubic yard.
When we consider that millions of yards are carried away every year, some little idea can be gained of how profitable a business it is. They begin their operations at the earliest date that navigation opens and continue until the latest date in the fall. They work night and day, Sundays included. I refer now to the American companies; the Canadians are not allowed to work on Sundays. The profit from the business in which these sandsuckers, as they are commonly known down there, are engaged is about 600 per cent on the actual cost. And, let me repeat, this country is getting nothing in return.
The result is that the sandbar to the south of the Island has almost vanished. From a

quarter of a mile to half a mile of the southern part of the Island has disappeared, and the sloping breakwaters that protected both the Island and the Point at all times have also disappeared, and to-day in many places the sand embankments have given way and the water has swept in on the reclaimed lands; also the greater part of the sandbar to the south of Point Pelee and at least a quarter of a mile of the Point itself, which was originally well timbered, have been carried away.
On April 28 last I received a telegram from Mr. F. C. Barnes, a member of the Municipal Council of Pelee Island, as follows;
Lake has broken into marsh in several places through loss of natural protection hy the removal of sand and gravel.
un May 6 I received the following letter from him:
Received your letter in reply to telegram that I sent you and am pleased to see that you are taking much interest in our troubles. Mr. Brien, if,something is not done, and done quick, our island will be gone, as the sand and natural protections are mostly all gone and the waves are cutting the shores all to pieces and breaking through in several places to which we have to put logs, stones and anything we can get to save the marsh lands from flooding, and if said lands flood, the island is surely gone, as you understand the value of our rich fertile soil in the marsh which is about one-half of the island. Now, Mr. Brien, I feel assured, and I am satisfied that the rest of the council do, that you are doing all you can in our behalf. But have we got to be wiped off the map simply to fill some American people's pockets? Are we not British subjects and our island British territory? I feel assured that there is a way. If the Government will not stop it outright, why cannot there be an export duty put on so high that it will be impossible for them to take it away? As it is, our island is going and no one, not even the Government, is receiving anything except the American people. How long would Canadians go into American waters and take sand and gravel? Might also say that the United States Government will not allow sand and gravel to be taken only in harbours and such places, which saves dredging operation for their Government. If our Government could only see and understand things as we do and as they really are, surely they would stop operations at once, as there are about 800 good British subjects on this island that must sooner or later lose their homes and all. It is a very serious matter. As to operations on Fishing Point, they have been busy night and day since about March 2iSth, and also Sundays. This is another matter that should be taken up, this Sunday work. Our Canadian boats cannot load or unload on Sunday, but those sandsuckers have been working every Sunday as much as week days. Will you kindly let us know if they can operate on the Sabbath day?
At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Wesley Brien: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at 6 o'clock, I was reading a letter from a member of the Municipal Council of Pelee island setting forth the tremendous amount of erosion that was taking place on the shores of Pelee island and the great destruction of property resulting. I have also a letter which was addressed to me on June 7 last by a man who is very much interested in Point Pelee. It says:	.
Dear Sir,-I want to advise you that the sand-suckers are having a fine time. They come and go at their own sweet will, and seem to have received no instructions to the contrary. The laxity of the Government in this matter is going to drive the .people into revolution, because it means to the people interested in Point Pelee lands a loss of a great many thousands of dollars, and it will not be very long before this loss or damage will be sustained by them. I am interested to a very large sum, and I must confess that I feel that almost any proceedings will be justified in defence of our property, and if the Government who are elected to look after the interests of the people will not do so, why should the people not take the law into their own hands? This "passing the buck" by the Dominion Government over to the provincial and by the provincial piass-ing it back to the Dominion is so apparently a design on their part to avoid taking action that we are led to no other conclusion than that they are influenced to take no action.
I wish to state here that the Federal Government is interested in Point Pelee to the extent of having established there a national park or bird sanctuary. I have here a letter from the superintendent of that park, which reads as follows:
Dear .Sir.-Sandsuckers were operating all last week, close in to the end of the land at Point Pelee, two and three in number. Those cargoes are lifted in three hours' time and comprise approximately seventy-five carloads of gravel. The outer line of bars are now all gone and these vandals are steadily creeping head on to the land's end. The first mate of one of these ponderous crafts landed at the Point last week and openly boasted of the continuation that would last all the summer of 11919. The action of the lake's currents here conveys the gravel and sand from both sides of the Point to less than three-quarters of a mile out from the terminal. The operations last season have proven disastrous to the Point, jeopardizing its safety and the continuation this season will certainly ruin and wreck this old historic landmark. All this gravel is going to the United States ports and the people are swearing vengeance here. The shores on both sides of the Point north of Point Pelee are already barren of sand and gravel, and it does appear that our Government has given little heed to our people that esteem this place as a heritage. I presume it will not be necessary to report further in this transaction.
P. H. Conover.
Repeated protests have been made to the Government since 1914 against the carrying on of these operations. On February 28, 1914, a petition signed by about one hundred ratepayers of Pelee island was addressed to the reeve and councillors of the municipality of Pelee, and through them sent to the Acting Premier and other members of the Government of Ontario. The petition set forth:
1.	The importance of the island by reason of its large production.
2.	The large expenditure of the municipality to bring the marsh lands to a very high state of .cultivation.
3.	The great erosion of the shores imperilling the extensive drainage systems constructed.
4.	The cause of the increased erosion has been tremendously increased by the removal of sand and gravel from the shores and beaches of the island.
5.	The effect of the holes and depressions made by the removal of the sand and gravel is to cause the erosion of the shores to he brought down by the action of wind and water to fill these depressions.
6.	The necessity of speedy action by the Government of the province of Ontario, or incalculable injury would be done to the island and the drainage system thereon.
Following this petition, a large deputation from Pelee island waited upon the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines, who issued instructions on March 9, 1914, for an examination of the matters complained of 'by their representatives. A report was made to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines by James Hutoheon, engineer of ihat department, on May 2, 1914, wherein he refers to the serious erosion of the shores, especially on the west side south of the west dock; that the gravel beach claimed by the first owners as having protected this west shore was not then in existence; that the old road on the west shore was entirely cut away, and that the stone-filled timber cribs which were built for shore protection in 1907 were now 50 feet out in the lake, which was the amount of erosion in seven years. IHle also states that north of the west dock on the west .side there was a good gravel Ibeaoh and little or no erosion. (This beach has all disappeared since then.) He also stated that the erosion of the shore at the points indicated was a serious matter to the municipality, and that adequate shore protection at that time was beyond the means of the municipality, and also that the safety of the drainage work was not seriously affected as the erosion

was going on at points where the land was high and not at that time along the drainage embankments. I may say that since that time, which means within five years, the erosion has carried away nearly all the sand embankments protecting the drainage area, and the water now in almost any storm is breaking over into the reclaimed land. The embankments have given way; no sand and gravel are to be found at that particular place.
The understanding is that the 'Government engineers at different times have reported to the departments of both the local and the Federal Governments that the removal of the sand was not causing any greater than natural erosion. As evidence of this, I submit the following letter received by me from Mr. K. M. Cameron, assistant chief engineer, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, under date of March 26th, 1919:
Tour letter of the 24th instant to the department concerning sand and gravel operations off Point Pelee, Ontario, has been referred to me as I was directly charged during the past season with the examination into this matter. A. very extensive examination was made and I beg to state that it is believed the continuance of the dredging under the regulations as laid down last season will not he a factor in the erosion of Point Pelee. The erosion which is going on, and which has been going on for a very 'great number of years, is entirely a natural one. I have recommended that our observations be continued for a further season and that dredging be allowed under the regulations as laid down last year. If, as a result of our further observations, we find it necessary to further restrict or discontinue dredging operations altogether, the matter will then be referred to the Department of Justice for atten-tton-	(Bgd.) K. M. Cameron.
On April 10, 1918, Mr. J. L. Morris, civil engineer of Pembroke, Ontario, in company with Mr. James Hutcheon, engineer for the Department of Lands, Forests and Mines of Ontario, went to Pelee island and made a very thorough examination and investigation of conditions as they then existed. The substance of his report was that there had been no great erosion of the shores of the island previous to the excessive removal of sand, but that in recent years the erosion on certain parts of the island has been at the rate of about ten feet per annum. He stated that in front of lot 30, judging by the municipal plan made by Mr. Alex. Baird, C.E., of Leamington, Ontario, in 1912, there has been an erosion of more than 100 feet, which erosion occurred between the years 1912 and 1918; and judging from data compiled by Engineer Hutcheon in 1916 and comparing with conditions as he found them in 1918, 105 feet of Fishing point, at the south end of the island, covered with

timber, had been washed away during the two seasons, and from the east side of the point 100 feet of timbered land had been washed away. At this time there was no sandbar to the south of the island. He also stated that Mr. Guy (McCormick, an old resident of Pelee island, had related to him that within his recollection the sandbar from Fishing point reached from the timber growth out into the lake one and a half miles towards Middle island, and that with the exception of a narrow channel through the sandbar he could walk from Fishing Point to the end of the bar, a distance of one and a half miles out in the lake.
He stated that during the season of 1913, 1,930 boat loads of sand and gravel were removed from around the south end of the island, and that during the season of 1917 they had reported taking 1,872 loads. As these loads average 500 cubic yards each, and as no record can be got of the total amount removed, as they work at night as well as during the day, it is a safe estimate to state that millions of yards of gravel were removed every year from in and around this vicinity. I wish also to state that this is only one company which is operating off the south end of the island, while another company is operating off the south end of the Point Pelee bar, carrying away sand, which company has fully as many boats and is working just as constantly as the other. These engineers, while claiming that damage was done, seem to recommend the building of protecting groins, etc., in order to protect the shores, instead of recommending the removal of the cause. In fact, the general opinion is that the departmental engineers advise their departments that the removal of the sand is not the direct cause of the excessive damage that is being done to both the island and the point.
On December 4, 1917, the council of the county of Essex, in session assembled, passed a resolution, copies of which were forwarded to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines of Ontario, and to the local representatives of North and South Essex. It set forth the great danger to Pelee island owing to the action of the sandsuckers in removing sand and gravel from the bar projecting from Fishing point, and asked that there shall be no further continuance of licenses granted by the province of Ontario to companies to remove sand or gravel from the waters of lake Erie, and that any such rights he cancelled at once and thus prevent any further destruction of Pelee island. It is inferred from this resolution that the County Council of Essex

believes that the excavation outside of Fishing point was wholly responsible for the increased erosion of the banks of Pelee island. It- is also the opinion of all local engineers, as well as of every individual who has witnessed the destruction going on, that the removal of the sand is totally responsible for the destruction that has occurred. Appeals have been made to the Ontario Government, and also to the Dominion Government, at different times, not only through representatives and solicitors, but through deputations from both Pelee island and the mainland, and at all times the answer received was that their engineers' reports were to the effect that the removal of the sand and gravel was not the cause of the excessive erosion going on, but that it was due wholly to natural causes.
In the meantime, however, all leases have been cancelled, and to-day there remain the two patented water lots, one of which- namely, the one at the south end of Pelee island-is owned and controlled by an American company known as the Sandusky Sand Company, managed by a firm called Homegardner & Hendrickson. This lot is partly land above water and partly under water. The other is on the bar projecting out from Point Pelee. The difficulty now seems to be that the Ontario Government cannot cancel these patents, as they are owned outright, and the only thing that can be done is for the municipality or the Government, who are being damaged, to take action through the courts to restrain further operations and to obtain redress for damages done. A letter under date of March 27, 1919, written to me by Mr. J. G. Kerr, of Chatham, Ontario, solicitor for the municipality of Pelee island, explains the position the island is in with regard to this matter, as follows:
I am writing you at the request of the council of the township of Pelee. The reeve and clerk and Mr. Barnes, one of the councillors, have been in consultation with me for some time today with regard to the litigation that the island is having with the parties who are dredging for gravel at the south of the island. I started an action for the township with the approval of the Attorney-General for Ontario about a month ago, and so that you may understand exactly what is in question, I am sending you herewith a copy of the statement of claim that has been filed and served in that action. The defendants have not yet put in their statement of defence, but from correspondence that I have had with their solicitors, it is quite plain to me now that I cannot force them to a trial this spring. The council is very much concerned about the matter. It is one of life and death in so far as Pelee island is concerned. The menace is growing and al-readv on several occasions the water has
broken over the drainage embankments and the islanders are convinced that unless they get some protection and get it shortly there is going to be some very great damage done in the near future. It is apparent to me that even if the island succeeds in the litigation it is still going to be necessary to construct some artificial protection along the shore. This has been reported on from time to time by Government engineers and township engineers, but there is a report made by the district engineer at Windsor in 1915 on file in the Public Works Department in which there are some specific recommendations by that engineer along the line of construction of groins. I think the engineer in his report goes extensively into the enormous profits that these gravel operators are making and suggests that by taxation they could be made to bear a substantial part of any expense incurred by the Government. The islanders are not inclined to concede anything to these gravel operators as they are absolutely convinced that the erosion has been very greatly increased by their operations. They have excavated a great basin to the south of the island so that now where formerly there were sand banks and accumulations of sand that were really dry land nearly the year round there is from ten to thirty feet of water. A great many acres of dry land have already been washed away and the erosion is going on at such a rate that unless something is done there is no question but what Pelee island will be in the course of a few years reduced to just those parts of the island which consist of rock formation and that would mean practically the destruction of the island. The district engineer in the report that I have mentioned strongly recommends works of protection and further points out that it is the duty of the Government to do these works. For some reason or another, the matter was not followed up in 19ft'5. But the council feels now that a determined effort ought to be made to get the Government to take some action.
There are two lines upon which the Dominion Government can act. The one would be to stop the gravel operations and the other would be to construct works of protection. I understand that the United iStates Government has put a stop long ago to all similar operations in their part of lake Erie and the council would like to press upon the Government the necessity of stopping these excavations, either by some express act of the Government or by imposing such an export tax upon gravel as to make the business unprofitable. You probably know who the men are that are conducting these operations. They are German Americans in Sandusky and they are making enormous profits, and neither the Dominion Government nor the Ontario Government nor the township of Pelee are deriving any revenue from them. They, of course, have plenty of money and will no doubt be able to get engineers to contend that the dredging operations are not the cause of the trouble. They can show, of course, that erosion is going on elsewhere but the men on the island know that since these dredging operations have assumed the large scale they have that the erosion on the island is doubling in force and in intensity. They know that since these dredging operations began all the natural protection which formerly existed has been swept away. It is almost self-evident that the construction of a huge basin at the south of the island would gather to it all the loose material from the shores of the island, the currents on both the east and west shores being from the

north to the south, so that the sand hanks that formerly existed paralleling the shores and which formerly took the most of the weight of the wave action are now gone and the waves allowed to break directly upon the shore. This is what is causing the more rapid erosion and the islanders feel that they must fight and fight to a finish and that if they cannot succeed now in getting protection and in stopping these excavations they might as well give up the idea of any permanent home or property on the island.
I wrote some days ago to the Public Works Department for a copy of the District Engineer's report and also for copies of certain other reports with regard to similar operations near Point Pelee. I would like to have these reports so that I could go over them carefully with the council, and then we would like to come to Ottawa and interview with you the Minister of Public Works and also, if possible, the Acting Premier, Sir Thomas White, so that we could discuss both the engineering problem and the question of either stopping the export of gravel from the vicinity of the island or imposing an export tax upon It.
The council tell me that you are personally familiar with the whole matter and anxious to assist them, and I therefore feel encouraged to lay the matter before you at this length. The council would like an appointment at an early date as they will soon toe very busy with their farming operations, but as their telephone cable is not working it usually takes a couple of days at least to communicate with them, so please let me know' as far ahead as possible and by telegram what date the minister fixes for the interview.	J. G. Kerr.
I wish to state here that Mr. Kerr has been only recently engaged by the municipality of Pelee island as their solicitor; they having tried many others during the past years in their attempts to get results through the process of law.


