[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) presented the report of the Free Conference with the managers of the Senate with respect to Bill No. 60, to amend the Judges Act. He said:	I beg
to move that the amendment agreed to in the Free Conference to the Bill to amend the Judges Act be considered and agreed to, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith. I make this motion with a great deal of reluctance. I feel very strongly that it would have been much wiser to deal with the matter in a manner that would have afforded greater opportunity for consideration. It is more than doubtful whether the proposed amendment will meet the purpose of those who have made it, but it is a very much less sweeping provision than was originally embodied in the amendments of the Senate. I think that, in view of the importance of the Bill, the wisest course is to acquiesce in this action of their honours. In saying this I believe I am expressing the views of the other gentlemen who were acting as managers on behalf of the House of Commons.	,
Mr. SPEAKER:: I am not altogether sure that this procedure may not be somewhat out of order, inasmuch as no notice has been given. I assume, however, that at this period of the session, and in view of the nature of the report of the conference, there will be no objection to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['I move to make it 800 and 200.\nMotion as amended agreed to.']
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved:: That the evidence taken from day to day during the current session by the Special Committee appointed to consider the future fuel

supply of Canada be indexed and issued in pamphlet form to the number of 1,000, and that Rule 74, relating thereto, be suspended; and further, that the distribution of such copies be and is assigned to the clerk of the committee, who is hereby instructed to cause them to be forwarded to educational institutions, public libraries, boards of trade, boards of commerce, and such other public bodies as may desire them.


Mr. PARENT:: How many copies will be printed in French?


Michael Steele: I understand there is an unwritten rule that a certain proportion of such copies shall be printed in French. If not, it could be specified in the motion.


Mr. BELAND:: It is generally stated in the motion that so many copies shall be printed in English, and so many in French.
Mr. MEIGHEN t The proportion is 700 to 300.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Michael Steele: In view of the fact that the provinces most interested in the coal situation are English-speaking provinces, perhaps a lesser percentage of French copies will be sufficient.


Mr. BUREAU:: I move to make it 800 and 200.
Motion as amended agreed to.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 221, to consolidate the Income Tax Act. He said:	The question regarding the income tax amendments has been brought before the House several times, and I have promised to bring down legislation dealing with the subject of penalties. The last time the matter was under consideration the question was raised as to whether we were going into the whole question at the present. time in view of the fact that some amendments which were contemplated were more or less controversial. I stated that under the circumstances it was my opinion that what ought to be done now was to reduce our penalties somewhat. The purpose of the penalties, I am glad to say, has largely disappeared. The collection of income taxes in , every country is more or less difficult, and hon. gentlemen have pointed out that our collections in the past h%ve not been
nearly as good as the collections in other countries; and Australia and New Zealand were mentioned as particular illustrations of this fact. I desire to give to the House some figures in connection with the proposal I now make to reduce our penalties. I shall not give the odd numbers. In Canada, the first year we had an income tax collection, we gathered $9,000,000; that was in the year 1917. Australia's first year was 1915. She, of course, has a much larger urban population than Canada, and her collection for that first year amounted to $18,000,000- double ours. New Zealand's first year was 1891, and her initial collection was $327,000. In our second year, we collected $20,000,000, while Australia in her second year collected $27,000,000, and New Zealand, $366,-
000.	Our third year amounted to $46,000,000, Australia's third year to $34,000,000, and New Zealand's third year to $437,-
000.	There is also an interesting matter in connection with the collection of taxes in the different countries, something which illustrates the effect of the generous exemptions granted in Canada. We find that for the first year the general average of the taxation in Canada was $200 per ratepayer paying taxes, and in Australia it was $76. In the second year in Canada the amount was $207, and in Australia $105. The third year in Canada the amount was $244 as against $110 in Australia. I think, Mr. Speaker, the House will also be pleased to know how we are getting along with collections of the current year. The collections for this year have been very gratifying. Since the closing of the books of the last fiscal year, and under assessment on and by the ratepayers themselves for the first time the sum of roughly $39,000,000 has already been collected to date.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: What is the gross amount paid to Arthur Young and Company and to Griffenhagen and Company for their services in connection with the classification and organization of the Civil Service from the date when Arthur Young and Company were first employed in 1918 up to the

30th of April, 1921, including transportation, living expenses, and all other outlay of every description ?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	$158,333.49 made up as follows: (a) classifying service and reorganizing staff and office procedure, $51,199.83; (b) fitting classification to personnel Post Office Department, $6,260.11; (c) fitting classification to remaining personnel, $63,106.25; (d) bonus work, $4,078.18; (e) reorganization Department Public Printing and Stationery, $33,689.12. The above figures cover the period inclusive from August, 1918, when the Arthur Young Company were first employed, until October, 1920, when their contract with the Civil Service Commission ceased. The gross amount paid to Griffenhagen & Company up to April 30, 1921, was $113,603.08.


ONTARIO HIGHWAYS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What route will the Toronto-Guelph-Sarnia highway take and what towns and cities will it tpass through?
2.	What is the estimated cost in Reel and Halton respectively and the distance traversed in each county?
3.	What specifications were called for on this road?
4.	Has the Dominion Government approved of the route and specifications?
5.	What roads have been proposed in Peel and Halton?
6.	What roads have been approved in Peel and Halton?
7.	What is the estimated cost of the Dundas street highway, what is the estimated cost of the parts in Peel and Halton respectively, and what is the distance in each of these two counties?
8.	Does any portion of the Dundas street highway traverse over or near the lands of the Minister of Piiblic Works of Ontario, in the county of Wentworth?
9.	Does the Dominion Department of Public Highways permit the Ontario Department of Public Works in arriving at the cost of a highway to figure in the overhead charges such as road-making machinery?
10.	On whose recommendation does the Dominion Government pay over the Federal share of the cost of a highway to the province?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	From Toronto along Dundas St. to Cooksville, thence northerly to Brampton; thence westerly through Georgetown, Acton, Rockwood to Guelph; thence through Kitchener, New Hamburg, Stratford, St. Marys, Elginfield, Ailsa Craig, Parkhill to the Arkona Road; thence southerly through Arkona to the Sarnia 
Gravel Road; thence westerly on the Sarnia Gravel Road to Sarnia.
2.	Complete estimates for sections in Peel and Halton have not yet been prepared. Peel county, 18.73 miles; Halton county, 20.55 miles.
3.	Project statement calls for bituminous macadam, cement concrete being laid for 2i miles east from Sarnia; asphaltic concrete 4 miles east from Cooksville.
4.	The plans of this route so far approved are Dundas street and the section of the Stratford-London road between Stratford and Elginfield.
5.	In Peel county, Dundas street; Cooksville, Owen Sound; Brampton, Stratford. In Halton county, Dundas street; Brampton, Stratford.
6.	Dundas street.
7.	The estimated cost of Dundas Street Highway is $749,865. The estimated cost of the parts in Peel and Halton respectively, and their distances are as follows: Peel county, 9.5 miles, $209,475; Halton county, 15.5 miles, $416,775.
8.	The Ontario Department of Public Highways reply "No."
9.	No.
10.	The recommendation of the Federal Department's inspecting engineer and auditor.


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth) :: 1.	What price per square yard did the Warren company get for the completed Hamilton-Brant-ford highway?
2.	Has a royalty to be paid to any one for Warren Bithulithic Pavement? If so, how much, and to whom is it paid?
3.	What property was purchased in order to widen the road between the starting point (Paradise Road) and the village of Ancaster?
4.	What are the names of parties from whom this property was purchased, and the price paid, respectively?
5.	Have all the owners of property on that portion of the road between Paradise Road and Binkley's Corners on the Hamilton-Brantford highway been paid for their property?
6.	What amount of road machinery and motor trucks have been imported by the Public Works Department of the province of Ontario since the present Ontario Government came into power?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Warren Company's prices for the completed Hamilton-Brantford highway, as given by the Ontario Highways Department, were as follows:
24,336 square yards bituminous top at
$2.60	$63,273.60
30,420 square yards macadam base at
80 cents	 24,336.00

278 cubic yards earth excavating, at
$1.50	 417.00
16,712 lineal feet ditching, at 60 cents. 10,027.20 94 cubic yards broken stone concrete,
at $20		1,880.00
30,420 square yards Scar, and rolled,
at 10 cents	 3,042.00
6,084 square yards bituminous shoulder, at $1.80	 10,951.20
1,65*5 lineal feet tile drain, at 70 cents 1,158.50 20 cubic yards concrete slabs over culverts, at $17.50	 350.00
Cost of watermin macadam	 1,566.56
35,849 tons screening, at $3.60	 12,90*5.64

3,151.6 tons of crushed stone used in
macadam base	 11,345.76

2.	The Ontario Department of Highways advise that no royalty is payable on work done by the Warren Company for the Provincial Government.
3,	4, and 5. In determining the amount to be paid under the Canada Highways Act for the improvement of any road no expenditure in connection with right-of-way or the widening of right-of-way is allowable, therefore no information on such matters is available in Federal Department of Highways.
6. No information; the Canada Highways Act does not permit of the payment of any portion of the cost of purchasing machinery, trucks, etc.


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth) :: 1.	What length of pavement has been laid between the T. H. & B. railway tracks on the Hamilton-Brantford highway, and the village of Ancaster?
2.	What property has been, or will be, purchased on this same section of road, and at what price?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed subway - at Binkley's Corners under the T. H.'& B. tracks on Hamilton-Brantford highway?	i
4.	When the statement is made, that on a provincial Dominion highway the province pays 40 per cent, the Dominion 40 per cent, and the municipality 20 per cent, what is meant by the municipality, Is it the township through which the road passes or the county in which road is located?
5.	Who pays for the upkeep of the provincial Dominion highways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	4,100 feet.
2.	The Federal Department of Highways has no information.
3.	About $60,000.
4.	The county.
5.	Province 80 per cent; county 20 per cent.


RETURNED MEN-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. GORDON:: 1.	What was the reason for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment terminating the unemployed relief granted to returned men in Peterborough on April 23, 1921?
2.	In what cities in Ontario is this unemployment relief being continued?
3.	At what date was this unemployment relief discontinued in the cities of Ontario?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	The granting of relief to returned men resident in Peterborough was not finally discontinued on April 23. The granting of relief by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment during the months of January, February and March to unemployed ex-service men was authorized by Order in Council P.C. 43 of January 10, 1921. Towards the end of March it was apparent that the granting of relief in a modified form was still necessary, and provision was made under authority of P.C. 1007 of March 24 to continue relief to married men or single men with dependents until April 23. This date was extended later under authority of P.C. 1615 of May 13 until May 28, 1921.
2.	The provision of relief is not limited to ex-service men resident in any particular city or town, but is available to all necessitous cases amongst married or single ex-service men with dependents. In Ontario, relief is administered from the unit offices of the department situated at Toronto, London and Ottawa.
3.	The authority under which relief is being granted by the Department expires on May 28, 1921.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many cities and counties in Canada have come under the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act by vote?
2.	What are the names of the said cities and counties?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Seventy-three. The Act has been repealed or suspended in all of these except eleven.
2.	Fredericton, N.B.; York, N.B.; Prince, P.E.I.; Charlotte, N.B.; Carleton, N.B.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Albert, N.B.; King's, P.E.I.; Lambton, Ont.; King's, N.B.; Queen's, N.B.; Westmoreland, N.B.; Northumberland, N.B.; Inverness, N.S.; Pictou, N.S.; Cumberland, N.S.; Yarmouth, N.S.; Oxford, Ont.; Arthabaska, Que.;

Simcoe, Ont.; Stanstead, Que.; Stormont and Dundas, Ont.; Queen's, P.E.I.; Marquette, Man.; Digby, N.S.; Queen's, N.S.; Sunbury, N.B.; Shelburne, N.S.; Lisgar, Man.; King's, N.S.; Halton, Ont.; Annapolis, N.S.; Colchester, N.S.; Cape Breton, N.S.; Hants, N.B.; Chicoutimi, Que.; Frontenac, Ont.; Lincoln, Ont.; Middlesex, Ont.; Guysboro, N.S.; Ontario, Ont.; Victoria, Ont.; Peterborough, Ont.; St. John (County) N.B.; Bruce, Ont.; Huron, Ont.; Dufferin, Ont.; Renfrew, Ont.; Norfolk, , Ont.; Brant, Ont.; Leeds and Grenville, Ont.; Kent, Ont.; Lanark, Ont.; Lennox and Addington, Ont.; Brome, Que.; Carle-ton, Ont.; Drummond, Que.; Lambton, Ont.; Wellington, Ont.; Portland, N.B.; Richmond, Que.; District of Manitoulin, Ont.; City of Thetford Mines, Que.; Peel, Ont.; Huron, Out.; Perth, Ont.; Missisquoi, Que.; Compton, Que.; Quebec, Que.; Guelph (City), Ont.; Northumberland, and Durham, Ont.; Elgin, Ont.; St. Thomas, Ont.
The Act is at the present time in force in the following places:

Ontario-District of Manitoulin.
Quebec-City of Thetford Mines, City of Quebec, and Counties of Brome, Stanstead, Compton and Missisquoi.
Nova Scotia-Counties of Digby and Guysborough.
Manitoba-Lisgar and Marquette.
Mr. JUSTICE EBERTS' REPORT


Mr. McINTOSH:: 1.	Has Mr. Justice Eberts, a Commissioner duly appointed in 1919 by Order in Council, to Investigate fishery conditions in certain fishery districts in British Columbia, submitted a report? If not, why?
2.	If a report has not been received from the said Commissioner, what action, if any. is contemplated to compel submission of report?
3.	What amount has Mr. Justice Eberts received as such Commissioner from the Government ?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No. No information.
2.	The Department of Justice has been requested to do anything it can to require submission of the report.
3.	Nothing.



UNITED STATES TARIFF-CANADIAN DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve and Gaspe) :: On the 26th of May

last I asked the Minister of Finance if, in view of the Emergency Tariff Bill in the United States, it was the Intention of the Government to introduce new tariff resolutions. The answer of my hon. friend was that no such report had yet reached him, and he certainly had no proposals to make to the House at present. I suppose the words "at present" were used in view of the probability of the Government taking action in the matter by Order in Council. I read in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, the statement that as the result of the United States Tariff now being in force and of prohibitive duties being applied to Canadian agricultural products, countervailing duties have been decided upon by the Canadian Government. I shall not read the whole of the article, but simply quote the announcement made by the Collector of Customs of Montreal, Mr. Weldon.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Are we on the Orders of the Day?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a point of
order, then. I question the right of the hon. gentleman 'to make a speech.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not going to make a speech.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I might say that if it
were an earlier stage in the session I would ask the hon. member to put his question without any remarks. At the present stage, however, in view of the fact that there will be little or no opportunity of eliciting information by placing questions on the Order Paper, I felt I would be justified in granting to hon. members a little more latitude than would be allowed at an earlier period.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: No action has been taken, and what I said the other day stands. We have items in the customs tariff which are dependent upon the action of other countries. In addition to that, Orders in Council have been made from time to time in the past reducing duties-those are the only Orders in Council that are made. Following the wording of the Customs Act in certain items, the orders that deal with such reduction of duties apply on imports from countries that reduce duties upon our exports. For example, in the United States . the Underwood Tariff gave free wheat, free flour and other thing's to countries that admitted wheat and flour from the United States free of duty. Canada accepted the offer in just so many words; it gave free admission to American imports into this country exactly in the same way. That free admission stood, or was in effect, just as long as the United States were not taxing similar products from Canada. When they tax those products, the ordinary customs tariff takes effect automatically.



NAURU ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: A day or two ago I mentioned to the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that I would take an opportune moment to ask him a question in regard to the island of Nauru and the monopoly of the rich phosphate deposits there alleged to have been given to Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, to the exclusion of any benefit on the part of Canada. I should like to put the question formally:
Is it true that the Government, through its representatives on the British Empire Delegation to the Peace Conference, agreed to the granting of a monopoly of the raw materials of Nauru Island, including the largest reserves of high grade phosphates in the world, to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and to the exclusion of Canada from any benefits accruing under the mandate for the administration of Nauru Island, which mandate the Allied and Associated Powers conferred
upon the British Empire as a whole; and, if so, why?


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman did speak to me, and I told him I would make certain of the situation. I have to confess that I overlooked his inquiry, but I will give him a definite answer later. In the meantime I may say my very strong impression is that there was no such agreement.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Laval-Two Mountains) :: Mr. Speaker, on the 11th day of April last an Order of the House was issued for a return showing the number of civil servants appointed to permanent positions on April 1, 1921, the names of such employees,' their classification, and so forth. That return has not yet been brought down. May I ask the Government if it is their intention to bring it down before the end of the session?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the return called for the number of employees in the Civil Service as of a certain date, their names, classification, and date of appointment, and that it passed some time in April. I am informed by those around me that the return is down, but if it is I am surprised, for I would not expect that such a return could be prepared in the time which has elapsed. But if it is not down it will be prepared just as quickly as possible.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DESAULNIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHURL.DESAULNIERS (Champlain) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to an omission in Hansard of yesterday. When the vote was registered upon the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) on Bill No. 216 respecting the lake of the Woods and other waters, I was in my seat and voted for the amendment. I note that my vote has not been registered, and I ask that the necessary correction be made in the revised Hansard.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that through inadvertence the name of Mr. Deslauriers was inserted instead of the name of the

hon. member (Mr. Desaulniers), but I wil' see that the necessary correction is made



PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: In view of the despatch from London which appeared in the newspapers this morning to the effect that naval defence and the contribution of the dominions to it would be one of the main topics to be discussed at the meeting of Prime Ministers in London, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) if there has been any change in his determination, as stated in the House the other day, that Canada's intention was that such topics should not be discussed this summer?


Arthur Meighen: I am not agreeable to the expression of my determination by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), but I can inform him that there has been no change whatever, either in my own view or that of the Government, towards the Prime Minister's Conference and its agenda, from that expressed in this House.



COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT SENATE AMENDMENTS

Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 12, to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyright be concurred in. They are nine in number, but I do not think that any of them materially affects the provisions of the Bill as it left this House. The first two amendments to section 13 were both necessitated by an accident that happened in the re-printing of the Bill as it came from the committee of this House. That committee had amended the section precisely as it is now amended by the Senate, but in re-printing, those two particular alterations were overlooked. Subsection 6 of section 13 dealt with the case where two or more persons made application for a license, and as the Bill was originally drafted and left this House the provision was that in such a case the license should be awarded to the applicant proposing the highest retail selling price, and if there were two applicants proposing the same retail selling price the license should be awarded to the applicant whose application was first received. The committee of this House amended that by substituting the applicant proposing terms

that in the opinion of the minister were most advantageous to the author, for it is obvious that there might be other considerations than the mere question of the highest retail selling price. That modification necessitated in the next line the same modification to make it correspond; that is, that in the case of two persons proposing terms equally advantageous to the author then the license would be awarded to the applicant whose application was first received.
The next amendment of the Senate consists in amending paragraph (a) of subsection 9 of the same section by substituting two months. The Bill as it left this House required that the licensee should within thirty days print the work for which he had a license. Their honours seem to have had information leading them to believe that that was perhaps too short a period. The change does not seem to be open to serious objection.
In paragraph (b) of the same subsection 9 the Senate has amended the Act by inserting "in such manner as may be prescribed by the minister." The subsection, in defining the obligations of the licensee in this paragraph, stated, among other obligations, the obligation to print the book from the last authorized edition in full without abbreviation, alteration, and so forth. The Senate represented that there might be conditions that ought to be imposed other than the mere requirement I have stated. This gives added protection to the author.
In section 14 the provision for the publication of serials provided that such serials might be republished here if the publication of a book is lawfully begun as a serial elsewhere than in His Majesty's Dominions or a foreign country to which section 4 of this Act applies. That was intended to include other countries of the Union, and it was suggested that if we excepted the foreign countries to which subsection 1 of section 4 applies the result intended would be produced and the provision would be made absolutely clear.
The next amendment is also to section 13; it is simply to .make clear that the proviso inserted at the end of subsection 12 applies to the entire section and not merely to that subsection. Then there is an amendment to section 18, subsection 6 paragraph (b). That subsection provided that no royalty should be payable in respect of contrivances " lawfully made before the commencement of this Act."

The Senate have amended by making the subsection read:
That no royalty shall be payable in respect of contrivancers lawfully made and sold by the manufacturer before the commencement of this Act.
The amendment seems unobjectionable. Then, on page 20, line 18 there is an amendment to section 39 of the Act, which deals with the effect of the registration or the absence of registration. The provision as it left this House was that any transfer by assignment of a license of a copyright should he void against any subsequent assignee or licensee for valuable consideration without actual notice

-"unless such assignment or license is registered in the manner directed by this Act before the registering of the instrument under which a subsequent assignee or licensee .claims.
The Senate have added to the section the following words:
-and no grantee shall maintain any action under this Act, unless his and each such prior grant has been registered."
I think that in denying action against any person for infringement their Honours of the Senate have gone further than was logical or necessary, but I do not think any serious objection is presented. I move concurrence in the amendments.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CIVIL' SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the provisions of Bill 122, "An Act to amend the Civil Service Act," be amended by adding thereto the provisions of the Bill reported to the House by the Select Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Soldiers, which provides, that the following be enacted as section thirty-nine of the Civil Service Act, 1918:	,	.
"39. (1) Immediately after each examination a list of the successful competitors in the case of a competitive examination, and of successful candidates in order of merit in other examinations, shall be made out and published ih the Canada Gazette.
"2. The Civil Service Commission shall prepare and maintain a special list of persons in receipt of pensions by reason of their services in the war, nineteen hundred and fourteen to nineteen hundred and eighteen, who
"(i) have from causes attributable to such service lost capacity for physical exertion to an
extent which 111 .'ikes them unfit efficiently to pursue the avocations which they were pursuing before the war.
"(ii) have not been successfully re-established in some other avocation, and
"(iii) desire to be placed on such list.
The commission shall obtain as full particulars of each person on such list, including particulars of his age, education, physical ^ and mental condition, resources and responsibilities, as it is possible to obtain from all available records.
In all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service the persons named on such list who are found to possess the necessary qualifications shall be placed in the order of merit on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates.
"(3) In all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service all persons other than those mentioned in subsection two of this section who have been on active service overseas on the military forces or who have served on the high seas in a seagoing ship of war in the naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of His Majesty during the war, nineteen hundred and fourteen to nineteen hundred and eighteen, who have left such service with an honourable record or who have been honourably discharged, or when any persons who have served as aforesaid have died owing to such service the widows of such persons, and who in either case obtain sufficient marks to pass such examinations, shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be placed In the order of merit on the list of successful candidates next after any candidates who are on the special list mentioned in subsection two of this section and above all other candidates.
"(4) The provisions of any statute or regulation prescribing the age limit and physical requirements with respect to any appointment in the Civil Service shall not apply to any persons with the military and naval service mentioned in subsection two or three of this section."
He said: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, may I say that I am informed by the parliamentary counsel that the proper course in this case is to instruct the Committee of the Whole prior to the House going into committee, in the following language:
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole in connection with Bill 122 as reported1 by the special committee appointed to consider the same, that it shall have power to, consider and deal with and, if so advised, Include in said Bill the amendments to the Civil Service Act recommended in the report of the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Soldiers.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am inclined to think that the better practice would be to go into committee and deal with the resolution and after it has been considered and reported back to the House it could, on motion, be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered in connection with Bill 122. That would be in line with the practice followed yesterday and in entire conformity with the ordinary practice of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to point out to my right hon. friend that we have not yet considered Bill No. 122, and there are some features of it that, I think, are contentious. It may be that the Bill will meet with a sad end. It would be better to have Bill No. 122 considered before we have these amendments made to it. Of course, I understand that this is only a resolution, to be followed by a Bill, but I think it is worth while pointing this out.


Arthur Meighen: There is no reason why the resolution should not pass. I do not know what the objection can be to Bill No. 122, but if it turns out that there is objection to Bill No. 122, we shall have to deal with it accordingly.


Mr. EULER:: I was a member of the
special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 122, and the report of that committee has not yet been adopted. Is it the intention that further clauses are to be added to that Bill and to refer it back to that committee for further consideration? If not, in what position does this leave the committee?


Arthur Meighen: This resolution has no relation to Bill No. 122 as it stands. Each is an amendment to the Civil Service Act, but they are utterly foreign to each other! The only point in common between them is that they are amendments to the same Act. It was thought better to have one amendment to the Civil Service Act rather than two, and that is the reason why this method of procedure is adopted.


William Daum Euler: Is it a fact that the report which has been laid on the Table is not to be dealt with now in connection with this matter?


Arthur Meighen: The Bill as reported by the special committee appears as No. 29 on the Orders of the Day, and it will be dealt with there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that these resolutions, which are based upon the report of another committee altogether, are intended primarily to amend the Civil Service Act and that Bill No. 122 is to amend the Civil Service Act?
Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will matters be so arranged later that Bill No. 122 may be discussed in the form in which it is now, before adding these amendments to it; or will they be incorporated in Bill No. 122?


Arthur Meighen: They will be incorporated in Bill No. 122; but Bill No. 122 may be amended; what is left in it may be struck out, and this left, if that is the will of the House. There will not be two Bills to amend the Civil Service Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An unfortunate confusion might arise in the effort of hon. gentlemen on this side to oppose certain features of Bill No. 122 as it now stands. We might be very strongly misrepresented as opposing the amendmerts that are now being made in the interest of returned soldiers. I do, not think that we shall have any exception to take to any amendments brought in as a result of the report of the Committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; but we are going to take strong exception to some features of Bill No. 122, and I would not like to see the two things confused.


