[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108, for the.relief of Mary King. -Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of William Herman Depper.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of William Rogers Latimer.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of William Pinkerton.-Mr. Mowat.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What was the aggregate amount of fixed charges (interest or securities) on the Canadian Northern Railway System for the yearending December 31. 191S?
2.	With reference to the statement of the Honourable Minister of Railways (page 1678 Hansard) that the net earnings of the Canadian Northern Railway System for the calendar year of 1918 were $3,562,303.4'0, did the minister make provision in striking this balance for the .payment of the said fixed charges?
3.	If not, what would be the deficit for the said year after all fixed charges were provided for?
4.	With reference to the statement of the minister that the Government has not assumed the outstanding liabilities of the Canadian Northern System, is it possible for the Government to nationalize and become the owners of this railway system without assuming its liabilities?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	The amount of fixed charges on the Canadian Northern railway system for year ended December 31, 1918, is $17,735,522.31. Included in this amount is interest payable to Government amounting to $3,900,529.15.
2.	No.
3.	The deficit for year 1918 after the fixed charges were provided for is $14,333,085.07.
4.	The Dominion Government are shareholders of the Canadian Northern railway, and as such do not necessarily assume all its liabilities.


LAND GRANTS TO REDIGIOU'S DENOMINATIONS.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	How many grants of land have been made to religious denominations anidl institutions by the Federal Government since 1896?
2.	What was the amount of each grant?
3.	When, and to what religious denomination or institutions was it made, and1 where located ?
4.	Have requests been made for grants which have not been acceded to?
5.	If so, by whom and where located?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	290.
2.	Answered by No. 3.
3.	Schedule attached. (Placed.on Clerk's table.)
4 and 5. No record kept ef requests for grants which have not been acceded to.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PEDiLOW:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, letters of reference, agreement, correspondence,

and other documents between Dr. P. Montizam-bert, Director of the Bureau of Public Health, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Immigration; regarding the appointment of Dr. W. H. Drury to position of Assistant Medical Superintendent and Bacteriologist at William Head Quarantine Station, Victoria, B.C.; and Professor Gunn, Secretary of American Journal of Public Health, the Principal of Institute Technology, Cambridge, Mass. ; the Principals of Harvard and .McGill Universities, Dr. R. Nelson, of William Head Quarantine Station, Victoria, B.C'., Military Officers, of Victoria, B.C., and elsewhere. Report of investigation held at request of Dr. Drury, by A. B. Cook, at Victoria, B.C'., on December 30 and 31, 1918. Letters from Hon. A. J. Calder in reference to this subject and investigation, covering the period from January, 1917, up to present date.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: For a return showing the quantities of fresh (frozen) and salt fish shipped from Canada to England, France and other allied countries overseas, under the direction of the Canadian Government, during the war, distinguishing between salt and fresh fish ; also setting forth the quantities supplied to the Canadian troops overseas and the quantity sold to the ordinary consumer ; also a statement, in detail showing the names and Post Office addresses of the parties from whom the said fish was purchased and the prices paid therefor, respectively.


COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: May I be permitted to call the attention of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) to an omission in the matter of a committee? It has been customary during the last two sessions for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) to be a member of the Committee on Fisheries, but by some accident his name has not been included this session. I would think it very desirable that the minister should be a member of that Committee, and 1 would suggest that the Acting Prime Minister move for the addition of his name.
Sir THOMiAIS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister):	I am glad my hon. friend has
, drawn the matter to my attention. I shall make the motion to-morrow.



SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE moved the third reading of Bill No. 113 granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ended the 31st March, 1919.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 74, to amend the Fertilizers Act, 1909, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-phosphoric acid content or other ingredients to be stated.
Mr. McKENZIE:: I understood the minister was going to have the Bill reprinted.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It was reprinted and distributed. The other evening the member for Brome asked why phosphoric acid or phosphorus was stated in terms of ammonia and in reply to him I said that in the trade phosphorus or phosphoric acid was so expressed. Superficially, that might amount to a contradiction in terms. Ammonia is recovered as a by-product in the manufacture of gas from coal, hut the greater proportion of ammonia is nitrogen. In 17 pounds of ammonia 14 pounds would be of the other ingredient. The technical officer of the department has never been in favour of expressing this particular ingredient in the terms of ammonia; and he has always been willing and anxious to use the term nitrogen. In many countries the term nitrogen is used instead of ammonia, and since our discussion on this Bill the other night he has expressed a preference for an amendment. I am of the same opinion and move that the word ' nitrogen ' be inserted instead of 'ammonia.'


Mr. DUFF:: Why is it necessary to have the word"'agent?' The agent might be a man selling goods after receiving them from the manufacturer's factory.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The main Act provides that when fertilizer is manufactured outside of the country the manufacturer must be represented here by an agent on whom processes might be served, in every way as if the manufacturer was resident here.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: What is the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists of North America? I know who they are, but what is the official permanent constitution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is merely an association of agricultural chemists, the membership of which includes Canadians as well as Americans.


Samuel Hughes: Have, they any corporate or official existence?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. They have a corporate existence but have no official recognition. They are, however, regarded on the continent of North America as the

association best capable of expressing accurate scientific opinions on these matters.


Samuel Hughes: From what source do they obtain their constitution-the United States Government or the Canadian Government, or what?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They have a corporate existence, but it is merely an association. Originally the membership was composed entirely of Americans, but recently it was opened to Canadians. At the present time I think there is only one Canadian a member of the association, that is Dr. McGill, the chief analyst of the Dominion Government.


Samuel Hughes: Is not this very slipshod legislation? We are practically giving a constitution to a body that has no official recognition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are many things analogous to this. For instance, the British Pharmacopoeia is recognized as a standard work by all countries, although it has no official recognition other than that given it by statute. There is an association of engineers-I forget the exact designation of it-which includes American and Canadian engineers, and they recommend standards that are accepted all over the world.


Samuel Hughes: They have a constitution. The Society of Canadian En- -gineers and the Society of American Civil Engineers have each a constitution.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, which they make themselves.


Samuel Hughes: Under control.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, not under control.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is meant by " organic products"?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Animal products as distinct from mineral products, as, for instance, tankage and offal from abattoirs, and products of that kind.


John Ewen Sinclair: Fish offal ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: And mussel mud, spoken of the other night?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is not included ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Mr. SHEARD:: With regard to the percentage of nitrogen, is this free nitrogen or nitrogen in compounds?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Nitrogen in compounds. The only possible way of getting free nitrogen would be to grow clover and plough it into the soil.


Charles Sheard: You can get it from the air.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Clover and one or two other agricultural products such as peas and beans, are the only plant life which can absorb nitrogen freely from the air and transmit it to the soil.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-registration 'number:
On section 9-stamps to be affixed to packages:
Mr. COPP:: How will this license fee be paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fee is to be paid by the manufacturer according in the ingredients contained in the fertilizer. If it contains nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, he will pay $24; if there is only one of these ingredients, $8, or if two, $16. The purpose of this section is to get a revenue to assist in meeting the expense of the administration of the Act. In connection with most Acts of this character, where there has to be an official inspection and oversight of the manufacture and distribution of the article, it has become the practice to make a charge. In the United States and some European countries the license fee is determined upon the principle we are adopting in this section. It seems to be satisfactory to the trade; at least, I am instructed that the officers of the department have conferred with the manufacturers and that they do not disapprove.


Mr. OOPP:: It seems to me that this charge will only be passed on to the consumer of the fertilizer. Fertilizer is selling at a very high price now; it will continue high, and the extra license fee of the dealer will naturally be added to the price and the farmer will have to pay for it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think it will seriously affect the price to the consumer. At any rate, the State is entitled to some contribution in connection with the administration of the Act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister said that it seemed to satisfy the trade. Has he had any correspondence with the consumers and farmers who have to purchase this fertilizer or with any farmer's association?

(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: I cannot say that there has been any consultation with the consumer. I would like to impress upon my hon. friend that the tax is merely upon the brand. It is not $8, $16, or $24 per ton. The manufacturer may sell 100,000 tons of a certain brand but he will only be charged $24. It will not afford any substantial proportion of the. cost to the department of the administration of the Act. I do not think it is a burdensome tax or that it will meet with any opposition from the consumer.
Mr. MeCOIG: This seems to be a very simple matter to take up the time of the House with. As other matters come before the House, as commissions and officers are appointed, the department itself provides for defraying the expense, but when, it comes to such an important question as fertilizer is to the producers of this country and also to the consumers, it does seem ridiculous that a little cent or two cent tax has to be collected to defray the expenses of the officer who administers the Act. I do not see why the department does not assume the responsibility itself and pay the expenses of the administration of the Act instead of having some officer pulling a cent or two cent tax or a hundred pounds out of the purchaser, of the fertilizer and administering the Act at his expense. In the department there are men who are being paid by the Government to look after matters of this kind without penalizing the consumer by collecting a cent on every hundred pounds or twenty cents on every ton. They will have to keep a lot of bookkeepers to keep track of the administration of this Act and the distribution of the stamps. It is going to involve a lot of unnecessary expense.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assume that my hon. friend knows that all fertilizers manufactured in Canada must be inspected by technical officers under a department of government.
Mr. MoCOIG: Will the minister not admit that that has already been provided for?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is being done now and largely for the protection of the public. It is also in the interest of the manufacturer that this inspection shall take place because it is a guarantee to the public of the character of his products. The tax imposed under this section is very small indeed and it will not yield more than one-tenth of the total cost of administering the Act. It is a tax that the manufacturer alone will pay. It will be so small that I do not think it will be placed on the consumer. This is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, it has the support of precedent in all countries of the world. I think it is fair legislation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend says that the tax is not to (be imposed at the rate of so much per toh or anything of that kind. That is quite correct. It says "no manufacturer or agent shall sell or offer for sale.'* At the smaller points throughout the country districts there will be a number of agents appointed to handle fertilizers and each one of them must pay this fee, as I understand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No; the word "agent" has a definition. I have not the Act before me but provision is made that every manufacturer who exports from another country into Canada must have registered with the minister the name of the Canadian agent. Before that agent can sell in Canada on behalf of his principal he must get a license. This license is not required by every dealer or retailer.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the point I was
making because the section says "no manufacturer or agent."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The word "agent" has a special definition.
On section 10-how analysis is obtained:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This clause is the same as the one in the present Act with the exception of the last sentence reading as follows:
The certificate ot the analyst shall be accepted as legal evidence in the courts.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: What is the object of charging a dollar for the analysis referred to here? I think that is detrimental to the working Of the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fee is a nominal ond and intended to aid in reducing the cost of administering the Act. It is a provision which has been in force ever since the Fentilizer Act was enacted.


John Albert Sexsmith: It does not seem wise to demand a dollar from a man who purchases fertilizer and then asks the department to make an analysis of it. I think the department should make the analysis without charging the public any (fee whatever. It would then be some protection perhaps to the public and it would be the making of such analyses. I do not think the Govern-



ment requires the payment of this fee in the case of other products.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am afraid that if the department were to undertake to make analyses of fertilizers without any charge whatever, the time of the officers would be fully taken up for the whole year. The levying of the fee is rather a guarantee of the bona tides and the responsibility of the man who sends in the sample for analysis. So far as I am aware there is no objection to its payment.


John Albert Sexsmith: Where analyses are
made by departments of the Government, under other Acts, for example in the case of seed wheat, samples can be sent in and the analysis does not cost anything.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The scientific determination of the ingredients of a fertilizer is much more difficult, I think, than an analysis of grain seeds, and occupies a good deal of time.


John Albert Sexsmith: In the case of such commodifies as pepper, samples are required to be sent in to the Government from time to time, and those who forward the samples are not required to pay for the analysis.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I think if the minister will consider the circumstances, he will agree that those who sell fertilizers should be responsible for the good quality of the product. If a merchant says, " I have fertilizer for sale," and induces a farmer to purchase it and spread it over his farm, and subsequently the farmer ascertains that it is of bad quality, surely the latter should not be made responsible for that? Surely the same care that is shown by the department with regard to seed wheat, and other seed grain, should he bestowed upon fertilizers?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the clause carry?


John Albert Sexsmith: No. I think that under the provisions of another Act the title of which I do not at present recall, the millers and otheT persons who produce stock foods are required to brand and indicate the percentage of proteins and food values of the different foods which, they sell upon the package but they are not charged any fee such as is imposed here. Any one producing those foods can forward a sample to the department at Ottawa and have it analyzed in order to determine what the percentage of food value is, and if it is in accordance with the brand, and percentages marked on the package. In such cases as

that the Government does not collect a fee, I do not think it should be done in this instance. To my mind the imposition of a fee is unnecessary; the Government should perform that service free of charge.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think my hon. friend, really has any substantial objection to this small fee. The fertilizer is inspected and analyzed at the place of production by our own inspectors. Inspectors are on the spot making purchases themselves from the dealers in order to make certain that there is no* evasion of the Act by the disposal of inferioj- brands to the public. The number of requests for analyses of fertilizers made by private individuals throughout Canada to the department is very small, indeed, and I do not think that anybody who wants an analysis will object to paying a fee.


John Albert Sexsmith: Perhaps the exaction of a fee is the reason why such a small number of samples for analysis has been received. I do not think you will find the number is small in-the case of other products where there is no charge for making the analysis.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a fee of one dollar.


John Albert Sexsmith: My impression was to the contrary.
On Section 15-Penalties.


John Ewen Sinclair: Under what circumstances is a fine imposed upon the purchaser?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would only apply to a case of a purchaser who proposed to sell the fertilizer again and become the principal in the transaction.


John Ewen Sinclair: The clause does not make that clear. As now worded, I think it would apply to any purchaser.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 14 of the Act declares:-
This Act shall not apply to fertilizers which are manufactured to the order of the purchaser, and are not intended for sale, unless such fertilizers be actually sold by such purchaser.


John Ewen Sinclair: Any one acting as an agent for the manufacturer of fertilizers, or a merchant dealing in fertilizers, will feel it to be incumbent upon him to have an analysis made in order to determine that the product before the sale is made is up to standard. If not he is liable to a penalty.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Air. McCOIG:: Where will the stamps for these packages be obtained? Will special

offices be established in different municipalities for that purpose? I wrote the department some time ago about an officer stationed in a town in my constituency who was paid a salary of $600 or $700 a year, and only sold a few dollars' worth of stamps.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have abandoned the method of taxing through stamps, and substituted for it the imposition of a license fee for the brand amounting to $8, $16, or $24, according to whether or not the fertilizer contains one, two, or three of the three specified ingredients-nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash.
Mr. McCOlG: Will the stamp go with the license?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The license'will cover the stamps.	'
Mr. McCOI'G: It will not be necessary to have an inland revenue officer in a particular locality to sell stamps?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not to sell stamps.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Is not the inland revenue officer in the town of Wallaceburg still selling stamps for the Inland Revenue Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. The Fertilizer Act of 1909 did not require these stamps to be affixed. The Bill introduced a few days ago did, but the policy has since been abandoned.
On schedule A:


John Albert Sexsmith: You provide in this
schedule that a representative of the department taking a sample for analysis must take it in the presence of one or more witnesses; but where an individual purchases fertilizer and sends to' the department for analysis a (sample of one pound accompanied by a dollar, and the sample is found to be below the proper standard), (the (agent or manufacturer is liable to a penalty without the benefit of any safeguard so far as the taking of the sample is concerned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a farmer, for instance, sends to the department for analysis a sample of fertilizer which he has purchased, having in mind probable action against the manufacturer, he must be able to prove in court that the sample he sent to the department is the same as the fertilizer purchased. The department is merely asked to make an analysis of a certain fertilizer. That is all they propose to do, and that is all they can do.
157$


John Albert Sexsmith: Then it seems to me there is all the greater reason why we should not charge that dollar fee. A purchaser of fertilizer in order to find out whether the article is up to the guarantee or not has to send to the department a sample of one pound accompanied by a dollar, and if on analysis the sample is below standard he has to take legal action himself. The result will be that no individual will ask the department for an analysis under those conditions, and you might just as well have that clause struck out.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section B of the Act in reference to samples submitted by a purchaser deals with that. It is:
Samples of fertilizer submitted by a purchaser for analysis must be enclosed in giass jars or bottles and properly sealed, and samples must be taken in the presence of the. vendor or his representative.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported as amended.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 18 respecting Bankruptcy.-Mr. Guthrie.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the Committee all the clauses had been considered, but a certain number were allowed to stand.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: We might refer again to one or two of the early sections because there are still some clerical errors to be corrected. I refer to p. 2 of the Bill, subsection (j).
I move that we insert the word "bank" before "chartered bank" in the fifth line on p. 2.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister please explain the reason for the insertion of the word "bank?" Are not all banks chartered banks?


Hugh Guthrie: Because both terms are used in the Bill. Some clauses contain the word " bank," other clauses the words " chartered bank." We want a definition aPplying to both terms. I move also that the word " operating " in the second line of subsection (j) be struck out and the words " carrying on the business of banking " be substituted therefor; and that the words " of Canada " at the end of the subsection be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 14-appointment of trustees:
(Mr. GUTHRIE:	I moVe that the words
" and he may in his discretion revoke any such appointment made " at the end of subsection (1) be struck out. Section 31-K of the Interpretation Act gives power to remove, pertaining to all appointments.
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 20-powers exercisable by trustee with permission of inspectors:
iMr. GUTHRIE: It has been pointed out since this section was adopted that there is no provision in it with regard to what estate a trustee can convey. Of course, it is assumed that he can convey all the estate of the debtor. It has been suggested that a declaration to that effect be incorporated in the Bill. It has also been drawn to my attention that there is a difficulty in the province of Quebec in regard to trustees' deeds; they do not operate in that province quite in the same way as they do in other provinces. It
4 p.m. seems that liens, mortgages, hypothecs and the like are not removed by trustee's deed and a clear title cannot be conveyed. Several prominent members of the Bar of the province of Quebec have directed my attention to this fact and have suggested an amendment so that we might give to a trustee's deed in that province the same effect as is now given to a sheriff's deed. Personally I see no objection to inserting a clause to that effect, if it is the desire of the Committee. I move that the following be added as subsection (3):
All sales of real estate made by the trustee shall vest in the purchaser all the legal and equitable estate of the debtor therein.
That will be the general clause. Then I move that the following be added as subclause (a) of subsection (2):
(a) In the province of Quebec a sale of real estate made by the trustee shall have the same effect as to mortgages, hypothecs or privileges then existing thereon as if the same had been made by a sheriff in the said province under a writ of execution issued in the ordinary course, and the title conveyed by such sale in the said province shall have equal validity with a title created by sheriff's sale and the conveyance of the trustee shall have the same effect as a sheriff's deed in the said province.
Mr. JACOB'S:	The section is much improved by the amendment suggested by the Solicitor General.
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.	I
[Mr. Guthrie.j
. On section 24-reports to creditors by trustee:	.
Hugh Guthrie: It has been suggested
that we put in some clause which will give the public an opportunity of examining the records referred to in subsection (2) and, if necessary, of obtaining copies. I move that the following be added as subsection (3) of section 24:
Any person shall be entitled to examine and make copies of all or any of the documents mentioned in subsection. (2) hereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 14, subsection 4-general security to be given by trustee:
Hugh Guthrie: The hon.; member (Mr. Jacobs) was going to move some amendment providing for interest on cash securities.