Arthur Meighen: Who has changed ?


John Wesley Brien: The plaintiffs changed solicitors at different times, hoping some one else would get action more than the one they previously had. I wish to state also that, from this letter and from the engineers' reports that I have read, it seems that the engineers recommend protection in the way of groins and supports in order to protect the island from the erosion that is going on, but in no case do they strongly recommend the stopping of the cause, which is the removal of the sand.
An interview was arranged with the Minister of Public Works of the Dominion, as requested in the above letter, with the result that the department did not consider that they had any jurisdiction in this matter, as it was purely provincial. We then pointed out to the Minister of Public Works that his department was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of a lifesaving station on Point Pelee and the lifesaving crew's lodging house on Point Pelee,

and that the same conditions prevailed here [DOT]as on the island, and that if conditions were to go on as they had been, it would only be a matter of a short time until Point Pelee would be destroyed and with it the life-saving station and lodging house. He promised to give the matter his serious consideration, and in a few days sent me the following letter, under date of April 8, 1919:
I have been giving a good deal of consideration to the subject matters presented to me by yourself and constituents one day last week re Pelee island. After having read the memoranda of the solicitors for the island very carefully, I am at a loss to see wherein the Federal Government plays any part, or is in any way responsible for the unfortunate position in which these people find themselves, because I must admit from the' statements made that there is danger of serious damage to this very valuable island. It seems that in the first place the province of Ontario granted a sand bank at the south end of the island to one McCormick, and later on leased a very large area to the east thereof, from which different parties have taken very large quantities of gravel, and I presume the province of Ontario is receiving a royalty for the gravel taken from the leased portion of the island. The contention now is that owing to the dredging operations the sand, and gravel from further up the side of the island is being washed down to fill up the vacancy, and my judgment 'is that it would be useless to expend any money in trying to protect the banks of the island until the real cause of the difficulty is removed, that is, until the province of Ontario cancels the lease and, if necessary, by legislation takes steps to prevent any further dredging operations at the south end of the island. Even after that were done, I do not see where the Federal Govern-, would be at all responsible or perhaps even justified in expending any money to help repair the damage done along the shores of the island, but if we were sure that no further dredging was to take place wre would then be very glad indeed to consult with you and the Ontario Government as to the best means of preventing damage in the future.
F. B. Carvell.
On the same occasion, we took the matter up with the Department of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior stated that this was purely a provincial matter over which they had no jurisdiction, but when we stated that the department had established a national park or bird sanctuary on the Point and that it was threatened with destruction, he felt there was reason for complaint and promised to give the matter serious consideration, and the department has since cancelled all leases that it had granted. In a few days I received the following communication, under date of April 1, 1919:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, addressed to the Minister of the Interior, in which you make inquiry regarding sandsucking operations off Point Pelee, and in reply

beg to say that the Commissioner of Dominion Parks, to whom your inquiry was referred, reports as follows:
[DOT]< i believe that the only sand and gravel leases granted by the Dominion in the vicinity of Point Pelee were those granted by the Interior some years ago for specified areas on the Point itself. Several months ago notice of cancellation of these leases was served upon the lessees. No operations have been carried on with respect to any of these leases and therefore the operations of which Dr. Brien complains are evidently the operations of dredges on water lots off the Point. I understand the dredging company which operates there has some Crown grants and also some leases from the provincial Government with respect to a number of water lots. My understanding of the situation is that the province and not the Dominion controls the land under the water and that therefore the operations which are going on are not carried on through any authority from the Dominion. The Department of Public Works is concerned in these dredging affairs in so far as they may affect navigation and associated matter. Last year, Mr. Cameron, Consulting Engineer of the Department of Public Works, and Mr. Kindle of the Geological Survey, made a general investigation with respect to the effect of the dredging .operations upon navigation and in regard to erosion along the shore. The Department of Public Works is therefore the department in the best position to advise Dr. Brien as to the present situation.
I trust this information will be satisfactory.
W. W. Cory.
We also took the matter up with the Department of Marine and Naval Service. They also claimed that they had no jurisdiction as the matter was purely provincial. We explained to them that they had three of the finest harbours in lake Erie under their control, namely, the east and west sides of Point Pelee, and the south end of Pelee island, and that if conditions went on as they were, it would only be a matter of a short time until these harbours would be completely destroyed, and we thought that it would be to their interests to assist in this serious matter. The following letter, addressed to me under date of March 25th,	1919, from the
Department of Marine, explains their attitude in the matter:
In reply to yours of the 24 th instant regarding the question of sand-sucking operations at Point Pelee, Ontario, I would say that extensive investigations in this connection have been carried out during the past season, and the opinion of the investigators appears to be that these operations have very little effect on the general erosion going on in that vicinity. At the same time, they recommend that the operations be kept within certain limits which they define, and it seems that the provincial government, which is actually in control of the situation, is willing to co-operate.
There is some doubt as to whether the regulation of this matter comes under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but if so, any action taken should lie within the province of the Department of Public Works
rather than the Department of Marine. This department would not, however, hesitate taking the matter up with the Department of Public Works for vigorous action should it appear at any future time that these operations are actually detrimental to navigation.
C. Stanton.
We then took it up with the Department of Justice, with the result that they stated that this was a purely provincial matter over which they had no jurisdiction.
I wrote the department asking for a copy of the engineer's reports which I knew were in their possession, and received from them the following letter under date of April 28, 1919, which explains their attitude in the matter:
Referring to your letter of the 25th instant,
I have to inform you that the reports prepared by Dr. Kindle and the engineers of the Public Works Department were prepared with a view to taking legal proceedings' against persons dredging in the neighbourhood of Point Pelee in such a manner as to cause erosion. Whether or not the dredging is the cause of the erosion has not been finally determined, the engineers desiring to make further observations during the present dredging season. Consequently I do not think it would be desirable in the public interest to make public the results of the scientific investigation made to date.
W. Stuart Edwards.
We then brought the matter to the attention of the then Acting Prime Minister, who brought the whole matter before council and reported to me that as these patents were granted by the Provincial Government, they had no jurisdiction in the matter and did not want to interfere with provincial rights.
I wish to state that at all times we have had the most courteous consideration given to our appeals by the different departments of the Dominion Government, but we feel now that the four departments which I have mentioned, namely, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Marine and Naval Service, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, should be joint plaintiffs with the municipality of Pelee island, through the Department of Justice, and force ^he issuing of an injunction restraining these sand companies from further operations until the matter can be settled in the courts and the amount of damage determined.
I have also accompanied deputations from Pelee island and Point Pelee before the Department of Lands, Forests and Mines of the province of Ontario, and on each occasion they stated that the reports of their engineers were to the effect that the removal of the sand and gravel was not the direct cause of the destruction

going on at the Island and the Point. I herewith quote letters, under date of May 5, 1919, from the Department of Lands, Forests and Mines of the province of Ontario in answer to letters of inquiry, which explain their attitude in this matter:
Replying to your letter of the 29th ultimo, addressed to the Prime Minister in reference to the erosion at Point Pelee and Pelee Island, I have to advise you as follows:
There are no operations carried on in this vicinity now under authority from this department.
In July, 1897, a patent was granted to Peregrine McCormick of a water lot on Fishing Point at the southerly end of the island, and sand and gravel has been removed from this patented area over which this department has no control.
In 1913, a lease was issued for the removal of sand and gravel from the bed of the lake lying east of the water lot granted to McCormick to H. C. Hansen, of Cleveland, Ohio, but this lease has been cancelled, and as I stated before, no operations are being carried on under any authority from this department. Action has been brought by Messrs. Kerr and McNevin, Barristers of Chatham, on behalf of the township of Pelee and others to restrain the removal of sand and gravel from the water lot which was patented, and the Attorney General of this province has been connected in the case as a plaintiff. You will, therefore see that this department has not only stopped every one from removing sand and gravel over whom they have control, but also assists the municipality in their action against the owners of the patented water lot.
T. W. Gibson.
Under date of April 30, 1919, I received this letter in answer to an inquiry:
My understanding of the situation of Pelee Island was that an action was to be brought to restrain sand and gravel operators and to recover damages. This department has stopped nil operations over which it has any control. To ascertain the exact situation in connection *with the matter you would have to consult the solicitor for the parties. G. H. Ferguson.
On June 11, 1919, I received another letter as follows:
The Prime Minister referred your letter of the 6th instant to this department.
As already advised you, this department has stopped sand and gravel operations absolutely, in so far as it has any control over the situation. Of course, you will understand that the two patents which were long since issued to private parties are beyond the control of the Crown. It may ibe that the sandsuckers are operating on these areas; if so, I take it that the solicitors for the parties will advise them that they have an action for damages if injury is done by the operation of the boats. This department has done everything to the utmost limit of its powers to protect the local interests, and intends to maintain that position.
G. H. Ferguson.
From the above letters we conclude that the province of Ontario is behind the municipality of Pelee island in bringing 
action in the courts to restrain sand and gravel operators and to recover damages, yet the municipality of Pelee island appealed by petition and deputation to the Ontario Government in 1914 and several times since, .and litigation has been going on since that time. Still, in spite of all this, the sand and gravel is being removed to-day in greater quantities than ever. The general opinion is that the Ontario Government or the Federal Government can settle this matter at once if they so desire. I took a clipping from the Leamington Post which is issued in the town' closest to the scene of these operations. It reads as follows:
From one to three sandsuckers are reported to be operating daily at Point Pelee, swiftly completing tile destruction that has been going on there for years. Although assurances have been given that the Government would put an end to these operations, the promise has not been fulfilled. The only conclusion to he arrived at is that the Government is also in the grip ct the sandsuckers and afraid to act.
What I would advise is this: If there is no law on the statute-book at the present time covering this case, it is the duty of this Government to place one there at the earliest possible moment in order to control these people in their nefarious acts. The Government has a mandate from the people to do this and I do not see why they should delay any further. I think that an Order in Council might be brought down to restrain these operations. If I were to suggest the principle of the Order in Council that might be brought down, or the legislation that might be brought in, and which I believe would be passed by this House just as quickly as the amendment to the Immigration Act, which was passed in a few minutes about three weeks ago, the principle of that legislation would be something like this: Prohibition of the exportation of sand or gravel to the United States by any person or persons, from any place in the Canadian waters of lake Erie or from the islands or shores of said waters, without a special permit from the adjacent or nearest municipality from which the sand or gravel is proposed to be taken.
The people of the island have appealed in vain, they have withstood and resisted the ravages of the winds and the waves, but they are now at the mercy of these ruthless pirates. Three weeiks ago, I personally visited the scene of these ravages, .and I can testify to all that has been said. The destruction of property and the erosion of the shores are beyond description by the oasual observer. I saw where the embankments had given away in many places,

and the lake has flooded the reclaimed land. I saw where sandbags, logs, stones, etc., had been hurriedly rushed to fill up the gaps and stem the tide. I saw where a few years ago there was a beautiful sand and shingle beach sloping out for rods into the lake, now only an eroded shore dropping off suddenly into deep water. I observed that the once-beautiful sandbar which stretched from the south end of the island a mile and a half into the lake was gone, -and in its place a few rods from land were several barges loading sand from deep water. It seems to me from all these facts that this matter has not been taken seriously by those in authority.
Mr. Speaker, this is, without doubt, a most profitable business, worth millions every year to these big companies; therefore they are not going to give up easily. They are going to fight the matter to a finish. They have retained the very best counsel obtainable and the general opinion is that they gather under their subtle influence all those who might have influence against them.
The distress signals are out at Pelee island, Point Pelee, and on the shores of the mainland of South Essex. The homes and property of hundreds of our people, and two of the beauty spots of Canada are going to be wiped out unless some action is taken, and taken quickly. It is most exasperating to our Canadian people to see a portion of our country carried away to the United States, to see wanton and wholesale destruction of our property, for no other purpose whatever than to fill the coffers of the rich and satiate the greed of those who have no regard for the rights of others.
Again, I say, the air is surcharged with appeals from these patriotic British subjects. They are calling for help, and the burden of their cry is:
You take my house when you take the prop that doth sustain my house ;
You take my life when you take the means whereby I live.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of saying a few words in support of the proposition of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Brien). He has so thoroughly covered the ground that there is little for me to say. I certainly do feel that it is up to the Government to take some action in this matter. It is an international question. When you take into consideration the fact that^ nineteen of these sandsuckers are operating in that district around Pelee island, that nine-tenths of the material is carried to the
United States and disposed of at Sandusky, Cleveland, and Detroit, and that the Dominion and the province do not receive any return whatever for this splendid material,
I am sure the House will agree that it is high time that some action should be taken. Just let me emphasize the position. Nineteen of these boats take, at the lowest possible calculation, 500 yards of gravel per load and take, as the hon. member for South Essex has stated, some two loads a day. Put it at one load, or 500 yards a day for every day, Saturday and Sunday included for eight or nine months in the year and you get this result: 500 yards equal 50 cars, or 30,000 cars per month, or 240,000 cars for the season. You have 240,000 cars of this material being carried into the United States foT the purpose of building up their industries and constructing their roads when the western part of this province is needing all its material in the worst possible way. If you lived in the western part of the peninsula of Ontario you would know that we are compelled to bring the material for road construction such as rock, a distance of 150 miles from Guelph or St. Mary's. At the same time we are allowing the very best kind of material to be carried away to the United States and disposed of there although we receive nothing in return.
We had a situation similar to this just a few years ago in the western peninsula at the point where lake Huron empties into the river St. Clair. We found that the same instruments were being used and that they were transporting tens of thousands of yards every month from the entrance to the St. Clair river and disposing of it in Detroit and other American cities. The same sandsuckers were not willing to deliver that same road-building material to the cities and towns located along the Canadian border at any kind of a reasonable figure. The outcome of it was that the Minister of Public Works of the Dominion was able to compel those boat owners to treat the Canadian people fairly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that on the occasion of the famous Sunday visit?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This is a different proposition entirely and refers to a different part of the province. My good friend should go to Western Ontario and see beautiful Pelee island and the surrounding country, and I am sure he will fully appreciate the remarks the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brien) has made. But I want to emphasize the fact that this material is being carried off in large quantities to the United States.