Arthur Meighen: If ther.e are in this
House hon. gentlemen who oppose the present provisions of Bill No. 122 and to whom these amendments are acceptable, they certainly could protect themselves on second reading or at any other time by moving an amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That would be confusing.
Mr. MEIGHEN. An amendment would not be confusing.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I was a member of the
special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 122. We discussed the Bill; we amended it, and a report has been laid on the table of the House. If it is the intention of the Government to incorporate this resolution in that Bill which has been reported as amended by that special committee, this resolution has not been laid before that special committee for discussion, so that it is quite a different matter. The Committee of the Whole, in examining Bill No. 122 on second reading, as Order of the Day No. 29, will have to deal with a resolution which was not discussed by this special committee and with which the report of the special committee does not deal at all. Therefore there might be confusion. We are inr irpor-

ating in Bill No. 122, the conclusions of Select Committees on 'Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, Pensions, Insurance, etc., which conclusions the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 122 have no cognizance of.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I do not see that there is any occasion for confusion. Bill No. 122 was referred to a special committee and that committee has reported the Bill. That Bill stands now for consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. It is perfectly Competent for any hon. member, a member of the Government or totherwise, to move an amendment to that Bill. It so happens that the amendments now suggested require notice, and, I suppose, the assent of the Governor General. That course has 'been taken, simply because it is required by the rules of the House. It is perfectly competent for the committee to deal with the whole question, and as the Prime Minister pointed out, it is not desirable to have two separate Bills each dealing with proposed amendments to the Civil Service Act.


Mr. FIELDING:: It is a pity that we did not take up Bill No. 122 and1 then, in consideration of that Bill in committee, 'these amendments could have been very properly moved. The present procedure is, I think, confusing. It ought, however, to be fairly understood by those members who may not want to support the Civil Service Bill proper that, in assenting to this resolution, they reserve the right to oppose the main Bill. The procedure is a little confusing, but the result will be the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What would be the effect of having this amendment read:
Resolved, that the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, be amended-
And so forth? It would mean two amendments to one Act, but it would avoid a confusion which, I think, would be most unfortunate and unfair. 'The procedure that I suggest will get matters through just as quickly. I should like to avoid, if possible, confusing the issue as between anything that is being done on the recommendation of the committee that dealt with the soldiers and Bill No. 122, which is objectionable from so many points of view.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see where the confusion comes in. There are many Bills to some clauses of which hon. members
are opposed and other clauses which they support. Evidently this is to be one of those Bills. If you are going to pass an amendment to the Civil Service Act, and then, following right on that, another Bill amending the Civil Service Act, that is a very unusual and undesirable course to take. The confusion would then be permanent; the amendments of this session would be in two Bills, and that confusion would go on down; whereas by combining the amendments in one Bill there is no need for confusion at all. We are all surely able to distinguish between the original Bill and this amendment. The rules of Parliament give ample opportunity for any hon. member to put himself on record, both by speech and vote, as in favour of part and against the rest. That does not confuse matters at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Bill No. 122 as it stands now, has two sections and, if both of them are not objectionable, one certainly is.
While we on this side in opposing Bill No. 122 may not, in the minds of many members in this House, appear to be opposing the suggestions from the Committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, if they are incorporated in Bill No. 122, the country will get that impression.


Arthur Meighen: Move an amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the whole trouble arises from the irregularity in the way in which the Government is proceeding.


Arthur Meighen: The Government are
proceeding in the regular way. If we had known beforehand what amendments would be necessary we could have brought ir, one Bill with the amendments but of course, we could not know" that until the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance, and Reestablishment had dealt with the matter. Hon. gentlemen are in the same position now; they can oppose some clauses, and support others. If the hon. gentleman's plan were followed generally, it wou.d mean that if certain clauses of a Bill were objectionable, and others were not, the Government in order to make everything clear should make two Bills of it, or perhaps three or four.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely it is
not regular to amend a Bill that is net before the House?


Arthur Meighen: It will be. Then you can move to amend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appeal to my right hon. friend not to confuse the issue; I do not say that he is doing it intentionally. I, for one, am opposed to the other Bill. I think it means a return to patronage. I shall not discuss that now, as it is not before the committee; I shall, however, oppose it and vote against it in committee. But this is another question altogether that has been dealt with by a Special Committee of the House. We have seen in the same session two or three Bills, amending one particular Act. I do not see why, when we have two principles absolutely distinct bearing on the same subject matter, we should include them both in one Bill. It only confuses matters. There is no difficulty in introducing two Bills based upon resolutions passed by two different committees dealing with two different subjects. The one is a reversion to patronage, in my humble judgment, although my right hon. friend may net share my view; I am opposed to that Bill. The other is simply doing justice to the returned soldier; I am in favour of that, and shall vote for it. We should not deal with the two together, as it will only confuse the issue.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I put the matter before the right hon. gentleman in a way that seems to be slightly different from that in which it has hitherto been discussed. If we had Bill No. 122 before us in the regular way, it would, I submit, be quite in order for the right hon. gentleman, or for that matter, for any member of the House, to propose as amendments to that Bill the sections that are set out in the resolution that is now before the committee.. In view of the substantial agreement upon the principle involved, but the very general disagreement as to the order of procedure, may I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the object that all seem to have in view might be obtained if this order were discharged, and the resolution as it is now before the committee were moved as an amendment when Bill No. 122 is under discussion.


Arthur Meighen: That is just what we would do, only for the reason stated by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). The law calls on us to have a resolution passed before we can deal with the Bill. We would not be allowed in Committee of the Whole to move this 
resolution as an amendment, because it involves the expenditure of money.


Charles Murphy: I have looked at it since the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) spoke, but it is not clear to me that it does involve the expenditure of money.


Arthur Meighen: In that case there
would be no need for the resolution at all. The officers of the House must have come to the conclusion that there was need of this resolution.


Charles Murphy: Frankly, it looks to me like a mistake.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is a confusion of the matter to deal with it in this way. I do not think it has been brought forward in the usual way. More than that the Special Committee on Pensions would hardly make a report recommending a money Bill in this way. I do not think the resolution calls for an expenditure of money. It is a matter of detail.


Arthur Meighen: It would be just the same, of course, afterwards. What we can do is to pass the resolution in case it does turn out to be necessary. If it is not necessary, we will let it lie there, and in committee on the Bill we will move its provisions by way of amendment to Bill 122. That Bill will not be introduced, in that case, just as it is.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
On the motion of Mr. Meighen the resolution was referred to Committee of the Whole to be considered in connection with Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) the House went into Committee of the Whole-Mr. Boivin in the Chair-to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1920, as provided in the Bill reported by the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Soldiers, which provides:
[Stage Direction]
1.	That subsection one of section three of the said Act be amended by deleting the words "domiciled and resident in Canada" in the second line, and the words "so domiciled and resident" in the third line thereof.
2.	That subsection two of section three be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"The said payment shall, as to an amount not exceeding one thousand dollars, be made on the death of the insured and the remainder, if any, or the portion thereof to which any beneficiary is entitled, shall at the option of the insured be payable as a life annuity, or as an annuity certain for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, or as an annuity guaranteed for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, and payable thereafter as long as the beneficiary may live."
3.	That section six of the Act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"If the insured is an unmarried man, or a widower, or a widower without children, the insurance contract shall be for the benefit of his future wife or of his future wife and children, and the insured may apportion the insurance money among them as he deems fit; but, subject to section four of this Act, the insured may designate an alternative beneficiary, or beneficiaries, to whom the insurance money shall be paid in the event of his death unmarried, or a widower without children. If the insured at his death is still unmarried, or a widower without children, and has not designated an alternative beneficiary or beneficiaries, the money shall, subject to sections four and eleven of this Act, fall into and become part of the estate of the insured."
"	4. That section nine be amended as follows :-
(a)	Subsection one is amended by the addi-.tion of the following words:
"Provided, however, that the insured may designate in such declaration a person or persons subject to section four of this Act, to whom such shares will be paid if at the time of his death he is unmarried, or a widower without children."
(b)	Subsection three is amended by inserting the following words at the end thereof:-
"or if he is unmarried or a widower without children at the time of his death such other person or persons, subject to section four of this Act. as he may designate."
(c)	Subsection four is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"If the insured survives his wife and all his children the insurance money shall, subject to section four of this Act, be payable to such other beneficiary or beneficiaries as he may designate. If he does not designate some other beneficiary the insurance money shall, subject to sections four and eleven of this Act, fall into and become part of the estate of the insured." .
5.	That section ten be amended by inserting after the word "Act" in the second line thereof, the words:
"or the Pension Laws of the United Kingdom or of any of His Majesty's Dominions or of any of His Majesty's Allies or Associated Powers in the Great War;" and by the addition of the following sentence:
"Provided, however, that this section shall not operate when the beneficiary of the insurance is the wife of the insured and a pension is awarded under the Pension Act to some other person or persons named in section four of this Act."
6.	The proposed legislation based upon these resolutions shall become effective on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and shall be retroactive to the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Paragraph 5 of the
resolution reads:
Or the pension laws of the United Kingdom or of any of his Majesty's Diminions.
The word "other" should be inserted after the words "His Majesty's" so as to exclude the Dominion of Canada; otherwise we should be brought into conflict with the Military Pensions Act, the Naval Pensions Act, and another Act the title of which I have forgotten.


Arthur Meighen: I move that the word
"other" be inserted in the fourth line of paragraph 5, after the words "His Majesty's," and that the last words of the resolution be struck out, namely:
And shall he retroactive to the 1st day of September, 1920.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), has explained why it is necessary to delete these words.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it quite clear that
the word "other" has the effect which the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) desires? It would depend on what precedes. This is a portion of the section, and perhaps the Acting Solicitor General would read the preceding words of the section which it is proposed to amend.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 10 of the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, which it is proposed to amend, reads:
If, on the death of the insured, the pension becomes payable under the Pension Act, or the pension laws of the United Kingdom, or of any of His Majesty's Dominions, etc.
I propose to add the word "other" to make it clear that these dominions do not include Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The use of the word "other" implies that there has been a preceding reference to the Dominion of Canada, whicfl is not so in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps it would be
better to say "or of any of His Majesty's Dominions, other than the Dominion of Canada."


William Stevens Fielding: That would be clear.


Arthur Meighen: I move, then, to add
the words "other than the Dominion of Canada" after the word "dominions," in the fourth line of the section.


William Stevens Fielding: This is an illustration of the bad drafting which I have more

than once brought to the attention of the House. We are enacting a part of a sentence when it would be wiser to repeal the section and re-enact it in proper form, so that one might not be under the necessity of looking up the Bill to find out what the amendment intended.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In listening to the
very admirable report of the member for London, I heard him make reference to cases of soldiers having died between the time they made application for insurance and the completion of the policy. I did not quite catch what he said. I know of a case in my part of the country where a soldier made application for insurance and paid the premium, and while some details were being attended to as between himself and the department, he died. The department now declines to take notice of his policy. I was pleased to see that the matter had been dealt with, but I did not learn what the committee had suggested to the House in this regard.


Mr. CRONYN:: The practice hitherto followed by the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Department has been that established by general insurance law, that until the policy is actually issued and delivered to the insured, no binding contract exists be-ween the insured and the assurer, in this case the Dominion. In such cases as my hon. friend has mentioned, which seem to be unfair to the returned man, after a quite lengthy discussion the committee decided that when a returned soldier had made his application in due form and in good faith, and had sent it in with the initial premium to the office of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Department, and the application had been approved by the proper officers, it should be held that the man having done everything that he could, the contract should be as binding as if the policy had been actually delivered to him. The House will understand that there might be a delay, after the approval had been given, of some days, perhaps a week or more, before the policy, was actually written and put into the mails. The proposal, then, is to make the contract binding as soon as the insured has, in good faith, done all that he is called upon to do, the application has been approved and the premium paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will there be legislation to amend the Act to that effect"


Hume Cronyn: No, it was held that no legislation was necessary. The change will

be made in the regulations, and all cases arising in the meantime will be reviewed in the light of that change. The case to which my hon. friend refers will therefore come under review by the department.


Mr. NESBITT:: Did we not insert the word "retroactive" to cover cases that are being considered now?


Hume Cronyn: I do not understand that these words refer to cases now being considered. The point taken by the department and by the parliamentary counsel in requesting us to delete these words, which were in the first place inserted by the department, is that there are some 2,400 contracts of insurance already in force, and it would be unfair to make some of the restrictive conditions containd in the proposed Bill apply to contracts now in existence. It was felt it would be better to let the contracts continue under the terms that existed at the time they were entered into, rather than attempt to alter them. These restrictive conditions will therefore apply only in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MEIGHEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 222 to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, 1920.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Meighen the House went into committee on the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolvedi, That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act, chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1919, as provided in the Bill reported by the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Soldiers, which provides:-
1.	That section eleven of the Pension Act as enacted toy chapter stxty-two of the statutes of X'92.0, toe amended by adding at the end thereof the following words1: "as such."
2*. That section twelve of the said Act, ais amended by said chapter Sixty-two, be amended by adding thereto the following words: "prior to the coming into force of the Pension Act."
3.	That subsection six of seotion thirty-four of the said Act, as enacted by siaid chapter Sixty-two, be amended by striking out the words "sons" and "son" in the second and fifth line® thereof and substituting therefor the words "children" and "child" respectively.
4.	That subsection seven of section thirty-four of the said Act, as enacted toy said chapter sixty-two, be amended by adding thereto the following words-"such income being considered to include the contribution's from children re *

siding with or away from her whether such contribution® have actually been made or are deemed by the commissioners to have been m'ad'e."
5.	That section thirty-nine of the said Act be repealed.
6.	That the said Act be amended by adding thereto the following section immediately after section forty-seven B, as enacted by said chapter' sixty-two:-
"47C. The pensions which are now being paid to or in respect of members of Canadian iNlaval or Military Forces who were killed, had died or were disabled on Active Service, during drill or training or on other military duty previous to the outbreak of the Great War, shall, during the continuance of the residence in Canada of the recipients of such pensions, hereafter be increased to the rates set forth in Schedules A and B of this Act."
7.	That schedules A and B of the said Act be repealed and the schedules A and B to these resolutions be substituted therefor.
8.	That fitlil cases affected by this proposed Legislation shall be reviewed and future payments shall be made at the rates and in accord ance with the provisions set forth herein. Pro vided that when death or disability has ocouirea previous to the comling into force of the proposed Act, the1 provisions of the proposed Alct shall not operate to remove from any applicant for pension any rights which he had in Virtue of the Pension Act.
9.	That the legislation based upon these resolutions shall come into force on the first day of September, 1921.


[Stage Direction]
Percentage of Disability-Class
Rank or Rating	Rate *	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Class 4	Class 5	Class 6	Class 7	Class 8of	per	Total	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Member of Forces.	Annum.	100%	99%-953	94%-90%	89%-85%	84%-80%	79%-75%	74%-70%	69%-65%$ cts	S cts	$ cts	$ cts	$ cts	$ cts	S cts	$ cts.All Ratings below Petty	f Pension...	600 00	570 0C	540 00	510 00	480 00	450 00	420 00	390 00Officer (Naval); Rank and File (Military)- Chief Petty Officer and Petty Officer (Naval); Squad., Battery or Company Sergt.-Major	[Rom/s	300 00	285 0C	270 0C	255 00	240 00	225 00	210 00	195 00Pension	637 5(	605 61	573 75	541 88	510 0C	478 IS	446 25	414 38and Q.M. Sergeant (Military); Sergeant, including Staff Sergt. and Colour-Sergeant	Bonus	262 50	249 37	236 25	223 12	210 00	196 87	183 75	170 62
Naval Cadet and Mid-									
shipman (Naval); Master Gunner not W.O.	Pension -	775 00	736 25	697 50	658 75	620 00	581 25	542 50	503 75
(Military); Regimental									
Sergt. Major not W.O. (Military); Regimental	Bonus		125 00	118 75	112 50	106 25	100 00	92 75	87 50	81 25
Q.M. Sergt (Military)-.									
WarrantOfficerandChief	(Pension....	850 00	807 50	765 00	722 50	680 00	- 637 50	595 00	552 50Warrant Officer (Naval); Warrant Officer	j Bonus	50 00	47 50	45 00	42 50	40 00	37 50	35 00	32 50Sub-Lieutenant (Naval);	\	Lieutenant (Military).	/ Pension	900 00	855 00	810 00	765 00	720 00	675 00	630 00	585 00Lieutenant (Naval) ;Cap-	«	1,000 00	850 00	900 00	850 00	800 00	750 00	700 00	650 00Lieutenant Commander	(Naval); Major (Mili-	tary)	
Commander and Captain under three years' seni-	1,260 00	1,197 00	1,134 00	1,071 00	1,008 00	945 00	882 00	819 00ority (Naval); Lieutenant-Colonel (Military) 	
Captain (Naval); Col-	<*	1,560 00	1,482 00	1,404 00	1,326 00	1,248 00	1,170 00	1,092 00	1,014 001,890 00	1,795 00	1,701 00	1,606 50	1,512 00	1,417 50	1,323 00	1,228 50Commodore and higher	ranks (Naval); Brigadier-General and higher ranks (Military)-	2,700 00	2,565 00	2,430 00	2,295 00	2,160 00	2,025 00	1,890 00	1,755 00
pension for Married members of the Forces		300 00	285 00	[DOT] 270 00	255 00	240 00	225 00	210 00	195 00
Additional pension for									
children for above		180 00	171 00	162 00	153 00	144 00	135 00	126 00	117 00
	Second								
child	144 00	138 00	132 00	126 00	120 00	114 00	108 00	102 00Subsequent children..	120 00j	114 00	108 00	102 00	96 00	90 00	84 00	78 00
The bonus payments set forth in this Schedule shall be paid during the year commencing the first day of September, 1921.
Members of the forces who are, at the time of retirement or discharge, or who later become disabled to an extent Schedule. The amount of such final payment in cases of disability between five and nine per cent shall not exceed and shall be determined in accordance with the extent of the disability and its probable duration. Members of the forces permanently disabled between five and nine per cent shall receive three hundred dollars. If an election has becomes greater in extent, in which case the pension shall be adjusted for the past period in accordance with the extent to accept a final payment the consent of his wife must be secured. All payments of pensions made subsequent to the ment.

[Stage Direction]
and Annual Amount of Pensions.
Class 9 64%-60%	Class 10 59%-55%	Class 11 54%-50%	Class 12 49%-45%	Class 13 44%-40%	Class 14 J9%-35%	Class 15 34%-30%	Class 16 29%-25%	Class 17 24%-20%	Class 18 19%-15%	Class 19 14%-10%	Class 20 9%-5%$ cts.	$ cts.	§ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.360 00	330 00	300 00	270 00	240 00	210 00	180 00	150 00	120 00	90 00	60 00	30 00180 00	165 00	150 00	135 00	120 00	105 00	90 00	75 00	60-00	45 00	30 00	15 00382 50	350 63	318 75	286 88	255 00	223 13	191 25	159 38	127 50	95 63	63 75	31 88157 50	144 37	131 25	118 12	105 Off	91 87	78 75	65 62	52 50	39 37	26 25	13 12465 00	426 25	387 50	348 75	310 00	271 25	232 50	193 75	155 00	116 25	77 50	38 7575 00	68 75	62 50	56 25	50 00	43 75	37 50	31 25	25 00	18 75	12 50	6 25510 00	467 50	425 00	382 50	340 00	297 50	255 00	212 50	170 00	127 50	85 00	42 5030 00	27 50	25 00	22 50	20 00	17 50	15 00	12 50	10 00	7 50	5 00	2 50540 00	495 00	450 00	405 00	360 00	315 00	270 00	225 00	180 00	135 00	90 00	45 00600 00	550 00	500 00	450 00	400 00	350 00	300 00	250 00	200 00	150 00	100 00	50 00756 00	693 00	630 00	567 00	504 00	441 00	378 0	315 00	252 00	189 00	126 00	63 00936 00	858 00	780 00	702 00	624 00	546 00	468 00	390 00	312 00	234 00	156 00	78 001,184 00	1,039 50	945 00	850 50	756 00	661 50	567 00	472 50	378 00	283 50	189 00	94 501,620 00	1,485,00	1,350 00	1,215 00	1,080 00	945 00	810 00	675 00	540 00	405 00	270 00	135 00180 00	165 00	150 00	135 00	120 00	105 00	90 00	75 00	60 00	45 00	30 00	15 01108 0C	99 00	90 00	81 00	72 00	63 00	54 0C	45 00	36 00	27 00	18 00	9 0096 0C	90 0C	84 0C	78 0C	72 00	63 00	54 0C	45 00	36 00	27 00	18 00	9 0072 0C	66 0C	60 00	54 0C	48 00	42 0C	36 0C	30 0C	24 0C	18 00	12 00	6 0
Members of the forces permanently disabled to a less extent than five per cent shall be entitled to a final payment not exceeding §100.
of between five and fourteen per cent may elect to accept a final payment in lieu of the pensions set forth in this three hundred dollars and in cases of disability between ten and fourteen per cent shall not exceed six hundred dollars forces permanently disabled between ten and fourteen per cent shall receive six hundred dollars. Members of the been made to accept a final payment such election is final unless the disability of the member of the forces concerned of the disability and the amount paid as a final payment shall be deducted. If a married pensioner desires to elect time at which an award of fourteen per cent or under is made shall be deducted from the amount of the final pay-

[Stage Direction]
Rank or Rating of Member of Forces.	Rate per Annum.		
Widow or Dependent Parents.	Child or Dependent Brother or Sister.	Orphan Child or Orphan Brother or Sister.$ cts. *	480 00 *	240 00	$ cts.	$ cts.Bonus.	Chief Petty Officer and Petty Officer (Naval); Squad., Battery or Company Sergt.-Major and Q.M. Sergeant (Military); Sergt., including Staff-Sergt.	*	510 00 *	210 00	Bonus.	
Naval Cadet and Midshipman (Naval); Master Gunner not W.O. (Military); Regimental Sergt.-Major not W. 0. (Military); Regimental Q.M. Sergeant	* 620 00 100 00		
Bonus.			
			
Warrant Officer and Chief Warrant Officer (Naval); Warrant Officer (Mili-	* 680 00 40 00		
Bonus.			
			
Sub-Lieutenant (Naval); Lieutenant (Military)		* 720 00		
			
	* 800 00		
			
	* 1,008 00		
			
Commander and Captain under three years' seniority (Naval); Lieutenant -	* 1,248 00		
			
	* 1,312 00		
			
Commodore and higher ranks (Naval); Brigadier-General and higher ranks	* 2,160 00		
			
Additional pension for children or dependent brothers or sisters for above		* 180 00 *	144 00 *	120 00	*	360 00 *	288 00 * 240 00
	Second	 Subsequent		
Pensions awarded to parents or brothers and sisters may be less than these amounts in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
The bonus payments set forth in this Schedule shall be aid during the year commencing the first day of September, 1921.	1
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Mr. MEIGHEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 223, to Amend the Pension Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House went into committee on the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the provisions of Bill No. 107, entitled ''An Act to amend an Act to provide for the Retirement of certain Members of the Public Service," by providing::-
1. That the following words be added after the words "part time" at the end of paragraph (b) as proposed to be enacted by section two of the said Bill:-

"And any officer, clerk or employee in the said service who has been continuously employed from year to year for a period of not less than eight months in each year, or who, having been continuously employed, receives a daily, weekly or monthly rate of wage or salary, but shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose or any person who, while employed in the public service, does not give his entire time to the service."
2.	That the following subsection be added to section two of the said Bill:-
"(2) If in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission the provisions of the Act should be made applicable to any officer, clerk or employee not included under paragraph (b) of subsection one of this section, the Commission shall report the same to the Governor in Council, setting forth the circumstances and the reasons therefor, and in the event of the Governor in Council approving such report, such officer, clerk or employee may be retired as provided by this Act."
3.	That the following subsection be inserted in the said Bill immediately after subsection two of section three thereof:-

"(2a). The 3aid section three is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
Section (6). In case there are any special circumstances relating to the appointment, employment, length of service, remuneration, salary or allowance of any officer or employee to be retired under the provisions of this Act that in the opinion of the Commission should be taken into consideration in determining the gratuity or annuity of such officer or employee the Commission shall report the same to the Governor in Council, indicating to what extent, if any, such special circumstances should be taken into consideration in fixing the gratuity or annuity of the officer or employee to be retired, and upon approval of such report the gratuity or annuity in question shall be fixed accordingly.
Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that
the object of this resolution is to amend the Act so as to give the Civil Service Commission and the Governor in Council a certain amount of discretionary power in cases which merit special consideration?


Mr. CALDER:: That is the purpose of
the third proposed amendment. There are three distinct amendments proposed to the Bill now before the House. I think we might first correct an error that has crept into the first line. I therefore beg leave to move the following amendment:
In the first line of paragraph 1 to replace the words "part time" at the end by the following words "work 'salary' in the third line."
The Civil Service Retirement Act deals with the retirement of members of the Civil Service. The word "officer" is used throughout the Act, and we are proposing to change the definition of that word by the Bill now before the House. In the old law, the Act passed last session, "officer" is defined in this way:
Officer means any officer, clerk or employee who is employed in the public service and who receives a stated annual salary, but shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose or on part time.
In other words, under the law as passed last session, persons in the employ of the Government could be retired if they received a stated annual salary, but persons could not be retired under that Act if they were appointed for a temporary purpose or on part time. That is to say, the only persons who could be retired under the law of last session were those who were permanently appointed and receiving a stated annual salary.