Mr. JACOBS:: When this subsection was before the Committee a few days ago, I suggested that interest at the rate of 5$ per cent be paid on any cash deposited with the Government. I am not wedded to any particular rate; the rate might be 5 per cent, but any party who makes a cash deposit should receive some interest on his money while it is being used by the Government.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think any cash will be deposited as security. I think the deposit will be in the shape of guaranteed bonds, but if cash is deposited, current bank rates on deposits, namely, 3 or 3J per cent, might be given. If my hon. friend will draft an amendment, I shall be glad to consider it.
Subsection stands.
On section 14, subsection 8-additional security to be given by trustee:


Hugh Guthrie: This stood at the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), who thought that we should put in a specific clause that the registrar might enforce any bond in event of default, I have given the matter a good deal of consideration, and I think the clause is properly drawn as it is, but i'f my hon. friend has any suggestion to make, I will consider it.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) as such, will assume the responsibility that the clause is all right, I will let it go, but some day he may have to run the gauntlet of the court, and if I have to argue the matter, I will argue that

the desire of the Solicitor GeneraJ prevailed and not mine.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 14, subsection 11-security surrendered:
Samuel William Jacobs: Under this section, there are to be given by the trustee two forms of securities, one to the Government and the other to the registrar. Therefore, it might be well to indicate fha/t both these securities would have to be turned over.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection says
"the security provided for by this section," and both forms are provided under this section. I think that, would include them both.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not say "securities" instead of "security?"


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 4 provides
for the general security.; subsection 8 provides for the additional security which the creditors may require. Subsection 11 reads:
Upon payment toy the trustee of the final dividend the security provided for by this section-
I think that would cover it all.


Samuel William Jacobs: The two securities?


Hugh Guthrie: If there were a dozen, they would be covered by this subsection.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Solicitor General thinks it would refer to the securities provided in subsections 4 and 8?


Hugh Guthrie: As a matter of fact, the $10,000 security would not be discharged, because it would be of a continuing character. If the trustee asked that it be discharged, he would be disqualified for the future.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 15, subsection 1-new trustee may be substituted:
Hugh Guthrie: This stood at the request of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. H. H. ATcLean). I think in small estates he desired that creditors representing three-fourths in value of the estate should have the right to appoint a trustee to manage the estate. I think we should pass the clause as drafted and stick to the authorized trustee.	'


Samuel William Jacobs: As the hon. member for
Royal is not here, I ask that the clause be passed forthwith.


Mr. PROULX:: If those trustees are only in large centres, there will be small estates in small places where it would not be convenient for* the trustee to act. Indeed, he may not care to act. Can he not delegate somebody to act for him?


Hugh Guthrie: So long as he assumes
the responsibility, he may delegate somebody to act for him, but the authorized trustee must be the responsible party. He may, I have no doubt, operate through an agent in a small estate.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 29, subsection 1-avoidance of certain settlements:
Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I might be permitted to make a short explanation in regard to section 29 for the benefit of some members of the Committee who are not lawyers. These three subsections are somewhat intricate and drawn in legal and technical language. The object of them is to avoid certain settlements commonly known as voluntary or fraudulent settlements as against creditors, and at the same time due care has, I think, been taken to protect all genuine, bona fide settlements entered into for good consideration and for laudable purposes. Section 29, subsection 1, applies to what I might call settlements which have been made and completed prior to bankruptcy. There are three classes of settlements to which it was not applied. First, it does not" apply to a settlement made before and in consideration of marriage; second, it does not apply to a settlement made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration; third, it does not apply to a settlement made on or for the wife or children of the settlor of property which has accrued to the settlor after marriage in right of his wife.
With these three exceptions it applies to all other voluntary settlements, and if they are made within one year of the date of the bankruptcy such settlements are to be void against the trustee. If the bankruptcy happens within five years of the date of settlement they will be void against the trustee unless the parties claiming under the settlement can prove the following: First, that the settler was, at the time he made the settlement, able to pay all his debts without resort to the property which comprised the settlement; and, secondly, that the interest of the settler in the property passed out of his hands at the time of settlement. Subsection 2 seeks to avoid as

preferences certain marriage convenants or contracts which are not uncommonly made in this country, but which are more prevalent in- -Great Britain, that is; covenants or promises made in consideration of marriage that at some future time the husband or the wife, as the case may be, will settle on the other party property of some kind, either in money, securities or in land. Subsection 2 provides that any covenant or contract to settle at a future time made by a person in consideration of his or her marriage, either for the future payment of money for the benefit of the settlor's wife or husband or children, or foT the future settlement on or for the settlor's wife or husband or children, of property wherein the settlor had not at the date of the marriage any estate or_ interest whether vested or contingent, shall be void as against the trustee, except within certain very stringent limitations. Subsection 3 applies to any payment of money or any transfer of property which may hereafter be made -by the settlor pursuant to any promise or -covenant made before marriage. These sections apply only to settlements hereafter made. We do not seek by this clause * to interfere with settlements which have been made, or covenants or promises which have been entered into prior to the coming into operation of this Act, But for the future, covenants or contracts entered into for the settlement of property in consideration of marriage will, speaking, generally, be void in the case of bankruptcy as against the trustee for the creditors. That is the object sought to be attained by section 29 and the three subsections. It is merely carrying into effect, and perhaps extending a little, a principle which has been known to English law from at least the days of Elizabeth, because it is under the statute of XIII Elizabeth that we first find any law in regard to voluntary or fraudulent preference or conveyances. Away back in the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was enacted that any conveyance which has the effect of hindering, defeating, delaying, or defrauding a creditor is void unless it be made for good cause and be bona fide. We have carried that law up to the present time in Canada and in all the provinces of Canada. This section 29 is merely declaratory of the extent of that law, and expressly states in what limitations certain settlements and covenants will be upheld in the future as against a trustee in bankruptcy. I move as an amendment to subsection 3 of section 29 that in line 47, after the word " insurance," the following wmrds be inserted:-

In -favour of the husband, wife, child or children of the settlor.
The effect of this will be that no policy of life insurance in- favour of the husband, wife, child, or children will be attacked as preference. That, I think, is in accordance with modem law on the subject, where these various parties are recognized in matters of insurance as privilege persons.


Mr. PROTJLX:: Do you not include the mother? Under the Insurance Act the mother is in the preferred class.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not included the mother. The insurance privilege applies only to the husband, wife, child, or children. I also move that the word " persons," in line 2 of page 25, be replaced by the word " person." It should be singular.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 30-avoidance of general assignment of book debts:
Hugh Guthrie: I move that the word "authorized" in the second line be struck out. It is improperly there.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 31, subsection 3-when transaction deemed a preference:
Hugh Guthrie: I move that subsection 3 be struck out. I suppose that there is no clause in any Bankruptcy Bill or any assignment and preferences -act which causes as much trouble to the bar, the public and the courts as the question raised in section 31 of the present Bill. It is drawn with the purpose of avoiding anything like a preference as between creditors, and at the same time with the idea of protecting whatever is a bona fide transaction. The first part of the clause is an adaptation of section 44 of the English Bankruptcy Act. It goes a little further than the language of the English Bankruptcy Act, and so do many of the Statutes of the provinces of Canada. We have declared in section 31, as drawn, that where a transaction is entered into with a view to giving a creditor preference over other creditors it shall be null and void, or where a transaction is one which has the effect of giving such creditor a preference over the others it shall be void as against the trustee. These last words are not in the English section but have been for many years in the Ontario Act, and, I think, in the Acts of a great many of the provinces of Canada.

An attempt was made in subsection 3 of section 3! to extend the law considerably because in that the drafter of the Bill undertook to define what should be deemed to have the effect of giving a creditor a preference. That is going a step beyond any legislation on the subject of bankruptcy as far as I know. A great many protests were received in regard to subsection 3. Many of the ablest lawyers have communicated .with me on the subject and various commercial bodies have also sent their representations. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think it would be wiser simply to eliminate subsection 3 altogether and in its place to substitute a clause which will be section 33 when we come to that section.
I therefore move that subsection 3 of section 31 be struck out.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 32-recovering proceeds if reconveyed:


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 32 I think is misplaced in so far as its order goes. I am going to move that this clause be numbered 33 and that sections 32 and 33 be transposed.
I therefore beg to move:
That clause 32 be numbered clause 33 and that clause 33 be replaced by clause 32.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 33 (now section 32)-protection of bona fide transactions without notice.
Hugh Guthrie: That clause is an innovation and goes farther than any legislation I am aware of up to the present time. It is open to the same objection as was section 31 subsection 3. After considering the matter and having the benefit of the best legal ability I have concluded that the clause should be struck out and a new clause substituted therefor almost identical with the clause that now appears in the Ontario Assignments and Preferences Act. The clause which I beg to move to take the place of clause 32 is as follows:
Nothing in the next preceding section of this Act shall apply to any bona fide sale or payment made in the ordinary course of trade or calling to an innocent purchaser or person ; nor to any payment of money to a creditor, nor to any bona fide conveyance, assignment, transfer or delivery over of any goods or property of any kind which is made in consideration of a present actual bona fide payment in money, or by way of security for a present actual bona fide advance of money, or which is made in consideration of a present actual bona fide sale or delivery of goods or other property where the money paid, or the goods or other property sold or delivered bear a fair
and reasonable relative value to the consideration thereof.
Section 32 as amended agreed to.
On section 37, paragraph 9-no action for dividend:


Hugh Guthrie: That was allowed to stand because I was not quite sure of the explanation of the language used. Subsection 9 provides that no action shall lie against the trustee for a dividend but that you shall apply summarily to the court for an order. The court may make an order and under the clause providing penalties, section 96, the trustee is subject to fine and imprisonment if he fails to obey 'the order. It makes provision for recovery of anything in the hands of the trustee very simple and expeditious.


Samuel William Jacobs: When we were discussing that subsection a few days ago there was a suggestion that the first portion of it should be left out. It reads:
No action for a dividend shall lie against the trustee.
It would then read
If the trustee refuses to pay any dividend the court may, if it thinks fit, order him to pay it, and also to pay out of his own money * interest thereon for the time that it is withheld and the costs of the application.
I cannot see the utility of having the first part of the section stand as it is.


Hugh Guthrie: The object is to prevent the estate from being put to undue costs or money being frittered away in needless actions. We do not want to permit an action to be taken because a summary application would be a cheaper process. The English Act forbids action being brought under the same circumstances.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are trying to arrive at the same idea. Why insert the words:
No action for a dividend shall lie against the trustee.
Why should they not be eliminated?


Hugh Guthrie: If these words were not there, the creditor could bring action and the estate might be let in for a lot of costs.


Samuel William Jacobs: That would be an action between the creditor and the trustee personally.


Hugh Guthrie: He might sue the trustee on behalf of the creditor and this is to prevent action being taken.

On section 37-paragraph 10-unclaimed dividends to be paid to Minister of Finance:


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that a subsection be added, as subsection 10 in the following language:
37. s.s. 10. It shall toe the duty of the trustee within six months after notice and distribution of final dividend has been given and made by him in accordance with this section to pay to the Minister of Finance all unclaimed dividends remaining in his hands.
(a) If such unclaimed dividends are afterwards duly claimed toy the creditors entitled thereto they shall be paid over to such creditors with accrued interest thereon.
This clause has been taken out of the Winding-Up Act.	-
Section as amended agreed to
0$ section 41-Discharge of trustee:


Hugh Guthrie: A question has been
raised under this section by various bodies. It has reference fo subsection 2, paragraph (a):
Such discharge may be granted,
(a) by resolution of the inspectors expressed in writing;
Objection has been taken to that provision. Some people think that the discharge should only be granted by a meeting * of creditors, not by inspectors; another suggestion is that the release should only be granted by the court. It was to permit of further consideration of that aspect of the matter, that the section was allowed to stand.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the latter proposition is the best. As the court has to deal with most of the matters involved here, it should have the power to grant a discharge.


Hugh Guthrie: How would it be if power were given to the creditors to do this at a meeting duly called or, in default of action by them, that the court should exercise the power? The idea, of course, is to avoid applications to t'he court as far as possible. The objection made is that the inspeetora and the trustee may be rather friendly in the matter, and one agree to release the other, and that would be the end of it. I think it would be a protection if the creditors were the persons authorized to grant the discharge, and failing them the court.


Samuel William Jacobs: The creditors will not go to a meeting.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the trouble, they will not go.	[DOT]
IMr. Guthrie.]


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition ought to be accepted.


Hugh Guthrie: I would accept it because I think it iis quite reasonable. I therefore, move ito amend clause 41 by striking out paragraph (a) and ithe letter (b) so that subsection 2 will then read:
*Such discharge may be granted toy order of the court.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 48-postponement of husband's claim:
Georges Henri Boivin: This clause was allowed to stand.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is a pretty good clause.


Samuel William Jacobs: Since the request was
made that - this clause should be allowed to stand I believe the Solicitor General has been in conference with several members of the bar of Quebec, and they seem fo be satisfied thait the clause should pass in its present form.


Mr. PEDLOW:: In reading over this
clause it seems to me to impose a hardship on a married woman whose husband has been adjudged 'bankrupt and who has obtained a loan of money from her. If she has an estate separate from it-hat of her husband why should she not receive the same consideration as lin the case of any other separate estate? For instance take the case of a married woman who has inherited property from her parents, which is entirely separate from the estate of her husband, and has advanced money to him to carry on his business.
I fail to see the wisdom or the fairness of the change. I think the wife is just as legally entitled as any outsider to rank as a creditor of that estate. Her money and her property are her own in that case, and she makes the loan as a purely business transaction so far as she and her husband are concerned. It seems to me, not looking at it from the legal aspect, but from the ordinary business aspect, that the woman should have the protection of the court for her estate as against her husband, and that he on his side should have similar protection against his wife.


Hugh Guthrie: It is the experience of all lawyers in the courts of this country that there is no door quite so open to all

kinds of manipulation and of wrong-doing in regard to financial matters, and particularly as they pertain to creditors, than the relationship that exists between husband and wife. I call my hon. friend's attention in the first place to the fact that this section applies only to the future. So that husbands and wives will know after this Bill becomes law that if they loan money one to the other for business or other purposes they are taking chances under this section, and their claims may be postponed to those of otljier creditors. The reason for the section is that in the majority of cases of assignment a husband or a wife prefers a large claim against the estate. It may be that the claim is perfectly valid in most cases, but there are many cases in which the claim: is decidedly invalid and should not be allowed to prevail as against the creditors. Such fictitious claims are so easily made and so hard to defeat that you must in some way protect ordinary creditors against them. To do so we must enact something such as we have attempted by section 48. That section has been largely used in England, and it will be used in this country, too, in future, I am sure. Case after case comes up when not only does the husband or the wife prefer a claim as a creditor for money loaned, but in addition a claim for wages. Those claims may be proper enough, but in future, if this Bill becomes law husbands and wives must take notice that such claims will only be paid after the claims of other creditors. If with that notice staring them in the face they allow their claims for wages to accumulate they will have to take the consequences. It is in order to defeat the large number of fictitious claims which are presented in cases of bankruptcy, that it has been found necessary, I think, in every civilized country which has a bankruptcy law to include a clause of this kind. If it had a retroactive effect I would not support it as I do; but it only applies to the future.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The enactment of this
clause absolutely precludes the advisability of a husband advancing money to his wife in case she is in business; or, where the wife has a bona fide estate of her own, it precludes the advisability of her making a loan to her husband. Therefore it would be much better apparently that she should make a loan to some other woman's husband.


Hugh Guthrie: She can do it through a third person and the transaction would be quite valid.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have no quarrel with the other items enumerated in this clause, but where the transaction between husband and wife is a bona fide one why should either be penalized? It seems to me that it should not be an impossible thing on investigation to determine between bona fide and bogus loans.


Hugh Guthrie: It has kept the courts pretty busy for the last generation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I might point out to my hon. friend from Renfrew South (Mr. Ped-low) that that is one of the risks and responsibilities which people incur when they marry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 51 was allowed to stand,-Priority of claims.