Some years ago the Minister of Public Works was aible to -compel the boat owners operating on the river St. Clair to deliver similar material to the Ontario municipalities at a reasonable price. An enormous quantity of this gravel was taken from the entrance of the river St. Clair and sold in the United States. It is now delivered at a reasonable price in Canada, and roads are being built and our people served. My hon. friend has laid stress on the fact that the Public Works, Marine, and Interior Departments are vitally interested in this very .question. What I desire to urge upon the Government is the importance of taking some action, without even the lapse of another day, to prevent this valuable material from being carried away from where it is so badly needed in the western peninsula, to help build up the roads and industries of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: The -subject is one that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brien) has pressed with very aggressive persistency for some time, and in which, no doubt, his constituents as well as others in the district is vitally interested. Possibly the impression his address may have created that there was a disposition to shelve, or evade, the problem on the part of the Government may be best refuted if I state in my own words, and somewhat briefly, just how the question presents itself to us. The Department of the Interior is interested in that it has the ownership and administration of Pelee park which is on Point Pelee on the mainland-a stretch of territory running some nine miles southward into the lake. A portion of that is reserved as a bird sanctuary and is administered by our Parks branch. In Pelee island we have, of course, no proprietary interest. The Department of Public Works would be affected in so far as any operations interfered with navigation. The Department of Marine would be affected in so far as any operations interfered with the lighthouse stations which they maintain. The Department of the Interior would be affected should there be injury to our property, the park, by reason oi the taking away of this sand. These are the departments, and these the relative proprietary interests that are concerned in the problem at issue. I gather from the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brien), however, that he considers there is as well, on the part of the Government as a whole, a national, or, as the hon. gentleman who spoke last puts it, an international interest

in the prevention of this latest of all methods of annexing portions of our country to the United States.
Now let me discuss how far we are affected and what our duties are, I cannot speak departmentally for any except the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, but if I fitly represent both those departments in what I say, the House will not have very great difficulty in understanding the argument I make on behalf of the whole Government. It is quite clear no departmental action can be taken which will interfere with the progress of operations. There was a time when those engaged in this work held leases from the Department of the Interior, which leases were given on the 6th February, I think, 1913. They were brought to my attention some time last year, and, after having a report from an officer on the effect of the operations, and on examining the leases, I determined that we had a right of cancellation. My'determination on that subject was resisted by the lessees, but I exercised the right of three months' notice for which the lease provided and the resistance was not further pressed, so the leases came to an end. I understand that similar leases from the provincial government on a water lot and part of the mainland of Pelee island came to an end some time ago, and that all the operations now are conducted on two areas, one off Pelee island and one off Point Pelee, to both of which the operators have fee simple. If the committee is clear upon that point there will be little difficulty in following the rest of the argument.
Now the operators own, and they have a right to use, the property so long as they do not use it to the injury of the property of others, or to the injury of others in any respect whatever. No man can use his property in such a way as to injure another; that is a fundamental maxim of law. They cannot constitute a nuisance; they cannot interfere with navigation; and if the result of their operations is to enable the general current of the water, augmented by the effect of the winds, -to bring portions of the island to which other people have a title down into the hole created by the suction, then certainly these operators are using their property so as to injure the property of others. If what the hon. gentlemen have spoken of as, the facts are in very truth the facts, then unquestionably there is a legal right of action on the part of owners of property injured, or liable to be injured even, for damages against those operators in respect of actions already carried on, and for an injunction against fur-

ther operations. That must be fully understood before one can form a really adequate idea of what the duty of a government is. Now then, should it be that the park owned by this Dominion, and administered by the Department of the Interior, is injured or likely to be injured, it would be our duty to initiate proceedings for damages for the injuries sustained, or for an injunction to stop further injuries. The view of the Parks Branch of the Interior Department is that we have not received injury, but Mr. Harkin, the head of the branch, is apprehensive that we shall sustain some damage if these operations are further continued. Under date of June 24 he has written through the deputy minister to the Department of Justice as follows:
This department has been advised that you are taking up for the Department of Naval Service the question of the protection of their area at Point Pelee from the operations of the sandeuckers around this point.
In this connection I beg to advise you that all the Ordnance lands as shown on the plan attached have been established a Dominion park, and this department is very anxious that no sand dredging operations be allowed which will damage these lands.
They have not been damaged yet.
I should be glad if you would take whatever action is necessary in this connection.
The same or similar action would be necessary on the part of the Department of Marine if the property that they administer there, namely, the lighthouse, suffers, or is likely to suffer, damage. Those are the actions that might be taken. It appears, however, that up to date the only property injured is the property of private owners on Pelee island-private owners who hold their title from the Crown in the right of the province Of Ontario, but who own in fee simple just in the same way as the owners of the water lots. They have instituted an action in the courts of Ontario- no doubt an action for damages and for an injunction. That is the action to which my hon. friend who raises the question has referred, and that is the action in respect to which the letter was written dated 20th March, which letter stated that for some reason or other, disclosed in correspondence not read, it would be impossible to proceed this spring.
Now, even if we assume there is involved a question either national or international, it is a fundamental maxim that if the law is such that a man can protect himself before the courts of the country, then there should be no interference on the part of the Government in his behalf. Why, if a citizen
of Canada is injured in another country, the Government of Canada does not come forward on behalf of that citizen until he has failed to obtain redress in the courts of the country in which he is injured. Much more so is that the case when the courts are the courts of our own country. The courts of Canada are open to any man who may have his property injured by these operations, and, as I understand the law, if the facts' stated are established before those courts, then undoubtedly redress must follow. Because no person, however powerful or wealthy, can utilize his property to the destruction of other property.
The action has started; it has not proceeded. The progress of the action, I am afraid, we cannot assist. It is a civil action in the courts of the province of Ontario. But the province of Ontario apparently, as a Government, has seen fit to join as co-plaintiff in that action, for the reason doubtless that lands within the domain of the province are affected. It seems to me that inasmuch as those who have received the injury so far have started action, the proper course is to abide the event of that action, because it appears to be disputed that the operations on the sand are the real cause of the subsidence and the erosion of Pelee island. There does seem to be very strong reason to believe that those operations have much to do with that subsidence and erosion,-there do seem to be almost irresistible facts leading to the conclusion that it is those operations which have caused that rapid erosion in recent years. But there is no way of interfering with civil actions. And surely the citizens of our own country do not fear injustice at the hands of the courts of our own country in favour of litigants from another land. I do not think it would be fair to even intimate that such a thing was possible in the courts of Canada.
Why an application has not been made for an interim injunction, supported by affidavits of the facts as disclosed by the hon. member, I am also at a ioss te understand. In fact, his address was 9 p.m. replete with information most interesting and most useful; but where it failed in adducing facts was on the vital point,-the most vital of all- namely, why it is that the action has not been proceeded with; and, if it was impossible for the action to go to trial, why it is that proceedings were not taken to have an interim injunction in the meantime, in order that, pending the trial, no further injury might be sustained.

However, the subject is before the Department of Justice apparently from the Naval Department, and certainly from the Interior Department, with a view to considering the wisdom of our entering action similar to that entered by the proprietors of Pelee island. We, of course, could not join as co-plaintiffs, because- in this action which the municipality of Pelee island have taken we are not directly interested; we are interested in Pelee Point,- in other property altogether. We would have the right of separate action if we have sustained damage, or apprehend that we are likely to sustain damage. That point we are inquiring into now. We have not sustained damage, and we do not feel that we should have entered action before. We have submitted the question to the Department of Justice, and it is under their consideration now, as to the advisability of entering action in order to prevent injury that we fear may be sustained in the future.
Now, as to the proper position of the Government in relation to the question as an international one, I am afraid I do not fully agree with the remarks of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). If injury is being sustained to property there is now direct recourse, and recourse that will be full and ample if the facts alleged be established. In view of that recourse being open, I do not think we ought to attempt to gain an object indirectly and circuitously when there is ample provision to gain it directly. It does not appear to me that it would be justifiable on the part of the Government or of Parliament to derogate from the title and rights of the proprietors of water lots on lake Erie, by preventing the export of sand, on the ground that that export destroys property adjoining, when the law of the land provides ample remedy in the courts for prevention of the injury and for the recovery of damages if any injury has been sustained.


John Wesley Brien: I just wish to ask this
question-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member can only speak again on the motion with the unanimous consent of the House.


John Wesley Brien: I would like to have that consent, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the
pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman be allowed to put his question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


John Wesley Brien: I just wish to ask the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) what advice he could give us with regard to having an interim injunction against these sand operators restraining them from further action. Litigation has been going on now for sopae five years. The sandsuckers have been thwarting the law in the fact that they have been operating outside the limits which they have patented. They are also delaying the process of law in that they did not file their statement of claim in time to bring this action before the courts last spring. There is no doubt in my mind that if they lose before the courts they will appeal and get another season's operation. This is certainly a very, very serious matter. The shores of Pelee island are eroding very rapidly, and water is breaking over the dikes and flooding the reclaimed land.
The requirements of eight hundred loyal British subjects there should have immediate attention, and I again appeal to the Government to do something. Legislation should be brought down to prohibit the exportation of that sand. If we have to wait for the courts to take action in the matter, we may have to wait for years. If you take away from Pelee island and Point Pelee those two sand bars, the natural embankments and the natural protection will go also; there is no question about that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Department of the Interior-salaries, including Deputy Minister at 56,000 and E. E. Turton, hereby promoted, at $1,600; $1,213,900 ; contingencies, $105,000.	[DOT]
['That the report of the conference be now considered.\nMr. WALLACE moved the adjournment of the debate.\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned.\nOn the motion of the Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 12.16 am., Thursday.\nThursday, June 26, 1919.']
Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that for the coming year the Deputy Minister of the Interior will be the Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization?


Arthur Meighen: I can make no statement on that subject. The Deputy Minister of the Interior has been in charge of the Immigration Branch for many years. He has been able for nearly two years now to fill both offices; just how long he will do so I cannot say.


Samuel William Jacobs: If he fills the two positions he ought to have a higher salary than that of an ordinary deputy acting in one department.


Arthur Meighen: For the complete year that he occupied both positions he was voted an extra $1,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is an additional $1,000 included in this Estimate for that purpose?


Arthur Meighen: No, because he may not occupy the two positions for a second full year. Should he do so, there is possibility that what was done last year will be repeated this coming year.


Samuel William Jacobs: I go on the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Scientific institutions-expenses connected with the Dominion Astro.physical Observatory at Victoria, B.C., $8,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the famous telescope which was bought two years ago proved to be the best in the world?


Arthur Meighen: I believe Mr. Plaskett so considers it; I think that it has in no sense proved a disappointment.
Geodetic Survey of Canada-investigations, triangulations, precise levelling, topographic and field astronomic work, etc., $149,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that a delegation interviewed the Government not long ago and asked that engineers who had served in the army during the war should be given some work in the field this year. The question came before the Royal Society at its last session in Ottawa during the month of May, and the gentleman who was president of one of the sections happened to be president of that delegation-Mr. Dresser. Has the Government come to any decision in the matter? I think that the object is a very worthy one; the Royal Society endorsed the suggestion by a unanimous resolution.


Arthur Meighen: The proposal that the hon, gentleman refers to, as placed before the Government, was something like this: That some branch of the administration should employ about 200 returned soldiers, under returned soldier engineers, to explore the northern portions of Canada with a view to discovering mines. It was suggested that these men be paid salaries, and if any mines or other resources were discovered, something like 50 per cent of the stock should go to the finders. It was not very clear just where the Government, which paid the salaries, was to come in. At any rate, it did not appear to be a practical or businesslike proposal. Indeed, before the delegation arrived the proposal had been definitely refused by the Department of Mines; the delegation came without notice to the Minister of Mines. The refusal of the Department of Mines was, in my judgment, so amply justified that I saw no
reason why the matter should be reconsidered.
International boundaries-expenses connected with the survey and demarcation of international boundaries, including $1,000 to J. J. McArthur as International Boundary Commissioner, $58,495.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there much work yet to be done in this connection?


Arthur Meighen: Fourteen miles more.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where?


Arthur Meighen: Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick.
Government of the Northwest Territories- salary of Commissioner, etc., $8,000.


Arthur Meighen: While I ask that this item be carried, it is possiible that a commissioner will be appointed without salary. The duties are very light indeed. The late commissioner was Commissioner White, and no one has since been appointed to that office. It is possible, however, that an officer of the department, perhaps the Deputy Minister, will be appointed commissioner without salary.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am always suspicious of a man who is willing to work without salary.


Arthur Meighen: He has a salary. Very^ frequently men have several offices, but only one salary. For instance, I myself, on the principle suggested by my hon. friend, -would be entitled to three salaries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suggest that Mr. A. A. McLean, ex-M.P., might head the commission without salary.


Arthur Meighen: As the territories are administered by the Department of the In-teTior, it would appear to me inconvenient to have an officer of another department as administrator. I think when the administration is under my department the commissioner ought to be an officer of that department.
Government of the Yukon Territory, $215,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why is there an increase when the offices have been decreased?


Arthur Meighen: Last year I made a most radical reduction of about $60,000; indeed,
I think it is really more than that, by a deduction from the grant for roads and by a deduction from the grant for administration. Then, on top of that, the liquor licenses were abolished in the Yukon, meaning a loss of about $55,000 more. The consequence of the radical reduction that



I made last year and the loss of the liquor licenses was to leave them in very difficult shape, necessitating an advance this year over last year of the amount stated in the Estimates, namely, $30,000. Therefore there is a net reduction of about $30,000 over what the 'administration cost two years ago as well as a loss to the Yukon of $55,000 in liquor license sales.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the actual population?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is much over 4,200 or 4,300.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the total revenue you draw, approximately?


Arthur Meighen: We do not dTaw nearly the cost of the administration, hut of course there is the production of Yukon gold of, I think, about $4,000,000. The royalties, I think, were about $80,000.