Jacques Bureau: I suppose those who
were appointed temporarily and worked eight months in the year would be retired?


James Alexander Calder: Let me read it again:
"Officer" means any officer, clerk or employee who is employed in the public service and who receives a stated annual salary.
Under that only those who hold permanent positions in the service and who receive a salary at an annual rate could be retired. Now it is proposed to amend that section to read as follows:
"Officer" means any officer, clerk or employee who is employed in the public service-
And then we add these words:
.-and any officer, clerk or employee in the said service who has been continuously employed from year to year for a period of not less than eight months in each year, or who having been continuously employed receives a daily, weekly, or monthly rate of wage or salary, but shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose, or any person who while employed in the public service does not give his entire time to the service.
Briefly, the purpose of that is to make provision for the retirement of seasonal employees and of persons who receive a daily, weekly, or monthly wage instead of an annual rate of salary. Let me give one or two illustrations. We have, for example, in the Department of Railways and Canals a fairly large number of employees who are engaged only for eight months in the year, men who have been in the service for twenty or thirty years, and the time has come for their retirement. Under the old law they could not be retired because they do not give their time throughout the entire year to the public service. It will be for the committee to decide whether or not this law should be made applicable to that class of civil servants. Then there is another class in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence, and the minister of that department will be able to, give the details; but I understand there is a certain group of men at Halifax who have been employed in the militia service for a long period of years under a daily wage, and as a- consequence the law which was passed this session is not applicable to them. In brief, the amendment in the Bill, plus this amendment, provides for the retirement of persons who are employed continuously at an annual rate of salary; it provides for the retirement of those who are employed at least eight months continuously at a stated rate of salary; and, also, it provides for the retirement of certain persons who are employed continuously but are receiving only daily, weekly, or monthly rates of wage.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why does the minister
fix the time at eight months?


James Alexander Calder: I doubt if there are any in service who are employed seasonally for a less period than eight months.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: There are in the case of sessional servants around this chamber.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I had in
mind.


Michael Clark: We do not
stay here for eight months every year, thank God.


James Alexander Calder: It is just for that reason that representations were made to me to the effect that the law passed this session and the amendment we are now considering will not cover certain classes, and I concede that that is possible; it is for that reason I have suggested the second proposed amendment as indicated in this resolution, which is to the effect that if there are any other classes that are not covered by this definition, and the Civil Service Commission is of opinion that these classes should be retired under this law, then they may report the facts to the Governor in Council, and if the Governor in Council approve, those classes may be retired under this Act.


William Stevens Fielding: There is another class working part time which the hon. gentleman has not dealt with. This eight months refers to what I might call seasonal appointments, to men who do not work during the winter; but there are men working all the year round who are disqualified under this Act, and I think cases of injustice can be cited. Take, for example, Customs officials who are working all the year round. In many instances those officials are receiving but a very small salary, and the department seems to have made up its mind that if the salary is very small the man cannot be devoting all his time to the public service. Of course, he cannot; he must live. But he is bound to be on the spot for the discharge of his official' duties.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But he is not included?


William Stevens Fielding: He is deliberately shut out from this provision, and I do not think he ought to be. The only reason for excluding a man of that class is that he is not giving his whole time to the service, but he is obliged to be at hand. I mentioned a case of this kind to the minister last session. It appears to me that if the man's duties require him to be there continually you cannot call' him a part-time official; and if he is not paid a living salary

he has to do other work. Take the case of a customs officer at a sub-port. He is getting $200 or $300 a year, but he cannot live on that, and is bound to take some little local appointment to be within reach of his daily work; his salary is so insignificant that he must do something else. Why should you regard him as a part-time employee while you oblige him to be there constantly!


Mr. STACEY:: If I understand the minister correctly, I think he has failed to make provision for one class of civil servants that should have recognition. I can best illustrate my meaning by citing a case in point. I have in view a man, representative of a large number of men, who is approaching the age of seventy, and who has been in the employ of the Government for over thirty-five years working full time, ten, twelve, fourteen and even fifteen hours per day. He has not been in receipt of a stated salary, but the Government has taken good care to see that the allowance is practically the equivalent of a stated salary, and under the provisions of the Act of last year he cannot be given anything on retirement. Am I to understand that the present amendment makes provision for men of that type?


James Alexander Calder: If the second amendment proposed in this resolution is carried, then the Civil Service Commission may, if they deem it advisable, include the class that the hon. gentleman has referred to and make their retirement possible under the provisions of the retirement Act. The Bill itself does not cover the class to which he refers, except that we give to the Civil Service Commission power, if they think cases of that class are deserving, to recommend to the Governor in Council that they should be retired.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: If there are certain definite classes entitled to consideration, it seems to me there is no good reason why the rights of those classes should be consigned to the tender mercies of the Civil Service Commission. If they have rights, surely those rights should be protected in the Bill itself. There is another definite class that the Bill could take care of-employees in post offices where the remuneration of the postmaster himself is partly salary and partly commission. Now, that is the condition that obtains in most of the country towns throughout the Dominion. In post offices of that kind persons who are employed year >in and year out-comprising a staff of five, six or seven-are paid by the local postmaster out

of his fees, and I understand that under this Bill they will not be considered as civil servants. I have in mind a man who for forty years has been continuously employed in the same post office, giving his entire time to the performance of his duties; under this Bill he will have no claim. I fail to see why the rights of these people should not be protected in the Bill itself; why we should leave it to the Civil Service Commission to decide a matter upon which we ourselves have definite views. I think the minister should take care of the class to which I refer. Here is a man-and he is only one of a class-who has devoted his entire life to the performance of his duties as an employee of the Post Office Department, and under a system which has grown up simply because the postmaster is paid by fees and his whole staff is paid by him out of those fees, that staff are not to be considered as members of the Civil Service. In the particular case I have in mind this man for the past two years has been a civil servant, but there has been no change in the system of paying him, except, possibly, in the way of ordinary increases in the amount he is receiving. I submit to the minister that that class is sufficiently numerous and its interests are sufficiently important to justify a specific provision for them in the Bill itself. The matter of deciding what their rights shall be should not be passed on to the Civil Service Commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Paragraph 1 of the resolution provides:
-any officer, clerk or employee in the said service who has heen continuously employed from year to year for a period of not less than eight months in each year, or who, having heen continuously employed, receives a daily, weekly or monthly rate of wage or salary, but shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose or any person who, while employed in the public service, does not give his entire time to the service.
According to the first part of this provision, any employee who has served nine months in the year is included, because he has served not less than eight months in a year, but according to the last part of the section he is not included, because he does not give his entire time to the service. I would like the minister to explain this apparent anomaly.


James Alexander Calder: The drafting may not be altogether what it should be. The last expression: "who does not give his entire time to the service" is intended to cover what is ordinarily called a part-time employee, that is, a person who gives only a portion of his time each day to the service. For example, we have in the Customs Department what are called, I think, preventive officers, men who receive anywhere from $25 to $100 a yea'r and who some days are not employed at all. We have a certain number of officers who give only a very small portion of their time from day to day to the service. This phraseology is intended to cover that class. The other class are included in what are called seasonal employees, men who give their entire time during so many months in the year. As I say, the phraseology may not be the best.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Why not insert after the word "service" in the second last line the words "every day"?


James Alexander Calder: That would do no harm.


William Stevens Fielding: As to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), while expressing some sympathy for this employee in the special circumstances, I do think that the case does not come within the four corners of this Bill. That officer would not be eligible for retirement under this Bill even if he had a favourable report from the Civil Service Commission, because he is not and never was an officer of the public service. He may be in the employ of the postmaster; there are many such persons all over the country, though they do not usually stay in that employ for forty years. I am surprised that the man my hon. friend mentions has been in the department for forty years without being promoted by some government to be postmaster, for he has surely- earned it by his length of service. But I have in mind the case of a customs official, a collector at an outport-his official title is sub-collector of customs-who receives anywhere from $300 to $500 a year. Now, he cannot live on that amount, nor can he leave the place in which he is employed and go out to the Banks in a fishing vessel. If he does anything at all it has to be something which can be done within a short distance or easy access of his office. He may do a little local business, keep a little shop, or something of that sort-I believe that is allowed in certain cases. But he must be every day on duty; he must be available if a vessel is coming in or clearing, and his duties are important from the standpoint of the accommodation of the public and the protection of the revenue. In short, his duties oblige him to be available

every working day, and he can hardly be regarded as a part-time man. I do submit that the minister should consider cases of that kind. I think the case I make out is a very strong one and that it is absolutely just that such men should come under the provisions of this Act.


James Alexander Calder: There is a good deal to be said in favour of the contention put forward by my hon. friend. The difficulty, however, is that a large number of these are officers employed all over Canada, many of them receiving as low as $25 a year, $40, $50, and so on. If one of these men held his position for twenty years and was entitled to come under this Act, he would receive as an annuity for life a very small sum indeed. In fact, the idea of providing an annuity for a man who has received not more than $50 a year is more or less preposterous. If a line could be drawn in accordance with the importance of the duties performed, the problem would r.ot be so difficult, but once you establish a law including this class, every one receiving the smallest salary would be entitled to his annuity. It seems to me that we would be going too far if we provided a law of that character. Moreover, the Civil Service Commission, I believe, have taken into consideration the fact that these are only part-time employees and have fixed their salaries accordingly; their remuneration is a little higher than it would be for persons performing full-time duties in the permanent Civil Service.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree that it might be unreasonable to apply the Act to persons receiving such small amounts as $20 and $30 a year. I am taking the case of an officer who has some responsibility. He is a sub-collector of customs; he is a collector of customs at an outport; he is responsible to some collector at a central point, but within his own community he is a collector of customs. He is not getting $25 a year; he may be getting $200, $300, or $400 a year. He cannot leave the outport, even though he may collect only a trifling sum during the year ; it is a great mistake to measure the importance of a customs official by the salary he receives or by the amount of revenue he collects. His duty is to protect the revenue against fraud and any one who knows anything about the sea-coast knows how important a duty this is. I am sure the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Spinney) is familiar with these cases on the sea-coast, and he can bear me out when I say that quite a number of these men are important 
men in their particular communities. They cannot go away from the port, and they must earn something in addition to what they receive from the Government. I claim that this class of men should come within the scope of this measure. Of course such a man can get an annuity only on the basis of his salary, but this legislation is excluding him altogether.


Hugh Guthrie: I am a good deal impressed by what the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) says regarding the subcollector. Expressing my own opinion, I think they should be included, and I think there is something in the contention of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). As I read this clause-and I have read it a good many times-I am not satisfied that it carries out the meaning of the minister; I think it should be re-drafted. The particular part of the clause, however, which relates to employees in the Department of Militia and Defence is the provision regarding men who give all their time to the service but who are paid a daily wage. It happens that, at the present time, at Halifax and Quebec we have forty-nine such men who have been in the service for fifteen, eighteen or twenty years and who have now reached that time of life when, I think, their services might fairly be dispensed with. Many of these men came in as employees when the British garrison had charge at Halifax. They have grown old in the service, but they have always been paid a daily wage running from $2 to $2.50 and some as high as $3 a day. Their places when vacant will not be filled, but it is a hard thing to turn them out on the world without some compensation.


John Howard Sinclair: What kind of work are they employed in?


Hugh Guthrie: I had a list of them, but have not it under my hand. They were caretakers, armourers-men of that class. We do not need their services any longer, but it is a very hard thing to throw them out on the world. It was held, under the Act passed last session, that they were not entitled to a gratuity. They are really permanent employees but they are paid a daily wage.


John Howard Sinclair: I think this clause is broad enough to cover day labourers, and the Government have in their employ a considerable number of day labourers in addition to the men at Halifax and other points referred to by the Minister of Militia and Defence. The provision applies to "officers, clerks and em-

ployees." The man who works in the greenhouse shovelling earth is a day labourer; he is an employee of the Government. He works the whole year round, but he receives a daily wage. Under the language of this clause he would seem to be included as entitled to a retiring allowance. Has the minister made any inquiry as to the number of people whom this clause will cover throughout the Dominion?


James Alexander Calder: The only persons who
have come to my attention are those referred to by the Minister of Militia and Defence. I understand that these were a number of men who were previously in the British army, and when we took over the fortifications and so on at Halifax, these men became part of our service. Conditions are such now that their services are no longer required. Under the terms of their engagement they have been paid a daily wage. If they had been receiving an annual salary, there would have been no question about their being entitled to be retired under the Act of last session.


Michael Clark: I feel sure that a number of tax-payers of this country will heave a sigh of relief when they become acquainted with the fact that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) states that there are some vacancies occurring in the Civil Service that will not be filled again. If that process could be extended very considerably, that sigh of relief would be repeated. That is the proper end at which to save expense on the Civil Service. I suppose numbers of members of this House share my feelings when they receive every two or three days a long list of fresh appointments, at large salaries, of people to various positions in the different departments. These lists have been the cause of considerable alarm to me, and I suppose that alarm must come to other members who receive them. It is almost a universal opinion in the Civil Service itself that it is overmanned and that the proper way to cure it is to look rigorously after fresh appointments. Do not use the Civil Service as a political machine; use it in the interests of the country, and watch fresh appointments. As regards what the minister is doing, therefore, in principle, I agree. We ought, while we rigorously watch fresh appointments, to follow the course of all civilized countries, namely, to treat with reasonable regard and decency those who have been many years in the public service. But I think the point taken by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) is a good one as regards what the
minister proposes. We are not responsible; the Government are responsible for extending the list of those upon whom public moneys will be expended in the days that are left to them after they retire from the public service. That is a responsibility which the Government have taken upon their shoulders. Having taken it upon their shoulders, I do not think they are pursuing a logical course in the way that they are carrying this out. The minister must have felt that there was some weight in the argument of the hon. member for Lanark when he introduced the extreme case of a man who received just $50 a year as one who could scarcely look for an annuity. Those cases must be few, I should imagine, and special provision might be made for them. But, for my part, I associate myself with my hon. friend from Lanark in seeing a want of logic, in the first place, in the arbitrary procedure of fixing eight months as the period which shall ensure these benefits. In an interjection a minute ago, I pointed out that this will bear hardly upon sessional servants within these precincts. Why should they not come under the provisions of this measure? It is a perfectly arbitrary procedure to take a period of eight months, and it is specially illogical for the Government to make arrangements for certain civil servants by enactment and to hand other cases over to the Civil Service Commission whose recommendations must be carried out by Order in Council. I wish the minister could see some other method than that of dealing with these cases. It is an illogical method; it is a method which is liable to lead to patronage evils. An Order in Council is an order of the Government, and if the Government is receiving its orders from the Civil Service Commission, there would be a danger arising from time to time that the Government and the Civil Service Commission would know pretty well the cases upon whom they were conferring benefits, and if ever we had in the service of this country "lewd fellows of the baser sort," they may find this a convenient method of returning to the patronage system. I think it would be possible to deal with the whole of these cases by enactment. I certainly think it would be possible to include the sessional servants within these precincts, many of whom will be hard hit if this arbitrary arrangement as to eight months is persisted in.


Mr. SPINNEY:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and

Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and I quite agree with him that there are many civil servants, more particularly in the Customs Department, who have served for many years at very low salaries. I am firmly of the opinion that they should receive consideration, and I think it my duty to express myself accordingly.


James Alexander Calder: I do not think we should take up too much time on this Bill at this stage of the session. I have included in this resolution two amendments, and if there is any serious opposition to them, I would suggest that we drop them. Unless we have sufficient confidence in the Civil Service Commission to warrant our leaving in their hands, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the determination as to whether or not there ard other classes that might be brought under the Act, I think we might as well drop the legislation. If we are to make a review of the entire service in order to determine exactly what other classes should be brought under the Bill, that would require a very exhaustive study. Since I introduced the Bill early in the session, I have had a stream of letters and requests and suggestions as to the peculiar conditions and circumstances surrounding the cases of all sorts of employees in all parts of Canada, which I have been asked to take into consideration. Now, to boil all those suggestions down into concrete form and embody them in legislation would require a very exhaustive study and very careful drafting. That 'cannot be done at this stage of the session. As a consequence of the study I have given to these representations, I think we might very well leave the determination of these other cases to the Civil Service Commission, who can take all the peculiar circumstances into account and report to the Governor in Council, and upon approval by the Governor in Council action might he taken. This Bill is only to Continue for one more year. So far as the operation of the law during the past year is concerned, from all I have seen and from all the recommendations that have come to council, I think that both the deputy heads of the departments and the Civil Service Commission have operated the law very sanely and very safely. When the Bill was before the House brfore, I had a list of those who had -been retired up to that time, and I have it here if any hon. member wishes to see it. Outside of one or two complaints that have been made in the House with reference to gentlemen who received notice that they

were going to be retired, very few complaints have reached the Government with regard to any retirements that have been made. If there is any objection to the commission dealing with this matter in the manner I have stated, we might as well drop paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution and get on with our work. The only new suggestion, so far as this resolution is concerned, is simply the broadening of the present law so as to include sessional employees and certain classes of employees who have been engaged at daily, weekly, or monthly rates of pay. If it is the wish of the committee that the limitation of eight months, so far as sessional employees are concerned, should be reduced to six or even less, I do not object. On the other hand, if the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is to be carried out, and all persons in every branch of the public service throughout Canada, not only customs officers, but all employees who give what is called parttime service-


William Stevens Fielding: That is different.


James Alexander Calder: It may be in a sense, but you will find throughout the entire service a number of people in almost every department who do not give their entire time to the service day by day, and if you are going to apply this to the customs officers you must apply it to everybody else; you cannot make fish of one and flesh of another, you must treat the whole service alike in that regard. Then again, there is the question, where are you going to draw the line? If you are going to grant an annuity to the man who is drawing $400 a year, are you. going to grant one to the man who is drawing $300 a year, or $200, or $100, or $50, or $25 a year? You must draw the line somewhere.


Michael Clark: What does the $25-a-year man do?


Edgar Keith Spinney: There are none with such a low salary as that.


James Alexander Calder: When the special committee was dealing with the Bill, the question was ^ asked what these outport men were receiving, and it was stated that some received as low as $25 a year.


Michael Clark: He would have a very slim hold on the serivce.


James Alexander Calder: But the hon. gentleman will be the first to see the logic of my argument. If you are to provide an annuity for the man who receives, say, $500 a year, you must draw the line somewhere.


Michael Clark: I think a good case could be made out, in logic, for the man who is receiving only $25 a year receiving an annuity for the rest of his life.


James Alexander Calder: It all depends on what he is doing. Take another class of employees, those who are working for fees instead of a small salary. Take a wharfinger, for instance, who has been in the service for twenty years. You can easily compute what he had received on an average each year; say it amounts to $200. Ho reaches the age of seventy-five, and wishes to retire. Are you going to provide that he shall get an annuity for the rest of his days? Then you would have all sorts of gradations among other classes, and among the wharfingers themselves. It is a very complex question, and it is difficult to know just where to draw the line. Personally, I think that for the present year we might very well leave thes? cases to the Civil Service Commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What about the man who fires the noon gun?


William Stevens Fielding: If the case I mentioned fell within the scope of the Civil Service Commission, I should not make any further protest, but that case is absolutely excluded; the Commission cannot touch it.


James Alexander Calder: That is right.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend asks,
where are you going to draw the line? I would say this: draw it between the man who is free to go and come, and the man whose duties oblige him to give his time to the service every day. I would suggest that instead of the words "who, while employed in the public service does not give his entire time to the service," we say "whose duties do not require his constant attention." That is the vital question. Is he free to come and go, or is he obliged by the nature of his duties to be there from day to day? Even though you do not pay him a living wage, if he is obliged to be there from day to day, his case is different from that of the other man.


James Alexander Calder: I think I might accept
that suggestion.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: I merely rise for the purpose of supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in regard to sub-collectors of customs and inland revenue. I believe that should be given consideration.


John Alexander Stewart: The minister has stated that the selection of a number of
these classes is a complex and difficult problem to solve, and for that reason it ought to be left to the Civil Service Commission. It seems to me that that is the very reason why it should not be left to the commission.
I understand that the committee that has been appointed to consider the amendments to the Civil Service Act has come to certain conclusions that are presented by way of proposed amendments to the Act as it now stands, and that those conclusions are predicated upon the conviction of the committee that the commission have found it impossible to overtake the tasks they now have.


Michael Clark: Over-worked.


John Alexander Stewart: If the minister has arrived at the conclusion that there are certain classes referred to in this resolution that should be taken care of, it seems to me that they should be taken care of by definite legislation, and that after a conclusion has been reached with reference to the other classes it should be embodied in an amendment to be brought before the House at some future time. I do not think our experience so far has been such as would warrant us in delegating to the Civil Service Commission, or any other commission, matters which it is competent for the House to deal with. I think the minister should adopt the suggestion he himself has made, and drop the sections which deal with classes being passed upon by the commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should not like to see
the minister drop the proposal that is embodied here, because it takes care of some people who would otherwise get no consideration. I would suggest that it be allowed to go through for this year, at any rate, and experience may show us what to do in the future. This is a new departure altogether, I think, and with a year's experience we may be able to draw up an Act equitable and reasonable to all concerned. I would suggest to the minister, however, that he amend this section by substituting for the words "not less than eight months" the words "not less than an average of six months."


James Alexander Calder: I do not object to that.


William Stevens Fielding: In section 1 I think the minister might add after the words "shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose" the words "or any person whose duties do not require his constant attention."


James Alexander Calder: We might accept that. I therefore move to amend section 1 by replac-

ing the word "eight" in the fourth line, with the words "an average of six," and by striking out in the two last lines of the said paragraph, the words "who, while employed in the public service, does not give his entire time to the service," and replacing them with the words "whose duties do not require his attention."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this resolution was first drafted, it did include old and respected officers of this House who have been in the service perhaps twenty-five or thirty years, doing work of a very useful character to Parliament. I consulted the minister about this matter, and he told me that the Act would include such persons, but this eight months' provision disqualifies them for any consideration.


James Alexander Calder: We are reducing it to
six months.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, what is the use of that? This House does not sit on an average of six months. Why should an officer, who was appointed twenty-five or thirty years ago, and who has given very useful service to Parliament during all those years, because this House does not sit on an average of perhaps more than four months, and probably less-why should such an officer be deprived of the privilege which is given some one else who does not perform any more important duties, but who happens to be engaged in those duties for six months or more? Such a man can retire on pension, but the officers of the class I mention, if they retire, get nothing at all. That is a hardship. I should be pleased if the minister would fix as a basis for'consideration in this matter the length of service instead of the time spent each year in the duties of an office. He might say that for any term of less than ten years he will give no consideration, but that the man who has been continuously for ten years or more in the employ of the Government, will receive some consideration when he is obliged to retire. That would be more equitable than to say that one man, because he works six months of the year, shall receive consideration, while another man who works four or five months, though he has been in the service of the country for a long term of years, shall receive nothing.
I have in mind officers of this House whose occupation is of a sessional character but who have been discharging these duties for twenty years or more. I think it would be well if the minister could work out some plan under which these men could be provided for when they reach an age which

will unfit them for further service and have to go out in the world. I am very glad indeed that the minister has accepted the proposition of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's in the case of customs officers. Many of those officers receive but a small salary and yet they must be almost continuously on duty. As to the officials of the House, to whose case I have referred, it is not a matter of immediate concern to myself and yet I feel that they deserve recognition. I have no personal interest in the matter because there is nobody from my county that I desire to have taken care of. I have never asked for the appointment of any person either to the staff of the House of Commons or to the Civil Service, and therefore I am not moving in the interest of any person in this particular case. But I do say that some regard should be paid to the situation of these fhen and I hope the minister will make provision for them.


James Alexander Calder: Personally I can see no objection to striking out that limitation as to months. As a matter of fact, if a person such as the hon. member has just referred to has been in the service from year to year-continuously employed each year but only for a portion of the year-I think his case might be considered. So we might possibly strike out the reference to months altogether and have the section read simply in this way:
And any officer, clerk or employee in the said service who has been continuously employed from year to year.
Then strike out the words "for a period of not less than eight months of each year" and insert "for a portion of each year." Of course a man who is employed for only three months would only get three months salary, and the amount he would be entitled to under the Retirement Act would be very small in proportion to what he earns.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to get a little light on this matter. Do I understand that the proposal is to provide pensions for all those men and women who are engaged while Parliament is meeting as sessional clerks, sessional messengers and so on? If you are going to adopt that as a principle I would like to know from the Government if it is proposed to extend the same principle to people employed outside of Ottawa who only give a portion of their time to Government duties? I can understand making provision for permanent employees, but how can you place in that

category dozens of persons employed in connection with this House, who only hold their position from one year to another and who have no guarantee if they obtain a position one session that they will be appointed to it the session following. It is true that from the fact of being appointed one session they have a better chance of being appointed at an ensuing session, but there is no guarantee that they will be so employed. If my understanding of what is proposed is correct it means the adoption of a very vicious principle.
Amendment agreed to and resolutions as amended1 agreed to.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know that I am in order but whilst we are discussing pensions for


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I fear the hon. gentleman is too late. The committee has agreed to report the resolutions, and I, as Chairman of the committee, had left the Chair.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank you for your courtesy.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. CALDER moved that the resolutions be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered in conjunction with Bill No. 107 to amend the Act to provide for the retirement of certain members of the Public Service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder, Bill No. 107 to amend an Act to provide for the retirement of certain members of the Public Service was read a second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend introduced a similar Bill two years ago I asked him on behalf of civil servants who already were receiving pensions if they would benefit from any increase in view of the high cost of living.