Hugh Guthrie: At the request of the
hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) I think that clause might be agreed to now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 52 was allowed to stand.-Right of landlords to distrain or realize rent to cease, but priority accorded.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this interfere in
any way with the common law right of landlords in respect to levying for rent?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a restriction. We have not at the present time a uniform law in all the provinces in regard to this matter. In the province of Ontario in case of assignment we allow the landlord one year of past due rent as a preference, and also three months future rent. I understand that in the province of Quebec the landlord can legally claim one year's future rent, and I think varying sums are permitted in the other provinces. The Committee which had this Bill in charge last year paid a great deal of attention to this section. It was urged that if we interfered with landlords' rights landlords would insist on stiffer terms when leases were negotiated, and that the rent probably would become payable in advance. However, a body representing almost thirty thousand retail merchants of this country, who ara the great tenant class among the merchants, appeared before the Committee and specifically approved the enactment. So far as they are concerned they are not afraid of the terms which may be imposed upon them by landlords in the future. This section provides that when bankruptcy proceedings take place the landlord's right

to a preference over other creditors shall be for rent for the last three months of the term, and it will be a first charge upon the estate. A landlord can always protect himself; he does not need to let his rent get three months in arrear. He has special privileges which other creditors do not possess; he can distrain the goods of his tenant and can realize at almost any moment. He is negligent if he allows his rent to become more than three months in arrear; and for the protection of the general creditors the Committee thought that three months was a fair and reasonable amount of rent to allow as a preference over the claims of other creditors. It was with that view that this section was drawn as it now appears. Of course, he is not deprived from claiming for all the rent due, but for anything beyond the three months he can only claim as an ordinary creditor. The Committee thought that was pretty fair treatment for the landlord, and it would be a good thing to make it uniform throughout Canada.
We must bear in mind that landlords have always been creatures whom our legislation and British legislation have favoured from time immemorial. Our present law of landlord and tenant is a relic of the feudal system and was made when landlords sat in Parliament, but tenants did not. Up to fifty or sixty years ago the law was so onesided in favour of the landlord that it was practically a disgrace. Gradually the hardships have been ameliorated by legislation; but to-day in Ontario a landlord is permitted too large a claim, in my humble judgment, when he is allowed one year of arrears and three months advance rent in the case'of assignment. I do not know what view the Committee will take of the clause, but in my judgment it is a very fair one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I would ask the Committee to refer to clause 55. I have given a good deal of thought to it, having regard to the discussion which took place on the question of absconding debtors. It will be remembered that at the last meeting of the Committee considerable discussion took place as to what provision we should insert. I_find that the dictionary meaning of the term " abscond " is:
To remove one's self from the jurisdiction of the court; to place one's self in hiding.
In my judgment, and it has been confirmed by the conferences I have had with some very prominent lawyers both from

Ontario and Quebec, I think the section would be improved if we inserted the words " from Canada " after the word " abscond ". The section would then read: " Abscond from Canada." It must be remembered that the Act has Dominion wide application. The mere fact that a debtor goes from one province to another would hardly in my judgment constitute absconding; he is still within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and he is not in hiding.
Therefore I move:
To amend! section 55 by adding the words "from Canada" after the word "abscond" in the twelfth line of the said section at p. 44 of the Bill.
It will then read:
If, after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, it appears to the court that there is probable reason for believing that he has absconded, or Us about to abscond from Canada, with a view of avoiding payment of the debt in respect of which the bankruptcy petition was filed, or of avoiding appearance to any such petition or of avoiding examination in respect of his affairs or of otherwise avoiding, delaying or embarrassing proceedings in bankruptcy against him.


Edmond Proulx: Canada is a very large country. A man might go from Nova Scotia to British Columbia and be a long distance from his creditors. I would prefer to keep the section as it is.


Hugh Guthrie: Members of the bar of Ontario and Quebec advise me that the section would be improved by the suggested amendment, because there is a jurisdiction of these courts all over Canada. If a man goes to another province in Canada he may be got at there under the courts constituted by this Act.
Amendment agreed 'to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 63-Courts jurisdiction.


Hugh Guthrie: An amendment was
adopted to this section which declared that these courts should be additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada under section 101 of the British North America Act. At the last sitting of the Committee I could not see how that amendment could prejudice the working of the Act, although I did not think it was a necessary amendment. However, having obtained the benefit of the advice of the leading members of the bar of Quebec and Ontario, I am inclined to think that the amendment had better be
5 p.m. struck out. As one eminent constitutional authority told me, the amendment is an untried experiment which

had better be left alone. He pointed out that our own clause (was just as wide as, and perhaps wider than, the similar clause in the Winding-Up Act, under which the provincial courts obtain their jurisdiction. The clause as originally printed is of equal import, even broader in its language, because our courts are declared to have original, auxiliary and ancillary jurisdiction. I therefore move that the amendment made to this section be struck out and that the section be adopted as printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section as originally printed agreed to.
On section 74-court may review, etc.:
Hugh Guthrie: This is the section which deals with appeals. It has been brought to my attention that there is no provision for an appeal where a debtor has been granted a discharge or where the creditors or the judge refuse to grant him a discharge. I think there is some reason for allowing an appeal under those circumstances. I therefore move that the following be added as paragraph (d) of subsection 2:
(d) if tlhe question to be raised on the appeal involves the granting or refusal of a discharge to the bankrupt or assignor where the aggregate claims of unpaid creditors exceeds five hundred dollars.
So that if the discharge is granted and the creditors object or the discharge is refused and the debtor object, either party may appeal, provided the aggregate amount of the indebtedness.unpaid is over $500.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that we restrict
by section 74 the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Such appeal may not be allowed unless special leave to appeal is obtained from the judge of the Appeal Court. Why is that?


Hugh Guthrie: The /tendency in modern law making is to discourage multiplicity of appeals.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely the debtor is vitally interested in having his case brought before i,he highest court in the land when the question of his discharge is concerned. Why should appeal he restricted in so important a matter as discharge from bankruptcy, or anything arising out of bankruptcy5 Why should the clause not read as follows:
(3) The decision of the appeal court upon any such appeal shall (be final and conclusive unless appeal therefrom is taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly it was our
view that appeals should be limited. I am heartily in sympathy with that limitation.


Samuel William Jacobs: As a lawyer, or as a lawmaker?


Air. COCKSHUTT:: Suppose the claim
is $500, and part of it is disputed and part is not. Does the $500 apply to the amount in dispute or to the amount of the claim as a whole?


Hugh Guthrie: It applies to the amount " involved," which is the word used. I fancy that would be the amount in dispute.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 76-application to limited partnerships.
Samuel William Jacobs: When this section was
previously before the Committee, it was pointed out that a limited partnership, at least in Quebec, is in many respects similar to the interest of a stockholder in a joint stock company, and it was suggested that the whole clause should be allowed to stand over for further consideration. Has the Solicitor General had views from the Bars of the various provinces regarding this matter?


Hugh Guthrie: We had quite a discussion on this matter in Committee and since then I have not heard of it. In Ontario, we have a law regarding limited partnerships, but in my experience I have never come across any. The clause will have a very limited application and is inserted in case anything in the way of limited partnerships should arise.


Samuel William Jacobs: In Quebec, limited partnerships are quite common. A man may want to invest, say $10,000 in a business. Under a limited partnership, he may invest that money, but he must not have any dealings with the affairs of the business; his name must not appear in the firm, and he must not be engaged in any way in the business. He simply puts up his money as if he were investing it in a joint stock company. If anything goes wrong with that company, the individual, who has lent his money in the way indicated, should not be subject to the provisions of this legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: He is dealt with just
as he would be in England. We have copied this section precisely from the words of the English Act. He is protected from everything the English statute would protect him from.


Samuel William Jacobs: Gan the party who advances his money in this way as a limited
COMMONS [DOT]
partner be thrown into bankruptcy if the business becomes insolvent?


Hugh Guthrie: In like manner, as if a limited partnership were an ordinary partnership.	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: 1 can understand this applying to members composing the partnership itself, but not the limited partner.


Hugh Guthrie: The party's liability
would still be limited to the amount he invested.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is to say, he would be treated like an ordinary stockholder in a joint stock company?


Hugh Guthrie: The partnership would be wound up as an ordinary partnership, but there would be a limitation of liability according as the partnership was formed, and the liability of any partner who was under that limitation would not be increased beyond that limitation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Archambault the Committee reverted to the consideration of section 8.
On section^-application of part 1.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I desire to move .an amendment to this clause. I object to the application of Part I of the Bill to non-traders. This is the first time that there has been brought into the House of Commons of Canada a Bankruptcy Act which includes non-traders in its application. The Bankruptcy Act of 1875, which was repealed in 1879, and the Bill introduced in 1897 by Mr. Fortin, who is now judge of the Superior Court, did not apply to non-traders. I have gone carefully over legislation on bankruptcy of different countries, and I believe the only countries in which Bankruptcy Acts apply to nontraders are Great Britain and the United States. In Prance, Belgium and other countries, the Acts do not apply to nontraders. My principal objection to the extension of the law to non-traders is this: The enforcement of a bankruptcy law is a serious matter; it means a searching investigation into the affairs of a man by his creditors. It is encroaching on private rights. It allows the creditors to find out private secrets of all kinds and, in fact, it is a grave violation of property rights. The debtor ceases to have charge of his business and his creditors take his place and as Thallier says in his study on bankruptcy, only the most important reasons can justify such an action. The necessi-
[Mr. Jacobs.)
ties of trade afford Parliament an opportunity of adopting such measures, although this is clearly odious to private rights. Credit requires such legislation, such violation of the liberty of the proprietor, and business cannot dispense with it. In what position would a trader be if he could not obtain credit from his banker or other creditors? That is the reason for a bankruptcy law. The law should give the banker or other creditors the assurance that if the debtor should fail, a trustee will be named who will take charge of his assets for the benefit of all creditors, present or absent. Otherwise, without this law there would be no protection for the creditors in contingencies against which no one can be safeguarded. In business relations many creditors now reside far away from their debtors, while other debtors are more easily accessible. If the insolvency law were abolished, creditors living near the debtor and being consequently more in touch with him than those who are distant, would seize his assets first, to the prejudice of those living far away; and without insolvency legislation there would be this further effect, that only cash sales would be made. There would be no more credit, and in consequence practically no trade. This consideration, however, does not, I submit,
. apply to non-traders. The judge, the doctor, the lawyer, or the professional man lives on his income or his salary, and has no justification in living beyond his means. His profession should preclude the necessity of speculations inherent to trade, and if he obtains credit it is not on the guarantee of any assets but merely on his personal promise to pay, and his creditors will wait until he receives his income. Unlike the case of the trader, to whom credit is a business necessity, society is not interested whether the man who receives a salary gets credit or not. Admitting that the non-trader contracts debts, it is highly improbable that his creditors will either be so numerous or most of them so far distant that some living in proximity to the debtor will reap all the benefits to the prejudice of the others. Besides that, there is a constitutional viewpoint to consider. I will grant for a moment that the law of bankruptcy in regard to the trader, even if it touches civil rights and property, as it necessarily does, is within the province of the federal power. But I contend that subsection 21 of section 91 of The British North America Act evidently conferred such power, because it pertained to the trade and commerce legislation, which is exclusively within the purview of the Federal

Government. I am sure, however, that the intention of the legislators in reference to subsection 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which gives the province control of legislation in regard to property and civil rights, was not to extend the bankruptcy legislation to anything outside trade and commerce, and it would undoubtedly go beyond their intention if this law -were made applicable to nontraders. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Jacobs:
That subsection 1 of clause 8 be amended by striking out all the words after the first line of said section, beiing line 21 of nage 8, and substituting the following words: " non traders."


Hugh Guthrie: The motion raises a
point upon which there might be considerable argument. There is no doubt that in the Insolvency Bill of 1375 an attempt was made to confine the operation of that Act to traders, and one of the objections to the Act always was that it was so confined. It is contended that there is a large class of non-traders who are 'debtors and should be treated as ordinary citizens of the country, amenable to the ordinary laws, whether of bankruptcy or otherwise. Another difficulty is to give anything like an adequate definition of the word "trader." The definition in the Act of 1875 was certainly defective, but it covers almost two pages of typewritten matter, defining almost all classes of business enterprise we know in Canada. But still it would not suffice for a definition at the present time, because we have a great many avenues of trade and commerce today that were not in existence then. So that it would be extremely difficult to define just who were and who were not traders. In England the experience has been that the Act should apply generally to all classes. I think that about fifty years ago, in the sixties, the Act was limited to traders, but after an experience of some years, that Act was extended, and the British and the United States Acts to-day both apply to all classes of the people in regard not only to obligations created by the Act, but to the benefits which are conferred upon the honest debtor in the way of obtaining his discharge. I know, however, that in France, Belgium, and one or two other continental countries the bankruptcy Acts are still confined to traders. Having heard from as many public commercial bodies as I could upon the subject, and having heard a long discussion in the Special Committee by a great many interested classes, I concluded, and the Committee concluded, that this Bill, in order to have a fair chance of
operation, should be made general in its application. For instance, it was urged by the very large association of retail merchants which has a membership in Canada of some 30,000, that it was unfair to them to put all the imposition on their shoulders and allow them none of the benefits. As it was pointed out that one of the great debtor classes was professional people, the question was asked, why should they not be included? and the Committee took that view. My o-wn view is that if you are to give the Act a fair chance of success you must extend it beyond the trading classes. If it should prove to be burdensome or to be an undue imposition upon the people, within a year of its operation there would be a demand for its repeal. But I do not think it will be burdensome. On the contrary, I think it will be a great benefit to both the debtor and the creditor classes, and I certainly support the present generality of its terms.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Why not include the farming classes?


Hugh Guthrie: A special case was made out on behalf of the farming classes. It is said that the farmer is very much more subject to unforeseen accidents than any other class of people in the community. He may be solvent to-day, with bright prospects for the coming year, and when everything looks promising he may experience a disastrous accident. He could be put into bankruptcy by reason of his inability during a season to meet maturing liabilities, and he might be sold out and his farm taken from him. But in the ordinary course, if he were given another year or two, he would have big crops and be on his feet again and be re-established. He might be the victim of natural causes beyond his control, and for that reason the Act was not made to apply either to the farmer or to the small wage-earner.


Samuel William Jacobs: I support the hon. member for Chambly and Yercheres in his amendment that the provisions of part 1 of the Act shall apply only to .traders. My reason for supporting the amendment is that if we force into bankruptcy the nontrading classes we may have a condition of affairs in this country which may amount to something approaching a scandal. For instance, there may be men [DOT]who now occupy high positions in this country -on the Bench, and in Parliament, and others occupying public positions,-who would be forced into bankruptcy by this

Act at the whim and caprice of persons who for some reason might desire to embarrass them.


Hugh Guthrie: We have provided against malicious proceedings.


Samuel William Jacobs: It might not appear to be malicious; the debtor may owe money which he cannot pay. Suppose a public man has incurred the ill-will of a political opponent. Knowing that this public man is not in a position to pay his debts at the moment he could, under this Bill, force him out of public life and into the bankruptcy court.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be malicious.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not necessarily.


Hugh Guthrie: Any indirect motive is malicious.


Samuel William Jacobs: The onus will be on the party against whom the petition is granted to show that he is in a position to pay his debts and if he cannot show that he must go into bankruptcy.


Hugh Guthrie: It will only apply to future and not to past debts.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Solicitor General seems to think that in future every person in public life is going to be in a position to pay his debts. The fact that a man is in public life is a sort of presumption that he is not in a position to pay his debts. Take the case of judges on the bench. There may be men who are obliged to go on the bench because they are not able to make a living at the bar and in addition have gone behind. These men might be forced into bankruptcy and no judge could possibly continue to occupy his position under such circumstances. The remark that the Solicitor General made to the effect that these people should not be above the law has no force, for the reason that you make them amenable to the law if they wish to take advantage of it by voluntarily applying to be put in bankruptcy. There will be nothing in this section, if amended, to prevent any person from taking advantage of the Act and voluntarily going into bankruptcy. The objection I take is that men who are not traders are going to be forced into bankruptcy in the same way as the ordinary trader. In the case of the trading class it is incidental to the business that they must owe money. In a case of the non-trading class it is accidental that they should owe . money. The Solicitor General would oe well advised if he accepted the amendment of my hon. friend from Chambly.
[ Mr. Jacobs. ]


William Foster Cockshutt: It appears to me that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Chambly is altogether too broad and would cut out from the operation of the Act a large number who might not be classified by trade.


Samuel William Jacobs: It does not cut them out from the operation of the Act. They may voluntarily go into bankruptcy.


William Foster Cockshutt: It does not bring them under the operation of the Act. It says that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to non-traders.


Joseph Archambault: My idea is that they may not be forced into bankruptcy but of course they can go into bankruptcy voluntarily if they wished to. It has only reference to that part of the Act which applies to forced assignments.


William Foster Cockshutt: A professional man who is receiving large amounts of investment funds very often gets into trouble-


Samuel William Jacobs: Then he goes to jail.


William Foster Cockshutt: -by not investing these funds in accordance with his client's wishes. Should he not be amenable to the law? He might be a non-trader. We should be very careful in defining what a non-trader should include.


Samuel William Jacobs: The case which the hon. gentleman mentions is one that may occur but the party who misappropriates or embezzles funds is imprisoned. He can take advantage of the Act, come before the court but not get a discharge. The man who applies voluntarily for bankruptcy can obtain his discharge under the wording of the amendment. We want to make'some distinction between traders and non-traders. This question has been discussed not only in this House but outside of it and the general impression was that the Solicitor General would agree to this amendment. I was somewhat' surprised to find that for some reason known to himself he has declined to agree .to it.
Amendment (Mr. Archambault) negatived.
On section 14, subsection 4-general security to be given by trustee:


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move to amend this section by adding thereto the following words:
If the security required is provided in cash the trustee shall he entitled to he paid thereon such interest as may be prescribed by the general rules.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Customs) Bill No. 53 to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act read a second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On paragraph (d), seotion 2-Proprietary or pa/tent medicines:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to move
an amendment by inserting in line 22, after the word " minister," the words:
The national formulary of the United States of America.
Which is merely another pharmacopoeia standard.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On section 2, subsection (2)-Appointment of agent:	.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose to
amend the subsection by striking out the word " manufacturer " in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof the word " proprietor." In the third line I propose to strike out the word " proprietor " and substitute the word "manufacturer."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 3, subsection (1)-Certificate of registration:	,
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose to
strike out the words " and every " in the second line and substitute therefor the words " or the." The sentence will then read:
Every manufacturer of a proprietary or patent medicine, or the agent
and so on. That means the agent of the manufacturer who does not reside in Canada.


Mr. STEELE:: Would the retail druggist who manufactures some special line or article be included under the term " manufacturer " in this seotion? If so it seems 'to me that it would be an injustice that the retail druggist who perhaps manufactures one or two preparations and sells them should be compelled to pay the same fee as a wholesale manufacturer of patent medicines who perhaps sells preparations to the amount of $100,000 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The answer to
the point raised by the hon. gentleman is contained in the definition of " proprietary
or patent medicine " in the second section of the Bill. The definition applies to " every artificial remedy or prescription manufactured for the interna] or external use of man, the name, composition or definition of which is not to be found in the British Pharmacopoeia," and so on. If the pharmaceutical preparation to which my hon. friend refers is not to be found in any of the pharmacopoeia mentioned under the definition of " proprietary medicines " then the Act will not apply to it. Otherwise it would be a proprietary medicine.