Mr. CAHILL:: How is the item " grant to local council " made up? ,


Arthur Meighen: The estimated revenue is made up 'as follows:
For local purposes, Dominion Government grant	 $90,000
Dominion Government grants for
roads	   50,000
Poll tax	 12,000
."Liquor licenses	 6,000
Sundry-revenue	 12,000
Total	 $170,000
The liquor license revenue is estimated for a short period to come before prohibition comes into effect. The estimated expenditures are as follows:
Salaries and travelling expenses $ 9,900 Estimate for continuing Yukon
Council	 3,000
Schools	 42,880
Hospitals and public	health.. ..	16,100
Grants for libraries, reading
rooms, etc	 14,050
Miscellaneous items, including printing an stationery, assay office, collection of poll tax, subsidies for side	streams	 18,300
Roads	 65,770
Total	 $170,000
An exact balance as against the estimated revenue.
Dominion lands and parks, $3,233,745.
Mr. McMASTElt: I see in this item a repetition of an expenditure which I challenged and criticised last session and which I see is again contained in this estimate, namely, $1,000 to the Alpine Glub. With the finances of this country in the condition in which they are at present, I cannot see

how a minister who has a feeling of public responsibility upon him can ask this committee to pay $1,000 of the people's money in order to encourage alpine climbing in the iRocky mountains. No doubt it is a very fine sport and gives to its habitues a finer idea of the beauties of nature. ,It may also possibly open up some unknown beauties of the Rocky mountains, and it may give a healthful enjoyment to the few people who are privileged to enjoy the benefits of the club, but the country's finances are in no condition to allow us to spend $1,000 of the people's money in subsidizing an alpine club, and I ask the minister to strike out this item.


Samuel William Jacobs: I support the hon. member (Mr. McMaster) in his contention that this item should be struck out. As I understand it, people who can engage in sport of this kind are men and women of considerable wealth, many of them coming from the United States; in fact this is a rich man's sport, and I do not see why we should include in the Estimates an item of this kind. The amount is not large, it is true; it is not going to make or break the club, whether they have it or not, but it is the principle of the thing I object to, particularly at present when we are running so much behind in the finances of the country.


Arthur Meighen: If the facts were as the hon. members assert, I do not think there would be any danger of the item being in the Estimates, but the facts are quite the contrary. This grant is not given by way of philanthropy, nor for commiseration, nor charity; it is given as a public investment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What control over the expenditure does the Government retain?


Arthur Meighen: Just the same as in the case, I should say, of four or five hundred other expenditures of a like nature.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is not an answer.


Arthur Meighen: The answer will come. We have no direct control, but we observe from year to year how the money is spent, and if it is spent satisfactorily, we continue it; if it is not, we do not. For example, we grant to the Forestry Association of the Dominion, I think, $4,000 a year because they carry on work which, if they did not carry it on, we would have to carry on at very much greater cost. It is a saving to the Dominion; it has been done for many years, and it will be done after the hon. member (Mr. MdMaster) gets to be a mem-

ber of the Government, if that is not too many decades ahead. There is no question about it at all, it has been done by all Governments. The Alpine Club is of value to the country in this way. The members survey the glacial and mountainous regions of this country; they publish data about them; they have associations with other clubs of a like nature and of a like class of people the world over. The circulars and literature they publish are scattered amongst all that class of people and circulate throughout the globe. As a consequence there is very considerable tourist traffic throughout our country, from which traffic Canada gets the benefit by reason of the activities of the Alpine Club. The hon. gentleman shakes his head. Is he an expert on that subject?


Andrew Ross McMaster: On mountain climbing? No.


Arthur Meighen: How does he know
whether there is tourist traffic or not?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The same argument would justify a grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway, so that they could distribute their circulars world-wide.


Arthur Meighen: Their circulars are for their own benefit. There have been a few grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I might say, with which the hon. gentleman has been associated.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: The fact is this is a public work which it is desirable to encourage. We do very much of that ourselves. We are engaged to-day in beautifying our parks. We are establishing golf courses in them, not to help the golfers, but to make these parks attractive so that they will serve one of the purposes they were intended to serve, namely, be a remunerative investment as well as a playground for the nation. If they are not attractive the people will not come and we will not get any results- we would lose money instead of making money. We are making money to-day. We are making money by reason of the activities of this club; we get good results from it, far better results than we should get by an expenditure of the money directly. This is not charity or philanthropy; it is a business investment.


Samuel William Jacobs: What concrete results did we obtain last year, for instance, from the payment of this $1,000?


Arthur Meighen: We will look up the tourist figures for last year. Necessarily
there is not as much tourist traffic in war time as there is after, but the estimated expenditure by tourists is many many times $1,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is a case of casting your bread upon the waters.


Arthur Meighen: No, upon the mountains.


James Alexander Robb: I notice that $125,000 is 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. This seems extraordinary after two or three years of good crops with prices higher than we have ever had them in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will recall that legislation was passed in the early part of this session adopting a different method of providing seed grain. We do not provide it directly any more; we only provide indirectly for unpatented lands, that is, lands upon which are homesteaders who have not title, and therefore cannot give any security locally to the provincial or other authorities. We have to provide the seed or nobody will provide it. This is an estimate of what we may possibly be called upon to pay the banks on 1st January, I think it is, when the banks are entitled to call on us for the principal and five per cent interest in respect of any moneys they have not collected. If we have to pay this amount, or any portion of it, we take over the security, which is a lien on the land and on the future crop and so on, and we then are in the position of the banks and are entitled to collect seven per cent, so there is no possibility of this money being lost.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the engraving, printing and general preparation of the maps of the Dominion, for which I notice $74,375 is asked, done under contract? If so, who obtained the contract last year for the printing of these maps?


Arthur Meighen: The Secretary of State is not in the House. So far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, we simply requisition on the Printing Bureau and the; Printing Bureau obtain the material we requisition. Quotations are asked from the-various lithographers that are at all within, reach, including even American lithographers. Some business goes over there ; I do not know just how much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand that this amount of $74,375 was paid last year by the department for the engraving and print-

ing of maps which were circulated by the department?


Arthur Meighen: We pay direct to the makers of the maps, and the difference is distributed by the Printing Bureau.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like some of the details of the contracts given last year, or two years ago, let us say. Where are these maps printed and who printed them? Were tenders advertised for?


Arthur Meighen: We are rendered monthly accounts by the Printing Bureau. In my last answer I indicated that we pay the lithographers direct. We do not; we simply pay the Bureau; we have nothing to do with the original contractors at all. If the hon. gentleman would put his question on the Order Paper, he would get a complete answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept my hon. friend's word. I do not rise in any critical mood, because I generally admire these maps. If I have anything at all to say on the subject, it would simply be to caution my friend to be a little more chary about sending out these maps; many of them are useless to the parties to whom they are addressed. I receive some maps myself at times of the Northwest Territories, sections of Alberta, irrigated lands, and so on. Now, while these are no doubt exceedingly useful to parties interested in that section of the country, I think some saving might be made toy the department by taking care that the maps are sent only to those who are really interested. On the whole I am bound to say that the maps which are circulated by the department are most useful and very well got up.


John Ewen Sinclair: Will the minister explain this item of $50,000 for the expenses of the Dominion Power Board, aud what the department purposes doing in this connection?


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion Power Board is constituted of the leading engineers in the services of the various departments. The chairman is Mr. Lafleur, the chief engineer of the Public Works Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A very able man.


Arthur Meighen: Not only a very able man, but a very energetic and aggressive worker. The secretary of the board is Mr. Ghallies of the Interior Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not Mr. Murphy, of the Department of Railways and Canals, a member of that board?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, Mr. John Murphy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Another able man.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The other members ' of the board are, Mr. Stewart, of the External Affairs Department; Mr. Acres, the engineer of the Ontario Hydro-Electric; Mr. Amos, the chief water-powers engineer of the province of Quebec. Mr. Monserrat was, and I think still is, a member of the board. The duties of that board are to advise the Government on all questions relating to power development. They are engaged at present, in the main, in a study of the conditions of the St. Lawrence river, making the necessary surveys, 'Stream measurements, and so forth, to complete the surveys already made partially toy the province of Ontario and partially by the Dominion Government, in order that the imprimatur of that board may be passed upon any stand or any proposals which the Government may make with regard to power development on that river, as associated with the improvement of navigation.
This vote is to be utilized in that specific connection and it is hoped that the work that we have launched upon there will not take very long. They expect to be through with their surveys in good time to be able to advise the Government in regard to these matters. They are also advising in respect to other matters of power development in the East and in the West. The administration of our water-powers is under the Department of the Interior alone, but such water-power development is so intimately associated with navigation, shipping, and, indeed, with irrigation, that you cannot decide any problem without having those who are interested in the others taken into account. The idea of the power board is to have all interests represented. Mr. Stewart will deal with the matter from what might be called the international viewpoint. Another member of the board is Mr. Murphy, who has been with the Departs ment of Railways and Canals for a long time, and Mr. Bowden, of the same department. They will all act together and we feel that if we can in any matter get a unanimous recommendation from this body we are on pretty sound ground as regards this great question of policy connected with water-power development on the St. Lawrence river.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend intend that when the power board has decided that power can be developed, say, on one section of the St. Lawrence, to lease that power to private companies, or will the

power be developed under Government control?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly could not answer that question except in a general way. We are not seeking in any way, as I understand it, to develop and sell power in the province of Ontario or in any province. We cannot, however, disassociate ourselves from the great question of power development on the St. Lawrence for the reason that the St, Lawrence is a navigable stream, that you have to take navigation into account, and that navigation is a Federal responsibility alone, and, therefore, we have to interest ourselves in it. One element in the problem is to determine where the best site for the power construction is, or where the best site for the dam is, and where perhaps the second best is, because there may be one, or two, or possibly three. We must interest ourselves in that question, because a great deal depends on the kind of construction. Navigation is vitally affected not only by the nature of the power construction but also by the place at which the dam is located. That is as far as we have interested ourselves so far. When we come to the point that it is determined that a certain point is the best place for the development, then, we should take into account the provincial authority, whether it may toe Ontario or Quebec, and decide as to what shall be done with the power and just what arrangement shall be made for its distribution as it is available for use on the Canadian side.
.Mr. (OOWAN: Will the members of this board be paid for their services?


Arthur Meighen: No, they are all members of the service and they do not get anything extra.


Mr. OOWAN:: Is the board only temporary?
Mr. .MEIGHEN: I said they hoped not to be very long completing the necessary investigations on the St. Lawrence river. I think the board should be permanent. I see no reason to look forward to its discontinuance.


Donald James Cowan: I quite agree with the minister. I think this water-power development is one of the biggest things of the future and that instead of discontinuing the board or getting the men to do the work for nothing, we should pay them all salaries, pay them well and enlarge their powers. We will have to depend very largely upon water-power in the future for industrial and other purposes.


Mr. KAY:: Where will the International Dry Farming Congress, to which a grant of $3,000 is made, be held this year?


Arthur Meighen: It is usually held at Lethbridge. I imagine it will be held there this year.


William Frederic Kay: I noticed that the grant was not made last year.


Arthur Meighen: The congress is not held every year. I was pressed very strongly by the Government of the province to increase this grant, but I decided to keep it where it was.


Frank S. Cahill: Why this increase of $203,000, or forty per cent, in the vote for surveying? I understood from the minister no later than yesterday that there was no land available in Canada for settlement within the fifteen-mile belt. If the lands outside of the fifteen-mile belt are not suitable for settlement, why should we spend such a large sum for surveying Dominion lands in this country?


Arthur Meighen: During the war we steadily kept reducing the vote for surveys, lit was away over $1,000,000. The cost of surveying now is very much greater than it was before the war; consequently, relatively, we have only about half the vote here that we had at that time and at the same time the necessity for surveys is quite as great, particularly on account of the demand for soldiers' settlement. We have today a lot of work particularly for the Soldiers' Settlement Board. Of course, the survey work under Mr. Ogilvie is the basis of the permanent survey, and we have to make an advance for that this year over the previous year, although none of these amounts are within reasonable distance of what they were formerly.


Frank S. Cahill: I understand that all the lands within fifteen miles of a railway have been surveyed?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: There are no lands within fifteen miles of a railway fit for settlement that have hot been surveyed. I understood from the minister yesterday that there were practically no lands suitable for settlement within fiteen miles. The lands, in a general way, are surveyed for a great deal more than fifteen miles from a railway. What is the purpose of increasing this amount? Why are these surveys, in a general way, being made? Because a certain amount has been spent annually for surveys, that is no rea-

son why we should continue the expenditure if it is not beneficial to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree with the hon. member that we should not put money into the Estimates because it has been necessary some years before. I think we will all assume that the maximum of survey work is going on in every province. I will give the hon. gentleman a few items:
Control of field work, 1 controller of surveys and 1 inspector, $12,000.
Subdivision surveys, 18 parties, $15,000 each.
Townships have already been surveyed but they require to be divided into sections.


Frank S. Cahill: In which provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Eight parties are actually at work on subdivision surveys in the newer districts, and settlers are going right in, particularly soldier settlers, looking for locations. We have used surveyors, who are best qualified, to go into these districts and obtain for us a description of the character of the land, and of the general lay-out of the district, more fully than is ordinarily done in surveying, for the guidance of prospective settlers, particularly prospective soldier settlers. The demand has been very strong that we should place ourselves in the position of giving these men better information so that they will not be wasting their time, several of them running in one direction where one man going there could report whether it was worth while investigating or not. We did quite a lot of that work last year, and we will have to continue it during the coming year. Now let me read further:
Survey of lakes in Northwestern Saskatchewan of the mineral district north of The Pas and of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary; one party at $210,00'0-; and one party at $25,000 $4)5,'0*00.
That is just the immediate boundary north of the old area of Manitoba. We do not intend going on to locate the country out to Hudson bay at all; we feel that that work can stand.
Surveys of water areas which are reported to have dried up; ten parties at $7,000, $70,000.
Investigation of lands for soldier settlement; two parties at $15,&0l0, $30,000.
Investigation of lands for general settlement; two parties at $15,000, $30,000.
Retracement of base lines and determination of the position of lines by astronomical observation ; one party at $12,000 and one party at $6,000, $18,000.
Topographical surveys; one party in Manitoba, $8,000; one party in Saskatchewan, $8,000; and two parties in Alberta, $16 000
Miscellaneous surveys by travelling parties-six parties at $6,750, $40,600.

Then there is provision for a re-survey of school lands. That must be continued all the time, and the item is $36,000.


Frank S. Cahill: Why is it necessary?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I can fully explain except to say this:	In
the tremendous amount of surveying that is going on, surveying is called in question all the time, and the school lands surveying, of course, is kept up. Those are trust lands, dealt with separately, and this amount of re-surveying is necessary in connection with school lands. Then there is the survey of the Alberta-British Columbia boundary still going on. Our one-third share of that is $10,000; the provinces pay one-third each, and we pay one-third. The Yukon survey requires $10,000; and then there are timber berths and other surveys unprovided for-we have to survey timber berths now-and the total of that is $20,000.