James Alexander Calder: No. That would open up a pretty wide question of policy. Not only those retired under the Superannuation Act, but our mounted police pensioners and other classes would have to be dealt with. Unless we were prepared to place all on an equitable basis we could not deal with the question.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite appreciate the good purpose of the Bill and support my
hon. friend in regard to it. But cases have been brought to my attention of men advanced in years-some may think them old, I do not-being notified of their retirement, although they are still blessed with good health and strength, both physical and mental, and are well able to discharge their duties. I understand that those to whom I refer have stated to the Civil Service Commission their objections to being thus treated. But how is notification in such cases given-how is such a man dealt with? Is he notified of the fact that he has reached a certain age, irrespective of reports on his condition or are those reports first taken into consideration?


James Alexander Calder: This is what I understand takes place. There is consultation between the Civil Service Commission and the deputy head of the department as to those who, in the judgment of the department, should be retired. Then the facts are gathered as far as possible in regard to the persons proposed to be retired. Usually it is on the ground of ill-health- not being able to carry on and that sort of thing. I think, taking it all round, the principle has been very well observed. Notice then is sent to the party concerned, and he is given the right to appeal. A number of these appeals have been heard and some of them have not been sustained. I think that at one stage last year notices were sent out to the effect that unless the persons involved took advantage of this Act there was a possibility that there would not be an opportunity for them to do so afterwards. I think that was most unfortunate.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


James Alexander Calder: I do not think that notices of that kind should be sent, and I have no doubt that after the discussion which has taken place in the House that practice will be stopped. Because it is the general idea in the service that while this Act is only continued for one year, there is every likelihood that we will have before Parliament within a year or two at the very outside a general superannuation Act which will apply to all the service.


William Stevens Fielding: I know that those notices caused a good deal of embarrassment, and I am glad the minister has publicly declared that it was a mistake to send them out. But is there a report at the first stage from somebody as to the condition of an official, or is the first move made merely on account of his age?


James Alexander Calder: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: No man will be notified unless a proper official has advised that his condition of life is such that in the public interest he should he retired?


James Alexander Calder: That in the main has been the practice in the past, and that is what the law contemplated last year. The Civil Service Commission in the first place were to ascertain the number of persons over sixty-five years of age, and then before any notice was sent to those people the commission were to ascertain, through consultation with the departmental heads and heads of branches, as to whether or not they were rendering proper and efficient service, and they were not to be considered as subject for retirement until those facts had been ascertained. The question of age alone was not taken into consideration.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister has made it clear to us that the Civil Service Commission consults with the deputy minister in regard to the capacity of an official to carry on notwithstanding his age. Suppose the official in question is a deputy minister who has reached the age of sixty-eight or seventy, with whom does the Civil Service Commission consult as to whether he should be retired or not?


James Alexander Calder: The deputy minister, so long as he is there, even though he is over sixty-five years of age, is the person to be consulted under the law, and if he is not qualified to pass a competent judgment on the question of the efficiency of the servants under him, it is about time the Government itself should remove him.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think my hon. friend caught the point. We will say the deputy minister has reached the age of seventy years-I presume he would be the last person to think he was incompetent. The Civil Service Commission consults with him as to any person under him, but my question is:	with whom does the
Civil Service Commission consult when it is the deputy minister himself who has passed the age of sixty-five?


James Alexander Calder: I misapprehended the
question. As far as deputy ministers are concerned, they are directly under the control of thq Government. The Government appoints them, and the Government retires them when it sees fit.


William Cameron Edwards: That is one case where you do not trust the Civil Service Commission.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the first move made by the department or by the Civil Service Commission? Who starts the ball rolling?


James Alexander Calder: In the case of those over sixty-five years of age the Civil Service Commission make the first move; in the case of those under sixty-five years of age, the department. Section 2 of the Act of last session reads:
The Civil Service Commission shall immediately after the passing of this Act and after consultation with the deputy head, prepare and submit to the Governor in Council a report of all officers of the age of sixty-five years and over.
That is, whete they are over sixty-five years of age the first steps are taken iby the Commission. In the case of those under sixty-five years of age the Civil Service Commission acts upon the orders of the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: I was
going to ask my hon. friend if he forgets his promise of last session. I then brought to his attention the unbusinesslike way in which we are dealing with this question year by year, bringing in new statutes to provide for retiring allowances of certain people, then during the year my hon. friend finds some more people who would like to be retired at the expense of the country and he brings along another patchwork Bill. In the meantime nothing is being done to deal with this question on a business basis. I have been putting before my hon. friend and his Government for some years the necessity of cleaning up this pension business, and putting it on a basis similar to that adopted by banks and other big institutions, under which the employee contributes something himself to a retirement fund. It is degrading to put an employee on the pension list of this country and tax the people to keep him for the rest of his life without his contributing anything to the pension fund. We should have a system under which a certain amount of the employee's salary should be set aside as a sinking fund, and the Government should contribute a substantial amount as well. This is getting to be a serious matter. Men are poured into the departments at one end and taken out at the other as pensioners, and this year we are asked for $37,000,000 as a pension fund. Part of that is for military pensions, in respect to which I have nothing to say;
I will always support that part of the fund. But the Civil Service end should be dealt with in a different way. My hon. friend promised last session that consideration should be given to it, but we

are still going on in the same old way. When we talk of men being in the employ of the Government for six months in the year and getting a daily wage, not one of us has the slightest idea of how many men that covers or what kind of claims may later come in. This is not the practical way of dealing with the question. I want to know if my hon. friend has considered this matter and whether he will bring down at the next session some kind of measure by which we will get rid of this patchwork method of handling the retiring allowances.


James Alexander Calder: I have already expressed myself on the subject of having a permanent superannuation Act. I thoroughly agree with the idea; I think it is sound and that we should have some such enactment on our statute book. As to making a promise that I will have an Act of that character brought down at the next session, I am not prepared to do that. I can assure the hon. gentleman, however, that the Government has had the matter under consideration, and I hope that such an Act will be brought down at the earliest possible day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-"officer" defined:
James Alexander Calder: I beg to move that clause 2 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "salary" in the eleventh line and substituting therefor the following words:
And any officer, clerk or employee in the said service who has been continuously employed from year to year for a period of not less than an average of six months in each year or who, having been continuously employed, receives a daily, weekly or monthly rate of wage or salary, but shall not include any person appointed for a temporary purpose or any person whose duties do not require his constant attention.


John Howard Sinclair: Do we not mention any period of years?


James Alexander Calder: The Act gives that. If a person is over sixty-five years of age and has been in the service ten years he is entitled to annuity. If he is between forty-five and sixty-five years of age he must have served at least twenty years before being entitled to annuity.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Take the case of the person whose salary was reclassified by Grif-fenhagen and Associates. Upon reaching the age of sixty-five years is he entitled to retirement upon the basis of the salary which he earned during his twenty or twenty-five years of service, or simply on the basis of the salary earned during the
three or four years since the reclassification came into effect? I understand that some injustice is done to civil servants who have been employed for twenty or twenty-five years; that persons appointed during the last three years and since attaining the age of sixty-five may receive a larger annuity than those employed for much longer periods.


James Alexander Calder: I can hardly argue the question without knowing the circumstances. The annuity payable to any person in the Civil Service who is entitled to retirement under the law is based upon his average salary during the last three years of his service. There is no discrimination in any part of the service in that regard. It might so happen that some civil servant, being retired, would get an annuity higher than the salary of some other civil servant who had been employed for, say, twenty years.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I am speaking of those who are to be retired in the future, not of those who were retired before the reclassification was made. It seems that a civil servant appointed three years ago at sixty-two years of age and who is retired at sixty-five may receive a larger annuity than a civil servant who has been in the employ of the Government for twenty-five years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
James Alexander Calder: That the following- subsection be added to section two of the said Bill:

"(2) If in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission the provisions of the Act should be made applicable to any officer, clerk or employee not included under paragraph (b) of subsection one of this section, the Commission shall report the same to the Governor in Council, setting forth the circumstances and the reasons therefor, and in the event of the Governor in Council approving such report, such officer, clerk or employee may be retired as provided by this Act."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Calder: That the following subsection be inserted in the said Bill immediately after subsection two of section three thereof:-
"(2a). The said section three is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
'Section (6). In case there are any special circumstances relating to the appointment, employment, length of service, remuneration, salary or allowance of any officer or employee to be retired under the provisions of this Act that in the opinion of the Commission should be taken into consideration in determining the gratuity or annuity of such officer or employee the Commission shall report the same to the Governor in Council, indicating to what extent, if any, such special circumstances should be taken into consideration in fixing the gra-

tuity or annuity of the officer or employee to be retired, and upon approval of such report the gratuity or annuity in question shall be fixed accordingly.' "


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Has the minister seen that the amendments in the resolution have been incorporated in the Bill?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Spinney, the House went into committee to consider Bill No. 122, to_ amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: This Bill is as reported by the Select Special Committee appointed to consider the same, and is reprinted as reported by the said committee.
On section 1-Act not to apply to employees on railways or ships.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The special committee appointed to consider this Bill made a report. I may be mistaken, but I am not aware that this report has been concurred in by the House. How is it that we are going on now with this Bill in committee without having concurred in the report of the majority of the special committee? I understand that the minority intend to bring in a report also.


Edgar Keith Spinney: It has been decided, I think, to have the committee deal with the Bill directly. I do not think it is compulsory to have the report dealt with by the committee as it has been laid upon the table of the House, and it is quite within the power of hon. members to study it.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: In discussing the Bill we have the right to discuss the report of the special committee?


Edgar Keith Spinney: Yes. Before the committee deals with this Bill, I want to encroach upon its time very briefly. When any legislation is presented to Parliament for enactment, it is logically necessary that some justification should be given for such application. In the introduction of Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, it is my desire, as its sponsor, to inform the committee on that point.
I first wish to state that it is conceded that when the Civil Service Act was framed and enacted in 1918, the commission was

given powers and obligations far in advance of those entered into by either the United States or Great Britain, imposing duties beyond the ability of any commission, however efficient they may be, to accomplish without some sacrifice to the public service.
On account of serious complaints against the administration of the Civil Service Commission, for reasons already assigned, from both inside and outside Parliament, it was deemed advisable to appoint a special committee of the House to make careful inquiries into actual conditions, and, if necessary, to offer practical suggestions in order that a remedy might be applied. As these complaints were in connection with the three classes in this Bill, while they were incorporated in a tentative form with an expressed understanding that they were not to be regarded in any manner to influence the action of the committee, yet they would form a basis on which to direct their inquiries, the committee entered upon and gave faithful consideration to the duties imposed upon them.
The committee held eighteen meetings and examined twenty witnesses, carefully weighing the evidence submitted.
In dealing first with Class A, Manual Labourers, there was a genera 1 agreement by all the witnesses that it was unnecessary and inadvisable for the Civil Service to intervene, as this class of labourers are required usually for a limited time all over Canada; much of their employment is of an emergency character and was usually engaged locally. It was generally agreed that responsible officers in charge of Government work could more quickly and more advantageously employ such labour than could the commission sitting in Ottawa.
The operations of the Civil Service Commission in regard to this class were shown as in the report issued by the Department of Agriculture, that an average delay of 91 days prevailed in filling the appointments by them.
Class B consists of postmasters whose remuneration consists, in full or in part, of a percentage of the receipts of the office; the task of drawing the line between the classes of postmasters was most difficult. Some postmasters, although paid on a percentage basis, by virtue of the size of the office and of the town in which the office is located, are more nearly on a par with permanent members of the Civil Service Commission than are postmasters in smaller towns and country localities.

The method employed in making such appointments to vacancies in smaller towns or rural post offices is through the post office inspector of the province where such vacancy occurs. He proceeds to the locality, investigates the conditions, consults prominent people in the locality, makes his recommendations to his chief, then is brought before the Civil Service Commission, which invariably acts on the recommendation. Members of the Civil Service Commission agreed that their intervention in a large number of these appointments is perfunctory, and admitted that these were now practically in the hands of the departments concerned.
In a statement received from the deputy postmaster general, it- was disclosed that in the case of appointments of city postmasters an average delay in confirming these appointments was only 16 days, yet in the case of rural postmasters the average delay was 74 days, in many cases causing inconvenience and loss to the people relying upon that service in order to carry on their business operations.
With reference to class C, professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such, much difficulty was experienced in defining precisely what "scientific and technical officers" might be. -'"'fto form of examination by itself alone can disclose the fitness of the applicant for a professional position. In some branches where appointments of this class are required, other qualities than those determined by competitive examinations were necessary. It was also pointed out by some witnesses that professional men in good standing were in some instances reluctant to submit themselves to competitive examinations, fearing that, if unsuccessful, a certain reflection would be cast upon them. The evidence disclosed that in many cases where scientific and professional men of special qualifications were required, the deputy heads of departments would induce competent persons to forward applications to the commission, and in the majority of cases thus secured the appointment of the class of men they required. The system now employed being in a measure unnecessarily deceptive to those applying through advertised requests, such applicants would practically have no chance for appointment, thus involving the country in a very heavy expenditure./	;
The commission agreed that there were a number of classes which might be removed from their intervention. What
these classes were the commission was unable to say-before coming to a conclusion they must consider what the effect would be, not only on the classes which might be removed, but upon all classes which remained.
From the evidence submitted, the committee concluded that it is desirable in the public interest that the commission in consultation with deputy heads of departments should undertake a careful review of the entire service with a view to determining what classes of employees should be exempted, in full or in part, from the jurisdiction of the commission and the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The committee concluded that it would be unwise at present to attempt to name or define these classes by statute.
From the mass of evidence given, the committee finally reached the conclusion that the problem was not only complicated but involved longer examination and study than the time at its disposal would permit, and that the wisest course to pursue was to suggest certain amendments to the existing law that would leave no doubt as to the power of the commission in this regard, and that the commission itself before another session of Parliament should, in conjunction with deputy ministers, give careful study as to what classes of appointments and promotions might properly be removed in full, or in part, from the operations of the Civil Service Act, it being understood that in all such cases the commission retain the power as contained in the Act to make such regulations as are deemed advisable. This, in the opinion of the committee would ensure a proper procedure, whereby the advanced measure of Civil Service reform adopted by Parliament three years ago may be modified and adjusted to meet the actual needs of the Civil Service without impairing 'the chi^f object Parliament had in view in enacting the Civil Service Act. With that object in view the committee has reported Bill No. 122, an Act to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918, with amendments.
Before closing my remarks I wish to draw the attention of the members of this committee to a statement made by myself in my brief introduction of this Bill, as follows:-
If the introduction of this Bill amending the Civil Service Act of 1918 leaves the impression on the minds of any hon. gentlemen of this House that the Government has receded from the main principle of that measure, namely, the abolition of patronage, they may dismiss it.

This statement was emphatically endorsed by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. The unwarrantable attack on that announcement both by some hon. members of this House, and very largely by the press of Canada, the cause for which may very easily be defined, was most unjustifiable, as shown by the report of the committee dealing with this investigation. An unprejudiced effort was undertaken for the purpose of eliminating such inconsistencies as now exist in the administration of the Civil Service Act, as was demonstrated in the evidence recently taken, with the earnest desire that the public interests may be better served.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the report of the committee?


Edgar Keith Spinney: No, it is my statement.


William Daum Euler: As a member of the Special Committee appointed to consider the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act, I desire to state my reasons why I am opposed to the amending of certain clauses of the Act. I might also say that it was expected on the part of those menibers of the committee who were opposed to the amendments that the report would be brought into the House and here debated. In fairness to the members of the committee it should be understood that the report presented by the hon. minister was not a unanimous report-that some six members, at least, of the committee of sixteen were opposed to the report as presented.
As stated by the minister, the committee examined a considerable number of witnesses, among whom where the Chairman and the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, the deputy heads of departments, as well as the heads of other branches of the service. It is due to them to say that they gave their evidence in a frank and satisfactory manner. It is also fair to say that with a few notable exceptions -two or three, and one in particular-the majority of the witnesses favoured the retention of the present method of appointments to the Civil Service. It was the general impression of the committee that it is not readily practicable for the commission to appoint the manual labourers referred to as class A. The evidence showed that, under the present powers of the commission, the difficulty had been very well overcome by a common-sense working arrangement between the commission itself and the heads of the departments concerned. With regard to

postmasters of the lesser class, the evidence showed that possibly some change in the method of appointment might be adopted. But even here it was admitted, or rather the evidence showed, that no public interest was prejudiced by the present method of appointing postmasters. Technical, professional and scientific * employees, it was generally felt, should be appointed with the advice of the deputy heads of the departments. It should also be understood that in all cases of appointments of this kind, the deputy ministers have been consulted, and their nominations and advice have been usually followed by the commission. In that connection, I should say that in one case at least-perhaps in more than one case-the deputy head showed a decided disinclination to co-operate with the commission in making appointments in his department. While it is true the evidence showed that there was considerable delay in many cases, it did not show, as the report would indicate, that this was the fact in any preponderating degree. Indeed, speaking generally, the evidence showed that only in very few instances was the delay of such a nature that the public interest was seriously prejudiced. While there were some complaints of matters which might very well be remedied in connection with the application and administration of the Civil Service Act, it is fair to say that, according to the evidence, most of the difficulties resulted from the re-classification of the service, and these will disappear in due course. Despite the complaints and difficulties' that have been encountered, however, the majority of the witnesses were still of the opinion that the safeguards and advantages provided under the present system far outweigh the disadvantages. I feel also that some features of the evidence as presented in the report rather unduly stressed some of the evidence as against the present system. While those of us who are opposed to the Bill favour one amendment which is proposed, and agree with a good deal of what is said in the report itself, personally I disagree absolutely with the amendment proposed to clause 38 of the Act. In that disagreement I think perhaps I come in conflict with members on the other side, not as to the advisability or otherwise of restoring the practice of political patronage, but as to the meaning of the amendment itself. For my part, I believe that the amendment proposed to section 38 of the present Act does make it possible to destroy the vital principle of the Act, namely, the abolition of political patronage.

Section 38 of the Civil Service Act reads:
It is provided that, in any case where the Commission decides that it is not practicable to apply this Act to any position or positions, the Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as are deemed advisable, prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
The word that is to be noted here particularly is the word "practicable." If the commission decide that it is not "practicable" to apply the Act in certain cases, they may exempt such cases from the operation of the Act. That provision gives powers sufficiently wide for all purposes consistent with the principle of the Act.
In 1918, when Parliament decided that certain policies in connection with the Civil Service were in the public interest, chief of which was the abolition of political patronage, Parliament crystallised that decision into what is known as the Civil Service Act. When that Act was passed, it was an affirmation of the principle that there should be no further political patronage. That, to my mind, is the central principle and purpose of the Civil Service Act. The Act itself was intended to serve as a text, the practical working out of which was entrusted to the Civil Service Commission. The Act was a declaration of policy, and the work of the commission was merely administrative in its nature, just as the work of the builder is to cary out, in a practical way, the design of the architect. That law was the definite legislative decision of Parliament on a well-considered policy. The Civil Service Commission was placed merely in the position of an executive, or administrator of the Act. In considering the amendment to section 38, I contend that it makes possible the transfer of the legislative function from Parliament itself to the Commission. It makes it possible for th e subordinate body to nullify the intention of Parliament.
I have already read that portion of the old Act which refers to this subject. I will now read the amendment:
In any case where the Commission decides that it is not practicable, nor in the public interest, to apply this Act to any position or positions, the Commission may exclude such position or positions, in whole or in part, from the operation of the Act.
That is the vital part of the amendment. In the old Act the commission could exempt from the operations of the law any positions which it found impracticable to deal with. In the proposed amendment it is given power to divest itself of the functions it has held, not only when it does not deem their exercise practicable, but when it does not
consider it in the public interest to apply the Act. My contention is that the inclusion of these words "in the public interest" gives to the commission a power which is really legislative and not executive. For example, if the commission honestly thought that the removal of any portion of the Civil Service were in the public interest, they could do so, patronage would be restored, and thereby the policy which this Parliament has laid down would be destroyed. That is admitted by the majority of members of the special committee. I know that a good many members of the House felt that the clauses enumerated in the original Bill 122-that is the clauses relating to labourers, to postmasters, and to scientific, professional and technical officers-were entirely too broad, and that under the term " technical officers " a great many employees could be included that it would not be wise to include, or that it would be proper to exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Commission. I saw in the press a day or two ago the headlines stating that the Spinney Bill was wiped out. That gave an impression to the public that all danger of the service going back under the control of political patronage had disappeared. Yet it is the fact that the members of the committee, including the vice-chairman, were of the opinion that the inclusion of the words now inserted " nor. in the public interest " opened the door wider, and made the powers of the commission a great deal broader than they were, under the clauses as they originally stood in the Bill.
Now I have stated my chief [DOT] objection to the Bill itself. I believe that it transfers from the superior body-the Parliament of Canada, the legislative body-to the inferior body, the administrative body, powers which Parliament ought to retain for itself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did any of the commissioners who were heard before the committee express any desire to widen the powers of the commission?


William Daum Euler: In answer to that question I may say that the chairman of the commission was in favour of leaving the Act as it is. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. I know that is the case, I know that is his preference.


James Alexander Calder: Would you quote his
evidence to that effect?


William Daum Euler: I have not his evidence before me. The fact is as I have stated and the minister may give his view of it



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
as he likes later. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and perhaps the secretary-who were the only men connected with the commission that were examined-prefer that the present Act . shall stand and lbe given another year to demonstrate what can be done. The chairman, desires that because, by reason of the difficulties arising out of the reclassification, the Act has so far not had a chance to be shaken down into proper working order. If he cannot have that, then I am quite sure the chairman of the commission is quite willing to have some change made that will perhaps vary or qualify his power. I do not believe that he has any desire that the words referred to should be inserted in order to give him the power that would be given him under the amendment.
Now I contend further, that under section 38, of the present Act, the commission has all the power that it should be given in order to carry out the legitimate purposes of the statute. The commission have had the conviction and the impression that they should not lend themselves to the exercise of political patronage. That view is being recognized by the public. As to the degree to which they have been able to carry out that conviction in practice, members may have different opinions. For my part, I am under the impression that the commissioners have tried to carry out the Act honestly and in accordance with what was expected of them by Parliament.	-
The report suggests that during the recess the commissioners themselves should consult the deputy heads of departments, with a view to deciding what other employees may be exempted from the operations of the commission. While I am entirely in accord with that proposa', they should not, in the meantime be given power to do as they please with regard lo these exemptions. I quite agree-as I chink all the members of the committee do -that there are certain employees who might very well be removed from the control of the commission.
An hon. MEMBER:: What classes?


William Daum Euler: Possibly the postmasters. I only throw that out as a suggestion, however; I am not committing myself absolutely to that policy. There may be others as well. That does not destroy the principle upon which I am debating the question. But we do say there is no immediate haste. If there is, let the commission report to this House what classes should be

exempted at once. Then let this Parliament legislate directly on the matter on its merits and retain the power it ought to retain. In that regard, the Bill we originally had before us recognized the proper principle. It was specific as to labourers, postmasters and other officers, and that was the proper way to deal with the question. Let the House itself deal with that and not abdicate its functions in favour of the Civil Service Commission. During the recess, the members of the commission and the deputy heads of departments might very well get together and later make a report to Parliament as to what else is desirable in the public interest. Then Parliament, at the next session, may legislate in accordance with what is recommended, or as it might see fit. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that only in that way can the vital principle of the Bill with regard to political patronage be safeguarded. When the Bill first came up I asked the chairman of the commission what his opinion was of the measure if it became law as it then stood. He replied that if it became law it would drive a coach and four completely through the Act.


James Alexander Calder: The original Bill?


William Daum Euler: The original Act of 1918. The minister himself admitted in the committee that if the present amendment is accepted it will open a wider door for that coach and four to go through than the original Bill No. 122 would have done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who suggested the
amendment?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure, but I think it came from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). However, I am open to correction on that point.
Now, I believe that if the commission is empowered to make these changes, and to exempt certain employees when they think it best in the public interest, they will be subjected to constant pressure on the part of members of Parliament- through the deputy heads or perhaps even through the ministers-to make such changes. For example, a minister may very well go to the commission and say "It is not in the public interest that the outside employees of my department should remain under the control of the commission," and the commissioners might very well yield. They may say "The minister is best qualified to decide whether it is in the public interest that we shall continue to appoint these employees, or whether

they shall remain under our control"; and I think it possible they would be just human enough to yield to the higher authority. Under the present law they cannot be approached in that way. On the other band, the personnel of the commission may change from time to time, and no doubt will. It is quite conceivable that we may have a majority of the members of the Civil Service Commission composed of men who honestly believe that the Civil Service should be controlled by political patronage. There are members of this House who believe that, and they have a perfect right to that belief. But if we had that condition, we would necessarily find that the commission would divest itself of its powers and the whole Civil Service would lapse back into the old practices of political patronage. I do not tsee how it could be otherwise.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman forgets that Parliament sits from year to year.


William Daum Euler: If, as I begin to suspect, a good many members are rather in favour of the return of political patronage, that perhaps would not be a safeguard.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Is it the hon. gentleman's information that under the old law political patronage was done away with?


William Daum Euler: I am not qualified to speak on that but I know it is done away with as far as I am personally concerned. I never was given opportunity to exercise it, nor do I desire it.


John Albert Sexsmith: As far as I am personally concerned neither do I exercise any patronage, but that is not saying that it is done away with by the existing law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who decides patronage?