Michael Steele: We may take it then that many of the medicines that are put up by the retail druggists and sold by them in their own shops in limited quantities would come under the designation of " proprietary medicines," and before such retail druggists could sell these articles they would have to pay a fee of $2.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Michael Steele: It seems to me that if the fee were reduced to $1, and it could not well be any less, it would remove some of the injustice which will otherwise result. I also think that the wholesale manufacturer might well pay a larger fee than $2.


Mr. BELAND :: * Hear, hear.


Michael Steele: I would imagine that the wholesale manufacturer would be getting off exceedingly light if he is made subject to a less fee than $25.


Mr. KEEFER:: I want to ask the minister a question about affixing the revenue stamps on these patent medicines. That has to be done, to-day, I understand by the druggist when he sells the article.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That has reference to a revenue Bill.


Francis Henry Keefer: Is not the practice such as I have stated ?
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN": Yes.


Francis Henry Keefer: I have had some complaints from druggists saying that this requirement was very unreasonable and unfair. Why should not the wholesaler be compelled, especially now that he is required to register, to put on all the revenue stamps needed at the time he ships his goods out? Why should the druggist be compelled to look after the manufacturers' business and be liable to a fine if he does not do so? Several very reputable druggists have made representations to me asking if they could not get some relief from this obligation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should be very glad to convey to the Minister of Finance the remarks of my hon. friend which have reference to the taxation measures of the country. I stated here a few days ago-in what connection I just forget-that when the Finance Act, I think of 1914, was introduced, and which taxed patent medicines among other things, it was provided that the tax be paid by the wholesaler. Representations were later made to the Minister of Finance by wholesalers which had the effect of inducing him to abandon that form of applying the tax. I am of the opinion that the obstacles in the way of carrying out -the original intention to .which the wholesalers alluded are quite substantial. The wholesaler imports a great many patent medicines in packages containing a gross, or two gross of bottles, and if he were obliged to open the package and put the required stamp on each bottle it would be highly inconvenient.


Francis Henry Keefer: It is much more inconvenient to the local druggists to do that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I admit it is quite inconvenient. However, the hon. gentleman's point might be much more suitably raised when the Budget is under consideration.


Francis Henry Keefer: Why should not the manufacturer put on the stamps?
Mr. A. K. (MACLEAN: I have endeavoured to give my hon. friend one reason why it is difficult for him to do so.


Francis Henry Keefer: That is in the case of importations, but the same difficulty would not exist in the case of patent medicines of local manufacture.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The manufacturer might sell other medicines in bulk, and the retailer might perhaps put those medicines up in smaller packages and sell them by retail. In that case the wholesaler would have no opportunity of affixing the stamps.


Francis Henry Keefer: There is an excellent opportunity nowr to require them to register. Why not issue a regulation?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: That I thought might very well come up later when the Budget is before the House. With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend from South Perth as to clause 3, I propose submitting an amendment by which the manufacturer will be entitled to have the tax refunded, if he is able to prove to the satisfaction of the minister that his sales have been less than $25 a year. The tax of $2 refers to
air. Keefer.]
each patent medicine and is quite a substantial burden in some cases.
Mr. JOHN A. STEWART: The question of affixing the stamp was very fully canvassed when the Act was passed. The retail drug trade, as well as the manufacturers, were heard and the present practice was the result. One argument advanced at the time in favour of that practice wras that the stamp was intended as a w'ar tax, and to be paid not by the manufacturer or by the druggist, but by the purchaser or consumer.


Francis Henry Keefer: It always is paid by the consumer, no matter where it is put on.


Mr. J. A. STEWART:: Yes. I am giving you the argument advanced at the time. If the stamp were affixed by the manufacturer the cost would be added to the invoice price and would be paid for by the druggist when he paid for the goods. Therefore the druggist would have a capital investment of the value of the stamps affixed to all articles on his shelves which were liable under the Act; and, this being a war tax, when it was repealed, as it logically would be at the conclusion of the war, the druggist would still have everything on his shelves stamped which under the Act had been subject to this stamp duty, while the purchaser of new goods subsequently purchased would be relieved of the amount of the tax. That was the consideration that carried weight, and I have reason to believe that many of the retail druggists are not averse to the present practice. There is no possible question, though, that the tax might very well come off altogether, because it is stated that 62i per cent of the revenue has 'gone in expenses of collection and inforcement. There is undoubtedly a very strong agitation on the part of retail druggists to have the tax done away with altogether. But I have reason to believe there is some difference of opinion in regard to any change in the manner of collection if it is to continue, for the reasons I have stated.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the
Committee before any other hon. gentleman rises to speak that a discussion of the question of inland revenue stamps on patent medicines is not in order in connection with this Bill.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: This will come up
when the Budget is before the House. We are losing our time.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: I would like
to support the point brought up by the member for Perth South (Mr. Steele). Two dollars is not a sufficient fee. I think it

is absolutely ridiculous to let any firm off with a yearly fee of $2 for making patent medicines, especially in these times when revenue is in such demand.


Michael Steele: To make it clearer, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the custom of the retail druggists of Ontario-I can only speak of them-is that each will have probably a line of goods which he puts up and sells for his own profit; he may have two or three or as many as ten or fifteen remedies of his own prescription. Very seldom does he do any wholesale business. If he has to pay $2 for the registration of the formula of each of these remedies it is a fairly heavy tax, and at the maximum would mean $30. The wholesale druggist may be manufacturing two or three lines, but selling thousands of dollars worth, and only paying a tax of $4, $6, or $8, while the retail druggist is paying two or three times that amount on his small sales. It may be an argument that the Act cannot be enforced against retail druggists. But if it is enforced over every part of the country as strictly as any other Act is enforced, I think it will work a great injustice against retail druggists who manufacture their own lines of patent medicines.
Mr. ANODER'SON:	If a druggist puts
these prescriptions on his counter, and a person comes in complaining of bronchitis, and the druggist says, " I have a remedy," and hands him a bottle from the counter, he is practising medicine contrary to the Act. I think if this Bill is passed he will be precluded from that practice, because it says that no medicine shall be given out as a proprietary medicine for any specific disease.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a man desires to register the formula and the name of his medicine he has only (to do that once, and it would cost him, under the law as it now stands, $2. That protects his proprietary rights in that patent medicine.


Mr. COWAN:: For how long?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For ever. I do not think we can distinguish between the wholesaler and the retailer. Besides, I can assure the Committee that the retailer is not objecting to this charge of $2; we are instructed that it is quite satisfactory. Further on in the Act you will find that any manufacturer of proprietary medicine must also pay annually, for a license to sell, a fee of one dollar in respect to each, medicine.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I do not think this fee of $2 is enough, because we are flooded with all kinds of patent medicines in which there is practically nothing to help the health of the public. We should impose a higher tax just to prevent the flooding of the market with such nostrums.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hardly think you could restrict the manufacture of patent medicine by increasing the fee.


Francis Henry Keefer: A fee of two dollars seems trivial for the privilege of a trade mark registration for all time to come.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fee is small for the registration of all trade marks.
On subsection 2-contents:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Later in the Bill it is proposed to establish, an Advisory Council Section 7 A (2) will provide:
The advisory hoard shall have power to prescribe what shall be deemed a sufficient medication of medicines containing alcohol in excess of two and a half per cent to make them unfit for use as beverages.
There is a considerable agitation in all the provinces in connection with the sale of patent medicines and the fact that they are too high in alcoholic content. Any patent medicines containing over two and one half per cent of alcohol must be approved by the Advisory Council before they can be sold. I wish to amend this section by inserting after the word "registration" on the second line the following:
Or any medicine containing more than two and a half per cent of alcohol or containing any of the drugs mentioned in or added to the schedule of the Act.
We are not amending the schedule, which contains a list of dangerous drugs which can be used only with the consent or permission of the Advisory Council. Two and a half per cent is fixed by reason of the fact that in no province is that alcoholic content in drugs or patent medicines prohibited.
I wish to amend the subsection further by striking out the words "essential formula and composition of such medicine" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "quantity of alcohol or of such drug or drugs contained in such medicine." This will put the Advisory Board in a position to determine whether the alcoholic content is in excess of two and a half per cent, and will also give information as to the drug or drugs contained in such medicine. The section as it now stands requires the disclosure of the essential formula and com-



position of the medicine. It was deemed possible that that would be unfair, because it would compel the proprietor to disclose all knowledge relating to his property.
Amendment agreed 'to; subsection as amended - agreed to.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3, subsection 3-preparation of medicine to be supervised:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move:
That in section 3, subsection 3, the following words be deleted:
" The preparation of the medicine shall be continuously supervised by a pharmacist legally qualified in the province In which the medicine fe being prepared."
And the following words substituted in place thereof:
" Whenever required by the minister, for good cause shown, the preparation of any medicine containing more than two and one-half per cent of alcohol, or containing any drug included in the schedule to this Act, shall be continuously supervised by a pharmacist, a chemist, or other qualified person."
The purpose is that the preparation shall be continuously supervised only when required by the minister. In many cases it was deemed by the trade too expensive to require this supervision, and the officers of the department thought that a clause along the lines of this proposed amendment would ensure sufficient protection to the public.
Mr. PETER MoGIBBOiN: Surely such companies are not manufacturing medicine for the public without having trained men in charge, and if they have trained men in charge, it does not seem to be necessary to amend the clause.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to have the sense of the Committee on the matter. There are many preparations known as proprietary or patent medicines which are very simple of preparation, which are not dangerous and which are sometimes made in a small way. While there is a great deal to be said in favour of the maintenance of the clause as it is, I thought that if the minister were empowered to direct supervision whenever he thought it was necessary, that would be sufficient protection.


Charles Sheard: There is considerable justification for the amendment. I presume the object is to permit the dispensing of medi-

cines in the ordinary drug store by a pharmaceutical student who would not be a legally qualified pharmacist. If, under the section as it stands, every prescription brought into a drug store has to be dispensed by a duly licensed druggist, I can quite see the need for this amendment, because it would be impossible to conduct a drug business on any such arrangement.
Mr. PETER MoGIiBBON: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Sheard) has grasped the point at all. As I understand it, we are allowing anybody without any training at all to manufacture these medicines, and to use some of the most dangerous drugs in the pharmacopoeia. I think the amendment is dangerous.


Walter Davy Cowan: Neither of the two hon. members seem to have grasped the idea. As I understand it, this proposes that an unqualified person may put up preparations which do not contain dangerous drugs. But that is not the danger. This unqualified person may he putting up nondangerous drugs in a place where there are dangerous drugs, and he might easily mix dangerous drugs in what is really a simple preparation. Therefore, we should not allow unqualified persons to handle these things at all. In every drug store there is a competent druggist. Why not let him supervise every preparation that is put up?


Michael Steele: I think a better amendment to this clause would he to insert after the word "pharmacist" the words "or a chemist, or other person registered as such in the province." I quite agree that qualified persons only should be entrusted with this work, but there are in Canada wholesale manufacturers employing as chemists men who are absolutely qualified but who are not registered pharmacists. My suggested amendment would also cover the case of medical men, of whom there are many, operating drug stores throughout the country, who are registered as pharmacists or druggists and who are supposed to be quite well qualified to supervise the preparation of these medicines, and yet who would not wish to employ registered duly qualified pharmacists every time .they wished to make up a few dozens of a simple preparation which they sell over the drug store counter.


John Alexander Stewart: The hon. member for South Perth states in a fairly accurate way the condition that exists in most of the laboratories of the manufacturing phar-

macists. The fact is that many chemists in charge of work with manufacturing pharmacists in Canada to-day are chemists who have come out from England, and the suggestion made by the hon. member is a good one. The amendment proposes that where a preparation is to contain more than 21 per cent of alcohol or to contain any drug included in the schedule, it is necessary that the preparing of it should be continuously supervised by a legally qualified pharmacist or chemist. In putting up many of the other preparations which do not contain any of the drugs included in the schedule, or alcohol in excess of the proportion stated, the manufacturers are equally interested with the public, and there has been no complaint in the past as to the sufficiency of the supervision with the manufacturers.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand the hon.
member for South Perth is going to submit a sub-amendment.
Subsection stands.
On section 5-license to sell; fee; term.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Earlier in the
evening I referred to a proposed amendment to this section. The first part of the section reads:
Every manufacturer of a proprietary or patent medicine shall apply annually for a license to sdll such medicine, and shall pay an annual fee of one dollar for each such license.
I move that the section be amended by adding after the word "license" the following words:
Provided that if at the end of the year, the manufacturer is able to prove to the satisfaction of the minister, that his sales of any registered article for the year amounted to less than twenty-five dollars, the license fee paid may be repaid to him.
This is to meet the case mentioned by some hon. gentleman this afternoon in dealing with another clause. A man might take out a license for $2 and pay a further license fee for selling, and his total sales for the year might he very small.


William Duff: Why should the license fee be so low in the case of the manufacturer of a patent medicine and so high in connection with fertilizers? This afternoon we passed an Act compelling the manufacturer of fertilizers to pay $8, $16 and $24 for licenses, and the manufacturers of patent medicines, which to my mind, in a great many cases, should not be allowed to be sold, pay only a small license fee of a dollar. I think the fee in regard to patent
158i
medicines should be made $24 and in regard to fertilizers $1.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is one reason why the fee in the case of fertilizers should be larger. The officers of the department must travel throughout the country administering the Fertilizers Act, and scientific determination of the ingredients of fertilizers is not an easy matter and can be carried out only by scientific men. On the other hand, the registration of a patent does not entail a great deal of work on the department, and after all it is merely for the purposes of a record. The registration number is open to the public and any one can get all the information that goes with the registration by application to Ottawa. In the one case there is considerable work on the part of the department and in the other there is not.


William Duff: I cannot agiee with the
minister's explanation. I th'nk it is more important to the people that inspectors of the department should analyse patent medicines than that they should analyse fertilizers. The matter is twisted. We are really considering provisions that should be incorporated in the Fertilizers Act, so far as license fees are concerned. It is important that the public should be safeguarded, and if there is any inspection to be done it is more necessary in the case of fertilizers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under both this and the Fertilizers Act we are protecting the public. This is not a revenue Act.


William Duff: Why should the Fertilizers Act he a revenue Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not a revenue Act. The license is simply to secure some revenue to contribute to the expenses of the administration of the Act, and that is all that is intended here. If it is proposed to secure revenue .from the sale of drugs, that is a matter that could be considered in discussing the Budget or revenue Bills.


William Duff: I think the fee should be at least $20.


Walter Davy Cowan: I do not agree with the hon. member. I think the minister is absolutely right. This is not a revenue Act. Its purpose is to regulate the business and see that people get the drugs they pay for and nothing else. If we want to make a revenue out of the sale of drugs the Minister of Finance can get after these people, and it does not matter to me how hard he goes after them. But let the proper department deal with that matter.

Mr. PETEK MeGIBBON: Would the revenue derived from a fee of $1 make the department in charge of this work self-supporting? It seems to me that this department like every other ought to be self-supporting.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is a very pertinent question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	We are making provision for an advisory board, the members of which I presume will have to be paid salaries. If a fee of $1 is sufficient to meet the expenses of the department, I see no reason to increase it; but the department should be made self-supporting.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry I cannot
give my hon. friend very accurate information. The administration of the Act will probably cost about $30,000 a year, and I think the license fee proposed should contribute very substantially to the cost of administration. If after a year's experience it is considered that a higher fee should be imposed, a further amendment can be made. For the time being I think the proposed license fee is reasonable.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister has by him an officer of his department. Perhaps he can tell the Committee how many licenses are paid for and issued in the course of a year. Then we can form an idea as to what proportion of the expenditure is met by this extra tax of $1.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Heretofore the manufacturer of patent medicines was required to secure but one license covering the whole range of his production and one fee covered, say two hundred productions. Under this Bill he must register each patent or proprietary medicine and must pay the fee upon each. By reason of our legislation, as it has stood up to the present time, the department is not in a position to give the information which my hon. friend asks. If this Bill becomes law, all patent medicines must be registered and in a year we will have a very accurate idea of the number that are being made in Canada and the revenue they will afford.
I imagine there are quite a number of patent medicines made in Canada to-day.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: As I said before, I do not see why we impose a tax of only one dollar on patent medicine. The people are flooded "with all sorts of patent medicines. When a druggist wants to sell a new patent medicine he will not be deterred from doing so by a tax of one dollar. He will try to multiply his patent medicines in order to

make the people swallow them. If we impose a tax of $5 or $25 on each patent medicine he wants to put on the market he will be a little more careful about it. I propose to amend that section by substituting the word "five" for the word "one" so as to make the tax $5 instead of $1. You have Wampole's cod liver oil and Wampole's hypo-phosphate; they pay only $1 a year and they perhaps make millions of dollars out of them. I am told there is no more cod liver oil in the former preparation than there is in the finger on one of my hands.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Will the minister tell us how this law will operate? I do not know if he is aware that most of the druggists buy, for example syrup of white pine tar. Some of it is made by Parke, Davis & Co., some by John Weyth & Co., of Philadelphia, some by Sharpe & Dohme, and some by Frost, If there is a license imposed upon that article the manufacturers, such as Sharpe and Dohme, manufacture for each of the druggists and put the druggist's name upon it. If this Act is going to operate in this way, how much does the minister think that he is going to get out of it? He will get millions of dollars. The druggists are paying for it whether the patent medicine is manufactured by Sharpe & Dohme, John Weyth & Company or the other manufacturers. This is looking at the question from the druggists' point of view. All those proprietary medicines that we see on the druggists' shelves are made in the same way by such manufacturers I have mentioned. These are all standard firms, their goods are of a high class, and if you impose this license every druggist will have to pay on the same article.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the consumer
will have to pay.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: The consumer will
have to pay. I suppose in the city of Ottawa there are fifty druggists. Fifty druggists will have to take out a license to sell syrup of white pine tar, or some other syrup. There ought to be some provision safeguarding this point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does my hon.
friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) say that the license should be $5?.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I want to press my
amendment just to know what the country thinks about it.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is already one
amendment to the subsection. We had per-

haps better carry that amendment before taking up the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Gauvreau).
{Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	The proposed
amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Gauvreau) is rather a negative to the motion to pass this clause. I do not know what is in my hon. friend's mind when he proposes this resolution. Does he propose it with the view of exterminating, limiting or curtailing the manufacture of patent medicines; or does he suggest it for the purpose of adding to the revenue?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Certainly, it is to increase the revenue, and to prevent people from flooding the market with patent medicines that are good for nothing.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; In any event I think my hon. friend's resolution is not well founded. This is not a revenue Bill.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I will withdraw that and I will say it is' to prevent manufacturers from flooding the country with patent medicines.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; The manufacture of patent medicine is either a fair business or it ought not to exist at all. You cannot fairly and justly treat it as being different from any other class of business. True, in its very nature, it must be carefully carried on. There must be safeguards. That is one of the purposes of amending the Act this session. But we have no right to endeavour to reduce the manufacture of patent or proprietary medicines by restricting it in any way by taxation. That is not a good business and not good legislation, and I cannot accept the amendment whatever be the view of the Committee. If my hon. friend means that we should get more revenue from it, then I say that is the duty of the Minister of Finance. I have not a very intimate personal acquaintance with the patent medicine business. I have no doubt it is of use to some extent and serves purposes, and particularly for poor people. There are a nymber of people who really think that the manufacture of proprietary medicines plays a very important part in the life of the country.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Perhaps I have been too moderate and instead of proposing $5 I should have asked for $25 or $50. I am not a druggist or a doctor by profession, I am simply a notary. But physicians in my riding have written to me protesting against a fee of $1 being imposed on each kind of patent medicine.
They say the sale of patent medicines should be controlled by imposing a higher fee. If the license fee is only one dollar these people will make and sell any patent medicines they like; but the increase of the fee to five, ten, or perhaps twenty-five dollars will make them think of their purses before putting a patent medicine on the market.