Frank S. Cahill: How are these figures
made up? I would also like a little better explanation from the minister about the lands outside of the fifteen-mile belt. He told us yesterday very definitely that it was not the intention of soldiers to settle on the land that lies more than fifteen miles from a railway. Now he tells us there is $30,000 in this estimate for the examination of lands beyond fifteen miles. I do not know where the lands would be that are only fifteen miles away from a railroad, that are not surveyed. Then as to inspection of the land:	Has not the custom been followed
of having field notes on these lands throughout Western Canada, as was done previously? The field notes of the surveyors have always been very accurate heretofore, and would give the minister a good idea of the nature of the land and the nature of the townships. The townships that are being surveyed must be very far from a railroad -at least the maps of Western Canada show they are surveyed in sections quite a long distance from the railway lines.


Arthur Meighen: The increase is distributed over practically every item. In the first place, each year lately we have had to pay higher wages and to meet a higher cost for supplies. We have diminished the expenditure for surveys to a very low minimum indeed; we had to do it during the war as a necessity and we must now catch up. Consequently the increase is necessary and is spread over all the field work that is required. Soldiers, of course, have a right to go anywhere. They are not confined to the fifteen-mile limit, but that limit is confined for them. They have a right to go

anywhere, and we are doing surveying especially for soldiers in the province of Alberta on a considerable scale. Men are going in in parties and we are having district surveying. Surveying and re-surveying is necessary to take care of their needs. We have always had field notes; that custom has been kept up, but they are not at all sufficient. We have to get better data than that, otherwise tremendous expense will result. The void we propose to fill in the way described.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the minister increased the number of parties surveying this year?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we have increased the number.


Frank S. Cahill: What districts have you covered?


Arthur Meighen: 
John Ewen Sinclair: The minister does not appear to have done very much in the way of making reductions. The whole of the page of the Estimates we are considering appears to be characterized by increases. Out of nineteen items there are large increases in nine and small increases in two. That is not a very satisfactory record in view of the fact that we do not know where we are going to get money to
pay these bills. There is one item in particular I would like the minister to explain, that in regard to parks. 1 have no objection to national parks, I believe in them, but I question whether this is a satisfactory time to increase the expenditure for this purpose by $146,000 in one year. That looks to me like a very extravagant proposal.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has altogether forgotten the drastic reductions that have been made in all these items year after year. Why, it is only a short time since we were spending nearly $700,000 on national parks, but the expenditure has been cut down to about ha'f that amount. Never was the expenditure of any active branch of a public department cut down to such an extent as in that case. Necessarily, now that the war is finished, if we are going to take care of our parks at all, we cannot continue with a minimum expenditure all the time; we have to expend more money more particularly when it costs more to carry out everything we undertake.
Even if we did not give better attention to our parks and employ more men to take care of them, there would be almost that much increase, any way, by reason of the advance in the cost of material and labour. For example, there are roads that we undertook and did not complete; it will never do to leave them incomplete; Oastle-Laggan road-$21,000 for completion of this road; street maintenance-which was allowed to get behind during the war, the Estimates being cut down fifty per cent, necessitating heavy repairs-the increase is $8,000; waterworks and sewer maintenance, $2,000. These also were reduced to the lowest possible minimum. Now the war is over we will have more tourists to Banff park, and we will make more money out of it. For heating plants at stores and administration buildings, we estimate $1,900. This simply means that what was not taken care of in the last two or three years is now being partially or wholly looked after. Improvements in the golf course are estimated to cost $2,000. We charge for the use of the course, and undoubtedly it is a very attractive feature in inducing tourists to use the park.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much revenue did we receive from the golf course?


Arthur Meighen: There has been a profit of $200 per year for the past two years.


Ernest Lapointe: Good, good!


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Are you not afraid of being accused of profiteering?


Arthur Meighen: That was during the blackest period of the war. Will the hon. gentleman now have the item struck out? Stores, $10,000. This is due, in part, to the increase in prices of commodities over prices when last year's estimates were compiled. New cabins, $1,000. This is to improve the fire and game service. Renovations of superintendent's residence, $2,000. Increases in salaries, $3,000. Fire and game protection in Jasper park, $15,000. We will save a lot more than that if we have any measure of increased efficiency at all. Edith Carvell road, $30,000. This is a continuation of work previously started, and will be a valuable asset from a tourist standpoint. The expenditure in Buffalo park-I could go on reading item by item, but I do not think the hon. gentleman really wants that.


John Ewen Sinclair: I still think the time is inopportune for this expenditure. The minister speaks as if the tide had turned and we were now in a position to embark on expenditure of this kind; but I submit we are not in that position.


Arthur Meighen: This is just to take care of work already started.


John Ewen Sinclair: I submit that there never was a time in the history of the country when it was more im-10 p.m. portant to economize than today. The minister says that in the last few years reductions were made, but now we must embark on these extravagant expenditures. These national parks are pleasure grounds; they are not productive. I have had proposals in my own constituency for productive work; one was a breakwater to give shelter to the fishermen, men who are producing something and helping to pay the national debt. They asked for $10,000 for that purpose. I was told by the minister that I could not get it because "we must economize.'' But I have to go back to my constituency and say, "I sat in a committee that voted $146,000 for building fancy roads through unproductive parks in Western Canada.'' I do not propose to do that without entering my protest. I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the minister, and I submit that these items should not be increased.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I am very sorry to hear the hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) protest in regard to this expenditure. He classes the national parks of the Dominion as playgrounds. Personally, I am of the opinion that the national parks are just as great assets as	any country can

possibly have, and immense revenues have been derived by every country in the world which has established national parks. The expenditure has been delayed in the Roctky Mountain park-in which Banff is located-during the war, and the expenditure this year is in keeping with the policy of the Government in expenditures on all other works throughout the Dominion. We have a great many returned soldiers located in the Rocky Mountain park and adjacent to it, and one of the objects in expending this money is to furnish employment to those men who may desire to engage in that class of work. These parks induce to come into this country the class of people whom we are very desirous to have come in from every part of the world. In ordeT to visit these parks it is necessary for them to traverse the whole Dominion either from the Atlantic or the Pacific coast, and in the course of these journeys, even though they do go to the parks to spend a short time in pleasure, they get acquainted with the Dominion throughout its whole length, an acquaintance which they could not possibly make iip any other way. There is no doubt that as a result of those trips which are made by people from all parts of the world, many settlers and others are induced to come and spend their hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in developing the natural resources of this country. I submit that it would be a very shortsighted policy if we were to stop any work projected in the Estimates in connection with our national parks.


Arthur Meighen: I would just like to read a compilation made by an official expert on this point. I think it is worth while having it in Hansard:
Publicity experts at the coast place the value of each foreign tourist at $350. This sum covers transportation, hotel and other expenses and is probably a very fair estimate. But allowing for an expenditure by each visitor to the Rockies of only $250, and this includes the ever increasing numbers who remain the entire season and spend many times that much and those who go out with pack trains to the outlying portions of the park who often spend thousands, it is clear that the money brought into Canada by these visitors reaches a very large sum. Take the year 1915, the last year in which owing to war conditions there was a heavy tourist travel from the States. The number of visitors to Rocky Mountain Park in that year was approximately 90,000. Over 65,000 of these visitors were foreigners. Allowing for an expenditure of $250 each it follows that over $16,000,000 of foreign money was brought into Canada by the people of other countries who were attracted to this park, which is just the same as if we had exported goods to those countries and received money in return. Now it is interesting to compare the value on an

acreage basis of our exports of wheat with what we may call our export in scenery. The acreage of Rockir Mountain Park in 1915 was 1,800 square miles or 1,152,000 acres and the value of the foreign tourist traffic it attracted was, roughly speaking, $16,000,000. This works out to a per 'acreage value of $13.88.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Apparently a publicity agent is needed who will give a recommendation for the expenditure of money in certain localities. I agree with my hon .friend from Antigonish and Guysborough that it does seem rather an inopportune time to expend a large 'amount of money on pleasure resorts. We are asked to vote an increase of $146,000 on this item for the maintenance of these national parks at a time when we are facing a very serious financial situation. Like my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair),
I have made application to the Government to expend public money in the Maritime Provinces, but I have met with an absolute refusal because there was no money in the treasury for public buildings or to look after public works, and we were obliged to get along with what we had.
Yet it is proposed to spend this large amount of money on national parks in the western provinces. It is all the harder for hon. members quietly to vote this money when they see that the increase is so very great; we might at least keep the appropriation down to what it was last year. If this vote were thereby reduced by $146,000, we would probably get the same substantial return from the foreigners who visit Canada, but who, no doubt hand over a large amount of money which they spend to the Canadian Pacific railway foi* the carrying of themselves and their families to the points where these parks are located. I hope that the minister will consider seriously the advisability of cutting out some of this large and increased expenditure during the present year.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I notice that in New
Brunswick alone $173,370 is appropriated this year for repairs to wharfs. If we granted to each province all the money they wished for public works, the whole of the national revenue could be allotted to any one province. All we are asking in connection with national parks is Western Canada is that we get a fair share of the money which is to be expended upon public works. The development of the national parks is not dependent only upon expenditures made by the Dominion Government; the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has spent large sums in connection with these parks. The same may be said of the Canadian National railways and of the Grand
Trunk. It is an asset to this country to have these national parks made attractive; the whole of the Dominion receives the benefit.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A very large proportion of
the people of Canada cannot afford to travel over the Canadian Pacific railway for the purpose of visiting these national parks.
I think that the ordinary people should be considered as well as the millionaires.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
knows better than to make an argument of that kind. It is not the people who visit the parks that we are voting this money to; the common people are the people who get the advantage of the money that the tourist spends. We are not voting money to tourists, but if we are to have, parks we must maintain them; we must not let them go to rack and ruin. We have been diminishing our expenditure year after year, while the United States have been increasing theirs, and they have been our competitors in this regard. Their expenditure on this account went up from $150,000 in 1911 to $525,000 last year, in addition to $800,000 by way of railway expenditure; and this year they are jumping from $525,000 to $975,000 for parks, in one department alone, and in another department sufficient to make the total $1,012,205. We have better and more attractive parks to keep up than they have, and we are really getting the business, in spite of all the efforts that they are making. It is not worth while?
Mr. 'COPP: I did not know that it was Canada's ambition to spend money simply because the United States were spending money.


Arthur Meighen: Who said it was?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think that the expenditure made by the United States should be the barometer, so to speak, upon the fluctuations of which we base our expenditure in this country. The extra amount that the minister asks for to-night in connection with this work is, in my opinion, altogether out of proportion to the advantage which will result to the people. In respect to the item for the protection of timber in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the railway belt in British Columbia, I assume that the 'Government owns timber areas in these localities. What is the policy of the Government with regard to the method of selling or leasing these timber limits, and what are the returns on that account?

iMr. 'MEIGHEN: The sale is by tender, without exception. The increase, of course, is largely accounted for by the reductions that have taken place in the past; although we have never very much reduced the appropriation for fire protection. While votes connected with practically every other branch were cut down very radically, I did not ask for a reduction last year in the vote for fire protection, because I felt that notwithstanding the fact that we were in the last and worst year of the war, we could not afford to reduce our fire protection organization-that if we did so we might suffer a national loss that would be a hundred times as great as the cost of the protection. There is somewhat of an increase this year because we are now able to get the returned men who were in the service before, competent men who worked with the organization and helped to increase its efficiency. Moreover, we have to pay more for these men now than we formerly paid; we pay $100 a month for new men for fire protection work, and this largely accounts, for the increase. But I have no apologies whatever to make for the size of this vote; if I could proportionately increase the efficiency of the organization by the appropriation of another $100,000 I would cheerfully ask Parliament for the vote. It is very difficult to build up an organization that is anything like an insurance against disastrous fires. Year after year we are managing to work down the percentage of fire losses, although this year we have already had some pretty bad fires. Any vote for this purpose is money well spent so long as we get the very best men, and we spare no efforts to do that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I agree that our large areas of valuable timber lands should be well protected against loss by fire. May I ask the minister what success the Government has had in connection with tree culture?
Mr. 'MEIGHEN: We have two nurseries out there, one at Indian Head and another at Sutherland, near Saskatoon. We produce thousands of trees for distribution among those who can use them on the farms; on the prairies, broadly speaking, there are no trees at all. More than 50,000,000 of these trees have been distributed and planted with very considerable success. The amount derived from the sale of timber last year was $554,000.


John Archibald Campbell: Coming back to parks, does the Government get any direct revenue from these parks other than from a golf course which has already been mentioned?
CMr. Copp.]
Mr. MEIlGHEN: There are many sources of revenue. We do get revenue directly, but of course our revenue directly does not at all equal our expenditure. We could not expect it to do so. The revenue last year from timber licenses and similar sources was $52,000.
iMr. CAMIPBELL: That is just what I want to know, just what items there would be that would give a revenue. The minister has mentioned one; can he mention one or two others?


Arthur Meighen: I will give a few items. We, of course, sell some timber in the parks, and the dry timber permits give a revenue. We have some fishing licenses, bath houses, automobile licenses and rentals of lots. For instance, the town of Banff is in the park and the lots upon which the people live are rented from the department.


John Ewen Sinclair: The last item oh the page is $125,000, to meet uncollected portion of advances of seed grain in the western provinces. Why should we vote money to meet uncollected advances when the money is due to ourselves? Did we not make the advances?
Mr. 'MEIGHEN: I just explained that to the abundant satisfaction of the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), but I suppose the hon. member (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) was out. We have a new system this year whereby, instead of advancing money to homesteaders directly as has been done for the past forty years, we provide that the banks shall advance the money at 7 per cent interest and take the security; that is, they do not advance any money except on the recommendation and authority of the Dominion land agent of the district who gets the application and finds out the facts. When a bank advances money, we guarantee the bank that it will be repaid with 5 per cent interest if we are called upon to pay it, but if the bank collects the money it collects 7 per cent interest. If we pay, we pay 5 per cent interest to the bank, and we collect 7 per cent interest, and meantime have a lien on our own unpatented land as security for the money. I expect to come out without any loss at all, and also without any administrative expenditure. Hitherto, we have had to keep an organization throughout the country to look after all these seed-grain advances. Now~ we do not need any, the banks doing the work instead, and while we shall not make any money if the man pays-indeed, we pay

the bank 1 per cent for its trouble if it collects the money and saves us all expense 

nevertheless, we shall make money when he does not pay the bank, because ultimately we collect at 7 per cent, whereas, we pay the bank only 5 per cent. I expect the one will balance the other so that we shall come out without any loss.


John Ewen Sinclair: How much of this $125,000 is represented by grain and how much by expenses?
Mr. MEIGiHEN:	Every five cent piece
is represented by grain. It is just what we may be asked to pay the banks where they call on us and say: We have not been able to collect the money from the farmer; now we want you to pay. This money is lent to the farmer, and when we pay the bank, we take over the security against his crop, but the lien against the land is quite sufficient in itself to protect us against any loss.