Mr. CURRIE:: Ninety members, and
the rest of us have not any patronage, according to the evidence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who said that?


John Allister Currie: The present chairman
of the commission.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


William Daum Euler: Whatever the opinions on
that point may be, I hold that under this amendment it is made possible to revert to the old system. Members may argue whether we have political patronage now or not, but this much is certain-under the amendment you can revert to political patronage. I believe the merits of political patronage are arguable. Some hon. members contend that as they are elected by the people, and as the Civil Service involves the expenditure of money, they themselves should have something to say as to these appointments. I think there is a certain amount of force in that view. But I am of opinion that this House and the country were under the impression that even though there may be something in that argument, it is nevertheless true that the advantages of that system are far outweighed by its disadvantages.
The point I want to make now is that I think members of the House should realize that the amendment as it actually comes before us raises the issue whether we shall make political patronage possible or not. Let us meet the real issue and fight it out without camouflage-shall we have patronage again or not? If Parliament believes that it was wrong in its judgment in 1918, then let it repeal the Civil Service Act either in whole or in part, recognizing quite frankly what we are fighting about. So far as I am personally concerned, I am opposed to the system of political patronage as it obtained in the past. The Civil Service Act may have its drawbacks, but even then its advantages, in my opinion, far outweigh its disadvantages, and where defects become apparent, Parliament should correct them specifically and not hand over their powers to an irresponsible commission. For that reason I am opposed to the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I intended to move the following amendment:
That the words "nor in the public interest" in the second line of section 38B be struck out.


Mr. DAVIS:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency in the addition of one part of that clause. It provides, as it is now, that:
-the Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exclude such position or positions in whole or in part from the operation of the Act,-
That power of exclusion is given to the commission with the concurrence of the Governor in Council. Then the section goes on that the commission may:
-make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
Well, if those positions are excluded from the Act what further has the Civil Service Commission to do with them? Should not words be added there that the Governor in Council shall make such regulations? I want to make it clear that

that will be the position, and that these positions being excluded from the Act the commission have nothing more to do with them.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: The words "in whole or in part" cover that.


Fred Langdon Davis: Where it is in whole, I would answer the hon. member that then the commission has nothing to do with those positions; but where they are only in part excluded the commission may still have something to say about them.


William Antrobus Griesbach: That is what they do as a matter of fact.


James Alexander Calder: It strikes me that the approval of the Governor in Council covers both. With the approval of the Governor in Council they (may exclude, and they may make regulations. That is, the Governor in Council would have to approve the regulations, as well as the exclusion of any positions in whole or in part.
With reference to the amendment and the discussion we have had, I doubt very much if any good purpose would be served by continuing it at length. My good friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) expressed his opinions very strongly and very fully before the committee. We had some hours of discussion there, and we simply could not see eye to eye as to the effect of the words introduced into this amendment. I wish to say quite frankly for myself that, so far as the question of patronage is concerned, I am absolutely opposed to the old plan of having appointments made simply on the ground of political preference. I have been in public life something like fifteen or twenty years, and I know the evils, and in my judgment there is nothing that hurts a political party or a government more than political patronage. It has dragged down many a government in the past and will continue to do so so long as it is exercised. There are others who hold a different view, but in my judgment the further the Government and members of Parliament get away from patronage the better for themselves and the beter for the service. So, if any person has any idea that this amendment is adopted with the view of introducing a "joker" into the law, well, so far as I am concerned, he is very much mistaken.
Now, what is the practical position? It is simply this, that Parliament, as the report states, whether wisely or unwisely,
{Mr. Davis.]
threw upon the Civil Service Commission a task that was absolutely impossible for it to carry out. We went further in our law than any country in the world. We are miles in advance of the United States in this regard. There they have lists upon lists of exemptions from the operation of their Civil Service law. In Great Britain there are exemptions but not so numerous as in the United States. But here in Canada two years ago we threw upon the Civil Service Commission an enormous task, which they were supposed to undertake immediately. We placed in their hands the classification of all employees in the Inside Service and the Outside Service of every class from messenger or charwoman up to astronomer, as our report points out. They had to classify all these employees. Some sixteen hundred classes have already been defined; they had to fix the salary ranges of all these persons; and in addition they had to undertake all appointments to the service, all promotions in the service and all other details covered by the Act. Now, the impression I got from the evidence, and I think I am safe in saying that those of us who sat on the committee and heard the evidence from day to day could come to no other conclusion, was that the public service of Canada has suffered during the past two years. But that is not the fault of the commission; they have done the best they could under the circumstances.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Will the minister say in what respect the service has suffered-through shortage of employees, or what?


James Alexander Calder: No, it suffered on account of the almost impossible task that we assigned to the commission and asked them to undertake during the past two years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now, let us make that quite clear. How has the public service suffered? Will my hon. friend kindly explain that?


James Alexander Calder: I can give a dozen
illustrations. Take, for example, the Agriculture Department. If the hon. gentleman will look at the report which was brought down to the House he will find a list of sixty or seventy, or more, persons who were to be appointed to all sorts of positions in the Agriculture Department, and that it took the commission on an average more than ninety days to make these appointments. Do you mean to say that in these circumstances the department

has not suffered? Or take the example given to the committee by the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) where the commission was required to appoint a fishery inspector down in his part of the country. It took the commission, not weeks but months, to find a man for that position, and in the meanwhile the provisions of the statute required that certain duties should be performed by a fishery inspector in that district.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have not appointed an ambassador to the United States, though we voted the salary three years ago.


James Alexander Calder: That is not the point
at all. The evidence clearly discloses the fact that there were innumerable and vexatious delays of all kinds in making appointments to the public service.


William Daum Euler: Will the minister allow
me a question? He has referred to the Department of Agriculture as a clear instance of delay in the making of appointments. Will he also admit that the Civil Service Commission were not called before the committee to defend themselves with regard to that particular department?


James Alexander Calder: The main point is this: we had case after case before us and the weight of evidence was that there were very vexatious delays in connection with appointments.


William Daum Euler: Is it not also true that
the commission cannot act until the deputy head of the department makes application to the commission?


James Alexander Calder: The commission does
not even start to make any appointment until application is received from the department.


William Daum Euler: And there have been
delays in the departments themselves.


James Alexander Calder: But I say that until
application on the part of the department is filed with the commission there is no move to make appointments. I am not blaming the commission. There were many reasons for these delays, and one of them


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Just on that point, I
may say that the evidence brought out before the special committee-and it was the evidence of Dr. Roche, the chairman of the commission-that under the classification made they could not find men to accept the positions. The evidence shows that the basis of the trouble was the fact that the commission have been bound by this extraordinary classification.


James Alexander Calder: Well, that was true in some cases, but not by any means in the majority of cases. After all, I do not propose to proceed with the discussion along these lines. The main difference of opinion in the committee was as to the effect of the insertion of the words "in the public interest." The view taken by the majority, so far as the present law is concerned, was that the commission under.that law has not sufficient latitude-and that was admitted by the commission itself. The commission has power to exempt from the law any class of employees whose appointment it is not practicable for the commission to make. I asked whether it would be practicable to make appointments in Rio de Janeiro, or in Madrid, or wherever else we might establish offices in foreign countries, and the commission had to admit that it was "practicable" to do it; that they could establish machinery for the holding of examinations in those places and make the appointments themselves without reference to the department. They admitted that, and the same was true in connection with other positions as well. So long as we allow the law to remain where it is, the commission will carry it out, and if the only reason for not making appointments is that of impracticability, then they feel that they are bound to carry out the provisions of the law and to make the appointments. But there are cases where it is not a question of practicability at all, but a question whether it is in the public interest that these appointments should be so made. Does any one say that it is not practicable for the Civil Service Commission to appoint men to positions involving manual labour? Certainly it is practicable; the commission can create the necessary machinery. It was pointed out that in the city of Chicago a commission was actually undertaking to appoint labourers, examining them as to their physical condition, their heart power, their lung power, and all that sort of nonsense-subjecting them to all sorts of tests. It is "practicable," then, for the Civil Service Commission to make appointments involving manual labour; to appoint men to work on our bridges, our survey and geological parties. So long as we provide by the law that only on grounds of impracticability may appointments be ma^e by any one other than the commission, then the commission will feel bound to live up to the law; if they exclude any classes of people at present on any other ground, then they are breaking the law. It is because we want to put them in a position where they

will operate legally that we' propose to insert these words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister suggest that the Civil Service Commission should regard it as being not in the public interest that they should appoint the classes which he has just mentioned? Does he suggest that the Civil Service Commission should so construe the words "in the public interest" as to take these classes out of its control?


James Alexander Calder: No, I do not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it comes down to the point of Parliament determining what classes should be included and what classes excluded, rather than leaving it to the commission.


James Alexander Calder: I quite agree that a year or two from now after sufficient study has been made of this situation, Parliament should incorporate in the law the exceptions which should be made. But I am quite sure that neither the committee nor Parliament is this year in a position to decide ^exactly what the exclusions should be. We do not know enough about the situation to put in the statute itself the clauses that should be excluded. Let me give my hon. friend an example. I would not hesitate at all to say that the manual labour required on our survey parties, canoe men. paddle men, axe men and men of that class, who must be got away out in certain regions in the West and in the northern regions of Ontario and Quebec, should be excluded. On the other hand I would hesitate very much to exclude manual labourers in the city of Ottawa. That is why we propose that the Civil Service Commission should have power to exclude, in whole or in part, any class of employees. It is a matter that they should take into consideration and determine for themselves. But again I say that, under the law as it exists, the Civil Service Commission cannot take the ground that it is impracticable for them to appoint every manual employee anywhere in Canada. So long as they exclude, they are not acting legally; they are breaking the law, and we should not place the Civil Serivce Commission in that position. The law should be broad enough to give them discretion to act where they think it is in the proper interest that they should act. If I had time before six o'clock, I should like to give the facts, because I have in my hand the evidence of the commission itself on this point and I think it is very material. I will read some extracts because the com-
mittee should have this well before it. 1 will take the matter up in order, and I do not think it will take very long. We were discussing the question of these foreign appointments in our trade commissioner's offices, our immigration offices and other offices. As it was, the commission have been making these appointments until quite recently. They have struggled with them for a year and a half. There is some sort of a tentative arrangement now whereby the department has a good deal to say and to do in connection with these matters. This question was asked of Mr. Foran, secretary of the commission:
I think you must acknowledge that as far as qualifying people away in those far off depart-merits it is a difficult thing: for your commission to handle that thing successfully?
Mr. Foran's answer was:
I think the commission has recognized that not only regarding positions in foreign countries, but with regard to a certain number of positions in the Civil Service here. They had an Order in Council passed exempting all positions where the salary was less than $200.
I should like to have followed Mr. Foran on that, because I have no knowledge of that Order in Council going through. That would exempt a very large number of outport men, wharfingers and men of that class. I have not as yet heard of their being exempted. Mr. Foran continued:
There was a suggestion that that amount of salary should be increased, and smaller positions exempted and that is under the consideration of the Commission at the present time.
Then the question was asked:
In connection with the foreign appointment I presume after this all came into force the commission felt it had to carry out the law?
Mr. Foran's answer was:
Absolutely.
What did this mean? It meant simply that when we passed the law two years ago, if a trade commissioner in Melbourne wanted a stenographer in his office, he had to apply to the Civil Serivce Commission in Canada, and the Civil Service Commission in Canada had to go through all the rigmarole in order to appoint a stenographer away off in Melbourne.


William Cameron Edwards: Why not just as well there as in Vancouver?


James Alexander Calder: They were on the ground of "impracticability." Then the question was asked:
But as a result of your experience for a year or two do you not think that all the clerical positions at least in foreign countries might be exempted by the commission?

His answer was:
Yes, sir.	!
Members of the committee will remember that after Mr. Foran had given his evidence, Dr. Roche was asked if he agreed with the evidence given by Mr. Foran, and Dr. Roche stated that he did and that he had nothing to add. Then Mr. Griesbach asked this question:
What steps will you take to get that done now?
That is to have those appointments in foreign offices exempted. Mr. Foran replied :
We will have an Order in Council passed under section 38 A of the Civil 'Service Act.
But it has not been done. They are still struggling with this question of foreign appointments. Do members of the House take the ground that the Civil Service Commission of Canada should deal with these purely clerical appointments in South America, Australia, South Africa, Great Britain and so on? I do not. I say that it is not in the public interest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All those "impossible" and "impracticable" conditions that the minister puts before the committee existed before the original Act was passed. Why did not the minister in his wisdom see to it that those things were provided for before he started the ball with the original Bill?


James Alexander Calder: That is another feature of the question. I am dealing with the situation as it exists at the present time. Then this question was asked:
You are going to get, do you say?
That is, to get this done. His answer was:
Yes. You know we have had so much to do, General, we have not had time to prepare what we regard as a reasonable exemption list. There is no Civil Service Commission in any country who has not got this exemption list. There are necessary positions in the service which do not lend themselves to competition where the head of the department should have the right to select.
That is Mr. Foran's evidence. He continues :
That is admitted by all Civil Service reformers, and that is one of the duties of the commission, hut we have never been able to get to that, we have had so much to do with the reclassification and other work on us from time to time.
This question was asked:
You have been operating under that law for a period of about two years. Do you not think after the experience you have had during
those two years that the commission might sit down with the deputy ministers of these departments and consider the whole situation from that angle?
That is from the angle of exemptions. Mr. Foran replied:
I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Calder, that that would be the proper procedure to follow.
That is, instead of the special committee attempting to ascertain what classes should be exempted from the operation, Mr. Foran's view, Which was concurred in by Dr. Roche, chairman of the commission, was that they should have an opportunity during the Course of the next two or three months to sit down with the deputy heads and the chief officers of the departments in order to determine what classes should be exempted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did Mr. Roche in his
evidence not state that he feared being dictated to by some minister?


James Alexander Calder: I do not remember that.
It may have been in connection with some features of the evidence.


William Antrobus Griesbach: He did not say that.


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Currie asked this
question:
In other words, an Order in Council would put the whole situation under the old system?
Mr. Foran replied:
It would come on the recommendation of the Commission but not without the recommendation of the Commission.
Mr. Griesbach asked this question: Is there any possibility of doing that?
Dr. Roche then spoke as follows:
We would have to certify to the Governor in Council it was impracticable to fill it.
That was the view taken by Dr. Roche, that, unless they could certify in their recommendation to the Governor in Council that it was impracticable to fill these positions, they should not make a recommendation to the Govenor in Council. In answer to another question Mr. Foran stated:
I think Dr. Roche, the Chairman, stated the other day that experience has shown that some changes are necessary, and some exemptions must be made if you are going to have this law respected by public men and the public generally, because if you point out the procedure that is followed with reference to certain appointments, I think that the public feel that we are going to extremes.
That statement is made by Mr. Foran in the presence of Dr. Roche who, at the conclusion of Mr. Foran's evidence, stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Foran's evidence. In other words in so far as certain

of these positions and certain appointments are concerned, they are attempting to deal with things that are in a sense almost impossible. They admit that they are going to extremes in endeavouring to carry out this law; and the conclusion we came to after hearing all the evidence is that the commission itself should have power to rectify these things. Wherever they find, in conjunction with the deputy heads of departments, that it is in the public interest-not_ in the interests of the Government, nor in the interest of the Civil Service, but in the interest of the good administration of public business in this country- that certain appointments should be exempted from the law and should be made more directly than they are at the present time, the commission should have power to arrange accordingly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the initiative in that respect belong solely to the commission?


James Alexander Calder: Entirely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if there is any obligation on the part of the commission to make a report to Parliament in regard to appointments made in that way, in the public interest, giving the special reasons?


James Alexander Calder: I think that is a clause that might very well be included in the Bill. Personally, I am inclined to the view, although I doubt if the commission themselves are, from discussions I have had with them,-not before the committee, but more or less offhand after our meetings that we should put the exemptions that are made in the statute; but probably it would be better for a year or two to elapse before that is done. Let us first work the thing out a little further. I quite agree that it would be advisable, for the protection of the commission, and of Parliament, and of the public, that these exemptions should be reported upon to Parliament,. setting forth the reasons why the exemptions werb made in particular cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the minister would draft a clause covering that during the dinner hour.
Progress reported.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock. SUPPLY


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: When the House is again in 
Committee of Supply, I propose to amend the wording of the two items contained in resolution No. 126 and to be found on page 85 of the Main Estimates for the current year, so that the said items will read as follows:
Loan not exceeding $89,687,633.39 repayable on demand with interest at the rate of six percent per annum, payable half-yearly, to be used (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred al any time by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada or any company comprised in the Canadian National Railway system or the Grand Trunk Railway system, or any of them (excluding herefrom, however, expenditures or indebtedness incurred by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company except as specifically provided in item (f) hereof) on any of the following accounts: (a) operating deficits, (b) acquisition of property, materials and supplies, (c) interest on notes, securities or obligations, (d) the principle and interest of maturing or matured loans, secured or unsecured, (e) construction and betterments, (f) guarantees by the said Grand Trunk Railway Company of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, such loan to be secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the undertaking of the Canadian National Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve. The loan or assistance herein authorized may be made in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly in cash and partly by guarantee, in the discretion of the Governor in Council. Any guarantee from time to time given under the authority herein may be of the principle and interest of the notes, obligations or securities of the Canadian National Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve	$89,687,633.39
Loan not exceeding $26,000,000, repayable on demand with interest at ithe rate of six per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, to be used (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any time by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or any company comprised in the Canadian National system or in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, or any of them, (excluding herefrom, however, guarantees by the Grand Trunk. Railway Company which are provided for in item (f) of the next preceding item), on any of the following accounts: (a) operating deficits, (b) acquisition of property, materials and supplies, (c) interest on notes, securities or obligations, (d) the principal and interest of maturing or matured loans, secured or unsecured, (e) construction and betterments; such loan to be secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the undertaking of the Canadian National Railway Company or of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve. The loan or assistance herein authorized may be made in cash or by way of guar-

antee, or partly in cash and partly by guarantee, in the discretion of the Governor in Council. Any guarantee from time to time given under the authority herein may be of the principal and interest of the notes, obligations or securities of the Canadian National Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve	$26,000,000
I therefore beg to move that said items in amended form be referred to the Committee of Supply.
I also beg to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the proposed changes and recommends them to the House.
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin the Chair.
Railways and Canals-Estimates chargeable to income, $167,117,790.72.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the committee resumes the consideration of the two items forming part of resolution No. 126 and printed on page 35 of the Main Estimates for the current year, and the proposed amendments to the said items moved by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in this committee on Monday, May 30, 1921, I desire to' draw the attention of the committee to the fact that when the said amendments were proposed, they were accepted by the Chairman merely as notices of amendments and subject to further consideration. The point of order to be decided was whether or not, as these amendments involved a change in the destination of the grant, it was competent for the hon. minister to make the announcement in committee, that the proposed changes had been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General and that they had been recommended by him to the House.
I have given to this matter careful thought and consideration and find that according to the rules and usages of Parliament no change in the destination of an Estimate submitted to the House of Commons by His Excellency the Governor General can be made in Committee of Supply unless that change has been submitted to, approved by and commended to the House by His Excellency. The changes involved in these amendments had been submitted to His Excellency and approved by him and the only question in doubt was whether or not the announcement should have been made in Committee of Supply or in the House itself. Upon this point, I find that all announcements of this nature have always been made in the House and not in
committee and that this usage is based not only upon the fact that the announcement should be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons but also for the reason that all messages received from His Excellency the Governor General should be communicated to the House with the greatest possible respect, dignity and decorum. I have already communicated to the hon. minister my ruling upon this point of order and the proper announcement of His Excellency's approval and commendation having been duly made before the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply, to-day, the proposed amendments are now in order and can be duly considered and voted upon by this committee.


John Dowsley Reid: Among the items embraced in Item No. 126 is one on highways. Some information has been asked for in connection therewith, and I am now in a position to discuss that subject. I suggest, therefore, that we take up the item dealing with highways.
Commissioner of Highways: To provide for the organization and payment of staff of Commissioner of Highways, including A. W. Camp-hell, C.E., as Commissioner of Highways at $5,000 per annum, $53,000.


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth) :: In rising to address the committee on this question, I do so on the ground that the expenditure on highways in the province of Ontario is already too great. The item under discussion provides for a staff in connection with highways. As hon. gentlemen are all aware, under the Highways Act, the province and the counties pay a certain percentage, and the Dominion makes a grant of $20,000,000 to be divided amongst the provinces on the basis of population, this grant being available up to April 1, 1924. Ontario's share is $5,877,275. The Ontario plan for good roads calls for 1,824 miles, and the Minister of Public Works of the province of Ontario says he expects to spend $14,000,000 in two years. I have placed on the Order Paper some questions which still remain unanswered, and had I the answers to these questions I could possibly speak with more authority and precision on the subject. As I proceed, however, I shall ask the minister for such information as I desire. In the first place, I do hot favour this dual control in the building of roads. I was going to say it is a crime, but certainly it is almost an utter impossibility to get any information in connection with the matter. If ;I go to the Department of Public Works of the Dominion, I am referred to the province of Ontario, and

they in turn refer me to the Dominion. Now, let us take some of the highways that have been 'built and the expenditures which have been made in connection therewith. The Hamilton-Brantford highway covers a distance of 19.18, or say, 19 1-5 miles; 112-5 mites are in the township of An-caster in the county of Wentworth, which I have the honour to represent, and 7.78 miles are in the township of Brantford. Probably some hon. members may consider that the course I am pursuing to-night is rather out of the ordinary, as I am speaking in regard to a county, a portion of which is represented in the Ontario Legislature by the Minister of Public Works of Ontario, I had the honour to represent what has been known in the Legislature of Ontario, from 1908 to 1911, as the riding of North Wentworth. The riding, as represented in this House, is known as Wentworth, comprising North and South Wentworth, and it may be considered strange that I should rise to-night to express my views upon the good roads question in opposition to the Minister of Public Works of Ontario. A certain article appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly on Saturday, May 21, 1921, and, but for the fact that that article was published, I do not know that I would pay so much attention to the matter as I purpose doing to-night. In this article the Hon. Mr. Briggs, is reported as follows :
The whole trouble is, he said, that the good road question has become one of Ottawa politics. Our good friend who represents Wentworth in the Dominion House has developed into the highest type of good-road knocker that can be found in the land.
Let me say that I am not opposed to the good road scheme, but I believe in a fair distribution of the work on the roads all over the Dominion of Canada. If hon. gentlemen will refer to the questions I have put, and the answers which appear in unrevised Hansard May, page 3698, and May 26, page 4030, they will see that the part of the country from which I come is being very favourably looked after. The road I am now discussing is known as the Hamilton-Brantford road. The estimated cost is $658,907.05, but estimated cost and actual cost are two different things. Take the portion of it that has been completed, what is known as the Hamilton-Dundas road from Paradise road as far as Binkley's corners, a distance of 9,100 feet. That has cost to date, without the proposed boulevard $141,253.46.


Mr. COWAN:: Is that road paved with gold?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The streets of this city are not paved with gold.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman kindly repeat the figures?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The actual distance is 9,100 feet, less than two miles, and the cost is $141,253.46, or at the rate of $81,958 per mite.


Mr. PROULX:: What is the width of the road?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The road
is 24 feet of bithulithic pavement, with a 3 foot shoulder on each side, making a road of 30 feet. That is all. The minister of Public Works of Ontario is going further than that. He is determined to make that road wider.


An hon. MEMBER:: What Government
built that road?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The Drury Government. The road is a good road but the contention I make is that if we allow the Minister of Public Works of the Province of Ontario to carry out such an extravagant scheme, certain portions of the country will be favoured and other portions will be neglected.


Mr. McMASTER:: Are these roads
approved by the engineers acting on behalf of the Dominion Government?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: This is
one of the approved roads, and therefore I consider it my duty to bring the matter to the attention not only of the Government but of the country, and I do so fearlessly. The estimated cost of this road was $122,000. Its actual cost, as I say, is $141,253.46, but in justice to the Government and the Department of Highways, it must be said that on the whole Hamilton-Brantford section only a little over $5,000 has been paid. This Government does not pay 40 per cent on any of the extravagant undertakings that the Minister of Public Works may wish to lead them into. They pay 40 per cent on a reasonable amount for construction ; and what I contend is that the Dominion Department of Public Highways should pause for consideration in the matter of building these roads-we cannot have such extravagance. Let me go further. I claim that this road is costing $81,958 per mite. Well, the Minister of Public Works of the province of Ontario is now expropriating from 15 to 18 feet on each side of that road.


William Cameron Edwards: What is his name?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The Hon.
F. C. Biggs, and he lives three miles from

where I do. Now he is expropriating 15 to 18 feet on each side of the road and he is paying the people for that land at the rate of $1,285 per acre or-let me say for the benefit of my farmer friends-at the rate of $128,5r9 for a hundred acre farm. I am glad that the leader of the Farmer party is in the House because when he tours Ontario with his friend, Hon. Mr. Drury, he will have some questions to answer if he proposes to link up with that party.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the purpose of this expropriation of land on either side of the road?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: As to that, statements have been made to me by the farmers living along the highway. To give you an instance let me say that last Sunday-I am sure my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) will say it was an act of mercy I wais upon-I was called to go and see a gentleman, a constituent of mine, who was sick in bed, and who, his wife said, was worrying over the road expropriation.