Michael Steele: Let me point out this concerning the amendment proposed by the minister. My only object in suggesting a change of the amendment is that the interests of the retail druggists shall not be unjustly affected. If the Bill is passed in its present form the retail druggist who manufactures his own line of patent medicines and sells them in very small quantities, is going to pay a very large proportion of the revenue derived from this business. I think that revenue should be collected from the large manufacturers of patent medicines. It may be interesting to the Committee to know that patent medicines to the amount of $20,035,954 were manufactured last year in Canada, which, when resold to the consumer, would probably bring in a return of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. This great quantity of patent medicines was produced by the large manufacturers, and I think they ought to pay a higher fee for each article they produce than $1. On the other hand, the retail druggist should not be taxed over one dollar for each article which he puts up and sells as a patent medicine. I would suggest that the retail druggist be exempted from this fee and that he simply have to pay his registration fee of two dollars. I have shown that the tax is not equitable as between the retail druggists and the large manufacturer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill does not propose to impose a tax; my hon. friend has a mistaken notion of its purpose. It provides that every manufacturer of a proprietary or patent medicine shall register the same at Ottawa, so that the department may know what patent medicines are being sold to the public, and the technical officers of the department can investigate concerning the ingredients and qualities of their medicines. If on investigation a patent medicine is found to be one that should not be sold it would be put on the forbidden list, or to deal with it may require an amendment of the Act. The purpose of the Bill is that all men should register any patent medicine they make. Upon what principle can we say that the ordinary druggist should pay less than the

wholesaler or the manufacturer? If the manufacturer makes more money than the retailer, as he probably does, the revenue of the Government should get some of that money in the shape of income tax. If we are not getting enough now from that source then the income tax should be raised.


Mr. MORPHY:: I am not a doctor or a druggist; I am merely interested in this matter as a citizen. I would like to know just what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the Budget in this connection? If this Bill goes through, the fee to be paid by a manufacturer of $100,000 worth of patent medicines will be $2 in respect of each article manufactured. You get protection from the point of view of the analyst, but the country does not derive any revenue unless that manufacturer is hit by the Budget.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a well understood formula which supplies an answer to my hon friend's question: it is not customary to announce the Budget proposals in advance of their submission to the House.
Mr. JOHN A. STEWART: The remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Steele) are very likely to create a misapprehension in the minds of the members of the Committee. When he states, as he has done, the volume of the goods manufactured the inference might be drawn that that volume of business comes under the provisions of the license which has to be taken out under the Bill. But under the provision of the Proprietary and Patent Medicines Act the manufacturer of a patent or proprietary medicine has two courses open to him. He may put upon the label of his goods the formula of the contents. If he does not do that he must register it as a proprietary or patent medicine. The only preparations which will be subject to this license, as I understand it, are those which are registered. Now a very small proportion of the business referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Steele) represents a registered business. In addition to those patent or proprietary medicines which do not contain the formula upon the label and which come under the license, there is a /very large volume of preparations which are manufactured for dispensing-preparations which are manufactured for the druggist and dispensed upon the prescription of physicians. All that business does not come under the necessity for a license, as I understand the Bill. It would therefore be a very great mistake to imagine that anything more than a small proportion of the
[Mr. A. K. Maclean!
volume of business concerned will come under license at all. In fact I may say that some of the largest selling proprietary medicines on the market to-day are sold with the formula on the label and are not registered.


Mr. LEGER:: I favour maintaining the
clause as it now stands requiring a license of $1, for the reason that, as everybody knows, patent medicines in the rural districts are generally regarded as the farmer's ''doctor." If the license fee were raised the druggist would not suffer; he would increase his price and the consumer would have to pay.


Mr. McISAAC:: I certainly would not be in favour of increasing the license fee on patent medicines. A very large quantity of patent medicines are used by the poorer classes. Whether they are good or harmful in their effect, the fact remains that a great many people believe they derive benefit therefrom and therefore have recourse to .these medicines to a very large extent. As has been said by the preceding speaker, if a higher license fee were imposed it would result in increasing the price of patent medicines, with the result that the masses will experience more difficulty in purchasing them and will labour under a sense of injustice.


Peter Robert McGibbon: If I am correctly informed, a license is imposed on millers who grind grain and make flour, which I think is proper, the'object being to make the department which has supervision of the industry self-sustaining. I think the department in this case ought to be made self-sustaining, and we should have some information on that point.
I think it would be a great mistake to place the department at the disposal of any organization and give them the benefit of what the Government is paying for. I think the crux of the whole matter is to see that the fee is high enough to make this department self-supporting.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A number of druggists put up their own preparations. For instance, John Jones might put up his own remedies, sujch as Jones's Cough Mixture, Jones's Toothache Cure, Jones's Corn Cure, Jones's Face Beautifier, and a dozen others. Would he have to pay a dollar for each one of those preparations?
Mr. A. K, MACLEAN: Yes, for each patent medicine.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think that is right. You might have fifty preparations.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: That would be all
right, if he had a hundred.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He might sell only a few of those preparations.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My proposed
amendment to that section takes care of that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Suppose he sells only $26
worth and had to pay $2 on each preparation?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under my amendment if he sold less than $25 worth the fee would be returned to him.


Mr. CANNON:: Will inspectors be appointed to see that the fees are properly collected? If those inspectors are given reasonable salaries, the salaries alone will eat up the fees. A dollar or a two-dollar fee is awfully small.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Those who are inspectors under the Adulteration Act. will be inspectors under this Act.


Mr. GLASS:: I wonder whether the minister would consider raising that amount of $25? Even a tax of $1 on a sale of $25 would be 4 per cent. Why should not that $25 be doubled?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: The fees, I believe, are $2 for the registration of each patent medicine, and a dollar for the license to sell?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: That is a revenue Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does my hon. friend think it is excessive?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: It would certainly be excessive. Under this Bill you will provide at least $250,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: So much the better.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I venture to say that the public will have to pay it, as they always do; the manufacturer does not pay anything. Many of the preparations of Parke, Davis and Company and the other' manufacturing chemists are made according to the same formula, and under this Bill each of those preparations will have to be registered, although they are precisely the same and you can get them from every druggist.


The CHAIEMAN:: Shall the amendment carry?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Provided I can bring forward my amendment afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I move that the fee be increased from $1 to $5. I want to test the Committee on that. Call it fee, or tax, or whatever you like; I think it should be increased. It seems to me it is wrong to have too many patent medicines on the market, and I want to prevent these men deluding the public with nostrums which are good for nothing.	.


William Stevens Fielding: May I venture to suggest the question, whether it is (in the power of this Committee to increase a tax?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The minister says it is a tax; I contend it is a fee.


The CHAIEMAN:: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is well taken: fees cannot be increased in Committee.
Subsection as amended agreed to.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to amend section 5 of the Bill by adding as subsection (3) thereto:
No proprietary or patent medicine shall he sold in Canada unless a license as above has been granted for such sale, and the period for which the license is granted shall determine the time limit during which legal sale may ,be made.
That really is the substance of the clause enacting that no patent or proprietary medicine can be sold without a license.


Alexander William Chisholm: Does this clause apply to any person who sells patent medicines? For instance, retail stores sometimes handle patent medicines that do not contain any poison.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The manufacturer will have to pay for the license. Somebody must have a license before patent or proprietary medicines may be lawfully sold.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is there any provision in the Act with regard to the disposition of stocks at present in the hands of retail druggists?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not as yet.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Should there not be?
Mr. A. K. (MACLEAN:	There is something to be said in favour of the suggestion; I see my hon. friend's point. This Act is a very important one. Some important amendments are proposed in the new sections 6 and 7, and as they are very


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have come to the
most important clauses of this Bill. With regard to the new section 6, it will strike every member of the Committee that if a drug is " dangerous for infants under one year old " it is dangerous also for children a year and a half old. The most important question in connection with the manufacture and sale of patent medicines is that which relates to the use of soothing or calmative syrups for children. The use of these preparations in 'Canada has assumed such formidable proportions that we cannot ignore the subject. What they contain is well known to the medical profession, to pharmacists generally and to the better-educated class of the population. They contain opium and the derivatives of opium)-

that is, morphine, codeine, heroine, the-baine and other narcotics. If the good Canadian mothers were cognizant of the ravages caused among their dear ones by the use of these preparations, they would immediately and entirely abstain from administering them to their children. They are induced 'to use them by the alluring descriptions on the labels. It may be argued that you should not interfere with a well-established trade in Canada. But what is the importance, I ask, of the advantages reaped by manufacturers of these patent medicines as compared with the necessity of preserving 'the health of those beings who to-morrow will constitute the very -essence of the Canadian population? It may be known to some-it is not to me- that heartless mothers, knowing what they do, administer calmative syrups for the purpose of soothing their children.
But it is well known to every one that, for instance, in the absence of the mother, an unscrupulous servant may administer those syrups in large quantities, and the mental and physical consequences cannot be measured. Therefore, I intend to move an amendment to section G, reserving for myself the right to express my opinion further on clause 7. I am not going to adhere to the wording of this amendment; if it be found that an amendment suggested toy some member of the committee or by the minister may be more effective, easier of administration or of carrying out, I am ready to accept such suggestion. I move to amend clause 1 of the present Bill by striking out the proposed section 6 and replacing it by the following:
6. The manufacture, importation or Bale ot all proprietary or patent medicines containing opium or its derivatives or any derivatives of coal tar intended for administration to children under fifteen years, are prohibited.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I support the amendment with pleasure. I am quite sure, after having discussed this matter with some of the medical authorities, that many of the subjects fit for our asylums or even for our jails, were the early victims of these soothing syrups, because all their troubles in life can be traced to the use of opium and narcotics generally. The other day, a very distinguished doctor from Montreal told me that he could point out on the street young men of twenty or twenty-five years of age whose demeanour showed the use of narcotics when they were infants. It is admitted to-day that it is a great misfortune that we should allow any of this poison to be served by fathers or mothers to their children. Many associations of

ladies, doctors, members of all sects and denominations, have taken a special interest in what is called baby welfare. The other day I received from the Baby Welfare Committee of Montreal a letter which has doubtless been sent to the minister, This letter informs me that the following resolution was adopted unanimously at a meeting held at Montreal a few days ago:
Whereas, there is a Bill to amend the Proprietary or Patent medicine Act now before the House of Commons, sponsored by Hon. A. K. Maclean, which, in the experience of the medical adviser and ohild welfare specialists connected with the various units of the Baby Welfare Committee of Montreal, does not safeguard the moral or physical entity of the young child, inasmuch as under section 6, of the proposed Act, opium-containing medication is readily procurable for any infant or child: and, inasmuch, as the Act applies solely to opium in section 6, without reference to its more dangerous habit forming derivatives, as morphine, heroin, etc., being fully considered.
Therefore, be it resolved that this committee go strongly on record as disapproving of section 6 and 7, as at present constituted, and that we urge the manufacture and sale of opium, or its derivatives, in medication be absolutely forbidden in Canada, as not being conducive to the moral or physical betterment of our younger citizenship. In default of this recommendation being adopted, that a conspicuous skull and crossbones emblem, with the word "Poison" distinctly printed across the container, be employed as a deterring influence upon the promiscuous distribution of this unnecessary class of narcotic medication, destined for popular sale and consumption among infants and children in Canada.
I would not only put this sinister emblem of a skull and cross-bones on the bottle containing this poisonous substance for the children, but bar the substance completely from the homes of Canada. It is a crime to allow those soothing syrups, made up of opium or other narcotics, to be exposed for sale in our drug stores or be sold by quack doctors travelling throughout the country. We have already too many subjects in our asylums, too many juvenile delinquents in our jails who have acquired their bad habits by the use early in life of those so-called medicaments. I hope the Committee will accept the wise amendment and that we shall not hear any more of those soothing syrups which are nothing less than poison.


Michael Steele: I quite agree -with the amendment so far as it goes. I am sorry only that it does not go further. What is not good for a child of fourteen years of age is not good for a child of sixteen years of age. Had this amendment not been moved, or should it be rejected by the Committee, I would suggest another amendment, that a sub-clause be inserted in
clause 7 to the effect that no proprietary or patent medicine should be manufactured, imported, exposed or offered for sale in Canada if it contains opium or any of its derivatives. I would exclude all patent medicines containing opium from sale or importation, whether administered to children under fifteen years of age or to adults over fifteen years of age. They should certainly he prohibited for children. The facts presented to the Committee by the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Beland) and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) to-ndght clearly indicate the views of the people who are engaged in baby welfare work, the people who, perhaps, above all others, are qualified to speak of the results of the administration of medicines containing opium to our little children. No doubt opium serves a good purpose sometimes, but too often, in fact in the great majority of cases, it is used to sooth a child suffering from some ailment which should be corrected if the child is going to enjoy good health. It covers up the real ailment affecting the child, keeps the child quiet, and if this goes on long enough, the child will no doubt be found in a moribund condition from the disease from which it is suffering, assisted possibly by the doses of opium. There is another effect which it has on the child, and which, I think, is admitted by all who have given the matter study, namely, that upon the brain. The brain of a child undergoes its greatest development in the first six months of life.
The brain of an adult weighs on an average from 1,400 to 1,500 grammes, and that of a baby six months old on an average about 1,000 grammes. Yet, during these six months of infant life, there are thousands of babies being fed daily on these remedies, call them what you choose, whose chief ingredients are opium or its derivatives, and the development of the brain of a child so fed is interfered with to the extent to which opium is administered to it. The chances of children fed that way for growing up healthy both physically and intellectually are greatly reduced. We not only think that opium should not be sold indiscriminately for administration to children, but that, in Ontario at least, it should not he sold indiscriminately for the use of even adults, who experience considerable difficulty in purchasing opium in any drug store in Ontario. The purchaser of opium has to sign the poison book and observe all the precautions with which the law surrounds its sale. Every person realizes that it is not in the interest of even adults that * they should be permitted to buy opium

freely and use it as they please. That being so, why should they be allowed to purchase it indiscriminately and with the greatest freedom in the form of patent medicines? I think we should exclude it entirely in patent medicines, and when people want opium they should procure it under proper supervision, duly observing the precautions and restrictions which the law imposes. It will be observed that the first sub-clause prohibits the importation and sale of any medicine containing cocaine or any of its salts or preparation. Now, we all know that cocaine so used is not likely to be nearly so injurious as opium, and if we_ prohibit cocaine the arguments in favour of the prohibition of opium are very much strengthened. For these reasons I certainly would vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauce. If, however, it is not considered satisfactory to the Committee, I would move the amendment which I have suggested, that the entire importation, manufacture and sale of any patent medicines containing opium or its derivatives be prohibited. I believe that now is the time for us to take this step. The very fact that liquor is being restricted in its sale is an argument for us at this early date to protect the people against the indiscriminate use of opium and more injurious drugs which too often will be substituted for the liquor that is prohibited.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I rise to a point of
order. You ruled some time ago, Mr. Chairman, that the point was well taken by the hon. member for Shelburn and Queens (Mr. Fielding) that I had no right to move an amendment for the increase of the amount of the license fee in the Bill now under consideration. I now ask your ruling on the point, as to whether the Senate could pass the Bill. Bourinot at page 492 says:
If any Bills are sent down from the Senate with clauses involving- public expenditures or public taxation, the Commons cannot accept them.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order
raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata is that the present Bill which was introduced and passed in the Senate before being submitted to the House of Commons contains clauses involving public taxation in the form of license fees and therefore could not originate in the Senate and must be rejected by the House of Commons'. It is true that section 53 of the British North America Act expressly provides:
Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost [DOT] shall originate in the House of Commons.

But there are many precedents where Bills of this nature have been passed in the Senate and the money clauses embodied in -the Bills have been later submitted to a Committee of the Whole House. Bourinot at page 493 says:
It is frequently found convenient to introduce bills involving public expenditure in the Senate, and in such a case the money clauses are embodied in the bill as presented, in order
to make it more intelligible	These clauses
are always considered in a previous Committee by the Commons, and regularly referred to the Committee of the Whole on the bill.
The same practice applies to Bills imposing any tax or impost and should be followed in all cases when the House of Commons insists upon its rights and privileges. These rights and privileges are laid down in rule 78, but rule 87 provides that in order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not always insist on -the privilege of laying aside a Bill sent from the Senate because it imposes a tax, an impost or a penalty. The House of Commons undoubtedly had the right and privilege of laying aside -this Bill until it had been preceded by a resolution which would have been considered by a Committee of the Whole House, but the proper -time for -the exercise of this privilege was when the order was called for the second reading of this Bill. It was read a second time without objection and is now under -consideration in Committee. A committee has no power to refuse the consideration of a Bill which has been submitted to it by the -House, and I must therefore declare that the point of order is not now well taken.