John Ewen Sinclair: Are all the expenses charged?
Mr. MEIGiHEN: There are no expenses. By what I think is a desirable change in policy, we are cutting the expense out and using the banks.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why does the
item read:
Also including commission payable to banks for collections, fees to secretary-treasurers of municipalities and officers of the provincial Departments of Agriculture, and clerical assistance.
If there are no expenses, what is the meaning of that?


Arthur Meighen: I think what I have said is- right. I told the hon. gentleman a moment ago that we paid the banks 1 per cent upon what they collected. We are out that, hut against that, we are in the extra money we collect when we collect it over what we pay the bank, namely, the difference between the 5 per cent and 7 per cent upon what we collect. As regards the secretary-treasurers of the municipalities, instead of employing. officers of our own, whom we have formerly had to attend to this work, we use the secretary-treasurer of the municipalities who take applications from the homesteaders and forward them to the Dominion land agent, the secretary-treasurer getting 25 cents for each application he takes and fills out. That is all. It is hardly worth while calling it an expense, but even if it is, it will be offset by the difference between the 5 per cent and the 7 per cent.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to revert to the item of surveying. Is it the policy of the Government to continue to survey lands at great distances from railways and to allow settlement upon those lands? The time has come in Canada when we should have some policy governing the settlement of our outlying lands, particularly throughout Western Canada. Settlers are allowed to go in and settle in all parts of that country on any of the lands that are surveyed. In that way we have a little settlement in a district where the land is probably good, which is twenty, thirty, fifty or a hundred miles from a railway, and eventually we shall have to build a railway to that settlement. The Canadian people now own practically the railways of Northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and I have noticed that in the Railway Committee hon. members nave hesitated to grant a charter to the Canadian Pacific or to any other railway company running into the northern part of the Prairie Provinces and the northern part of British Columbia. If we continue to allow settlement on any lands the Dominion Government may own, we are going to have sparse settlement over all our territory; there will be people demanding railways, and we know 'that the Government in power will feel inclined to give a railway to every settlement whether it is a paying proposition or not. We could very well take a section of good territory that could be thrown open for settlement with the understanding that a railway would he built into it, and that no other part of the country would be allowed to be opened for settlement. It is most absurd to allow people to settle even thirty miles from a railway without the possibility of getting a railway, because farming cannot he done successfully at that distance from transportation facilities. Ranchers could go in and make some money, but ranchers take up land on a leasing basis. The Dominion Government should take this matter in hand and not allow settlement scattered over a large	area requiring great mileage of	railways, running through
territory largely owned by speculative land holders, to be built and financed at the expense of the Canadian people. In this connection I should like to bring to the notice of the Government the fact that there are over 10,000 miles of our railway to-day running through non-productive territory, that is, through lands that are held vacant, and this is a very serious burden upon the people of Canada. We have to pay the expenses, and if the Govern-

ment allows promiscuous settlement to continue in Western Canada, the same condition is going to arise again. There will be the expense of building railways, highways, churches and schools and all that goes with settlement, and it would be better to confine settlement to districts where railways exist at present or where they can be built within a reasonable time, so that the settlers may hope to make a success of their venture.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member asks that homesteading be abolished.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not want homesteading to be abolished, and the minister knows that. Why then, does he attempt to put words into my mouth? I do not want homesteading to be done promiscuously throughout the country as it has been done in the past. I am not blaming the minister nor this Government for the policy of the past, but the policy has been wrong of allowing people to settle in all parts of the country where the Dominion happens to own land, and I am asking the minister if it is the intention to use some judgment in future as to where he allows people to homestead.
If you are spending $700,000 a year in surveying, you must have some land to survey. The minister told me to-night that it was for homestead purposes. Surely there is some land within this area on which we are spending $700,000 that would be more suitable for homesteading than other parts; for instance, those lands where there are already railroads or where railroads can conveniently be built. I am simply asking that you do not allow settlement to take place in the northern part of Canada when you can put settlers on land where there are railroads or where railroads can be built. I am not advocating the abolition of homesteading by any means.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the hon. gentleman was unnecessarily enraged. I thought he had really advocated the policy of abolishing homesteading. I think he has advocated many other things in the past with far less reason behind them than the abolition of homesteading. I was going to commend his idea, at all events to the extent of saying that there is very good reason behind the advocacy of such a course. There is, of course, a lot to be said the other way. I have canvassed pretty thoroughly and I know the evils the hon. gentleman speaks of, but I am at a loss to know where a man can homestead unless it is on new land. There is not much use
[Mr. Cahill.I
in homesteading if you take away the only land where homesteading can be done, that is, the outlying land, for the rest is all reserved for soldier entry. So, in effect, the hon. gentleman did advocate the abolition of homesteading, in the main at all events; and a lot can be said for that advocacy. I canvassed the situation pretty thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the opinion of those who were nearest to the homestead lands, and who should be the most' interested and the best qualified to judge, was in the main against the abolition of homesteading as yet. It is quite true that the principle of homesteading involves obligations to provide railway facilities for the homesteaders, and that has perhaps resulted in some railway building that might have been delayed. But it is quite false for the hon. gentleman to argue that on account of the homesteading system we have ten thousand miles of railway to-day running through territory that cannot be cultivated. That is owing to a reason very different altogether; it goes back some few years in the history of Canada, with which I do not think the hon. gentleman is altogether unacquainted. But where railways follow homesteaders they go into good territory, not into unsettled territory. It is true that often you have to build railroads ahead of sufficient settlement, and earlier than might have otherwise been necessary, and before the railroad will pay. Homesteading does not bring railways into rocky territory or barren territory; it is only bad politics that does that. So, while perhaps it is too soon to do away with hemesteading, there is a great deal to be said against the policy of permitting homesteading to continue very long in. this country as it has done in the past. At present I have no intention of recommending Parliament to discontinue it; but one of the evils that follows in its wake is not the evil of ten thousand miles of railway through barren territory.


Frank S. Cahill: I did not say through barren territory, but through unproductive territory, through territory in a large measure held by speculators in particular. While some of it is more or less barren, the larger part of it is unproductive because it is held by speculators who will not permit settlement.


Mr. DUFF:: Would the minister explain this $1,000 vote for the Alpine Club of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: The Alpine jClub, by their organization, by the spreading of liter-

ture, brings tourists to the country and gets results much more cheaply than we could get them by spending the money direct. The members of the club themselves contribute very largely, the Government very little, and the country gets virtually the whole benefit. I explained this vote before the hon. gentleman came in.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec-Repairs to roads and bridges and drainage, $1,900.


James Alexander Robb: I wish to draw to the attention of the minister, in order that I may (have a reply from him, a matter that has already been submitted to his department. On the Caughnawaga Indian reserve there is a belt of eight miles leading across the reserve towards the bridge going into Montreal. The roads leading up to the Teserve from the west, the south, and the east are all good macadamized roads, and the contention of the surrounding municipalities is that it is not fair that the Government should not undertake to macadamize this road cross the reserve. As the minister knows, the municipalities have no right to do any work on the reserve. The reserve is under the Government, as the Indians are Government wards, and it is somewhat of a reflection upon the Government's good roads policy that all round the reserve there should be good macadamized roads, built and maintained by the municipalities, while the Government road itself is-I would not like to say a bog, but it is in very poor condition. I should like to know whether the Government proposes to macadamize this eight miles of road this year, so that we shall have' good roads leading into the city of Montreal which will help the farmers get their products into the city.


Arthur Meighen: The matter is in this
shape:	It is no part of the duty of the
Department of Indian Affairs to build roads. If it is the duty of the Dominion Government at all, it pertains to the Department of Public Works. Whether the roads are through an Indian reserve or elsewhere, it is a public work. It is true that municipalities cannot go into the reserve except by consent, but they would have no difficulty in getting consent, as far as that is concerned. The Department of Indian Affairs certainly does not build roads.


James Alexander Robb: The minister is surely
wrong about that. The Indian Department does build roads. They have an engineer whose special duty it is to look after that work. While I am not authorized to speak officially, I understand from men who are
close to the Quebec Government that they are prepared to contribute something towards the building of this road, but they are powerless to do the work unless the Department of Indian Affairs consents to assist them. The minister knows that the municipality has no right to go in and build roads across an Indian reserve.


Arthur Meighen: We keep an engineer,
it is true, for the purposes of any works that we have to take care of. We take care ot a road through a reserve and see that it is kept in passable shape, but we do not go into anything of this character, or spend $80,000 on macadamizing roads. I do not see that the Government should do so, I do not think that the Department of Public Works has done so, but if any department would do so it would be that department.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the item " repairs to road and bridges and drainage " refers to roads which have been constructed by the Department of Public Works on Indian reservations?


Arthur Meighen: This is merely for keeping the roads through the reserves in order.


Jacques Bureau: Who constructed them?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether they were constructed by the Department of Public Works or not. They may have been constructed municipally with perhaps our consent and perhaps with a small bonus by way of assistance, although I cannot recall any. The money will be spent in this way:
Keeping winter road open, Doncaster Reserve	 $175
Tyendinaga Reserve, improvement
of roads through	reserve	 500
General repairs	 275


Jacques Bureau: How	is it that you take
care of winter roads and do not have anything to do with summer roads?


Arthur Meighen: There is no difference
at all; we take care of all roads.


Jacques Bureau: On the Indian reserve? Mr. MEIGHEN: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Who built the roads the department is taking care of?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid that I am hardly old enough, or historian enough, to tell my hon. friend in this case because this road was built over a hundred years ago. It is the old York road through the Tyendinaga reserve. The other is on the Doncaster reserve. There are no settlers, it appears, on that reserve and the municipality of Ste. Lucie found it necessary to

keep down the drifts in the winter. This is by way of assistance for the purpose of maintaining communication through the reserve and not for construction work at all.


James Alexander Robb: The explanation of the minister will hardly satisfy his own friends through that particular district. I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that the municipalities have no right to go on and do tins' work.


Arthur Meighen: We can .give them that right.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not said that he will do that yet. /


Arthur Meighen: I say so now.


James Alexander Robb: Does the minister contend that the neighbouring municipalities should go on and do work that really belongs to this Government?


Arthur Meighen: It does not belong to us.


James Alexander Robb: Does the minister want it to go out that he thinks this is an obligation of the Department of Public Works, or the Department of Railways and Canals at a time when the Government are boasting that they have a good roads policy? I submit the members should get together and decide who is going to do this work.


Arthur Meighen: I have never said that anybody should do our work. I merely say as Minister of the Interior that it is not our work and never has been. Work of that character has never been undertaken by the Department of Indian Affairs through any reserve.


James Alexander Robb: Is it not the minister's duty to see that the department is properly administered? And do not good roads constitute a part of the administration of a reserve?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the building of roads through a reserve is part of the administration of a reserve at all. This is an automobile road to connect up, I understand, with some road from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: No, with a Canadian road.


Arthur Meighen: Well, the United States road connects with the Canadian road.


James Alexander Robb: All roads connect.


Arthur Meighen: This is a through road. Mr. BUREAU: No.


Arthur Meighen: I would not admit the responsibility of the Federal Government, [(Mr. Melghen.]
at least the Department of Indian Affairs, to build that road through an Indian reserve. Roads are not the responsibility of the Federal Government, even though we, as trustees of the Indians or in any other capacity, -might own the land. The roads are not the responsibility of those who own the land, but the roads are a municipal and provincial responsibility.


James Alexander Robb: If the minister has municipal powers upon the Indian reserve he should see that the Indian Department does its duty.


Arthur Meighen: We have proprietary
powers on the .Indian reserve and not municipal powers at all. The hon. gentleman is an owner in his county, but' it is not his duty to build roads. That responsibility is provincial. If it is the duty or responsibility of any governmental authority, it is the province that is responsible. If the province receives assistance from the Dominion it ought to be very grateful, but the responsibility is on the province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is all fine argument, but it does not give us the remedy we are claiming. I wish to be serious about this matter. We have an excellent system of highways in the province of Quebec from the boundary line to Montreal, but it so happens that there are two sections of the highway leading into Montreal which constitute permanent obstacles not only to motorists but to those who use the highways for carriages or other vehicles. It is Government property in both cases. The first obstacle is presented by the Indian reserve at Caughnawaga and the second is in the county of Laprairie between the bridge at St. Lambert and St. Constant. The Department of Public Works had formally agreed and promised that that section of the road would be put into proper shape.
The work was started before the election of 1917, and even at an earlier date, after the election of 1911. The road has never been finished and it is a great impediment to persons coming from the city of Montreal on their way to the United States to be stopped at the very gates of that city, because the Department of Public Works does not complete the section of the highway in question. As you come out of that first section you immediately find an excellent highway, but on reaching Caughnawaga, you again find obstacles across that reserve. My hon. friend says this matter should be dealt with by the Department of Public Works. I believe the hon. gentle-

man's statement is true, and that the Department of Public Works ought to build a road across the reserve and complete the other road between the Victoria bridge and the boundaries of Laprairie and St. Constant. It seems to me that although that country does not elect a supporter of the Government regard should be paid to the interests of the travelling public. Seriously speaking, the Minister of the Interior should arrange with the Minister of Public Works to complete that work. I notice that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) has just entered the Chamber. Surely he is familiar with that Laprairie road, and the state it is in, and he should carry out the promise that was made by two or three of his predecessors and, I think, by himself.


Mr. CARVELL:: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I will tell him that the road across the Laprairie dyke is a good deal better than is the road to Montreal. I speak from knowledge, because I was there two weeks ago and noted conditions personally.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it finished?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not finished, and I do not think it ever will be by the way things are going.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. I would like to find a contractor somewhere in the province of Quebec who would go on with the work in a businesslike way and finish it up; I have been unable so far to find such a man. Perhaps I ought not to say exactly what is in my mind on that matter. In the first place I am very doubtful whether the Dominion Government ever had any license or right to spend a dollar on the work when it was done. When I assumed the duties of office I found that the work going on there was costing about $25 a yard for concrete on force account, and I stopped it. Then I gave another contract. I was not able to get it as early as I should have last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who gave the contract?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I,t was given by the department. I am not finding fault with the department at all, but with the contractors, on account of the way the thing was being run. A contract was given by tender amounting to about $22,000. I was there myself about two or three weeks ago to look over it, and the work was finished, and, as I said before, the service of the road is in better shape to-day than the road from Montreal probably is, or a very great
portion of it. There are certain portions of the dyke which must be finished up and I am going to ask Parliament for sufficient money at this session to finish up the dyke and make it permanent, but as far as I am concerned I propose to ask the province of Quebec to build their own road over the dyke. I do not know that the building of such a road is any of our business, we should never have touched it. Therefore, if my hon. friend wants my views on the matter he is perfectly welcome to have them. Now, as to the Indian reserve, I know nothing whatever about it. I never heard of it before, it is all news to me, and it will take some argument on the part of my hon. friend to convince me that the Public Works Department should go down to the province of Quebec and build any more roads.