Mr. COPP:: Did you take him spiritual comfort?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I went and I found him in bed. He told me that recently the Department of Public Works of the province of Ontario came along and moved his fence back, they offered him a cheque in payment-in fact he has the $1,285 per acre. I asked him why. I feel that members of the House will think this is a rather extravagant story, but if they will look up last night's Toronto Telegram they will see some of the pictures, and I am at liberty to say that I provided those pictures for the Toronto Telegram and also some of the statements made. Furthermore, I shall be pleased to show members of the House how roads are built in our section. Well, my constituent said they expropriated this property, and the reason they gave was that the Hon. Mr. Biggs purposes, on this road from Hamilton to Windsor to use this 12, or 15, or 18 feet, whatever it may be, for the purposes of building a boulevard between those two cities. Now, if you look up yesterday's paper you will find that the Hon. Mr. Biggs stated yesterday at Preston that he was only going to make a temporary improvement of the road there, because he intended to widen it to 80 feet. Now the width of the paved road-as I stated to some hon. gentleman-is 24 feet, with a 3 foot shoulder, making 30 feet in all, and then there is a ditch on each side.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that to put the Ontario Government in?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I do not know whether it is to put the Government in or not, but the fact remains that they are allowing roads to be built at such figures.	_
Now some of you hon. gentlemen will ask what wages are being paid. Referring to unrevised Hansard, pages 3698 and 4030, and quoting from the answers furnished by the Department of Public Works of Ontario over which Mr. Biggs presides. I find that labourers were paid $6 per day.


Edmond Proulx: Is that this year or last year?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Last year. Teams were paid $10 a day; foremen $6.50 a day and board; roller engineer $7.50 a day. For a five-ton truck $50 per day, including the driver, was paid, and for a two-ton truck, $22.50 per day. It might be advisable for me to also put on Hansard what they paid for ditching. There were 16,712 lineal feet of ditching at 60 cents a foot; 1,655 lineal feet of tile drain at 70 cents a foot; 35,849 tons of screening at $3.60 per ton. The bituminous top on this road was paid for at the rate of $2.60 per square yard, and it was put in by the Warren Company, an American concern with a branch at Toronto. How the contract was awarded I think should be put on record. Hon. F. C. Biggs, Minister of Public Works of Ontario, needs no introduction to this House, because anybody who has read the papers during the last six months will have noticed that although the United Farmers of Ontario party in their platform denounced patronage, this same gentleman went to a truck dealer named Parkin in the town of Dun-das and without advertising for tenders asked this man to tender and awarded the contract to him for $117,500, upon which the dealer claimed he made a commission of $13,800. Not only that, but the department purchased American trucks and paid the exchange on the purchase price. They could have bought equally as good trucks in the city of Hamilton from the National Steel Car Company, and as a matter of fact for the American trucks they did purchase they had to buy repair parts from this Canadian company in Hamilton.
If there is any doubt as to my right to speak on this question-and I see some members are a little bit uneasy about it- I want to say that we pay forty per cent of the cost of these roads. Therefore, I think we are perfectly justified in bring-

ing this to the attention of the House and to the country at large. This $82,000 per mile highway was first proposed to be a cement pavement 15 feet wide. Tenders were invited on that basis. Four tenders were received, and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, the Ontario Government agreeing to supply tne cement. After awarding the contract to J. I. Johnston the provincial department of public works was notified by the cement dealers that the necessary amount of cement could not be supplied. It was then decided by that department to change tne character of the construction to a foithu-lithic surface and tenders were invited from the Standard Paving Company of Ottawa - which declined to bid-and the Warren Paving Company of Toronto, and the contract was awarded to this company. Now, I want to know if, after the specifications were changed from cement to bithulithie paving, new tenders were called for, or was the same procedure followed as in the truck deal and the contract awarded to a friend of the minister? Because in his evidence on the purchase of the trucks- which, by the way, are used in the building of these roads-Mr. Biggs stated that he awarded the contract to Parkin because he wanted to help a young friend who was just starting up in business. Following that, he purchased a number of cars from another friend in business in the town of Dundas. Now, if simply a letter was sent to the Warren Paving Company and to the Standard Paving Company-and the latter company, as I have already stated, declined to tender-it would seem that the Warren Paving Company must be very well thought of by the provincial Minister of Public Works, and before I take my seat I think I will prove conclusively that such is the case.
The Hamilton-Brantford highway between the Toronto-Hamilton and Buffalo railway tracks and the village of Ancaster was to cost $121,000. Up to date it has cost $123,850, and so far only 4,100 feet of pavement have been laid, or four-fifths of a mile. The highway between Paradise road and the village of Ancaster, a distance of 4J miles, has been paved only for two and a half miles. The provincial Minister of Public Works proposes connecting up the road across the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway tracks by means of a subway at an estimated cost of $60,000, and along the Ancaster escarpment he has torn down the mountain side and filled in gullies and widened the road to an altogether unnecessary extent, with the result that I am

safe in saying that the road between the city boundary of Hamilton and the village of Ancaster will cost, including the subway, over $100,000 per mile.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the subway for?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: To get
under the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway tracks. Can the minister tell me how many trains cross there each day?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the record
here.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The railway traffic is insignificant and it is not a dangerous crossing. Then we have the destruction of trees. In many cases the provincial Minister .of Public Works has had some of the finest trees in the country cut down. I might quote from the Toronto Globe, an authority which should be satisfactory to some members at least. This is the article:
Hurl criticism for blundering with highway.
Toronto Globe takes rap at Hon. F. C. Biggs for condition of road.
Then the article refers to the cutting down of the trees in these terms:
There is another matter in this connection too which is receiving not a little criticism throughout eastern Ontario, and that is the planting of trees. Nothing will add more beauty to a stretch of road than a row of stately elms or maples, yet why, asks the Kingston road farmer, have these been cut down in scores of cases and saplings planted by unskilled, high-priced labour in their place? True, the right of way has been widened and many of these trees were in the way, but the actual road has not been, nor ever will need be, widened sufficiently to have necessitated their removal. Again, young trees have been planted irrespective of their surroundings. Through swampy, sandy and clay soil alike, the same varieties have been placed eight feet apart. In some cases cedars have been cut to make way for maples. In many cases plantings have been made under overhanging apple trees.
To revert to this Hamilton-Brantford highway, I might say that buildings, including part of a school and a church may have to be removed, although this is out in the country in the townships of Barton and Ancaster. Only those who have travelled over it can commence to describe what is being done. My statement, perhaps, may seem extravagant, but anybody who wishes to take the time can go there and see for himself.
Now, there is another section of the road known as the Hamilton-Kitehener highway. But before I go into that, perhaps it may be advisable that I should refer to a question which I put to the Minister of Railways and which may be found at

page 3,698 of Hansard of this session. I quote:	,
8. What roads in the county of Wentworth have been approved of as highways by the Dominion Government and what roads have been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario?
To which the following reply was given: The following roads have been approved of as highways by this department:	Hamilton-
Queenston highway, Hamilton-Brantford high' way, Hamilton-Jarvis highway, Dundas street highway; and the following roads have been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario.
Then follow the four roads which I have mentioned, and, in addition, the Hamilton-Chatsworth and the Hamilton-Kitchener highways. According to the answer given by the Minister of Railways, therefore, we have six of these highways in the county of Wentworth.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Are they all in the constituency of the Minister of Public Works for Ontario?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: No, they are all in the county of Wentworth. But in that connection I might refer for a moment .to the roads in which the Minister of Public Works in Ontario .may perhaps be directly concerned. The Hamilton-Kitchener highway pases through the town of Dundas and in front of the property of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario.
I may say that the Minister of Public Works of Ontario commenced the laying of the bitulithie pavement from his own gate. He is building from his own gate past his father's gate and on to another property that his father owns about three miles down the road. After my asking the questions in this House apparently he thought thait the facts looked too glaring, so he has now started-and he has only made matters worse-to build a mile of road to the west of his property, and on the south side of the road no one owns any land but the Hon. F. C. Biggs, Minister of Public Works for Ontario!. On the other side Mr. Biggs' father owns a farm. There are one or two places in between, and then comes again the property of the Hon. F. C. Biggs, Minister of Public Works for Ontario.


Mr. McCOIG:: May I ask if these roads have been approved by the Minister of Railways? I understand that if they have been approved, the Dominion Government has to pay 40 per cent of the cost of construction.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The Hamilton-Kitchener highway has not been approved by the Minister of Railways.
Hon,. Mr. REID: In order that that question may be answered fully I may say that the Minister of Railways has not approved of the construction of these roads on any such expenditure as has been mentioned by the hon. member who is speaking.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Therefore we would not be called upon to pay.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then how is this matter the business of this House?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know.


Edmond Proulx: If these highways have not been approved by the Minister of Railways I do not see that this committee has anything to do with the subject. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction with which the Federal Parliament is not concerned.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that
the hon. member for Prescott has risen to a point of order. I should be glad if he would state his point of order a little more explicitly.


Edmond Proulx: The hon. member for
Kent (Mr. McCoig) asked the Minister of Railways if these highways of which the hon. member for Wentworth speaks had been approved by the Department of Railways. The Minister of Railways replied, "No."


John Dowsley Reid: No, I did not say that.


Edmond Proulx: He says he has not approved of these highways.


John Dowsley Reid: No; I say that we have approved of them but not at such an expenditure as has been mentioned by the hon. member who is addressing the committee.


Edmond Proulx: I understand that before these highways can be approved the plans have to be filed by the provincial department of highways and the estimated cost of the construction must be stated. If the Minister of Railways has not approved of the construction of these highways at the cost stated, then he has not approved of them at all; if he approves of them at all he must approve the estimated cost. I submit, therefore, that as these highways have not been approved by the Department of Railways, in accordance with the requirements of the federal Act, this committee has nothing to do with them; they are wholly within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point is a very intricate one, and I think that members interested should be heard before a ruling is given by the Chair. I should be very glad to hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark)-who desires to say a word on the point of order-and then the hon. member for Wentworth, who, of course, will state how in his opinion, this discussion is relevant to the item now under consideration.


Michael Clark: It appears to me that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) is exceedingly well taken, and I think it is something that we ought to clear up in the interests of orderly and proper discussion in this committee. I am not satisfied with the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that he approved of these highways but does not approve of how they are being constructed. Under this dual control I should say it would be a very useful thing for my hon. friend if, the moment a mistake is made, he can say: Oh, this is not my mistake; it is the mistake of the Government of Ontario. I think we need to know, before we can even ask you, Sir, to decide this point of order, exactly what my hon. friend the Minister of Railways means when he says that he approved of these contracts and did not approve of them-because that is about what he said. I submit that we have to know how far we can go in a discussion which to many of us appears to be a discussion that might better be conducted in the legislature of the province. If these roads have not been approved of they are not proper matters for discussion in this committee. If they have been approved of, then we should go on and discuss the dual control-at some length, I am free to say, because this matter is bound to prove a very interesting subject for debate. I can see food for several days in it myself.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The reason why I think I am in order in bringing this matter before the committee is that application has been made by the Department of Public Works of Ontario to the federal Department of Railways for the approval of these highways. Let me repeat that in answer to my question with regard to what roads in the county of Wentworth had been approved as highways by the Dominion Government and what roads had been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario, the Minister of Railways said:

The following roads have been approved of as highways by this department: Hamilton-Queenston highway, Hamilton-Brantford highway, Hamllton.Jarvis highway, Dundas street highway; and the following roads have been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario: Hamilton-Queenston highway, Hamilton-Brantford highway, Hamilton-Jarvis highway, Hamilton-Chatsworth highway, Hamilton-Kitehener highway, Dundas street highway.
I submit that we are vitally interested in that matter because we are bound by the Canada Highways Act to pay forty per cent of the cost of the roads if they are approved. Therefore, I say that it is my duty and privilege to bring this matter before the House and the country.


Mr. CRERAR:: On the point of order, I would be very sorry to deprive my hon. friends opposite of the very evident pleasure they are getting from the recital of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson).


John Allister Currie: The hon. member is not in order now.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is doubtful whether the hon. member for Wentworth is in order.
I cannot see what the question of whether a purchase of trucks by the Minister of Public Works of Ontario was a good or a bad purchase has to do with the item under consideration at the present time. In that respect my hon. friend was distinctly out of order. I would suggest that his whole remarks are certainly on the border line of a violation of the rule of order.


William Cameron Edwards: On the point of order,
T should like to direct your attention, Sir, to the Canada Highways Act, the latter part of section 4 of which reads:
Except for reasons set forth in such Order in Council and except with the consent of both governments, all expenditure under this Act shall be by tender and contract.
I might argue that, in my judgment, the very fact of the consent of this Government being required to certain parts of the work gives us a right to lay before this House any facts pertaining thereto.
I would more particularly direct your attention to this point:
The aid to -be given in any case shall be forty per cent of the amount which in the opinion of the minister is the actual, necessary and reasonable cost of the construction or improvement of such highway, as the case may be.
How is the minister going to arrive at what is a reasonable and proper cost without a consideration of what work has been done and what money has been ex-

pended on it? If the minister has a right to arrive at a conclusion from the facts as presented, will anyone argue that any member of this House has not the same right to present facts and argue along the same line?


Mr. BEST:: I cannot understand why lion, members living in other parts of the Dominion than Ontario should find fault with the people of Ontario for looking after their share of the $20,000,000: This is question 11:
What is the mileage of provincial highways in the county of Wentworth and the estimated cost of same?
The answer is:
The provincial department reports that the mileage of provincial highways in the county of Wentworth is 64 miles. The estimated cost is $2,654,640. The estimated cost of the mileage under agreement under the Canada Highways Act is $8^,126.
I do not know whether that mileage is all approved or not, but I know from what I have seen in the commissioner's office that part of that is approved. We want to know, if this has been approved, whether the money is being properly spent. The estimated cost is $2,654,640. The estimated cost per mile under agreement in accordance with the Canada Highways Act is $887,126. If that is all approved, the one county of Wentworth gets one-sixth of all the money that is coming to the province of Ontario from this Dominion. There are 52 counties in Ontario. Is it fair to the rest of Ontario that the county of Wentworth should get one-sixth of the total amount? I think the people of Ontario will give the hon. member for Wentworth great credit in that, while he lives in that county, he is willing to see that the other counties receive fair play. I do not think hon. members would be doing justice to Ontario if they tried to stop the hon. member from putting a fair and honest statement before the people.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I rise to direct your
attention, Sir, to the fact that a point of order is before the Chair. I do not purpose allowing any hon. member to make a speech that is irrelevant to the question under discussion. If the hon. member who represents the riding of Wentworth is objecting to such a large amount being expended in improving the roads in his particular riding, that is a matter between him and his constituents. Personally, I am in favour of good roads, but I contend that the total amount to which Ontario is entitled should be equally distributed
throughout the province. The point of order is before the Chair, and I do not think hon. members should wander in other directions when your decision in this matter has not been given to the committee.


Michael Clark: Might I suggest, with great deference, that we hear from the minister in charge of the Estimates as to the exact extent that he has approved these roads?


Georges Henri Boivin: I might say that I propose, before giving a ruling on the point of order, to put a question to the Minister of Railways. I fear that both the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) and the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) have digressed somewhat from the point of order placed before the Chair. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether or not these roads have been approved by the department, and if any request has been made to the department for approval of the construction of these roads under the Act.


John Dowsley Reid: The Ontario Government submitted a programme of roads in that province for consideration and approval of the Minister of Railways and Canals. In the list submitted they gave an estimate of the total cost of construction. An agreement has been entered into between the Ontario Government and the Dominion Government by which the Dominion Government agree to pay forty per cent of the amount as estimated. Therefore, in the roads that are under discussion, an agreement has been made whereby the Dominion Government agree to pay forty per cent of the amount as estimated. As a protection to the Dominion Government, we have inserted in the agreement a clause that the amount so paid shall not in any case exceed the total amount to which the province is entitled under the Canada Highways Act. In other words, supposing the road costs the amount that has been stated by the hon. member, that will not mean that the Dominion Government must pay more than the amount estimated, neither shall we be responsible for any amount over and above the total amount of $5,800,000 odd, Ontario's share of the $20,000,000.


Charles Murphy: I thought the Chairman asked the minister if the roads specifically mentioned by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) were roads with regard to which an application had been received by the Minister of Railways and Canals and which had been approved. The

committee would like to be satisfied on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: The road under discussion is the Hamilton-Brantford road. An agreement has been signed for that. I might also add that in the agreement I have inserted a clause that the minister also reserves the right to pay only what he considers is a fair and reasonable amount of the cost; or, in other words, if an abnormal expenditure has been made, we are not hound in any way to pay for that abnormal expenditure.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What is the estimated cost of the Hamilton-Brantford road?


John Dowsley Reid: $658,907.05, or $34,400 per mile.


Charles Murphy: What about the road
mentioned by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) that cost about the rate of $81,000 per mile?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: That is a portion of the same road.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Irrespective of what
these roads cost, is it not a fact that the Department of Railways pays only on their own estimate of what the cost should be? In other words, suppose the Minister of Public Works in Ontario builds a road that costs $250,000 per mile. I take it that the Minister of Railways does not pay upon that basis, but upon the basis of his own engineers' estimate of what the cost should be.


John Dowsley Reid: The clause reads as
follows:
The Dominion, in consideration of the premises and subject to the performance and observance on the part of the province, to the satisfaction of the minister, of the covenants, provisions and conditions in this agreement contained, will, in accordance with the Act and the regulations, pay to the provinces, towards the cost of improvement of the said highway sections, aid to the extent of forty (40 p.c.) per centum of the amount which, in the opinion of the minister, upon the report and recommendation of the Commissioner of Highways of the Department of Railways and Canals, is the actual, necessary and reasonable cost of the said Improvement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I submit that it is of no interest to this House how extravagantly the Minister of Public Works in Ontario may build his roads, because we pay only upon the estimate of our own federal engineers.


John Allister Currie: That is not a point of
order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) will be patient

for a moment, he can speak later on. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is of no interest to this House how extravagantly the minister in Ontario builds his roads, because this vote covers only the estimate of the cost that is made by the engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals of the Federal Government.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order
raised by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) is whether or not it is competent for this committee to discuss the cost of construction of certain highways or portions thereof referred to in an address being delivered to the committee by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). The only question to be considered is the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks to the item now before the committee for consideration. This item provides the sum of $53,000 for the organization and* payment of the stalf of the Commissioner of Highways. The expenditure made by the Government to assist the provinces in the construction of highways is a statutory expenditure, it is authorized by statute and does not appear in the Estimates. It can, however, like all other statutory expenditures, be properly reviewed in Committee of Supply when the item concerning the administration of the fund is being considered. To establish the relevancy I therefore took the liberty of asking the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, if these roads had been approved by the officers of his department and if not, if they had received any request for approval of such construction, which request might now be under consideration. To both of these questions, the hon. minister replied in the affirmative. It is quite true that part of the expense of construction is being borne by the Ontario Legislature, but it is also certain that a portion of the expenditure has been paid or will be paid by the Dominion Government. It is not the duty of the chairman to ascertain or decide whether or not the proper proportion of the cost is being provided by this Government, but the committee has the undoubted right to do so and I must therefore rule the present discussion to be in order.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I thank
you for your ruling Mr. Chairman. I regret to see a man like the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) rise in his place with no other purpose than to try to block the facts and keep them from being given out.


Georges Henri Boivin: I fear that I shall
now be obliged to remind the hon. member that he is not strictly in order. There is a well established rule to be found in the works of both May and Bourinot, that anything which disgresses sufficiently from the subject before the Chair is to be construed as an attack or a reflection upon another hon. member is not in order.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Again I
accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would refer the former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette, to the Canada Highways Act which was passed in 1919. I think he was a member of the Government at that time, but I am not sure. At all. events I refer him to the Canada Highways Act, where in clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the regulations, he will find the provisions as to agreements, tenders and payments. Regulation 6 provides:
All expenditures shall he made pursuant to tender and contract, except as provided by the Act and shall be on the basis of unit prices. Tenders shall be called for at least three weeks before the work is to he let and notice of the calling for tenders shall apear in a contractors' or engineering journal as well as in such local newspapers as the Province deems necessary.
In connection with this $82,000 per mile highway, which does not include the land on either side, I would draw the hon. member's attention j;o the fact that the Department of Public Works of Ontario first advertised for a 15 feet cement pavement. Then they found they could not get the cement. Instead of advertising again they wrote to the Standard Paving Company of Ottawa, but that firm declined to bid. Then they wrote to the Warren Paving Company of Toronto, and their tender was accepted. I say that that was in direct violation of the Act. I have asked a ques-9 p.m. tion with reference to this matter, which possibly will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow, and I hope that it will be answered. The hon. member for Marquette evidently would like to clear the skirts of somebody, and apply the blame elsewhere. The agreement provides that:
In determining the actual necessary and reasonable cost of any highway for the purpose of fixing the amount to be paid under the Act, the cost of the following shall not be considered as a part thereof.
Then it goes on to enumerate:
The cost of right of way, and incidental damages, bridges, viaducts, subways, exceptional grade separation, provincial overhead and administrative expenses, the making of surveys, plans, specifications and estimates, or any engineering expenses incident to the project prior to the beginning of actual construction.
The cost of culverts having a clear width of opening of not more than twenty (20) feet may be Included.
What I maintain is this, that the policy of the U.F.O. Government in the province of Ontario as regards roads, is in direct contradiction of the policy that is being pursued. This is what the Farmers' Sun -I suppose the hon. member for Marquette will recognize this-of September 13, 1919, in outlining the provincial platform of the U.F.O., says in regard to their road policy:
To substitute for the policy of expensive provincial highways the policy of organized continued road maintenance and of making good roads for all, rather than high grade roads for a few, the cost of road construction and maintenance being equitably distributed between city and country.
Will any one contend that in building a road costing $82,000 per mile, they are following out the provisions of the Act? Will any one contend that jt is necessary?


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I rise
to a point of order. We are not interested in the policies of any party in the province of Ontario. The discussion of such policies is not relevant to the item under consideration.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davidson) :: The hon. member's point has already been covered by the ruling of the Chair.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I am rather surprised that the hon. member should suggest that we are not interested in expenditures made in the province of Ontario. I hope that, if they are spending money on the same scale in the province from which he comes, he will have the courage of his convictions to stand up and oppose such reckless extravagance. The ruling of the Chair having been given, I can discuss the Hamilton-Kitchener road, which passes the property of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario.


Jacques Bureau: Has that road been
approved?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Approval of it has been asked for, and the ruling of the Chair is that I may discuss any road either approved, or to be approved. Now, the people of Ontario are vitally interested in this question and are only too anxious to expose to the country the reckless extravagance of the men who are spending this money. The item now under discussion is to provide for men to check up the expenditures in the province of Ontario, and I certainly approve of that. I think we should have an efficient staff of men who



[Stage Direction]
will see to it that engineers are not employed taking down old tin signs from fences, men who will not use Government trucks to haul stone and cement to their own places, and men who will see to it that the gasoline and oil used in the work are not distributed among the friends of the friends of somebody in charge. The Hamilton-Kitchener highway passes through the town of Dundas. Last year, on what is known as the Dundas-Waterloo road, which is now covered by the Hamilton-Kitchener highway, the Minister of Public Works of Ontario built a portion of road in the adjoining township of Ancaster, and also a section in the town of Dundas, and I trust that my hon. friends opposite will not become uneasy when I discuss this matter. What happened? He built a section of this road in the township of Ancaster, and, as I say, another portion in the town of Dundas. If my hon. friends will look up the Act, they will find that the Ontario Highways Act gave him no authority whatever to go into the town of Dundas and build any pavement in that incorporated town. He built this road in the fall of 1920. The Minister of Public Works of Ontario declared that he would do more for the town of Dundas than for any other portion of the country, and, I think he did. He built this section of road in the town of Dundas without any authority.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is this Government
paying a percentage of the cost of that road?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Yes, if it is approved by this Government, we shall have to pay our 40 per cent. My hon. friend shakes his head; he had better look up the Act.


John Archibald Campbell: I shake my head because I do not approve of it.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I agree with you. Now, as I said, he had no right to go into the town of Dundas and build there, because it is an incorporated town. He introduced a Bill into the Ontario Legislature on February 18, 1921, and section 6 of that Act says:
Where it is deemed by the Minister desirable and expedient that a highway or portion thereof within a city, town or village, including any necessary bridges, should be constructed as a connecting link between portions of a provincial highway or a provincial suburban highway, the department may designate such highway or portion thereof within the city, town or village, to be constructed by the city, town or village, and the council of the corporation of the city, town or village may pass by-laws for issuing, and may issue debentures under the provisions of

The Municipal Act, to be payable in twenty years at the furthest from the time or times when such debentures are issued, for an amount sufficient to pay the cost of the construction of the highway and bridges within the said city, town or village, but it shall not be necessary for the couniaiD to obtain the assent of the electors to any by-laws for the issue of debentures under this sub,section nor to observe the formalities in relation thereto prescribed by The Municipal Act.
That is to say, if the minister has the approval of the council, they can build through the town of Dundas without the consent of the electorate.