John Alexander Stewart: To resume, Mr. Chairman. A very wrong impression is apt to be created in the mind of the public by the resolution which associates derivatives of coal tar with opium. There are many of the derivatives of coal tar in very general use not only under prescriptions from practising physicians but on sale to the public. As to their effect on young children, tha-t is a matter on which members of the medical profession in the House are more competent to judge than myself. But in associating the derivatives of coal tar with opium, I think an entirely wrong impression is likely to be created as to the injurious effects of these coal tar derivatives. This is particularly objectionable at present. There is no branch of research that is likely to produce more useful preparations than the future development of the coal tar industry. I suggest that if in

the opinion of the medical men certain of the coal tar derivatives could be used without injury, they should be permitted for children up to the age specified in the amendment, provided that the preparation was approved of by the Advisory Board as being 'harmless to infants over a certain age.


Charles Sheard: I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon.
, member for Beauce. I think we should put on the statute-book a distinct and positive limitation to the general sale of opiates and narcotics of that class, especially when they are sold in such a way as to be procurable by nurses and those having the care of infant children.
The ordinary soothing syrups that are sold so commonly in the drug stores owe their value largely to the opiate and morphine which they contain. These are readily purchasable, and they can be readily procured by unscrupulous or careless nurses for the sole purpose of securing quietness on the part of an infant, irrespective of the harm they do. The apprehensions which have been expressed by various members of the House are weU grounded, and I think strong legislation should be provided so as to prevent the general sale of these articles. Nearly the whole of the so-called soothing remedies for children owe their pernicious influence to the opiate derivative in the form of codeine and morphia which they contain. I think there is something in the exception taken by the hon. member (Mr. Steele) to linking up, particularly the preparations of coal tar with opium preparations. If you can link up coal tar derivatives, carbolic acid and other preparations, which are very largely family medicaments, or which are used for various disinfecting purposes, it is a question how far we should go in that particular inclusion. I think that might be reconsidered and we might specify more accurately what particular preparations of coal tar should be included. The family of coal tar products is a very large one. I am not sure that it would not include many of the analine dyes and preparations that are not medicinal at all. Certainly it would include many of the ordinary domestic disinfectants', which are used as disinfectants pure and simple, sometimes by the gallon. I do not suppose it is the intention of the Act to prohibit their employment in that connection, and yet they might be construed to be included in coal tar products or derivatives under this Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This amendment would
cover only medicines which are intended for internal use.


Charles Sheard: That would be satisfactory if you did that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the meaning of the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: May I ask if the Committee may have the amendment read again? I do not think it was fully understood.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Beland moves to strike out the proposed clause 6, on page 3, and to replace the same by the following:
The manufacture, importation and sale of all proprietary or patent medicines containing opium or its derivatives, or any derivative of coal tar intended for administration to children under fifteen years of age, are prohibited.


Mr. MANION:: I should like to support the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for PeTth (Mr. Steele).


Georges Henri Boivin: 'The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Steele) is not a sub-amendment, and does not affect clause 6.


Robert James Manion: Might I say to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) that I support his amendment entirely, but the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Steele) went further and I should like to ask the hon. member for Beauce to go as far in his ' amendment as the hon. member for Perth has gone in his so as to bar out 'patent medicines containing opium not only for children but for adults. There are in this country very many young men who are cocaine users, or as they call them in the West, snow eaters. That is the expression used in the West to describe cocaine and opium users. It is claimed by many people who are supporting anti-prohibition measures that since prohibition has been adopted the cocaine users are much more numerous than they were in the past. I do not think that a drug of the strength of opium should be used in any medicine except under a prescription of a practising physician. I would like to ask the hon. member for Beauce to strengthen his motion by introducing into it a provision to eliminate opium from all patent medicines.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I might suggest a wording for my amendment which would cover what the hon. member foT Perth has in mind. It would mean that the manufacture, im-

portation and sale of all proprietary medicines containing not only opium but the derivatives of coal tar should be prohibited. I do not know that the Committee is prepared to go so far as to prohibit patent medicines containing derivatives of coal tar for administration to adults. In order to meet the wish of the Committee I shall be willing to strike out the words " derivatives of coal tar " although I think that .antipyrine or acetanilid could not safely be administered to children in any form without the supervision of a regular, qualified physician. But it would be a great step in the right direction if we adopted this amendment:
The manufacture, importation and sale of all proprietary or patent medicines containing opium or its derivatives intended for internal administration are prohibited.
That would cover people of all ages and' it would leave out the derivatives of coal tar. Nobody could then come forward with preparations intended for children containing any opiates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not intend to proceed to a conclusion with this clause to-night. In any event I purpose having it stand over. I anticipated that it would have to be amended; in fact, I have some amendments myself which I shall propose but I wanted to get the sense of the Committee on sections 6 and 7. There are many considerations which must be kept in mind when preparing this amendment and I should like a little time to consider the _ amendment which has been proposed and perhaps submit a different amendment of my own. I would propose that we let this clause stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Are these words "intended for administration to children " drawn from any existing Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At the present
time there is no limitation upon the sale of patent medicines containing opium, or any of its derivatives, when administered to children.


William Stevens Fielding: What I desire to know is whether there is any means of determining the " intention"? The Bill speaks pf medicines intended for a certain purpose; is there any difficulty in determining the " intention"?
| Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: I think it would be very difficult of determination.


Michael Steele: I would be very glad indeed to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland).


Peter Robert McGibbon: May I ask who Was, so to speak, the father of this clause? It does not appear to me that in this age one legitimate excuse can be offered for putting up in a patent medicine any form of opium to be dispensed by the laity to children. The proposal seems to be absolutely contrary to the rapidly growing practice in the medical profession which is to eliminate it as far as possible, in treating diseases not only of infants but of adults. We in the medical profession know that from time to time an emergency call comes from some home where an infant has, through ignorance or other cause, taken an overdose of opium, laudanum, paregoric, or some form of the derivatives of opium; and many of us have seen lives pass out of this world owing to the fact that medicines of that nature were easily procurable and were more or less daily used in the home as household remedies. Now the object of this Bill is to protect the public; it could have none other. It does look to me, I must say, as though the interests had not been very far away when this Bill was drawn-not only as regards the present hut with respect to other' succeeding clauses. This measure has all the earmarks of a Bill which'had, I was going to say, been commercialized, or the earmarks of a commercial transaction. We must not get away from the fact that our object is to pass a Bill that will protect the public. I do not think any professional man or any layman can adduce a single argument to-day that will justify putting any derivative of opium into the hands of the public to be administered to children without knowing its nature, because that is what this Bill means. If you are going to give the public any form of medicine containing any of the derivatives of opium for goodness sake let it be indicated on the bottle so that the purchaser can read it and know they are administering some form of a drug which is very dangerous and very injurious. Opium, of course, has its uses, but I think I am within the mark when I say that practically the only great use it has is to alleviate pain; all other uses are detrimental to health and are absolutely dangerous to children.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the clause is allowed to stand it'seems to me that.after having obtained the sense of the Committee, as we have done this evening, when the Bill once more comes up for consideration the minister must eliminate this clause from it. We have a full attendance of members this

evening, and I am agreeably surprised to see so many hon. gentlemen present. If we wait until another occasion when perhaps there will be a bare quorum of members, the objectionable clause may perhaps pass contrary to the sense of the Committee as it has been expressed. I hope my hon. friend will take that into consideration, because it seems to me the general feeling of the Committee is against these poisonous syrups, and they must be done away with. I do not know why we should not follow the sound course of adopting the amendment of my hon. friend from Beauce.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I never expected that this clause would pass the Committee in its present form- .


Rodolphe Lemieux: It passed the Senate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not satisfied with the phraseology of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauce, and I should like a little time to consider its redrafting. I should like also to inquire how far the derivatives of coal tar should be excluded from the provisions of the clause. I think probably it would be a mistake to have the provisions so comprehensive.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a good German product.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend from Muskoka inquired who was the father of the Bill. The measure was prepared in the Department of Commerce by the departmental officials who are responsible for the administration of the Act. Up to the present moment there was nothing in our law restricting in any way the sale of drugs carrying opium or any of its derivatives, and I think the officials were under the impression that a reform of this kind could be accomplished possibly by stages rather than at one step. I have no personal knowledge of the investment in these particular drugs or patent medicines. If you prohibit the manufacture and sale of them at once you may be striking at what was at one time a perfectly lawful business, and I should like to think over what the likely effect of the prohibition would be. For instance, if the further manufacture of this particular drug is to be prohibited hereafter you have got to deal with the question of the stocks now on hand.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Does my hon. friend mean the stock of medicines or the stock of infants?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I mean the stock of drugs on hand. For the reasons given
I should like to have some time to consider the matter further and would therefore ask that the clause stand.


Robert James Manion: I would suggest, while consideration is being given to the question of opium and its derivatives, that the minister should also consider a drug which I do not think is referred to in the Bill and which has not been mentioned here to-night -I refer to chloral.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think that appears in the schedule.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it does.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In order to meet the objections which were very properly raised by some hon. gentlemen, I have redrafted the amendment, and it will now read:-
The manufacture, importation or sale of ail proprietary or patent medicines containing opinum or its derivatives for internal use are prohibited.
I will lay the amendment on the Table, Mr. Chairman, for the consideration of the minister and the department.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the hon. member have leave to withdraw the amendment which he first proposed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will have a conference with my hon. friend from Beauce in regard to the amendment which he has just submitted. I move:-
That the further consideration of clause 6 and the amendment thereto be now postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The balance of the Bill outside of clause 7 I do not expect will be very contentious, and should not take up a great deal of time. Therefore I do noit think I shall proceed further tonight. I move that the Committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Public Works-Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $3,595,000.
['That does not apply to members of Parliament.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Carvell the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.\nFriday. May 16, 1919.']
Mr. McMASTER:: Mr. Chairman, the item is very large and I should think might preferably be taken up clause by clause. The information I seek, it seems to me, should properly be asked under this heading. My idea is that it would be interesting to the Committee to find out what

rental is being paid by the Government for accommodation in privately-owned buildings in Ottawa, and how that rental will compare with the current rate of interest on the capital investment for the new buildings which, I understand, are to house ithe different departments now scattered all over the city.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to the minister that he might properly accept the first part of my hon. friend's proposal and call these items individually, otherwise we shall roam over the whole thing; and my hon. friend's question will come up a little later.


Mr. CARVELL:: I think that will be the wisest course.
Ottawa public buildings-Elevator attendants, $55,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is that elevator attendants for all the buildings?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All the buildings in Ottawa.
Gas and electric light, including roads and bridges, $65,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think we should have some information about this. It is lumped together in a very general way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that there is an increase of $5,000 over last year. That is because more space is now occupied, and the rates for electric light are based entirely upon the rates charged by the two electric light companies in Ottawa. I suppose one might say that the Hydro-Electric sets the rate-I do not know just which it is, sometimes one, sometimes the other company-but whatever it is the two companies charge exactly the same rate, and we pay the same rate as the ordinary user of electricity. We have a contract with the older company, the Ottawa Electric Company, made, I think, in 1916, and in that contract are set forth the amounts which we pay. The rate is $20 per horse-power for all power consumed, either direct or alternating, and we pay the same meter rate and square area rate-whatever that is-as is charged to the public.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Where is gas used now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Gas is not used to any very great extent, but you will find it in the post office building; it is used for sealing purposes.


John Ewen Sinclair: What have roads and bridges to do with lighting?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are a good many things that are almost unexplainable to the ordinary citizen unless he happens to live in the city of Ottawa. This has been the Capital for a long time, and a custom grew up years ago-which I would almost call an abuse-under which the Government did work on behalf of the municipality of Ottawa which they would not do in any other part of Canada. For instance, we take care of the approaches to the bridge across the Ottawa river, just below the falls. It is not a very great amount of money, but there is some expended every year in keeping that up. I cannot justify it, I cannot give any reason for it; I can only say: It is there. The Plaza in front of the Chateau Laurier comes under that category, the reason being that a great many years ago the Government maintained the bridges over the canal, known as the Duf-ferin and Sapper bridges, and those having been converted into the Plaza, we still take care of the maintenance. Then there is the Laurier Avenue bridge, which is also maintained by the Government. They are grouped together, and that is the meaning of the phraseology.


John Ewen Sinclair: How much do the bridge appropriations amount to?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am told $2,400.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: I remember last year when I criticised those expenditures, the minister told us that he was quite new at the job, but he admitted that too much money was being expended on the grounds.
I see this year that he wants some $350,000. Will he explain now why, instead of reducing that expenditure, he is more lavish than ever? Does he understand his job better this year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend's memory must be bad. I do not remember making . the statement that too much money was expended on the grounds. Had I said so,
I would have remembered it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was there not a promise
of economy?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I have tried to carry it out. There is no increase of $300,000 on grounds in Ottawa. The totals in these two columns include rents, repairs, furniture, heating,' lighting, etc., for all public buildings in Canada.
Heating-, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $250,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The coal was bought last year by the War Purchasing Commission. So far as Ottawa was concerned, it was purchased direct from the mines. Hundreds of people supplied coal, from different portions of Canada. Under the present system all purchases of coal and things of that kind for public buildings, if the amounts run over $500, come
10 p.m. under my personal supervision.
- Invariably we call for tenders and before I sign for the goods I know how many tenders wer.e submitted, whether public tenders were called for, and so on. I cannot commence to name the persons from whom coal was purchased, but that is the method pursued in purchasing it.
Departments generally-care and cleaning of departmental buildings, including amount of $100 to E. Snowdon for firing noon gun_formerly voted under Civil Government Estimates, $310,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Does that mean that this item is hereafter to be under the Public WorKs Department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Finance should be supremely grateful.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think he should, judging from my experience during the last six or eight months. However, we have to take it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How does that amount compare with the expenditure last year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is any change. This charwoman service, which was formerly administered by the Finance Department, was transferred to the Department of Public Works at the beginning of the last fiscal year; therefore this is a new item in our Estimates.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I should think the amount would be higher.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think it is. I think we have effected some slight reforms in this particular service.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there not a question of increase now pending?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is any question pending; there may be a wish pending.
Repairs, furniture, grounds, snow and street maintenance, etc., $450,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Roughly, how is this amount divided?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are 157 men on the workshop staff; they cost last year
$146,066. Then there are the following items: mechanical engineer's staff, 60 men, $63,390; grounds for the Dominion buildings, 20 men for maintenance, $13,934; five men attending to flags, .Dominion buildings, at 25 cents a day, $360; maintenance of Toads and bridges, removal of snow in winter, etc., 16 men, $12,831; Wellington street repair staff, 14 men, $10,841; purchase of material, such as lumber, oil, seeds, bulbs, glass, etc., $202,577. That also includes purchase of carpets, furniture, etc., for all departments. I can give the name of every man employed, his salary, and how much he has been paid for the yeaT.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will not go that far along the lines of inquisition. But I would ask the minister what he considers to be the proportion maintained between the number of men engaged and the work they do?
Mr, CARVELL: I have a very strong impression on that point. If I were hiring men for this work I would put one-half or two-thirds the number of men on the job, and would get a little more work out of them. But they are doing about as much work as most men do who work for the Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You would not include ministers of the Crown in that category?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no; or members of Parliament.


Mr. VIEN:: The minister has said that part of that amount goes to repair of Wellington street. Is that for pavements?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We maintain Wellington street from the Plaza to what is called the Perley Home-practically to the waterworks.


Thomas Vien: What are the arrangements between Ottawa and the Dominion Government-I mean, our relations generally?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ten years ago an arrangement was entered into between the Dominion Government and the city of Ottawa which expires on the first of June of this year. Under that agreement the Government was to take care of certain streets and bridges. But we have always adopted the policy of paying our share of local improvements, in Ottawa and elsewhere. In Ottawa, we go a little further than that, and all the construction, maintenance and repair of Wellington street is, as I understand it, done by the Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the Government do that through a contractor?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, by this staff of men. My hon. friend, if he had followed me, would have heard the number of men employed in each one of those works, for instance, Wellington street, repair staff, fourteen men, amount, $10,841.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does that mean that
for the maintenance of one street, which is considerably less than one mile in length, fourteen men are kept working all the time?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what I mean to say.	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am sure that does
not strike the minister or the hon. member for Brome as a wise or business-like proposition.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite agree with my
hon. friend that I could take $10,000 and get a good deal more work done for it, but this is for repairs. There is something in that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We would like to hear the minister propose some reform.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will
watch me long enough, he will, I think, get something that will satisfy him. He may get some information before I get through with these Estimates. There is no question that a system has grown up in Ottawa, the growth of half a century-we have a great body of workmen here who get their pay each day, and I hope they are working every day, but I cannot go out and watch them as I have something else to do.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is only light
traffic on Wellington street, and there cannot be $10,000 worth of repair work there every year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The foreman says those men work there; he sends in his report and they get their pay. I think they do work there; they put in their time there anyway.