James Alexander Robb: I am not going to enter into the quarrel as between the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of the Interior, as to who should build the road. It is acknowledged on all sides that the municipality has no right whatever on the reserve, but it occurred to me while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) was speaking and referring to the county not electing a supporter of the Government, that the Minister of Public Works promised in the election of 1913 that that work would be done. It was one of the issues in the campaign that the road across the Indian reserve would be built. Now I appeal to my hon. friend from Manitoba (Mr. Meighen) to carry out the promise of his fellow-minister to build the road in question.


Arthur Meighen: I first of all would require considerably better proof than has yet been brought forward as to any such promise. The evidence is rather weak in view of the fact that there was no election in 1913.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, there was a by-election.


Ernest Lapointe: And Mr. Morris was elected.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the hon.
member for Kamouraska is mistaken.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am not mistaken.


Mr. LANCTOT:: I want to say a few
words in reference to the work on the dyke at Laprairie.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman
would not be in order. That is a matter which has to do with public works, and not

with the Indian reserve, which is under consideration.


Roch Lanctôt: All right.


Ernest Lapointe: There is an
item in the Estimates of $28,000 for medical attendance. I would like to know who selects the physician who performs that attendance. What is the policy of the department in the matter? Are these medical attendants appointed on a permanent basis and are they paid so much per annum?


Arthur Meighen: The Civil Service Commission always appoints them, and they are usually paid by the year. The policy of the department is to get the best with the least money.


Ernest Lapointe: The reason
I asked the question was that quite recently I read an article in a paper published at Riviere du Loup stating that the department had appointed a gentleman as physician for the Indian reserve in the county of Temiscouata. This gentleman happens to have been the Conservative candidate at three successive elections, and he was even the Unionist candidate at the last election. I think he was the only doctor in the whole county who espoused the Unionist cause on that occasion. I would like to know under what conditions the only Unionist in the whole district was selected as the physician for the Indians in the county of Temiscouata?


Arthur Meighen: I have no difficulty in answering for the Indian Department, but as the Civil Service Commission made the appointment they will have to answer the hon. gentleman's question in that regard. I would not think they would have very much difficulty either. If the gentleman referred to, whose name I do not recall ever having been brought to my attention, was the only Unionist doctor in the county of Temiscouata, his qualifications were so conspicuous that they would commend themselves to any commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the
policy of the Civil Service Commission?


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the date on
which the last medical attendant for the Indian reserve was appointed?


Arthur Meighen: Indian reserve where?


Jacques Bureau: In Temiscouata-the
medical attendant for the Temiscouata reserve to which my hon. friend has just referred. His salary being paid by the [The Chairman.]
department, they must know his name and the date of his appointment.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed the last appointment was made in April or May of this year.


Jacques Bureau: There is an item here of $51,875, general expenses. May I ask the minister what " General expenses " cover? We have expenses for medical attendance, repairs to roads, clearing land and so on.


Arthur Meighen: That item covers the
cost of administration both in Ontario and in Quebec. The details are as follows:
Brantford agency, population 4,791, total cost, $4,000 ; Cape Croker, population 385, total cost, $850 ; Saugeen, population 440, total cost, $S50 ; Carad-oc, population 1,400, total cost, $1,554); iChapleau, population 491, total cost, $900 ; Rama, population 234), total cost, $575 ; Christian Island, population 317, total cost, $625 ; Sarnia, population 1,180, total cost, $1,725 ; Georgina and Snake Island, population 107. total cost, $410; Gore Bay, (Population 552, total cost, $1,466 ; Golden Lake, population 142', total cost, $230'; Manitowaning, population 2,138, total cost, $2,50(0 ; Sougog, population 31, total cost, $250 : Alnwick, population 267, total cost, $4>50; Keene, population 332, total cost, $470; Deseronto, population 1,442, total cost, $1,000.-
I will give you the province of Quebec, as I see this is going to last a long while.


Jacques Bureau: It will average generally $1 per head of the population?


Arthur Meighen: Unless the population
is small.


Jacques Bureau: That is all I want.


Arthur Meighen: Caughnawaga agency, I think that is one the hon. membeT referred to, the population is 2,219, and the whole cost is $1,100, or less than 50 cents a head.


Mr. ETHIER:: What is the cost in connection with the Oka Indian Reserve?


Arthur Meighen: It is $550.
Indians-Nova Sootia, $28,300.


John Ewen Sinclair: Can the minister give us the names of the medical men who attend the Indians in Nova Scotia?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. They are as follows:
Total medical expenditure last year, $6,783. 5(2, made up as follows: J. A. Macdonald, Richmond, $300; Geo. McNally, King's Co. West, $200; W. B. Moore, King's Co. East, $200; A. iM. Hebb, Lunenburg Co. East, $50; C. (S. Marshall, Lunenburg Co. West, $60 ; H. N. McDonald, Inverness Co., $275 ; H. N. McDonald, Inverness >Co., $10>0; H. N. (McDonald, Victoria Co., $325 ; C. J. Sparrow, Cape Breton Co., $350 ; W. F. McKinnon, Antigonish, $250; O. B. Keddy, Hants, $75 ; A. Culton, Hants. $150 ; S. Keith, Pictou, $20(0 ; F. S. Messenger, Annapolis, $50 ; H. V. Kent, Colchester, $150 ;

E. O. Hallett, Digby, $100 ; J. D. Dinsmore, . Digby, $250; W. H. Oole, Lunenburg, $50; T.
R. Ford, Queens, tlO'O; F. J. Cochrane, Halifax, $200 ; M. A. B. Smith, Halifax, $350.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I see an item for repairs to roads and dyking. What is the dyking for?


Arthur Meighen: This is an appropriation to pay the Indians for their labour to protect the banks of certain rivers.
Indians-New Brunswick, $19,2*4.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to inquire the
names of the officials whose salaries appear as $1,984.


Arthur Meighen: They are as follows:
John B. Sheridan, Buctouche, $800; B. J. Griffiths, Fredericton, $54)10 ;	,N. J. Wootten,
Perth, $500 ; Constable, Big Cove, $25; Constable, Burnt Church, $50; Constable, Eel River, $20l; unforeseen services, constables, timber guardians, etc., $3?.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Who is Mr. Wootten?


Arthur Meighen: He is agent of the
Northern Division.


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The item "general expenses," $259,006, shows an increase of $14,44.3 over the appropriation of last year. I would like to have the details of this appropriation; it seems to bear a very large proportion to the total vote.


Arthur Meighen: The percentage of the increase is about five per cent. The hon. gentleman would not suggest that every item of these expenses has not advanced more than five per cent in cost in the last



year. The greater proportion of the increase is due to the cost of supplies and employees' rations. Last year the cost of a single ration was estimated at $135; this year the rate is $165, an increase of $30.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister has not grasped the idea which I had in mind.
The amount for general expenses is too large to be grouped under one head without any details; I would like to have some idea of the classification of these general expenses.


Arthur Meighen: I will give the details for Manitoba. The total for that province is $46,756, divided as follows: Salaries, $28,638; rations, $200; miscellaneous, $11,666; fuel and food, $1,750; live stock, $400; equipment, $1,342; buildings, $2,760.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning ol the item " triennial clothing"?


Arthur Meighen: That is for the supply oi clothing which every three years is furnished to the chiefs under the terms, of the treaty. We supply the chiefs with uniforms.


Jacques Bureau: Why is the Sioux tribe specially mentioned in this item? Is that for a special reservation?


Arthur Meighen: The Sioux Indians are not natives of this country; they are refugees from the United States, and we have always dealt with them separately, not under the ordinary agency classification.
Indians-British Columbia, $176,050.


Jacques Bureau: I do not see any items in the appropriations for travelling expenses, but in this appropriation there is such an item, $20,000.


Arthur Meighen: In the immediately preceding item, travelling expenses are included in the general expenses. Here it is put in separately.	___
Indians-Yukon, $15,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are there many tribes there?


Arthur Meighen: The total Indian population is 1,528, of five different tribes.
Indians-general, $123,000.


Jacques Bureau: I see an item for $10,000 to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. Is there any special system established by the department, or are there any sanitaria or other institutions under the control of the department?


Arthur Meighen: We have no separate institutions, or I fear the expense would be [iMr. Meighen. ]
much larger. We use the ordinary sanitaria that are provided for white people, wherever we can and wherever they are necessary. But we keep the item for the treatment of tuberculosis separately; that seems always to have been done, and I think it is wise, so that we may know just what we are spending to fight that disease. This last year we have been at great extra expense to fight influenza amongst the Indians; the total extra expenditure last year on that account would be about $80,000, and we have lost, as a consequence of the epidemic about 4,000 of the Indians of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: I understand it is not for the care of Indians who suffer from tuberculosis that this item is inserted, but to prevent the spread of the disease,' and I understand the using of the various institutions which exist in the different provinces for the care of those who are sick. What system has been established by the department to prevent the spread of tuberculosis? Are the patients segregated, or is any treatment given to them, or is any supervision exercised in the several reserves?


Arthur Meighen: In each reserve, we
have our medical attendant to give instruction in the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis. Where it is found, the Indian is taken out and placed elsewhere for the protection of the rest. That expense is charged against this appropriation. Infected houses are destroyed or disinfected, and where they have to be destroyed, the cost of rebuilding is charged against this appropriation. Those are some of the items making up the total amount of this item.


Jacques Bureau: Does this cover the care of the tubercular patient?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: So that all tubucular Indians come under a separate medical man. They are not treated by the man who is paid a salary by the department for taking care of those who are sick?


Arthur Meighen: They are under the"
same medical attendant.


Jacques Bureau: Is he paid an extra allowance for taking charge of tubercular patients?


Arthur Meighen: There is no extra allowance to the doctor at all.


John Ewen Sinclair: What surveys
are going to be made of Indian lands in Nova Scotia?


Arthur Meighen: No surveys are intended in the Maritime Provinces. What

we intend to do under this vote is as follows :
Subdivision survey of portion of
Georgina	island	 $200
Subdivision survey PierreviUe Indian
Reserve, Quebec	 600
Subdivision of Pays Plat Indian Re -
serve	   200
Part of the cost of subdivision survey of Manitoulin Island, unceded, Ontario	 2,000
Total	$ 3,000
Northwest Territories, 7 British Columbia,	65
Yukon,	10
On the Supplementary Estimates I will give the committee an account of the success that has attended the greater production work in Western Canada, which work was instituted over a year ago under the charge of Mr. Graham.


Jacques Bureau: Is that amongst the Indians?
Mr. PEDLOW':	As regards the item
" grant to assist Indian trust fund account $310, suppression of liquor, $3,000." How is that fund administered and for what particular purpose is it? How is the distribution of liquor suppressed?


Arthur Meighen: The Indian Act provides for the prevention of the spread of the liquor traffic amongst the Indians; it provides for constable service and so forth. This is a contribution to the fund for that purpose. It is against this that the work is charged. These are the figures:
Salaries of constables and detectives. $4,141.80 Services and expenses of regular
constables	 1,523.18
Services and expenses of irregular
constables	 l,05d.84
Legal services	 445.60
Supplies for lock-up,	etc	 137.55
Moieties paid informer,	 150.00
Miscellaneous	 493.65
Total	$7,943.62
But we had a revenue last year of $9,272, collected in fines.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Fines from those who supplied Indians with liquor?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, illegal traffic.
Indian education, $735,515.


Jacques Bureau: How many schools are there in each province?


Arthur Meighen: We have altogether 339 schools, divided as follows:
Prince Edward Island, 2 Nova Scotia,	14
New Brunswick,	11
Quebec,	29
Thus far in the	list	they are all day
schools.
Ontario,
Manitoba
Saskatchewan,
Alberta,
93, comprising 83 day schools, 7 hoarding schools and 4 industrial schools.
47, including 37 day schools.
36, including 2'4 day schools.
2*5, including 4 day schools, and 19 boarding schools.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, on Indian Reserves. It is only necessary to say now that by its means the Dominion Government is the largest farmer in the Dominion.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 159, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Arthur Meighen: I desire to give notice to the House that I will move to-morrow for the consent of the House to go on with an Act to amend the Judges' Act which has been on the Order Paper for some time, but which I could not go on with before because a resolution must necessarily precede it. The resolution will be in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow. I should like to get through to-morrow with the consideration of the resolution if the House will be good enough to consent. I might give the explanation now which is usually given on the introduction of a Bill.
The intention of the Bill is to raise the salaries of the county and district court judges of the Dominion. Those salaries have been for some time $3,000 each, with certain exceptions where they have gone to $3,500 in the case of senior judges. The Bill will raise the salaries of all these county court judges by $1,000, placing them all on the same level of $4,000. It will also raise the salaries of the King's Bench judges of the western provinces and of the Maritime Provinces by $1,000 wherever that is necessary to place them on a level with the salaries of judges of corresponding rank in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The salaries of the judges of Ontario and Quebec will not be affected by this Bill. I thought we should confine the scope of the Bill to such revision as is necessary to take care of those who suffer most from
258i

the increased cost of living 'at the present time. The Bill will also provide for an extra judge for the Exchequer Court of Canada. By virtue of repeated legislative enactments, the work of that court has been increasing rapidly, and if the Divorce Bill now before t(he House passes, will doubtless be very much extended. The Bill increases the salary of the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court by 51,000, placing him in exactly the same position as the puisne judges of the other higher courts of the provinces of the Dominion. The Bill will also provide for denominating the judge of the Exchequer Court the President of the Exchequer Court, as he is denominated, I believe, in England.
There is an additional clause which affects the section that for some years has enabled judges of the higher courts to retire at the expiration of fifteen years on a pension of two-thirds of their salary-a section which has been interpreted as giving to the judge the right to so retire of his own determination. The amendment has the effect of providing that that option may only he exercised when in the opinion of the Governor in Council it can be exercised in the public interest. That revision, however, will have no retroactive effect; i't will only affect future appointments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend said that the judges in the Western and the Maritime Provinces will be on the same footing in regard to salary as the judges of Ontario and Quebec.
Mr. T^EIG'HEN: My hon. friend will pardon me. I should not have said the Maritime Provinces, but the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Bill does, however, raise the salary of the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island up to $6,500 and the Puisne judges to $5,500, and does away with all additional salaries to admiralty judges on the expiration of the ten years of office of the present holders of those positions. It also does away with the salaries of the judges of the courts of divorce from the present day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend said that these judges wrould be put on a footing of equality as regards salary with the judges of Ontario and Quebec. Will it be on a footing of equality with Quebec or Ontario, because there is a difference? A judge of the Superior Court in Ontario receives $1,000 more than a judge of the Superior Court in Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: I know they are not precisely parallel, bu't taken on the whole the [<Mr. Meighen.]
salaries of the judges of Ontario and Quebec are the same. You cannot parallel one bench exactly against the other, but taking it all in all, I think they are as closely equal as could be made. That at all events is the intention and those were the instructions given to Mr. Newcombe, who prepared the Bill. Apparently he arrived at the same conclusion.