Edmond Proulx: The Bill does not say that the province is paying for it; it says that the municipality pays. The only thing is that the consent of the electors is not necessary.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: We shall have to have a class of instruction, I am afraid, in connection with the Ontario Highways Act and the Canada Highways Act, because, apparently, a great many members who do not want to have this matter put on record are very anxious to interrupt. Now, I will give my hon. friend the facts, and I do not think he will rise to a point of order. This portion was built in the town of Dundas in the year 1920, and my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, will find, if he looks up the statute, that the Minister of Public Works of Ontario had no power to go into the town of Dundas and build a road there in that year. But he passed this Act, which came into force on receiving the Royal assent on May 3, 1921. I may say, for the information of my hon. friend, that the Bill is No. 116. He built that portion of the road, I say, and the understanding was that the Government would pay their share of it. They then got the council to call for tenders for the paving of the remaining portion through the town of Dundas, to link up with the road that passes the place of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario. They called for tenders, and these were for $109,000, $111,000 and $122,000 for that section of the road that passes through the town of Dundas on the Hamilton-Kitchener highway. My contention was, and still is, that the lowest tender should have been accepted, all other things being equal. But the Minister of Public Works of Ontario, Mr. Hogarth and_ Mr. Maclean, had a secret meeting of the council of the town of Dundas, and gave a contract to the Warren Paving Company, at $122,000, or $13,000 higher than the lowest tender. What inference is to be drawn from that? They built that piece

of road in Dundas, and found they could not pay for it. They cannot pay for it under this Act because it was built in 1920; therefore the inference is that the contract was given to the Warren Paving Company in order to get an amount of money to pay the difference between the $109,000 and the $122,000. The consent of the electors does not have to be obtained for the building of these roads-it can be done on the authority of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario. Is that fair? Yet that is the nature of the legislation passed by the Drury Government. They take it out of the hands of the independent electors in my town. We have not had the opportunity of voting on the question as to whether we wanted it or not, or whether we were prepared to pay $13,000 more for a road than we could have had it built for. The payment of that $13,000, as you all know has to be spread over a period of twenty years, which means that the town of Dundas will eventually have to pay over $22,000, reckoning principal and interest or one-fifth more than they could have had this work done for themselves, if they had not listened to the advice of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario.
Now we come to another road which is known as Dundas street, and for fear that anybody will rise to a point of order again I will state that Dundas street has been commenced and has been approved to a certain extent. The construction of Dundas street, between Toronto and Hamilton has been approved as far as Clappi-son's Corners. Then the road proceeds further and it goes up to the county of Wentworth until it strikes the concession line between the township of East Flam-boro' and the township of Beverley, and upon which concession line the Minister of Public Works lives. Then what else has been done? They open a blind concession, or a road allowance, and they continue that road through that blind concession, or road allowance and what is the fact? Upon one side the Minister of Public Works has about 165 rods frontage and on the other side he owns 65 rods, and he has had a bridge built so that his cattle can pass from one to the other through that blind concession. We are asked " Where did he get his authority?" Why he inserted the provision in a Bill and had it passed this year. In the Act in question, which is No. 116, clause 2 provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act contained an original road allowance which has
not been opened, or which has been occupied, or partly occupied, by an abutting owner or other person may be entered upon, taken used, and occupied for the purposes of a provincial highway-
Now listen, you know who owns the property.
-provided that where any person shall have acquired the title to any land taken under this section, he shall be entitled to the like compensation as in the case of land expropriated for the purposes of a provincial highway.
That practically means that the Minister of Public Works for Ontario provided for the payment of a road that went through his own property although it was a road allowance. The effect of what I have stated will be seen when it is remembered that Mr. Biggs owns 165 rods on one side and 65 rods on the other. This is a road allowance-a blind concession it is sometimes called.


An hon. MEMBER:: Honest farmer.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The statement was made by the Minister of Public Works that if the Federal Government would do their share, as he is doing Ontario's share there would not be so much unemployment, and yet we pay, as I have already stated, 40 per cent of that expenditure.
The policy of the Ontario Government has been represented to be, in connection with roads or any other purpose, the cutting down of expenditures that are not absolutely essential. I am not opposed to good roads but I say that the building of a road and the widening of it from 66 feet, by the adding to it of a 15-foot boulevard, is a crime, when there are other pants of the province in which good roads are urgently needed. I maintain that a 20-foot road of pavement, with a macadam road on each side so constructed that horses can traverse it in safety and not fall down, is what is needed. Take the Hamilton-Kitehener road going up a slight elevation. Last winter it was an absolute impossibility for horses to make that grade. Therefore I maintain that instead of building speedways we should change the policy, and I hope Federal authorities will see to it that only the roads that are absolutely necessary should be paved to any greater width than say 20 feet. It seems to me that to construct roads of a width such as we now see under construction in Ontario is an absurdity. Never before have so many roads of this character been witnessed, especially around the property of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario. Under the circumstances I may be nar-

doned if with apologies to Tennyson I give the House the benefit of a poetical effusion entitled "The Charge of the Road Brigade," which runs as follows:
Roads to the right of him.
Roads to the left of him,
Roads on all sides of him.
Proposed approved or laid.
Ours not to question cost,
Contracts let by Biggs the boss,
Ours to pay though all be loss,
Protest we may but what's the use,
For if we do we get abuse, .
Biggs just says go to the deuce Someone has blundered.
I do not intend to take up any further time except to refer to one section of the road leading from what is known as Clap-pison's Corners into the city of Hamilton; I think it is a part of Dundas street but of this I am not certain. There the Minister of Public Works is making a cut a quarter of a mile long. It is 53 feet deep, will be 70 feet wide at the bottom, and 80 feet at the top, and it is going to cost $130,000. There is no more necessity for it than there is for a fifth wheel to a wagon. This extravagance should be stopped. I trust that the Federal Government, through its Department of Highways, will see that payments for such works are not made. I trust that regulations will be passed under such regulations as will ensure the Dominion getting value for the money it contributes, whether it be 40 per cent or 20 per cent.
In the report of the meeting of the Good Roads Convention held at Halifax recently, I noticed that it was proposed to appeal to the Dominion Government for the maintenance of these roads. I think we have gone far enough, especially when members of this House are called upon to practise economy. I have under my hand a letter from the village of Waterdown in my constituency asking for a better pdst office. That request would have been granted had the war not intervened. They need such a building, but it cannot be provided, yet it is considered nothing to spend $130,000 to take a little curve out of a road.


Mr. LALOR:: Does this road parallel the Hamilton-Toronto road?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Dundas
stret highway from Toronto to Clappison's Corners parallels the Toronto-Hamilton highway; the two roads are three miles apart. Some of these roads in North Wentworth represented by the Hon. F. C. Biggs are only a mile and a half apart. Therefore, I felt that it was my duty to

bring before the House and the country these facts. I am not opposed to the county of Wentworth getting their share of good roads, but I do maintain that the provincial Minister of Public Works in starting a road from his own door instead of in some other part of the constituency is merely giving an exmple of the general road policy he is pursuing in that county. I hope that the Department of Railways and Canals will appoint competent men to investigate the conditions I have described, and I shall be glad at any time to prove the statements that I have made to-night; and let me add, that I am prepared to repeat outside every statement that I have made in this House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Wilson) has rendered a public service to this country. Not by the flank attack which he has directed against certain members of the Ontario Government, because the proper place to try their case is before the legislature of that province and not in the Dominion House. But he has rendered a public service by directing the attention of this House and of the country to the extravagance which has been going on in that province by the lavish expenditure on public works greater than the necessity required, to which we as the representatives of the Canadian people as a whole have to contribute. As I listened to the eloquence of the hon. member- whose voice is heard far too seldom in this Chamber-I could not help but look at the countenance of the Prime Minister, and if I could but read his thoughts it seemed to me he was muttering to himself, "My own familiar friend, he whom I trusted, has lifted up his heel against me." Because the member for Wentworth in his attack upon the Ontario Government bore in his hand a two-edged sword, with sixty per cent of the cutting surface against the' Provincial Government and forty per cent against this Government. The Prime Minister shakes his head-as much in sadness as in dissent.


Arthur Meighen: My head was not
shaking in sadness; it might be if the hon. member had gone further; it was wholly in dissent. The forty per cent share of this Government has not been paid.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We are asked to pass Estimates for the purpose of paying such expenditures as these.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not sure that all these roads have been approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals, but if any of this expenditure has been approved by him under the Act, I submit this Government has to pay the amount involved. But, after all, we are not here to-night to judge Mr. Drury or Mr. Biggs. What I wish to direct the attention of the committee to is this: It is not a matter of detail; it is a matter of principle. When this Highway Act was passed we on this side protested most energetically against the dual control, and we have in the very able and eloquent speech from the member for Wentworth to-night absolute, complete and overwhelming evidence that the position we took at that time was correct.


William Cameron Edwards: I must differ very
strongly from the observation made by the hon. member for Brome in regard to the proportionate cost to be paid by this Government. When the Highway Act was put through in 1919, at a time when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was Minister yf Agriculture, it was with his approval and consent as well as with the approval and consent of those who sit immediately around him, no matter what opposition it received from the member for Brome and others-


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I protest against my hon. friend referring to those who sit immediately around the hon. member for Marquette as having approved this legislation. My hon. friend's memory is very good, and he must remember that I protested just as strongly as the hon. member for Brome. Of course, it is open to my hon. friend to say he did not refer to me, but I might consider myself included as being one of those "immediately around" my hon. friend from Marquette.


William Cameron Edwards: I accept the explanation with certain limitations, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: I may remind my hon. friend that he is sometimes disposed to protest most vigorously against legislation, as he did the other night in regard to a bill which went through this House, and then give his consent to the very Act which he objected to formerly.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to another point of order. I must ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement. I did not vote in the way he refers to because I was not in the House.


William Cameron Edwards: I said, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman protested most strongly against a certain piece of legislation that was passed the other night, but that when that legislation went through it did not meet with any dissent on his part. True, he was out of the House at the time, for reasons best known to himself. But my contention in regard to our responsibility is this. The Minister of Railways and Canals has a certain responsibility, which is indicated in the clause which I read awhile ago. It is provided that the aid to be given in any case shall be forty per cent of the amount which in the opinion of the minister is the actual, necessary and immediate cost of construction of the improved highway. It was quite proper that that clause should be put in the Act in view of the fact that the actual construction of the highways was left to the provincial governments, and without that protecting clause they could make the cost whatever they chose.
Now, it is not right for the hon. member for Brome to say that this is a sword which cuts sixty per cent into the Ontario Government and forty per cent into this Government. It does not cut forty per cent into this Government unless the Minister of Railways and Canals approves of the extravagant expenditure which has been made, and that the minister has not yet done, and I hope will not do. After the excellent presentation of the facts which has been made by the hon. member for Wentworth, it is not necessary for me to take up the time of the committee, but I believe that he has certainly performed a public service in making known these facts to this House and to the country. It is true that the first plank of the platform of the United Farmers of Ontario was to cut out all expenditures that were not absolutely essential. That, of course, has not been done, and in their highway policy they have followed a course which should receive the condemnation of this House. We are all interested in the details of expenditure; it is more than a matter of principle. Last year a piece of road consisting of some eight miles was constructed through the county which I represent. That road was not completed until late in the fall, and this spring on three miles of it between the village in which I live and the city of Kingston the Ontario Government had a man employed with a horse and cart filling up holes which had appeared in the road, though it had been in operation not

more than a few months. When we are asked to pay forty per cent of the cost of these roads, have we not the right to inquire whether or not the money is being properly expended? The vote under consideration is a vote for salaries of the engineers of the department. The minister has to rely upon the judgment of his engineers. How can we determine whether the judgment of those engineers is worth relying upon if we do not lay bare the facts and see what expenditures they have approved of? I think this discussion is not only proper from the standpoint of individual members as well as of the Government, but will be of very great use to the engineers of the Department of Railways upon whom rests a heavy responsibility in passing judgment as to whether the expenditure has been reasonable and fair.
We were given to understand when the Bill went through that all portions of the province would receive a fair share of the benefits intended to be conferred by the Act, but that has not been the case. Some 64 miles of road have been constructed or are in course of ' construction in the county of Wentworth-roads around the farm of Mr. Biggs and through the farm of Mr. Biggs, the Ontario Minister of Public Works. The rather doubtful position in which he placed himself in regard to the purchase of motor trucks without tenders justifies our entertaining doubts as to the contract which he has entered into with regard to some of these roads, the more so when we consider that some of these contracts were, in violation of the Act, let without tender and the contract given in one case not to the lowest tenderer, but to a man whose tender, as has been stated, was some $13,000 higher than the lowest tender.


Edmond Proulx: Was that given in
evidence at the inquiry held in Toronto?
I understood that the agent got $13,000 commission, but it was not proved that the tender of Mr. Parkin was $13,000 higher than the next lowest.


William Cameron Edwards: No, I was referring to the road tender. The accepted tender was $122,000, whereas there was a tender on this piece of road at $109,000. But that has nothing at all to do with the trucks.


Edmond Proulx: My hon. friend was speaking of the trucks.


William Cameron Edwards: I was saying that the attitude of the Ontario Minister of Public Works in regard to the purchase of these trucks-their purchase without tender and 
the giving of the contract a few minutes later to a friend of his who got a commission of some $13,800-is such as to justify our having doubts with regard to some of these other transactions which he has entered into in conection with the construction of roads. Now, the Minister of Public Works for Ontario started the construction of roads at his very door, or at his father's door. He runs a piece of the road along past his own place and he builds another piece of road running right alongside his own farm and opens up a concession or road allowance which had never been used and at the public expense builds a paved road through his own farm. All these are things which cause my hon. friends of the Agrarian party to smile- they are perfectly all right when done by their friends in Ontario. But hon. gentlemen opposite were uncomfortable when this matter was brought up and did everything they could to prevent the statement of facts in regard to this extravagance on the part of their particular friends in the Government at Toronto. Now, if I may do so with apologies to the poet laureate of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) -who at the very mention of the words "poet laureate" smiles with perfect satisfaction and the consciousness that the compliment is meant for him-I wish to read a few words descriptive of the attitude of the Ontario Minister of Public Works. In all this transaction Mr. Biggs has never for a moment lost sight of Mr. Biggs. In the building of these roads he circles his farm and runs them through his farm, and all this at the public expense. I have expressed Mr. Biggs' position in regard to road-building in these few lines.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Are these lines
original?


Mr. BUTTS:: Imaginary.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, they are original.


Mr. JACOBS:: Perhaps aboriginal.


William Cameron Edwards: I know I am treading on dangerous ground in attempting to originate anything in verse when the hon. member for Brome is in the House, but I am going to take the chance just once.
I have never done it before, and perhaps I shall never do it again.
The Roads that Biggs Built This is a road that Biggs built,
A costly road that Biggs built;
It starts right at the old man's door And runs by Frank's as smooth as a floor;
It has cost the people money galore-
This expensive road that Biggs built.

There's another road that Biggs built,
A private road that Biggs built;
It runs right through Frank Bigg's farm Between Biggs's house and Biggs's barn,
It doesn't do Frank Biggs any harm-
This private road that Biggs built.
There's another road that Biggs built,
A public road that Biggs built; !
It passes right by Biggs's land,
With Biggs's property on either hand;
It was built for Biggs, you understand,
This public road that Biggs built.
There's the H. and B. road that Biggs bunt, The Paradise road that Biggs built,
It cost eighty thousand dollars a mile.
The tenders were let in secret guile ;
The Warren Company wears a smile '
Re the heavenly road that Biggs built.


John Dowsley Reid: The position of the
Dominion in the matter of highway agreements is as follows: the province of Ontario select the roads in respect to which they wish to enter into an agreement with the Dominion Government under the Highways Act. The province submit an estimate of what they think the road should cost; our engineers look into it in conjunction with their engineers, and upon our engineers' report we enter into an agreement to pay forty per cent of the proposed cost. But we protest ourselves by reserving, through a clause in the agreement, the right to pay what we think is a fair and reasonable cost.


Arthur Bliss Copp: From the report of your
own engineers?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. DUFF:: The minister says that he
reserves the right to pay on the basis of a reasonable cost. Is it not a fact that after the Dominion engineer goes over the road with the provincial engineer and agrees to the plans and specifications and the estimate of cost, the amount assumed by the Dominion must be paid in any case?


John Dowsley Reid: We reserve the right to pay whatever our engineers say. In addition to that we have in the agreement another clause that protects us, so that the Dominion will not in any case be liable for more than the proportion to which the province of Ontario is entitled under the Act.


William Duff: Do I understand the minister to say that, after his engineers and his department agree to the plans and specifications, and the amount which the road is to cost as per estimate, they need not pay the forty per cent of that estimate?


John Dowsley Reid: We pay up to forty per cent whatever our engineers certify to as a fair and reasonably expenditure on that highway.


William Duff: Forty per cent of what,
the estimated or the actual cost?


John Dowsley Reid: The actual cost, if it is reasonable.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that before the road is built, the Department of Railways,: through its engineers: and other officials, agree to the specifications and plans of the road and also agree to an estimate of the cost?


John Dowsley Reid: We do.


William Duff: Then must not the Department of Railways pay forty per cent of the estimate ?


John Dowsley Reid: We do not agree to the estimate. The province of Ontario have their engineers make an estimate. Our engineers go over the road, and we then enter into an agreement that we will pay forty per cent of a reasonably amount of the cost of that road. I will read the clause:
Forty per cent of the amount which, in the opinion of the minister, upon the report and recommendation of the Commissioner of Highways of the Department of Railways and Canals, is the actual, necessary and reasonable cost of the said improvement.


William Duff: How does the department arrive at a reasonable cost of the road after it is completed?


John Dowsley Reid: Our engineers are
checking up as the work is proceeding from time to time.


William Duff: Which engineers?


John Dowsley Reid: The engineers of the
department. We have inspecting engineers and auditors to check the accounts that are being paid as the work is being proceeded with. I may say that, from the discussion which has taken place, it would appear that there have been extravagant expenditures on some roads that have been named. The Department of Railways and Canals have, up to the present time, looked after the expenditures. Our engineers are watching the work and we have paid out very small amounts on the costs. This discussion will make the officials and the department as a whole take greater precautions to see that as regards the Dominion Government, no money is spent unnecessarily or unreasonably in the construction of these roads. I can assure every hon. member that our staff have been keeping in the past, and will keep in the future, a strict watch over, and a careful inspection of, the roads, and hon. members need have no fear that there

will be any undue expenditure by our department.


Mr. MORPHY:: Are the engineers of
the Government to-day making any object-tions, as the work progresses, either to the way the work is done or what it is costing?


John Dowsley Reid: My deputy informs
me that they make complaints to those who are in charge of the roads under the Ontario Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If complaints are made and not acted upon and if the work is done and the engineers of the department acquiesce, shall we not be liable?


John Dowsley Reid: We shall not be liable to pay more than forty per cent of a reasonable cost as estimated by our engineers.


Edmond Proulx: Are our engineers located in the different provinces or tall located at Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: In every province we
have engineers.


Mr. MARTIN:: How much has the Dominion Government advanced to the Highways Board in Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not advanced anything as yet.


Peter Francis Martin: Has the department been called upon for any amount?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Michael Clark: I want to
say a few words about this matter which has been under discussion since eight o'clock, that is, for nearly two hours. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has apparently received the impression that some of us on this side of the House were made uncomfortable by the exposures of extravagance in the speech of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). I want to say at once that that does not apply to myself. Any exposure of extravagance in the Dominion of Canada, I consider to be in the nature of a public service especially in the present serious financial condition of this country. If I suffered any discomfort, it was caused by the unusual spectacle which this committee presented for the last two hours. We are supposed to be within a few days of the end of the session. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is anxious, as it is his duty to be anxious, to attend the meeting of Prime Ministers in London. The Government having taken its decision upon that matter, I for pne want to facilitate his departure in every possible way, and I think the majority of
[H-on. Mr. Reid.]
hon. members are of the same mind, having regard to the proper and decorous conduct of public business. But what do we find tonight? An hon. gentleman to whom it is always pleasant to listen, for a more courteous member of this House there is not, but an hon. gentleman who is a supporter of the Government, gets up in his place on the Estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals and makes a speech of one hour and a half duration, a speech which was almost entirely criticism of the Ontario Government. The Government of Ontario was criticised for nearly one and a half hours by a supporter of the Federal Government, whose Prime Minister is anxious to get away to the conference of Prime Ministers. That is, as I have described it, a most unusual spectacle. It is an unusual spectacle to find supporters of the Government delaying for that period the Estimates of their own Government. But it is a far more unusual spectacle to have one and a half hours in the Federal House devoted to a criticism of the Government of Ontario. What is the cause of this? Who is to blame for it? I shall not follow my hon. friend from Wentworth into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Ontario Government. That is a matter which, after all, whether it be in order or out of order, is the proper province of members of the legislative body of Ontario and not of the House of Commons of this Dominion.
As far as the charges of extravagance can be proved, my record in this House for many years compels hon, members to believe that as a citizen of this Dominion,
I shall be behind the denunciation of it. It would appear that the tendency of Provincial Governments will be to be extravagant by land. We in this House have been more concerned with extravagance by water, and whether on land or water we of this group, at any rate, and I think the whole of the Opposition side of this chamber, see no need so great as the conservation of the public moneys of this country at the present time. But the point I want to make is this, and it must appeal to many hon. gentlemen opposite:	The
speech of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson), though it was directed against the Government of Ontario, is in point of fact a most severe censure of the hon. minister whose Estimates are before the House. This is par excellence the road policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. Why, my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson), who in pursuance of his duties as Whip has to leave the

chamber, was equally vehement with myself in denunciation of this road policy of the minister. The minister was warned from both sides of the House where this policy was going to lead him. I recall one night when, hour after hour, my hon. friend, a Whip of the party opposite, joined with myself in resisting this policy of the Minister of Railways. If this extravagance is going on, the blame for it lies, in the first instance, at the feet or on the head, if you like, of the minister whose Estimates we are discussing. I repeat, for hour after hour my hon friend from Annapolis, myself, and other hon. members on both sides of the House, pointed out the very evils which to-night my hon. friend from Wentworth has been denouncing. I do not want to elaborate this point. The simple fact of the matter, which no one can successfully gainsay, is that, in the first place, by example, and in the second place, by actual inducement, this expenditure, which has been condemned by my hon. friend from Wentworth, was initiated, provoked, fomented and engineered by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. The Government under their last Victory Loan got so much money out of the patriotic endeavours of the people of this country that they did not know what to do with it, and they voted money by the million for provincial work in which from Confederation, under the British North America Act, as we contended at the time, they had no right to interfere. We pointed out that the evils which have arisen would arise. It was contended by member after member that nothing but mischief would come out of this incursion of the Federal Government into the provincial arena, and that the dual control would lead to enormous complications and trouble. To-night we get the narration of that trouble from a supporter of the administration, from an hon. member who sits behind the minister in charge of these Estimates.
I have no more to say. I trust my hon. friends feel that in a policy which, after all, we ought to wish to see carried to a successful conclusion, so far as the money already voted is concerned, they have scored some political advantage from dwelling upon the misdeeds of the Ontario Government, but I am persuaded that the people of this country who are extremely alive to the conditions of politics at the present moment, when they are judging of this matter, will not dwell throughout the length and breadth of Canada upon the misdeeds of the Ontario Government; that is a matter for Ontario; they will dwell
upon the relationship of the Federal Government to this policy, and hon gentlemen opposite will have to defend the action of this Government in every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific when a general election takes place in Canada. It will not be the Ontario Government that is on trial. When that election takes place, I am confident that hon. gentlemen here who have had taunts hurled at them tonight can take very good care of themselves, because so far as this federal sphere is concerned, I am perfectly content in this matter of economy to fight under the banner of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who has blazoned this mark on his flag as one of his first principles. It is not the provincial Government of Ontario that is on trial here; it is the Dominion Government we have to deal with; they initiated the policy. I venture for once to depart from a custom which is almost invariable with me. I venture to prophesy, Mr. Chairman, that we have seen the last of money voted in this House to be expended in this way. This is only one more item of policy that has been pursued by the Federal Government to be added to an almost interminable list of items of policy which they have brought into this House, which have been condemned in this House, which have had their folly demonstrated before in this House, and in many cases on both sides of the House, but which they have pursued in spite of this demonstration until the policy has broken down in their handg. Then they come and commit once more the act of political infanticide. They will in this case, I am confident, give up the policy against which they were warned by us upon their embarking upon it.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: There is a highway running from Montreal to Sherbrooke by way of Chambly and Marieville. It was understood that a connecting link was planned from Rougemont to the city of St. Hyacinthe, and another from St. Hya-cinthe to Richmond. The Minister of Highways in the province of Quebec has held a meeting in the county of Bagot, has promised that these two links would be completed, and has stated that the plans of the provincial authorities have be i i forwarded to Ottawa. I would like to ask if according to the general plan these two links are to be subsidized, and if a final arrangement has been made between the provincial and federal authorities.


John Dowsley Reid: The road Rougemont to St. Hyacinthe is on the plan filed in the

department, but no application has been made, nor has any agreement been entered into, regarding the other.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's) :: Has the
road in the town of Dundas, to which the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) referred, been approved of by the department?


John Dowsley Reid: Not through the town of Dundas.


John Ewen Sinclair: Has the plan been submitted to your department?


John Dowsley Reid: Not for that incorporated town.


Donald Sutherland: As a resident of Ontario, I want to know what precautions have been taken to ensure the proper expenditure of that province's share of the grant. I should like some assurance that the money will not all be spent in two or three localities. Have any precautions been taken to see that the expenditure will be general? I believe that the grant for Ontario is $5,800,000 odd, and, under the present system, the distribution is not fair. *


John Dowsley Reid: The Ontario Government are submitting plans for roads in different parts of the province, trying to divide it up in equal shares throughout the province. Their entire plan comprises very many more roads than the 40 per cent would take care of, and they are selecting those roads to which they wish the 40 per cent to apply. Those roads are being considered by the department, and, if in our judgment, it is advisable to undertake work in connection with them we shall enter into an agreement and proceed with the operations.