Louis Audet Lapointe: There should be
some reform in regard to this matter, and while I believe the minister is looking for some reform, I do not see the reform coming. I notice that every year we are voting $450,000 for repairs, furniture, grounds, snow and street maintenance, etc. Surely when a thing is once well done, there , should be some reduction in the estimate for the following year. When the minister says that he wants$450,000 this year exactly the same sum as last year, that does not

show any intention of making a reform. I can understand a piece of ground being improved one year but I cannot understand why it should be being perpetually repaired, and surely in some year less money should be voted for this work. If that were done I would see some reform about which the minister preaches so often.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend would give a little more thought to this than he has given already, I am sure he would come to the conclusion that there are two sides to the case. Since this House has assembled I have been asked a number of times to make changes in the rooms in this building. Such changes are not very great and I give them only as an illustration. It takes men and material to make those changes, and, so far as I know, they have all been granted. With the great congestion of civil servants in the last three or four years-and it has oeen great-a staff gets so big that it cannot occupy its premises and other premises must be provided for it ana it has to be moved. There always must be changes. This is like a man moving into a new house-no man ever moved into a house in his life but his wife wanted some papering done or something else; she wanted a change of some kind. That is the way witu civil servants-they want change and one has to have a staff to provide for such changes, and we have a staff of 157 men. I must, say I think those men are pretty busy most of the time. Sometimes I wonder if it would not be possible to get a better system than we have in regard to the changing of staffs; but with the congestion that we have had to contend with in the last year and a half we have done the best we could, and I do not see the possibility of any improvement until the Dominion of Canada owns its own buildings. I do not believe one-half of our staff is housed in our own buildings to-day, and even when the new Hunter building is completed, as I hope it -will be in July or August next, still nearly one-half of the staff will be housed in rented buildings. And every time we make a change in the occupation of those buildings or any portion of them it costs money to move the staffs, and something must always be done, such as the buying of new furniture. Civil servants are just like other human beings; they want things and they usually get them. I can give no other explanation. I have no doubt at all -that in this Committee there are a dozen men who could take those 157 men, if they could deal with them as hired men, and put competent foremen

over them, and who would get more work out of them than the country is getting. But I cannot stand .over them myself. In the last year and a half those men have been hired and they have been fired, if necessary, entirely by the superintendent in charge of them. No man, excepting the clerk of works, has anything to say as to who shall go on that staff; he has an absolutely free hand. I have talked the matter over with him many times; I have found fault that those men are not giving as much service as^ they should give; but he assures me they are, and unless I can find time to go out and supervise them personally, I do not see how I am going to change conditions. I want to treat the Committee fairly and tell them exactly t'he situation. I think a change should be made; I think our staff is too big, but now these men want an eight-hour day. They want nearly everything except work.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not be against an eight-hour day. I dislike working more than eight hours a day, and the man who works hard for eight hours a day has done a pretty good day's work. I do not object to a man's getting an eight-hour day so long as he is working during the eight-hour period.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rather agree with that view.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The frankness of the minister invites criticism and makes one desire to give helpful criticism. Let us take this question of Wellington street. Has the minister any idea of making with the city of Ottawa some contract whereby the city would take over the control and maintenance of that street? It is the height of ridiculousness to maintain one plant for keeping one street in repair in a city which I presume has an adequate plant for maintaining all the other streets in repair.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. member has been reading the newspapers lately-and I presume he has-I think he will find that the city of Ottawa is not in a very receptive mood at the present time for taking over services hitherto performed by the Government. The city wants the Government to take over a large proportion of the services hitherto performed by the city, and we are having some very interesting discussions at present over this very question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My humble observations may strengthen the minister's hand in dealing with the municipal authorities.


John Ewen Sinclair: It would be satisfactory if the minister could give us a statement of how much we are contributing altogether to the city of Ottawa. We find the items scattered over the Estimates in various places, and I do not think any member of the Committee has a very clear idea of how much money we are paying to the city of Ottawa. I understand the city of Ottawa is dissatisfied, but we want to know whether it has a good reason to be dissatisfied or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ten years ago an arrangement was made with the city of Ottawa by which the Dominion Government agreed to. pay $100,000 a year to the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the maintenance of parks and driveways and $15,000 . a year to the city of Ottawa by way of remuneration for the fire protection which we receive from the city. That contract expires on the 1st of June. There have been a number of conferences between the city of Ottawa and a committee of the Government as to the terms of the renewal of the contract. The Mayor of Ottawa published a very exhaustive statement in January last setting forth his contention as to what the Government should pay, the amount he fixes being about $800,000 a year. We had a meeting before Parliament met and a great many since, and finally, representing the Committee, I made an offer of $150,000 a year to the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the next ten years-$100,000 a year to go to the city to cover all services performed by the city for the Government, and the Government to relinquish to the city the right of taxing civil servants upon their incomes. For a great many years there has been an arrangement by which the city of Ottawa has not taxed the incomes of civil servants by reason of amounts which the Government has been paying to the city. I have taken the ground that it is none of our business. The civil servant resident in the city is an ordinary citizen and should pay his taxes the same as any other man. In my proposal we relinquish in favour of the city the right of taxing civil servants. The city think they can raise $57,000 a year from income taxes, but my opinion is they should get $75,000 or $80,000 a year under a proper administration of the law. Taking the city's figure it would mean that instead of $150,000 going to the 'Commission there would be a sum of $307,000. The city claim that we should pay on the basis of taxation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: An inuiease of $182,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but not $182,000 oi actual money paid out by the Government. There would be an actual increase of $135,000 a year paid by the Government. Under the British North America Act, Government property is not taxable, and the city of Ottawa claim that because of this fact we should pay them an amount representing what the taxes ordinarily ought to be. Of course, we cannot admit that, but there is one matter with which I have a great deal of sympathy. One of the most antediluvian laws regarding water or any public utility that I have ever heard of in my life exists in Ottawa. A man pays $2, I think, on the first $1,000 valuation of his property, and after that pays a greater rate on every other $1,000. And you pay that no matter whether you use water or not, or whether you have half a dozen bathrooms or none at all; and even if it is a vacant lot you pay the same water rate. They say that a fair valuation of Government property in Ottawa would be about $20,000,000, and that therefore we should pay water rates according to this valuation. I say that we should pay water rates according to the number of thousand gallons used, and I have offered to the city of Ottawa to put a meter on every service in the city and pay a fair meter rate, and that if we were not able to agree on a fair rate we could leave the matter to arbitration. We are also using their sewers to a certain extent, and pay a certain amount for that. They say we should pay one-fifth of the total maintenance charges of the sewers, but we have not agreed to that. My opinion is that all public utilities, whether used by the Government or by private individuals, should be metered; in other words, that a man should pay for what he consumes, no more and no less. But the city says: No, we should pay for all our services on the basis of their method of taxation and upon their valuation of our pro'perty. I think we shall agree in the end. I am of opinion that there is a lot of ordinary politics in it, and no doubt in the next fortnight the city will accept the offer we have made them, which I think is a generous one.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has the minister considered the fact that generally the people come to a town because of the advantages the town has in itself, while Ottawa has its present population because people are attracted by the fact that this is the federal capital ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there is any argument we have not advanced along that line I

should be glad to hear it. We have put up to the city every argument conceivable in that direction, and have not made much impression.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I trust that in the new arrangement made by the city this duplication of road maintenance equipment will be eliminated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We shall certainly consider it.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I think the Government
might go further. I would suggest that in view of the fact that the sessions of Parliament are getting longer every year, and the fact that hon. members would undoubtedly like to bring with them their families, and as it is extremely difficult many a time to get necessary accommodation, the Government might provide apartments for such hon. members as desired to avail themselves of such accommodation. The members might occupy the apartments for the period of the session, or probably for the year, if they cared to, and could pay rent to the Government. Under such an arrangement they would know exactly where to go when the session convened, and the House might sit for four or five or six months without the inconvenience that members suffer at present by inability to have their families with them because of lack of accommodation.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Government might
take the matter up under the new housing scheme,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is worth considering.


Mr. FRIPP:: As I have the honour to
represent the city, I cannot allow some of the remarks which have been made to pass without objection. In the first place, I Would point out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) that he is in error when he casts some doubt upon the quantity of work done by the men employed in his department. I have some personal knowledge of the work these men do, and venture to say that the working men and mechanics in the departments in Ottawa work as hard and as faithfully as those who work for private corporations.
In regard to the agreement which is now being entered into between the city of Ottawa and the Government of Canada I submit that (the amount which the Government propose to offer is entirely inadequate. What is the situation? One-fifth of the whole taxable property of the city is owned or held by the Government.
i

When a Government leases a building the revenue which the city would otherwise derive from that building and the land upon which it stands immediately stops. The result is that the Government, unless it is placed in the position of the ordinary citizen, escapes the payment of a large share of the taxation. I fail to understand upon what principle the Government should not be treated as all the other citizens of Ottawa are treated. If the Government had to pay the city of Ottawa, the amount of payment would be in the neighbourhood of $600,000 instead of $100,000 that they propose to give to the city under this new agreement. I am not speaking for the moment of the $150,000 which the Government. propose to give to the Improvement Commission, because the city of Ottawa [DOT] has no control over that commission or the expenditure of that money. The Commission is one appointed by the Government, it is responsible to the Government and it spends this money upon the parks and driveway which surround the city of Ottawa, presumably for the benefit of the people of Canada and incidentally for the benefit of the people of Ottawa. But, in carrying out the scheme of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier to make Ottawa " the Washington of the north," it was suggested that this Commission should be formed independently of the corporation so as to beautify and make attractive the city for those who have to come here to do business. The city of Ottawa is to receive only $100,000 for the services it renders* What services does it render? It supplies water to the Government and, although the supply is not under meter, the best information that the corporation officials can obtain is that the Government uses water, if it were metered, to the value of nearly $100,000. There is no restraint upon the use of it in any way; they use what they want.
Mr. MoMAiSTEE: We do not even have hot water to wash our hands with.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is not the fault of the city of Ottawa. Then the city gives fire protection. That is an important item. The Government uses the sewers of the city; and there are other services supplied which if supplied to a private individual or a resident would cost that individual from $50,000 to $100,000. Why should the rest of the people pay for the services rendered to the Government of Canada? I hope the Minister of Public Works and the Committee who are still dealing with this question will further consider a more
159i
reasonable settlement in connection with the items I have mentioned.
It is true that there has to be set off against the extreme amount, say, $600,000 or $800,000 a year, the advantages that the city derives from the fact that it is the Capital. There is no doubt that there are numbers of people who come here on Government business who would not come to Ottawa if it were not the Capital, and that a certain amount is spent and business is increased by that fact. But I think if the matter were gone into carefully and fairly with the view of placing the arrangement with the city of Ottawa upon a business basis, we ought to receive at least $300,000, allowing for all those other incidental advantages which are brought to the city by reason of the fact that it is the Capital of Canada.
I still hope and trust that, notwithstanding what the minister has said, he has not yet made up his mind not to meet the city, and its position as stated by the mayor, more fairly, from the point of view of the city, at all events, and make an amicable arrangement upon the basis of the value of the services rendered.
I would ask the Committee to remember that one-third of the people of Ottawa including their families, are Government employees and that the city loses a large sum of money that it would not lose if these people were engaged in some other industry. If we could have an industry in Ottawa employing 15,000 men and women we would gain,, it is quite evident, not the amount that the Government has proposed to pay, but a much larger sum in return for the services rendered in connection with water, fire protection, sewerage, and hospitals. We supply the hospitals for the city of Ottawa and these are used by the civil servants. The Government indirectly gains a benefit in that respect. We could tax their incomes, but the cost of collectr ing the income tax from the Civil Service would probably eat into a large portion of the revenue derived from that source. The arrangement heretofore has been that the city should not collect the income tax from the civil servants, it being, in a sense, paid by the Government under this arrangement.
I can only commend to the Minister of Public Works the spirit of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier and express the hope that he will follow in his footsteps in his desire to make Ottawa, what it should be, as the Capital City of Canada, and to make it really the city of the whole people. If

my hon. friend will adopt the spirit of the late lamented gentleman of whom I have just spoken, I am sure that a better, a fairer arrangement can be made with the city of Ottawa than that which, apparently, the minister proposes, namely, the payment simply of $100,000 into the treasury of the corporation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the fair
manner in which the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has discussed the matter. I realize that it is a matter somewhat personal to him and one which is of interest to his constituents. I think I have approached it in the fair spirit of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that I have even gone very much farther because I realize that the city has grown larger and that the world has advanced in ten years. Whereas Sir Wilfrid Laurier made an arrangement for the payment of $100,000 to the commission, I have offered $150,000 a year, and whereas he made an arrangement for $15,000 to go to the city, I have offered $100,000 and the right to tax the Civil Service which will represent about $50,000 or $75,000. It seems to me that, if you are going to make comparisons, I certainly have not been less generous than was the gentleman who has been referred to.
I do not want to discuss it any further than is necessary but I want to state to my hon. friend that the remarks which I made about the work done by employees were made from personal experience and knowledge, and not from hearsay. Of course, I have not had an opportunity of watching these men in a great proportion of their work, but I have had an opportunity of seeing With my own eyes certain things in the year and a half that I have been connected with the department, and I want to tell him that I would not feed some of these men for what they are doing. I would not have them on my premises at all. Why, the Speaker of the House told me only yesterday that he had a lot of these men repairing a room for him-one little room that a man would paint in one-half or three-quarters of a day. Yet six or seven men spent four or five days on the work. Wherever you go it is the same thing.


Walter Davy Cowan: Upon what ground are these men retained? If they were working for me I would fire them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So would I.


Walter Davy Cowan: Why don't you?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to get hold of a few special cases like that. The trouble

is I cannot get the information. I happened to get this instance in conversation with the Speaker yesterday, when we were talking about the work of these men.


Walter Davy Cowan: I would fire every one of them.


William Stevens Fielding: Reference has been made to the determination to make of Ottawa " the Washington of the North," and I notice that in a recent discussion in the press mention is made of what the national government in the United iStates does for Washington and the question is asked, what is our Government doing? I wish to ask my hon. friend whether any proposal has been made to adopt the Washington system here? There is something to be said in favour of it, but its adoption would wipe out the municipal government in Ottawa as well as the individual citizen, so far as active participation in municipal affairs is concerned. In Washington the matter is left in the hands of a fcommission appointed by the Government. The Government pays a very large part of the cost of administration-I think one-half-and the citizens of Washington, unless there has been some change of late, pay the other half, and have no representation or voice in the administration. Has that proposition been put to my hon. friend?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. That proposition has been discussed with the committee representing the city but it did not find very much favour at their hands.


William Stevens Fielding: Then the references made to what the national government in the United States is doing for Washington are scarcely applicable to Ottawa?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hardly.
Rideau Hall (including- grounds), improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How are these items divided up?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is, for example, 8 maintenance staff.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is the amount required for that staff?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The staff includes one upholsterer, one carpenter, three painters, one carter, one plumber, three engineers, three firemen, nine labourers, and one repairer, and the amount required is $16,791.


Thomas Vien: Do we need all these men?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not gone there to investigate. There are some things that

the Minister of Public Works rather fights shy of.
An hon. MEMBEB: If the grounds are kept in good order during the present fiscal year I do not see why you require so large an amount for improvements for the next fiscal year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then there are 16 men employed on- the gardens, grounds and roads, for which $12,857 is asked. About 25 labourers, engineers, carters, plumbers and such like are employed in maintenance and other kinds of work. Some of them, however, are only employed for a part of the year. In connection with greenhouse, gardens and roads I would say about 15 or 18 men are employed. I have every reason to believe that all these men are necessary.


Thomas Vien: Upon whose recommendation are these men appointed? '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are employed by the Clerk of Works without any recommendation from anybody.


Thomas Vien: Is the Clerk of Works an official of the department?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yess and he has the
right to hire these men and to dismiss them for cause.


Thomas Vien: I would suggest then that many of them should be fired. I understand we occupy rather a delicate position when we discuss this matter, but this is a yearly expenditure of $65,000. If the appointment of these men comes under the Clerk of Works and the officials of the department their attention should be drawn to the fact that quite a few of these employees are unnecessary; it is only common sense to say that. If a careful study of the situation were made, I think it would be found that we could economize and save a few thousand dollars on this item.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that the $65,000 represents the upkeep of this mansion?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does.


Thomas Vien: No, it does not. The very next item is a vote of $17,000 additional for fuel and light.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is right.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that $17,000 in addition to the $65,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Thomas Vien: That represents a total of
$82,000 for the maintenance of this mansion. I think without curtailing the accommodation at Eideau Hall or the comfort of the high officials *who reside there-comfort that should not be limited by any means-there are some unnecessary expenditures which it is our duty to diminish.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister tell the Committee if $65,000 were spent last year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. The amount spent was $58,579, leaving a balance of $6,420 unexpended.


Lucien Cannon: If $58,000 sufficed last year, why should it not meet the necessities this year?


Thomas Vien: With the cost of everything going up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is impossible to foresee exactly what repairs may be necessary, or what emergencies we may have to meet. With the care that we are giving this expenditure, I feel the Committee would be safe in trusting the department with $65,000. If that amount is not needed, I can assure the Committee it will not be expended.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has there not been an item similar to this in the Estimates for many years past?
Mr. CAEVELL.- Yes. Ever since Confederation we have had to maintain Eideau Hall.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has the cost of maintenance always run up to figures like this?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot speak from memory, but I know the figures have been fairly generous as long as I can remember.


Lucien Cannon: Who looks after the expenditure of that money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Clerk of Works, as far as labourers are concerned.


Lucien Cannon: Does he report to the department where the money has gone?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He puts in the timesheets, from which it appears to be correct that these men work the number of hours for which they are paid.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It seems to me that it the Clerk of Works were given a "curtain lecture," it might have the desired effect.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know as to that. I am inclined to blame the system rather than the Clerk of Works, who is one of the officials of the department for whom I have the highest regard. I have talked

this matter over with him many times, and I believe he is doing his duty. I am afraid the only way to provide a remedy is to *adopt very drastic measures, perhaps more drastic than I would feel like taking. However, I want to assure my hon. friends that from the knowledge I have at the present time, I think there will be a change in the future.	,


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the name of the Clerk of Works?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Croll. He is Clerk
of Works on government work.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What is his salary?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is $1,600.


Lucien Cannon: Could the minister tell us what was done last year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I have not the details 'here. It must be remembered that this item provides for the maintenance of the buildings, the grounds, the greenhouse, the gardens, and the roads. And all the expenditures are set forth in detail in the Auditor General's Report. I have not all the details here, but I will gladly give my hon. friends such information as I have. I have brought here all that one could reasonably expect to be asked to furnish the Committee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I remember that at the time when our present Sovereign came to the Throne it was stated that he looked very carefully into the administration of the Royal Palaces and was able to effect very drastic reforms and economies in regard to the conduct of matters which had grown up many years before. Perhaps something of that sort is required here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It may be.


Lucien Cannon: Speneerwood, the residence of the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, is far larger than Rideau Hall, but, although the Provincial Government does not spend anything like the amount provided for here, the property is always well maintained. Really I cannot understand how we can spend $62,000 on Rideau Hall-


Thomas Vien: 


Lucien Cannon: -as there are hardly any trees and the grounds are not in very good condition. I do not think we are getting our money's "worth there.