RAILWAY ACT CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT.
John Dowsley Reid: That the report of the managers appointed by the House to hold a free conference with the Senate in respect of the amendment to Bill 19 (Letter A of the Senate), to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, be concurred in. -
He said: I make this motion this evening so that the Bill will be restored on the Order Paper, and also because, if this motion passes., I wish to inform the House of an amendment that I propose to make to the Bill. I should like to get it on Hansard so that every hon. member will have it before him to-morrow and will have time to consider it before the Bill is again under consideration. If the House would pass this motion we could then decide at what future time we will go on with this Bill. I do not intend proceeding with it to-night.


Mr. WALLACE:: When will the Bill be taken up? To-morrow?


John Dowsley Reid: There are six or seven other Bills on the Order Paper, and I do not think it would be possible to take it up to-morrow.
Mr. WALLAjCE : Can the minister say definitely when it will be taken up?


John Dowsley Reid: I think I can say definitely it will not be taken up to-morrow, but probably the day after to-morrow.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I beg to move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), that this Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of considering amendments to section 325.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must rule the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman to be out of order. It is an amendment which should have been proposed on the motion for the third reading of the Bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like the privilege of speaking on the present motion.


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion which was made by unanimous consent, is certainly debatable.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, when I make the other amendment, the hon. member will have the privilege of addressing the House at that time as well as^ this evening, but I have no objection to his proceeding now.


Jacques Bureau: This is the report of the managers; the Bill is not before the House at all.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand that in this report the Senate concurs in the amendment which was put through this House as subsection 5 of section 325 of this Bill, which amendment, the Senate, on a previous occasion, refused to concur in. It is as to that amendment that I propose to speak.
I may say that I certainly understood that I should be allowed to move that this Bill be referred back to the Committee for the purpose of considering my amendment. I must express my regret to the House at being compelled to discuss this matter at the present stage. But I feel it is not my fault, it is my misfortune; I consider that I was practically jockeyed out of discussing this Bill on the third reading.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is putting it in plain language; perhaps not parliamentary language; but to put it in more parliamentary language I would say this, that I was not in the House at the time of the third reading of this Bill because of an arrangement I had with the Minister of Railways. I would like in this connection to refer to Hansard of the 28th May, page 3033. This refers to the Bill when it was before the Committee:
Mr. McQuarrie: Before taking up clause 34, I would like to revert to clause 325. I understand that an amendment has been made to this clause as it originally stood, a fact of which I only learned yesterday, having, unfortunately, been absent from the House owing to indisposition.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry but the hon. gentleman is out of order in discussing the clause referred to, which has been adopted in his absence. The hon. gentleman, however, can by unanimous consent take the opinion of the Committee on a motion that the clause be reconsidered.
Mr. McQuarrie: If you will permit me I would like to do that a little later on. The hon. member for Ltambton (Mr. Armstrong) is desirous of speaking to the clause which has been called, but I would like if I might be permitted to move later on to reconsider action of clause 325.
I would also like to refer to Hansard of June 4, page 3244:


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall I report the Bill?
Mr. McQuarrie: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer again to section 325.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before referring to section ' 325 it will be necessary for the hon. gentleman to have the unanimous consent of the Committee. Is it the unanimous will of the Committee that the hon. member be allowed to revert to section 325 of the Bill?
Mr. McQuarrie: I can go on with it now or wait until the third reading. It will take me a few minutes to explain it, but if the Committee do not wish me to go on to-night I shall defer what I have to say until the third reading. The amendment to section 325 has the effect 01" practically wiping out all agreements made between municipalities and the railway companies fixing rates in those municipalities.
It also has the effect of wiping out an appeal which is now pending to the Supreme Court.
I want to explain these things to the Committee, but if you would prefer me to do it on the third reading I should be glad to postpone what I have to say. It is so late now that I do not like to keep the Committee, but if you wish me to go ahead I am prepared to do so.
This was at one o'clock in the morning.
Mr. J. D. Reid: I have no objection, but I do not like to ask the Committee to remain.
Mr. McQuarrie: That is the way I feel, too. Mr. J. D. Reid: Does the hon. member wish to have the clause opened up again?
Mr. McQuarrie: Yes.
Mr. J. D. Reid: I would not like to have the clause opened up again. Rather than have the clause opened I would prefer that you bring it up on the third reading.
Mr. McQuarrie: I will take it up on the third reading, then.
After leaving the House that same night I saw the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) and asked him if the Bill .were coming up next day. He said " No." I said: " Can I rely on that?" And he said " Yes." I said " Very well; I have a lot of other things to do, very important matters to attend to, and I will probably not be in the House to-morrow." He said " All right." I said further " Will you inform me when this Bill is coming before the House so that I can take it up?" And he said " Yes." The Minister of Railways knew how important it was to certain of my constituents that it should not go through in the form in which it was at that time. Next day the Budget debate went off suddenly, unexpectedly, no doubt, and I * learned that the Minister of Railways had brought on the third reading of the Bill when there was practically no one in the House except a bare quorum, and that the Bill had been passed.
I am a supporter of this Government but at the same time I do not think that I am entitled as a member of this House to be treated in that manner. I was told that when this matter came back from the Sen-

ate I would then have an opportunity ol making my motion to refer the Bill back to the committee, that the motion would be in order and that that would be the proper time for me to make it. Now I am ruled out of order. I, of course, have to accept the ruling of the Speaker. I would like to say something on this amendment to section 325.
This amendment was first inserted in the Bill when it was before the special committee which, as hon. gentlemen know, was appointed to consider the Consolidated Railway Act this session. It did not appear in the Bill as submitted by the Senate to us but was inserted when the measure was before the special committee. Now I have been wondering why there was this unseemly haste in rushing this amendment through; why the thing was kept more or less secret, and no publicity given to it. Nobody-very few members of the House in any event - knew anything about this amendment, or comprehended the effect of it. The only explanation of the unseemly haste that occurs to me is that the minister knew and realized that if anybody became aware of the purport and effect of the amendment there would be a great deal ot opposition to it. This is now subsection 5 of section 325:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 the powers given to the Board under this Act to fix, determine, land enforce just and reasonable rates and to change and' alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation may from time to time require, shall not be limited, or in any m'annr affected by the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, whether general in application or special and relating only to any specific railway or railways, and the board shall not excuse any charge of unjust discrimination whether practised against shippers, consignees, or localities, or of undue or unreasonable preference, on the ground that such discrimination or preference is justified or required by any agreement made or entered into by the company.
Now section 325 deals with the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and without this proposed amendment there is a doubt as to whether the board would have jurisdiction to determine or allow rates which exceed the rates fixed in agreement made with railway companies by municipalities and other corporations, or which may have been fixed by statute or agreements ratified by statute. The effect of this, amendment, as I have said, is practically to wipe out all those agreements, and in the case of a certain municipality it has the effect of wiping out an appeal which is now pending to the Supreme Court of Canada. That appeal was brought by the municipality of 
Burnaby, a municipality situated between the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. That municipality had an agreement with the electric railway company which operates three lines through it that in consideration of certain privileges which were granted by the municipality to the railway * company, the latter should not, on certain of its lines in that municipality, charge more than certain specified fares. One of these lines is known as the Burnaby Lake or Fraser Valley line. That line comes within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and as to it there was the agreement to which I have referred. The company after receiving and obtaining the privileges to which it was entitled under that agreement, made application to the Board of Railway Commissioners to approve an increased tariff of fares, which fares in some cases exceeded by one hundred per cent those mentioned in the agreement. When the matter came before the Board of Railway Commissioners, in August of last year, the municipality opposed the application, but after reserving judgment the board handed down a decision holding that they had the right and the jurisdiction to allow the increased tariff, notwithstanding the agreement in question. The point was raised at the hearing that the board had no jurisdiction to entertain that application, and as to that question, which was one of law, the board agreed to allow an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. I have here a letter from the board dated November 26, 1918, which reads as follows:
File 2>S 4>3'9, Appl'n of B.C. Electric Ry.
Co., re increase in Commutation fares.
Dear Sirs,-Referring to your telegram of the 2i3rd inst., I wired you yesterday, by night lettergram, under the Board's direction as follows :
" Tour wire twenty-third instant. Board will facilitate appeal to Supreme Court on defined question or questions of law. This permission will not operate as a stay." Tours truly,
,	Secretary, B.R.C.
Now in order that there may be no doubt as to the reasonableness of the appeal of the municipality, or as to the occasion for it, I will read a short extract from the ruling of the chief commissioner, given on the 30th of J anuary last:
In view of the fact that the municipality desires to raise the question of the board's power to deal with any question as against the terms of its agreement, and the further fact that the practice of the board is to grant leave to appeal on any legal point that is open to reasonable controversy, it is necessary that the

question of the applicability of the agreement should be determined.
That appeal has not yet come before the Supreme Court of Canada, because the question of law has not yet been finally settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners; if this amendment is passed, the municipality will not have the right to take its case to the Supreme Court, and this appeal will necessarily fail.
The wording of the amendment may not make that perfectly clear, but I have it on the authority of no less a person than Sir Henry Drayton himself. He tells me that he has reserved handing down his decision in this matter as to the question of law to be submitted until Parliament shall have finally disposed of this Bill and this particular amendment.
Now, my reason for speaking to-night is that I feel I cannot agree to the motion before the House, namely, that this section 325 should be passed as it now stands. I wish to have the privilege of moving an amendment to protect the rights of municipalities in the case of agreements which give railway companies' certain privileges and on the other hand provide
12 m. that the railway companies' fares shall not exceed certain specified amounts. I think that those municipal rights should be protected, or, if they are not protected, and if the railway companies are allowed to escape from their covenants under those agreements some provision should be made to cancel the privileges which they obtained from the municipalities. I understand from both the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works that when this Bill comes before the House again it will be quite in order for me to move this amendment, and I intend to accept that privilege.


Mr. NIOKLE:: The clock is just past midnight. The language in which the minister's resolution was moved seems to me to make two constructions possible. It might be argued that if the resolution were passed we would adopt the report by the managers of this House, and by that adoption accept the 'Senate's refusal to adopt the amendments of this House; or it might be argued that the adoption of the report was the adoption only of the statements contained in it. I would' therefore suggest to the Minister of Railways that he change the words " concurred in " to read " considered," and that the matter stand as a notice of motion to be debated when the House again takes it up. It is a very involved question, and if
we debate it to-night we shall be here until the wee sma' hours of the morning.


John Dowsley Reid: I intended to make that change. The hon. member is right, I drafted the motion in a hurry, and I would like, with the permission of the House, to change the words " concurred in " to " considered."


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that the hon. Minister of Railways desires to withdraw the motion he made a few moments ago, and to substitute therefor this motion, which is practically in the same terms, with the exception that the words " concurred in " are replaced by the word " considered."


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the
unanimous consent of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw the motion already made?
Some hon. MEMBER'S: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: By unanimous consent it is moved by Mr, Reid, seconded by Mr. Carvell:
That the report of the managers appointed by the House to hold a free conference with the Senate In respect to Bill No. 19, (Letter A of the Senate) intituled an Act to Consolidate and Amend the Bailway Act, be now considered.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would alsoUike to say to the House that on Friday, when we resume consideration of .this report, I wish to make the following motion- I am giving it now because I want to get it on Hansard so that hon. members will have it before them and fully understand what it means:
That the Clerk do carry back this Bill to the Senate and acquaint their Honours that this House insists upon the amendments made to clause 325 of the Bill, the amendment having been agreed to at the free confeience between the two Houses;
That this House does not insist upon the amendment to clause 374, but has substituted therefor the following amendment:-
"That clause 374 be struck out of the said Bill, and that a consequential amendment be made to clause 462 by adding after the words "the whole" in the first item in the table of repeals therein the following words:-'except section two hundred and forty-seven in so far as that section applies to any person or company having legislative authority from the Parliament of Canada to acquire, construct, operate or maintain works, machinery, plant, lines, poles, tunnels, conduits or other means for receiving, generating, storing, transmitting, distributing or supplying electrical or other power or energy


William Garland McQuarrie: I wish to ask the
minister whether, when the maltter comes up again under this arrangement, I shall be-


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that 'the minister has spoken on the motion which he made that the report of the conference be now considered, replacing the motion which was withdrawn. I point out to the hon. member that if he exercises his right to speak upon that motion at this time, he will be precluded from doing so when the motion is again before the House.


William Garland McQuarrie: I simply wanted to put a question; may I do so, Mr. Speaker?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, by unanimous consent.


William Garland McQuarrie: When this Bill comes up again, shall I have the privilege of moving this amendment to section 325?


James Alexander Robb: I understand that the motion which the minister presented is more particularly to enable him to make a statement; he does not intend to press it to a conclusion now?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.


James Alexander Robb: May I also suggest that when the minister again brings this matter before

the House, he do so earlier in the day, as it seems to be a controversial question.


John Dowsley Reid: The member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has inquired whether he will be permitted to move his amendment when the matter comes up again. I am sorry that there was any misunderstanding about his motion; there was no intention on my part to rush the amendment through on the occasion to which he refers. But if the rules of the House permit my hon. friend to put his motion when the Bill is again up for consideration, I shall have no objection to his doing so. With reference to the remark of the hon. member (Mr. Robb), I understood late this afternoon that we would be through with the Estimates at about half past eight, and it was my intention then to proceed with this matter in order that we might have a discussion upon it; I did not intend to bring it up at a late hour. When it is up again I shall try to have it as one of the first Bills to be proceeded with, in order that there may be plenty of time for discussion.


William Folger Nickle: If the minister introduces the special Bill to which he has just made reference, in the event of his amendment being carried I suppose the Government will not insist upon any formal notice of amendments that may be moved?


John Dowsley Reid: No, none whatever.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will it be considered
as a Government Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. BOYS:: I thought that the motion of the minister referred to a report, not to a Bill. If it did refer to a report, what report was it and has it been presented to the House?


Georges Henri Boivin: The report of the conference with the Senate which was presented to the House at 3 o'clock to-day.


William Alves Boys: Then I am correct in saying that the motion is for the consideration of a report, not of a Bill?	.


Georges Henri Boivin: That the report of the conference be now considered.
Mr. WALLACE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On the motion of the Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 12.16 am., Thursday.
Thursday, June 26, 1919.