Thomas Vien: It is not the idea of any one on this side of the House at any rate to curtail the comforts of His Excellency or of

his staff, and I am sure that His Excellency might feel embarrassed about dismissing any of these employees, who are practically forced upon him as soon, as they are appointed by the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: His Excellency has nothing to do with their appointment; these men are purely members of the Public Works Department staff.


Thomas Vien: That is why we are freer to discuss it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Absolutely.


Thomas Vien: Because we would not wish to be discourteous towards His Excellency. But I think if the appointments are entirely under the hand of the department the attention of the Government should be drawn to the matter. That is what we are doing now; and even if we vote this item we are taking the word of the Minister of Public 'Works that special attention will be paid to it next year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that Mr. Croll, the Clerk of Works, attends exclusively to the work in and about Rideau Hall?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister spoke a few minutes ago about another clerk of works who was attending to the work on Wellington street.
Mr, CARVELL: That is Mr. Shearer. He is the official who has charge of alf'the men working on the lawns, roads and buildings generally in the city of Ottawa.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose we could not make Mr. Croll a Shearer in order to cut out the expenses?
Telephone service, $62,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I see there is no allowance there for the increased rates which the Bell Telephone Co. are threatening to charge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We hope to save the extra expense by a reduction in the number of phones.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.
Dominion Public Buildings-Dominion Immigration Buildings, repairs, furniture, etc., $13,000.


Thomas Vien: Is that waste paper basket contained in that item?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rather imagine it is.


Thomas Vien: It should be.

Dominion Quarantine Stations-Maintenance, $4,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That seems to be a very small item to maintain a building that is going to cost $400,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think myself that the item is too small. These Estimates were made up, of course, before the session opened. A careful investigation is being made of the immigration buildings. The Minister of Immigration has had a couple of competent men travelling all over the country trying to effect every possible economy, and last week I agreed with him to send an engineer from the Public Works Department to accompany one of his men and inspect these buildings and report what necessary improvements should be made.
I am not speaking of Grosse Isle station; that is provided for in another way. When we have satisfied ourselves what should be done we will come to Parliament for a special vote. This $4,000 could not accomplish very much, and I have a suspicion that the money voted yearly has perhaps been spent in a very perfunctory manner, because I am told that the Halifax and St. John plants are in a very dilapidated condition.
Fittings and general supplies and furniture, $100,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is this especially for?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For supplies and furniture for public buildings all over the Dominion.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does that include furniture and fittings only for buildings outside of Ottawa?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Not inside?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no. We have passed the item for the city of Ottawa, except the rents.


Lucien Cannon: How are those fittings and furniture being purchased?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Through the War Purchasing Commission.


Lucien Cannon: How is it that the money is appropriated to the Department of Public Works when the purchases are being made by the War Purchasing Commission?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The commission simply act as agents for the Department of Public Works in purchasing these supplies, and we take delivery and pay for them. In a word, we do the paying, not the purchasing.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry I forgot to refer to that item of $450,000, repairs, furniture, etc., for buildings in the city of Ottawa. I am sure it will be quite apparent to all hon. members that there is an omission in the furnishing of this building-I refer to proper accommodation for members on the cross bendhes. I think provision should be made for these members in the way of suitable desk accommodation. That brings me to another point: if provision is being made in the new Parliament Buildings for accommodation of third party members, or members on the cross benches? There is quite a contingent of these members in the present House, and I understand it is getting larger every day, and when we change over to the new House it is difficult to say what proportions this contingent will have grown to.


Walter Davy Cowan: It will be the chief Opposition then.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think accommodation
should be provided for them in the new House, and for the time being in this Chamber.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have not reached
the point where we are considering the accommodation of the new House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I bring something to the minister's attention about which I spoke to him privately some time ago? The Hall of Fame in the new Parliament Buildings, I understand, was broadened but the roof was not raised, resulting in a tunnelshaped hall.
Attention was drawn to the matter, and the hall was broadened out, but the roof was left at the same height. Even the best architects sometimes make mistakes. I understand from those who have visited the place and who are connoisseurs in matters of architecture that the general lay-out of the Hall of Fame will be very imperfect unless the roof is raised so that the height of the hall will correspond with its breadth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A day or two after my hon. friend spoke to me I went to the building, accompanied by the architect, and looked the situation over. I am not an aTtist or an architect, but I became satisfied that the proportions of the hall are about as correct as they could be, and that there was nothing in the story which was told to my hon. friend.
Lighting, $175,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A new sheriff who was appointed at Montreal some few years ago,

by assigning an employee to the duty of going from room to room and turning off the electric lights when they were not required, cut down the electric light bill for the court house by one-half. Perhaps the minister is doing something of that nature; if not, it is a suggestion which is worthy of consideration.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The caretakers of all these buildings have instructions to do just what my hon. friend suggests; how faithfully they are carrying out these instructions, o'f course, I am not able to tell. If the light bills show an increase,
11 p.m. the caretakers are always asked for an explanation. But it is a pretty hard matter to control. For instance, if we had some one running round this building and turning off lights all the time, you can imagine what kind of row there would be. A housewife living on one side of the street may be able to get along with half as much electric power as that used by a housewife on the other side of the street; yet it would be hard to convince the second housewife that she could substantially reduce her electric light bills. It is just so with public officials.


Thomas Vien: I suggest that a saving might be effected by installing a plant to develop electric power for the purpose of lighting all Dominion buildings. Big institutions have adopted this course and have found it economical. The East and West Blocks, the Langevin block, the Connaught building, could all be lighted by a plant of their own.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot agree with my hon. friend. If there is one service that the . Government is obtaining which is a real, straight business proposition it is the electric light and power service that they are receiving in Ottawa. The rate is lower than it is in all places but a few in Canada. I admit that we may consume more current than we ought to, but imagine where you would land with $65,000 in attempting to pay the interest on an expenditure sufficiently large to establish and maintain a plant for the lighting of these buildings. You would not even get started; you would have to spend $165,000 a year, and then some. I am afraid my hon. friend is becoming converted to the idea of government ownership and operation of public utilities.


Thomas Vien: Laval University, the Quebec Seminary, the Quebec Parliament buildings are all lighted in that way, and the method is found to be economical.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give an example of the other side of the story. When the Grand Trunk station was built in Ottawa the company installed a steam plant with the idea of lighting their station, grounds and buildings, including the Chateau Laurier, and using the exhaust steam for heating purposes; but they had to go back to the outside companies for their electricity. There is no use in talking about the Government trying to run an electric plant in Ottawa; it could not be done for $200,000 a year.


Mr. PARENT:: Does this item include the lighting of the Quebec post office?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Georges Parent: The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company is providing power for the lighting of the different public buildings in Quebec City. There are two competing light and power companies there, the Public Service Corporation of Quebec and the Quebec Railway Light and Power Company. My information is that when a lighting contract is given it goes to one company, without prices being, asked from the other. The public interest would be better served and lower rates would be obtained by getting prices from both companies. 1


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no knowledge of that. I find from the notes placed before me that we are paying $800 a year for electric light in the Quebec post office, $750 for the custom house, and $1,000 for the examining warehouse.


Georges Parent: Is it correct that a five-year contract has been awarded to the Quebec Railway Light and Power Company without tenders being called?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 1 can say that it has not been done in my day. I will look into the matter and give my hon. friend the facts.


Thomas Vien: Is the lighting of public buildings done on the basis of a meter rate, or of a flat rate?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On the basis of a meter rate wherever possible. We try to follow the custom, whatever it may be, in the city, town or village concerned. We always pay the same price that the ordinary consumer pays.


Mr. CROWE:: What is being paid per kilowat for lighting power in Ottawa?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A contract was entered into with the Ottawa Electric Company, under which a flat rate for power of $20 per horse-power, both alternating and direct

was charged. Then for street lamps on bridges, streets, parks, etc., where the company supplies and maintains the poles, lines, lamps and hangers, the charge is $45 per year per arc lamp of 6i amperes.' Where the Government owns and maintains the poles, lines, etc., the charge is $22 per arc lamp of 6i amperes.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: The consumer's rate in
the city of Ottawa is two cents per kilowatt. I was wondering whether the Government got a reduction on that.
Mr. 'CARVELL:	I am sorry I cannot
give the information now, but I will get it for my hon. friend.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In going through several of the public buildings in Ottawa, some of which are owned, and some merely rented, by the Government, I have noticed that the electric wiring is far from what I would call efficiently or properly installed. If the same installation were in a building owned by myself in Renfrew, the inspector of the Hydro-Electric would condemn it instantly and my insurance rates would be considerably increased. I understand that the Government carries its own insurance, or rather it does not carry insurance on its property. But the Government is responsible not only to itself and its employees but to the city in which its buildings are situated, and if a fire occurred through the negligence of the Government or its employees as regards defective wiring, if the ruling of inspectors is to be a guide in this matter, the Government would be responsible. If the Government are responsible, ll should like to know who would be the one that would be considered guilty in this connection under an enactment passed here a few weeks ago, to amend thp Criminal Code respecting the prevention * of fires. One section of the Bill says:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by negligence, causes any fire which occasions loss of life or loss of property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Theoretically, that would come back to the minister.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like the ministei to get busy on the job at once, because the wiring is undoubtedly not in proper shape either in this building or in any other buildings in the city owned or leased by the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is the first I have heard of the matter. I will have an investigation and a report made. There have never in the past been any fires in Government buildings in Ottawa on account of defective wiring.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $915,000.


Walter Davy Cowan: Does this cover rents
throughout Canada outside of Ottawa?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This covers the total rents in Canada.


Walter Davy Cowan: This is a tremendous price we are paying for occupying the humiliating position of tenant, and it would be a good thing to have public buildings in all small places. That is going pretty far, but this item proves that the Department of Public W'orks should adopt a policy of putting up in every capital city in the Dominion a public building capable of housing all the employees of the Government. In the city in which I live, which is the capital of Saskatchewan, it is the most difficult thing for an ordinary person entering the city to find a Dominion officer. It is most inconvenient, and the Government is being held up by landlords on every possible occasion. Whenever landlords get a chance to raise the rent, they do so. The only way to get rid of landlords is by putting up buildings of one's own.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I ought to take a little time to tell the Committee what we are paying in rents outside of Ottawa. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) is absolutely right when he states that rents are being put up and up all the time, and there seems to be no way to prevent it. The last three or four years have been abnormal ones, and there has been a great increase in the Civil Service in every portion of Canada, very largely due to war services, and now we have two or three other services starting up, namely, the Soldiers Land Settlement Board, the Soldiers Civil Reestablishment Department, and the Income Tax Branch.


Walter Davy Cowan: The latter will be permanent.	;


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no doubt at all that the Civil Service outside of Ottawa is not going to decrease nearly as rapidly as many of us would wish. We must face the situation, and the suggestion made by the hon. member for Regina is good, sound business. I will give the Committee a few figures to show what we are paying:
Rents
Ordinary	on war
rents.	account.
Nova Scotia	
$ 15,632	$ 13,828New Brunswick . . . .	1,497	9,805Prince Edward Island	542	940Quebec	
Ontario, outside of	$46,748	$104,135Ottawa	62,285	157,838Manitoba	21,307	50,565Saskatchewan	22,890	46,482Alberta	61,430	72,794British Columbia. ..	33,507	71,782


Mr. CEO  WE@: What was the rents paid in Vancouver?		amount of


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be over $60,000. I can give my. hon. friend the items but it would take a long time to read them In regard to the city of Ottawa, my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), the last time the Committee sat, asked me for a statement. I have prepared for him a statement of all the rentals in the city of Ottawa, and it shows $645,066 on ordinary rentals, and $111,482 on war account- a total of $756,549.


Thomas Vien: Could the details of these
be given to the Committee?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I intend to lay it on the Table or give it to the hon. member for Guysborough, and it will be available to any one -who wishes to see it. It gives the names of all the several buildings.


Thomas Vien: Not only the details in regard to Ottawa, but the other document as well.
Mr. McilASTEE: It could be inserted in Hansard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would take a great many pages of Hansard. However, I would be glad to treat it as a return showing all the rents paid and the details.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What about rents received for buildings owned and rented by the Government, as well as the taxes paid on them?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Taxes paid by the Government on Government-owned property rented in Ottawa total $8,219.25, and if we pay within a certain time we get a discount. It figures out a total of $7,769. That is in Ottawa.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Have you the total rentals received on Government property on which you pay taxes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, $25,874.


Robert James Manion: I have a suggestion to make regarding public buildings. I have often been struck by the waste space in some public buildings outside of Ottawa. If you go to some customs buildings you will see more than ample room for the

requirements of the work, and yet the agent at that point will insist that he barely has enough room. I have been in customs houses in small cities where the building was large enough for a city five times its size. The Government might do well from an economical standpoint to have an independent inspector look over these buildings with a view to seeing if they could not find space for more departments of public service than those for which they are now used. The hon. minister has been doing that to some extent, because in my own city he has put a number of offices into the customs building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have had a few trials -I think that is the word I should use-in regard to the matter suggested by the hon. member, but I have not succeeded very well.
I will go so far as to criticise the policy that has been in vogue for a great many years of having too big examining warehouses which were not properly arranged for office purposes, involving a great waste of space,
I will not say of public money, because the buildings no doubt actually cost the money paid for them. The most notable example is the city of Calgary. In the customs warehouse there, there is enough waste space to take care of the post office of that city, for which we are going to spend $750,OflO to put up a building.
Mr. MclMASTEE: Why not use it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You cannot get light and the conveniences necessary. I went to look it over and I can assure my hon. friends that it cannot be used. The space is there. There are a few packing boxes in a room as big as this, but they will tell you that they need every inch of it. My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) is absolutely right in his criticism, and that is why I ' said the other night that any buildings I had anything to do with would not be called either post office or custom house, but would be known as public buildings, to be used for the public services.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think there is any provision in the law" which gives the Government the right to expropriate buildings for Government purposes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, there is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know there is a right to expropriate land for a railway, but I did not know there was the right to expropriate what I might call the use of a building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there was passed last year an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act which gives the right of such expropriation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am glad to hear that there is such a law, because it is only right. A farmer can have part of his farm taken from him for a public utility, and the landlord should be under the obligation to give up his property for public purposes under' urgent necessity.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is such a right because I have exercised it a dozen times in the last six or eight months.


Thomas Vien: Is the lease mentioned in these lists that are to be filed as sessional papers?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not the dates.


Thomas Vien: But the duration?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Thomas Vien: Are they for several years?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some are for five years. We have adopted the policy for the last year and a half that as these leases fall due we renew them for not later than the first of May. 1920, and in many cases not later than next December. The reason is this: The Hunter building will be completed, we hope, in July and certainly in August. That will provide about 140,000 square feet of floor space, and will house a great many civil servants now accommodated' in other parts of the city. But as there are some new departments being established, such as the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Land Settlement Board and the Income Tax office, the idea is to have a general rearrangement of the offices of the different departments when the Hunter building is finished. We have rented the whole of what is called the Rea or Daly building of which we get possession on the 1st of July. So that in July or by the 1st of August we hope to be able to make a re-arrangement by which we shall have each department in one place. I am sorry to say that two important departments will still be distributed in sections in different places around the city, but we are making very short term leases and hope within the next year and a half, at the outside, to get rid of a great many buildings now under lease and to reduce to quite an extent the amount of rental paid in Ottawa.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: While that general plan for re-arranging the offices in Ottawa is being carried into effect, has the
minister considered the unit system in the organization of Government offices to conserve space, and do away with so many partitions and doors in the buildings? It seems to me, in going through the departments as they exist at the present time, that one of the great difficulties is that the buildings were never designed as office buildings. Looking at the Hunter building from the outside it does seem to me to be the first approach to a successful modern office building that has ever been designed in connection with the Government service in any part of Canada. If it is carried out on that system it will not only conserve space but it will ultimately result in reducing the cost of the entire office staff.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I accept the compliment which my hon. friend offers regarding the Hunter building but I take no credit to myself; whatever credit there is belongs to the deputy minister who was the author of the building and for whom it has been named. I agree that this is the first attempt that has been made in Ottawa to have a real office building. The building is constructed on the unit basis. There are nine floors all practically alike. The only difference is that there is a well in the centre 100 x 50 feet. The building is 200 x 150 feet. That gives a row of offices all around the position of the well 50 feet wide. There is an 8-foot passageway which leads between two 20-foot offices, one on the outside and one on the inside. The great long corridors have been divided up according to the necessities of the departments intending to use them. Some of the space may be divided up into rooms 10 x 12 and in other cases there will be rooms from 30 to 50 feet long. We have consulted several departments which are going to use the different floors and have divided and partitioned the space according to the arrangements of these departments.
As to the future, I think I suggested on .a former occasion that it would well repay any member of the House of Commons to take a forenoon, go to Mr. Ewart's office and see the models which he is preparing for the new building which we all hope in the not-too-far-distant future to see erected on the expropriated area on Wellington street. That idea is being carried out there exclusively. We propose to adopt the unit system in .so far as the unit system can be applied to that building. The first unit will contain the Supreme Court room, and after that there will be a series of office buildings practically all built upon the

same general plan to carry out the idea that my hon. friend suggests.


Samuel William Jacobs: What will the cost of the Hunter building be?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Including land, $1,500,-
000.


Samuel William Jacobs: You have 140,000 square
feet of floor space?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. It is by far the
cheapest office building in Ottawa. If you figure light, heat, elevator attendants, and all you can possibly figure it will amount to from 68 to 69 cents per .square foot per annum. We are paying all sorts of prices for rents but for a modern building we are paying around a dollar a foot. We look upon this building as a good business investment. It will also be an investment from the civil servants' standpoint because they will be housed in offices such as they never had before, and that means increased efficiency.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is half past eleven, we have done a splendid evening's work, we have learned a great deal about the public service and it would seem fitting that we should adjourn.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection although I had hoped to get rid of the rest of these Estimates.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We worked until two
o'clock this morning.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These harbour and river items are unimportant. Of course I am in the hands of the Committee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They are not important on the whole but they are sometimes very important to certain constituencies and they might possibly give rise to a certain amount of discussion. The minister agreed with me about the advisability of an eight hour day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not apply to members of Parliament.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Carvell the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Friday. May 16, 1919.