Edmond Proulx: Has any money been
paid on the Ottawa-Pointe Fortune road?
Hon, Mr. REID: Not yet.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Has any request been made by the province of New Brunswick for any grant?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have any roads been approved of yet?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Can you give the
roads?


John Dowsley Reid: Matapedia-Bathurst,
Bathurst-Newcastle, Newcastle-Moncton, Shediac-Port Elgin, Cape Tormentine-Au-lac, Aulac-Moncton, Moncton-St. John, St. John-St. Stephen, St. John-Fredericton,

Fredericton-Woodstock, Woodstock-Perth, Perth-Grand Falls, Grand Falls-Quebec, St. Stephen-Burden, Frederieton-Newcastle, Fredericton-Sussex.'


Mr. McISAAC:: Before the item passes,
I desire to speak in a general way on the expenditure that has been made on roads. The amount asked for by the Minister of Railways is large, and I wish to make a few comparisons to show that the Canadian National Railway system is not the only enterprise that has been creating deficits and going into debt.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Michael Steele: The hon. member apparently is not aware that the item before the committee is to provide for a Commissioner of Highways.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Does this item include
any moneys for the highway between Montreal and Hull on the north shore? Has the Government of Quebec deposited plans of a road from Montreal to Hull, or made any request to have that road subsidized?


John Dowsley Reid: The road is on the
general plan submitted by the Government of Quebec, but they have not yet made any request for an agreement.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Have plans been deposited with the department?


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet.


Edmond Proulx: The member for Wentworth complained that the Minister of Public Works of Ontario was building highways too w.ide. Is there any regulation with regard to the width of highways? In some parts of the province they build them sixteen feet, and in other parts, sixty feet.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understood the
hon. member for Wentworth, the roads of extra width to which he referred were outside of our agreement altogether.	[DOT]


Edmond Proulx: Is there any regulation
in the department as to the width of roads?


John Dowsley Reid: No particular width
is laid down, because in some localities you would necessarily have to have wider roads than in others. It depends on the traffic.


John Albert Sexsmith: What is the estimated cost of the Toronto-Kingston highway?


John Dowsley Reid: From Toronto to
Kingston the road is divided into two or three different parts. From Whitby to Belleville the cost is $10,620 per mile; from Belleville to Kingston, $13,320 per mile.

From Whitby to Belleville the distance is 75 miles, the total expenditure being about $805,000, and from Belleville to Kingston, 46 miles, the total expenditure being approximately $616,600.


John Albert Sexsmith: What is the quality of the road? Is it macadam?


John Dowsley Reid: From Whitby to Belleville it is partly macadam and partly gravel. From Belleville to Kingston it is macadam.


John Albert Sexsmith: What kind of road
metal is used?


John Dowsley Reid: Local limestone.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What
roads are under construction out of, and west of, London?


John Dowsley Reid: Roads are under construction from London to Stratford, and from London to St. Thomas.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is the road from Stratford to Sarnia under construction?


John Dowsley Reid: The road is approved
from London to Stratford by way of Elgin-field, and there is an application for the road from Elginfield to Sarnia.


Mr. WILSON (Saskatoon):: I would
like to inquire from the minister if application has been made for any of these projects in the Prairie Provinces, particularly Saskatchewan?


John Dowsley Reid: 
James Robert Wilson: Will the
minister tell me where the roads are located as to which money has been applied for?


John Dowsley Reid: Agreements have been entered into as regards the following:
Cost per Mileage Mile
Cadillac to Battleford Highway under contract.
Battleford to North Battleford	 2.5	$4,440
Assiniboia to Prince Albert Highway.
Crestwynd to Moosejaw.. .. 25.0	1,132
N.E. 36-19-27-2 to N.E. 32. 20-26-2	 9.0	1,888
N.E., 33-34-27-2 to Dana.. .. 25.0	1,017
Big River to Prairie River Highway.
Prairie River to S.E., 6-437-2	
16.25	2,307Prince	Albert to Shellbrook. 26.50	2,000104.25	$1,645 75
. . . . $171,569 91


Peter Francis Martin: Will the minister state
what highways are recommended for Nova Scotia and what the estimated cost will be per mile?


John Dowsley Reid: The following have
been approved:
Estimated Cost per Mileage mile
Halifax to Indian River. .	. . 17.5	$12,011	12Mount Uniacke to Lakelands 7.6	7,483	00Aylesford to Middleton . . .	.. 12.	7,627	43Elmsdale to Shubenacadie..	.. 7.	6.514	80The following have	not	yet been	
approved:
Halifax to Bedford.
Port Joli to Sable River.
Liverpool to Caledonia.
Sydney to Glace Bay.
Windsor to Hawksport.
Weymouth to Meteghan.
Digby to Rossway.
Dartmouth to Imperoyal.


John Albert Sexsmith: Are the roads to
which the Dominion is contributing considered permanent highways.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes they are permanent highways.


John Albert Sexsmith: Has the department
made any investigation as to the metal they are going to make these permanent highways out of, or are they putting in limestone or top material that will work out in a year or two?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, our engineers
are using local metal along the road.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it the best judgment of the engineers that common limestone will make a permanent road, or a road that will last longer than two or three years?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot answer that.


Mr. CANNON:: I rise to a point of
order. These private conversations between the minister and his friends on the other side may be very interesting but they might be more so if we understood them.


William Stevens Fielding: Secret diplomacy.


Michael Steele: There
is altogether too much conversation going on in the chamber.


Lucien Cannon: The minister is setting a bad example.


Georges Henri Boivin: If there was less
conversation better progress would be made with the business.
Total Estimated cost


John Albert Sexsmith: The questions I asked the minister and which were addressed through you, Mr. Chairman, were these: If the Government are building permanent highways; and if so, do they consider limestone a metal which will make a road likely to last longer than two or three years?


John Dowsley Reid: The Ontario Government have experts in road building who have been appointed purposely to construct these roads. Our engineers go over each road with their experts, and they decide on the materials to be used and whether such will make a permanent road. The engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals together with those of the Ontario Government then come to a decision which is acted upon.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire of the hon. minister what has been done in connection of a small bridge that crosses the Lachine canal. Two years ago, I had requested the hon. minister to practically rebuild that small bridge, which had become inadequate and dangerous, and I was told at the time that the matter would be taken into consideration; but a year has elapsed and nothing has been done. I would like to know from the hon. minister whether some work was really done on that bridge during last year.
I would like to have that information. It is a small bridge crossing the Lachine canal on the locks, in the city of Lachine itself, opposite the City Hall. That bridge has become dangerous, and a promise was made to me that they would make the repairs required to make it satisfactory.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand my hon. friend to ask what is being done with reference to the bridge across the Lachine canal?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: In French please.


David Arthur Lafortune: No, I understand English well.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the hon. member sees that I understand French well too.


David Arthur Lafortune: Oh yes, you understand French thoroughly.


John Dowsley Reid: There is an item in the Estimates under "Lachine Canal Improvements" of $50,000. That is to replace
the old bridges over the Lachine canal and that covers the item that the hon. member is asking about.


David Arthur Lafortune: The minister understands what I am asking about; it is a small bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes I know it is in the Estimates now.


David Arthur Lafortune: So I have the assurance that the work will be done?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am very glad.


John Dowsley Reid: ,1 have an item, as I say, in the Estimates!


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I asked the minister how much has been spent in New Brunswick but I did not get any reply.


John Dowsley Reid: Nothing has yet been paid. The accounts are being audited at the present time and the auditor will send a report to the deputy so that payments can be made.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much has been applied for by the province of New Brunswick?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not got that information here.


John Archibald Campbell: Will the minister
make a statement as to what is the programme in the province of Manitoba?


John Dowsley Reid: There are two pages of it here. Would the hon. member be satisfied if I put it on Hansard? It will take considerable time to read.


John Archibald Campbell: That will be satisfactory.


John Dowsley Reid: Then we will put it on Hansard.


Mr. DENIS:: Would the minister also put on Hansard the programme for Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: I have a list here for every province, and if it is agreeable to the committee I will put the whole list on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Michael Steele: Has th6 minister the unanimous consent of the committee to place this list on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
[The Chairman.]



CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Statement by the Minister of Railways and Canals of highways in each province now under agreement or under consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Highways Act, with location, mileage and estimated' cost.

[Stage Direction]
Description of Project.	Mileage.	Per mile.
	8	S 1,478 00
Ten Mile House to County Line.	8	1,585 00
	3-5	2,657 00
	12	2,000 00
	8-5	1,888 00
	8-5	1,936 00
	9	1,417 00
	5-5	1.800 00
	10	1,588 00
	13	1,350 00
	8-5	1,412 00

[Stage Direction]
Matapedia-Bathurst	
Bathurst-Newcastle	
N ewcastle-M one ton	
Shediac-Port Elgin	
Cape Tor men tine-Au lac....
Aulac-Moncton	
Moncton-St. John	
St. John-St. Stephen	
St. John-Fredericton	
Fredericton-Woodstock	
Woodstock-Ferth	
Ferth-Grand Falls	
Grand Falls-Quebec Boundary
St. Stephen-Burden	
Fredericton-Newcastle	
F redericton-Sussex	
Location.
Mileage.
Cost per mile.

	$ cts.	
74-1	2,000	00125-6	1,000	0091-5	3,300	0029-4	2,500	0030-4	1,644	74360	2,777	7789-6	3,400	0082-0	4,878	00580	3,569	0061-0	5,344	2647-4	1,432	5022-7	4,453	7447-5	2,000	0063-2	1,676	4196-1	2,064	51100-5	1,507	46

[Stage Direction]
Description of Project.	Mileage.	Cost per mile.
	17-5	$ cts. 12,111 12
	7-6	7,483 00
	12-1	7,627 43
	7-1	6,514 80
[Stage Direction]
NOVA SCOTIA PROJECTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT BUT WHICH ARE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.	1
Location.	Mileage.	Estimated cost.
Halifax-Bedford			$ cts.
Port Joli-Sable River			
Li verpool-Caledonia			
Sydney-Glace Bay				
Windsor-Hantsport			
W eymouth-Meteghan			
Digby-Rossway			
Dartmouth-Imperoyal		1-31

[Stage Direction]
Highway.
[The Chairman.]
Project.	Section	Sub- Section	Mile- age.1A	4 A	2	3-09Montreal	c	1	2-59D	1	0-82Longueuil	E	1	207and	E	2	2-48Sherbrooke	H	1	2-31Highway	M	1	3-305Q	1	1-252848-13Montreal, Que.-	3	B	1 & 2	1-951C	1 & 2	0-893Levis	D	3	0-713St. Lambert	E	1	6-818Highway	L	1 & 3	4-120NN	2	2-TT	1,2,3	2-684WW	2-9144	A	3-500Caughnawaga	Malone	D	1	1-950Highway	3	5	A	2	1-200B	1 & 2	4-267C	3	1-121 IBeauce Junction	E	1 & 3	1-051 1Sherbrooke	L	1 & 3	0-722 ]Highway	M	2	0-688N	2-5 & 78	2-589 IBeauce	P	1-2-6 &	2-248 IJunction	Q	2-4-6	2-386 IR	1 & 3	0-945 \Sherbrooke	T	2-3 & 4	6-704 rJHighway	S	1 & 3	3-730 \[DOT]6	B	9	C	2	1-520 'Long	c	3	1-140 TEdward Highway	D	2	0-270 110	
Levis.	N	1	3-878 ESherbrooke	N	2	3-797
Location.
Orford Twp., Sherbrooke Co	
Magog Twp., Stanstead Co	
Magog Twp., Stanstead Co	
East Bolton Twp., Brome Co....
East Bolton Twp., Brome Co	
Shefford Twp., Shefford Co	
Parish of St. Cesaire, Co. of Rouville Parish of Ste. Marie-De-Monnoir
Co. of Rouville	
Counties of Quebec, Champlain, Ber-thier, Joliette and L'Assumption..
Estimated
Cost.
'arish St. Romuald, D'Etchemin,
Levis Co	
'arish St. Nicholas, Levis Co...
Co.,
of Boucherville, Chambly
St. Louis to Southern limit of Caughnawaga Indian Reserve... 'rom northerly limit Parish of Ste Martine, south	
'arish Sacre-Coeur
Beauce	
'arish Sacre-Coeur Megantic	
de Jesus, Co.
de Jesus, Co
Weedon, Co. Wolfe.
, Wolfe.
Co. Wolfe..
, Co. Laprairie..
. li it f Princeville, out e sterl
[Stage Direction]
17.000	00
55.000	00 20,529 89
4,810 57 21,382 20
38,311 20

Project.	Section.	SubSection .	Mile- age.	Location.	Estimated Cost.E	2-4-6	2-144	Parish St. Janvier, Co. Terrebonne.	20,024 10F	0-132	Parish Ste. Monique	5,125 37G	1-3-5-7	7-249	Parish St. Jerome	92,972 22G	4	0-378	Parish St. Jerome	15,516 75I	i	0-833	Shawbridge Village	5,114 63B	1	5-220	Parish of St. Luc, Co. of St. Johns...	59,000 00Laprairie Lacolle Highway.	c	3	4-215	Southerly from town of St. Johns...	69,304 00154-4918	$1,694,467 05
*Levis-Riviere du Loup-Rimouski Highway.

[Stage Direction]
Location	Mileage	Cost per mile
	75-9	S cts. 10,620 00
	46-35	13,320 00
	45-23	15,450 00
	10-4	21,220 00
	58-7	30,500 00
	5-0	25,710 00
	32-2	15,070 00
	19-18	34,400 00
	24-35	16,550 00
	7-16	32,280 00
	15-8	32,970 00
	24-15	11,470 00
	34-62	13,720 00
	30-57	24,540 00
	27-21	11,260 00
	69-19	16,400 00
	15-30	19,430 00
	1	1

[Stage Direction]
Description of Project	Mileage under Contract	Cost per mileWinnipeg-Western bdy, 217-5 Winnipeg to Westerly limit of Municipality of Portage la Prairie, 56-5 miles.. North Cypress Municipality to Cornwallis Municipality, 17 miles. Easterly bdy of Municipality of Sifton to West bdy of Manitoba near Wallace, Portageefa Prairie to Western bdy of province via Dauphin Highway (244 miles) from Municipality of Westbourne to Easterly limit of Landsdowne, 26	136-5 152-0	$ cts. 3,220 00 4,000 00From Municipality of McCreary to Westerly bdy of Municipality of Grandview, 114 miles. , , From Municipality of Hillsburg to Saskatchewan bdy, 12 miles.	76-0	5,200 00. From town of Dauphin to Easterly limit of Municipality of Gilbert Plains, From Municipalities of Minitonas and Swan River to west bdy of Manitoba, 53 miles.	29-5	4,900 00From Westerly bdy of Winnipeg to easterly limit of Municipality of Cartier, 10-5 miles. . . From Municipality of Portage la Prairie to town of Portage la Prairie, 19 miles.	134-0	4,300 00From Oak Bluff to South Norfolk, 48 miles. From Municipality of Oakland to bdy between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 86 miles	76-5	6,000 00From Fort. Garry to Dufferin Municipality, 33-5 miles. From Westerly end of Dufferin Municipality to Roland Municipality, 17 miles. From Bernice to bdy of Saskatchewan, 26 miles.	56-0	7,700 0077-0	3,317 00

[Stage Direction]
Project Number	Location	Mileage Under Contract	Cost per mie1 Sec. G	Cadillac to Battleford Highway- Battleford to North Battleford	2-5 250 9-0 25-0 16-25 26-50	$ cts.2 Sec. B	Assiniboia to Prince Albert Highway- Crestwynd to Moose Jaw	1,132 00 1,888 002 Sec. D	N.E. 36-19-27-2 to N.E. 32-20-26-2	2 Sec. G	N.E. 33-34-27-2 to Dana .	3 Sec. A	Big River to Prairie River Highway-Prairie River to S.E. 6-43-7-2	2,307 00 2,000 003 Sec. F	Prince Albert to Shellbrook	
104-25	1,645 75
BRITISH COLUMBIA			
Project	Location	Mileage	Fed.Aid Payment to dateSec. A	Craigflower Bridge to Parsons Bridge	2-046 2-650 1-890	S cts.Sec. A Sec. B Sec. A	South from crossing of North Arm of Fraser R	15,188 88i'rom Woodward's Landing north and west.	Municipality of Delta	Sec. A	From West boundary, north Vancouver City westward one mile	1- 3-270 2-300 32- 16-	Sec. A	from New Westminster Bridge south	7, 9<j2 u8Sec. B	From Sec. "A" to Johnston Road	Sec. F	Endaco to Burns Lake	Sec. G	Burns Lake to Rose Lake .	Sec. I	North Bulkley to Houston	Sec. A Sec. B	Burns Lake to Francois Lake	15- 3-300	From 5-5 miles west of Revelstoke westerly..	6,088 04From Sec. "A" westerly. .	Sec. C Sec. A Sec. B	From south end Mara Lake northerly...	3-220 1-280	Between Creston and Yank, easterly from Goat R	Between Thrums and Brilliant	4-500 13-070	Sec. C	Between Osoyoos and Rock Creek	Sec. I)	From Rossland westerly	Sec. E	Between Kuskanook and Creston	5-660 4-	200 5-	170	Sec. A Sec. B	Irom Kaslo to Ainsworth (Dist. of Kootenay)	6,786 00From New Denver to 3 Forks (Dist. of Kootenay)	
140-146	86,446 52
David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
would like the hon. minister to tell me whether any item has been included in the Estimates for the repairing of a wharf at Pointe-Claire, in the county of Jacques-Cartier which I have the honour to represent. I was answered, at the time,____


Michael Steele: I think the hon. member does not quite understand the item which is now before the committee. He is dealing with an item in the Public Works Estimates.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.)
These are public works since they have reference to the repairing of a wharf. I was answered at the time, Mr. Chairman,
[The Chairman.]
that it was impossible to deal with this wharf because it had been leased to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Government could not interfere.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The matter which the hon. member desires to discuss is really under the Department of Public Works. We are now discussing the Estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals. Therefore the hon. member is quite out of order.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
called at the Department of Public Works and was answered that the Department of Marine


Michael Steele: Order. The hon. member is quite out of order in discussing this matter at the present time. We are willing to extend to him every courtesy, but we must adhere to the rules of the committee.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
hai?e another question to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I am in order. The Government owns a road along the Lachine canal, where there is a bridge which is called a bascule bridge; it belongs to the Government and is under its control. The corporation of the city of Lachine has informed me, by a petition which I have here, to the effect that this road is in a deplorable condition. There is considerable traffic done on the Government's road and great difficulty is experienced thereby. That road belongs to the Government and is in a very bad condition.


Michael Steele: What the hon. gentleman is referring to does not come under the item which is before the committee at the present time.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
would like to know-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Hon. gentlemen speak very loud; they will come to the province of Quebec and cry out "order"-


Michael Steele: Order. If the hon. member will kindly bring his remarks to bear on the item under discussion, I am sure there will be no attempt to prevent him laying his views before the committee.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I thought I was in order when speaking of public roads. I am alluding to a road which belongs to the Government, which is in a bad condition and needs to be repaired. It seems to me that I am in order since the hon. Minister's Estimates having reference to roads are being discussed. I wish to be courteous to you, Mr. Chairman, but I want justice done to my electors and I appeal to the hon. minister himself. I have a petition here. I am informed by the petitioners that they applied to the department, that a request was sent to which no answer was received.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: (Translation.) As is often the case.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. minister whether
he could not include in the Estimates some amount for the repairing of a road which belongs to the Government, situated along the Lachine canal, in the town of Lassalle. I am told that this road is in a very poor condition owing to the very heavy traffic done in that locality, that it needs to be repaired, and the Department of Railways and Canals is asked to help towards maintaining, repairing and improving the road in question. If I am in order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask from the hon. minister an answer.


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation) : I think the question might very well be asked while the House is in Supply and we are discussing the Estimates. But, I shall call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we are now considering an item which relates to the administration of roads built by provincial governments with the assistance of the Federal Government, and the question raised by the hon. member would no doubt be more in order upon items concerning railways and canals.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall postpone my question and come back to it later on.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before the item
carries, I should like to ask the minister if application has been made to the department for a highway from Quebec through St. Joachim in the county of Charlevoix to St. Simeon? I think a highway is projected in that district, and I should like to know if the proper amount has been provided for?


John Dowsley Reid: It is on the general plan, but I have no details yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Doan not exceeding $89,687,633.39 repayable on demand with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, to be used (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any time by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada or any company comprised in the Grand Trunk Railway System (excluding Iherefrom, however, expenditures or indebtedness incurred by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company except as specifically provided in item (f) hereof) on any of the following accounts : (a) operating deficits, '(b) acquisition of property, materials and supplies, (c) interest on notes, securities or Obligations, (d) the principle and interest of maturing or matured loans, secured or unsecured, (e) construction and betterments, (f) guarantees by the said Grand Trunk Railway Company of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, such

[Stage Direction]
loan to be secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Hailway Company of Canada on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve. The loan or assistance herein authorized may be made in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly in cash and partly bv guarantee, in the discretion of the Governor in- Council. Any guarantee from time to time given under the authority herein may be of the principal and interest of the notes, obligations or securities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, $89,687,633.39.
Georges Henri Boivin: This is the item to which an amendment was moved when we were last in committee and upon which the Chairman gave a ruling earlier this evening. Shall the item carry?


Mr. CAHILL:: This item with the other items in No. 126, and a few others which the Minister of Railways and Canals has to pass amount altogether to $185,000,000. This sum is greater than the total cost of the Intercolonial railway, it is greater than the total cost of the Transcontinental railway, it is more than equal to one-third of the cost of the Canadian Pacific railway. It is an amount more than one-half the total debt of Canada ten years ago and greater than the total revenue of Canada ten years ago; it is also an amount greater than the total collected by way of customs duties last year. Now, the Government have not announced any policy so far as the management of the Canadian National railways is concerned. I was surprised to hear the minister state a few nights ago that if he could be induced to accept that position Sir Joseph Flavelle would1 be the permanent chairman of the Board of Management of the Canadian National railways. Sir Joseph Flavelle may be an excellent business man; he may be absolutely honest-I do not know anything about him in that regard. But he has a reputation in Canada that will not inspire the confidence of the Canadian people, and in selecting a man to have charge of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National railways it might have been better to secure some man, who, perhaps, was not quite so well known and who would make a better appeal to all the people. However, the minister has intimated his intention of asking this gentleman to accept the chairmanship of a joint board. I wish to ascertain whether the Government have worked out any policy as to the future management of these railways. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a
,	I 1 [
board of directors which will have control of the management of the railways, and will the Government be guided in all matters pertaining to the management of the road by the recommendations of that board and interfere in no way with the operating officers of the system? I think that by this time, after four years or more of public ownership of railways, the Government should have worked out a plan of operation under which this enterprise may be carried on.


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. gentleman is aware, the operation of the 15,000 or
16,000	miles of railway now under government control is carried on by ,a board of directors named by the Government, and that that board1 have full control of operation as well as the appointment of every official connected with the roads. It is the intention of the Government at an early day to bring into force the Canadian National Railways Act which was passed a couple of years ago. The Government are now considering the names of the persons who shall make up the board of directors under that Act, and when appointed they will have full control of operation of all the Government railway systems. Every man employed on the road will be selected by that management, independently of the Government. As to the reference made by the hop. member to Sir Joseph Flavelle, I can only repeat what I said a few minutes ago. In my opinion Sir Joseph Flavelle has a standing equal to that of any man in Canada. He is considered one of our most prominent men; I believe his reputation stands as high as that of any other man in the country. I believe that the people will agree if it was possible for Sir Joseph Flavelle to accept the chairmanship of the board he would do full justice to the great responsibilities involved in so important an office. I am sorry indeed to hear any criticism reflecting on Sir Joseph Flavelle. In fact, I feel that it will be difficult for any Government to secure men for these responsible positions if their reputations are to be attacked by members of this House. The men we want are men in whom the people have confidence, and I sincerely hope that unless it can be shown that the Government have not judged them fairly or that their reputations are such that they should not fill these important positions, hon. gentlemen will, instead of reflecting on their reputations, try to assist the Government in getting them to take these positions.


Frank S. Cahill: At the present time Mr. Hanna, who is a railway man, is president of the Canadian Northern Railway. He was an active railway man when he was taken over by the Government, and most of the directors, who attend the meetings at least, are officials of the road. If a different board is appointed, a board of laymen aside from the officials, who will have control of the officials? Do I understand that such men as Mr. Hanna and Mr. Kelley will then have to report to, or be at the disposal of this board of directors?


John Dowsley Reid: What I stated a few minutes ago was this. Mr. Hanna, or Mr. Kelley, or any other official may be on the board of directors; but if they are not on the board of directors and they still remain in a position on the railway, they will, of course, be subject to, and have to take orders from, the board of directors. The Government will not deal with them if they are officials and not members of the board of directors.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: By whom will the new board of directors be selected?


John Dowsley Reid: The board of directors of the Canadian National railways will be selected by the Government. After they are selected, they will be told to go on and operate the road in the interests of the road and of the public.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: May I point out to the minister that the province of Quebec had only one representative on the old board of directors, Sir Hormisdas Laporte? Is it the intention of the minister and the department to give proper representation on the new board of directors, to Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: When the old board was appointed there were two representatives from Quebec, as my hon. friend knows, and that was a fair representation, but one resigned.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Who resigned?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Frank Jones.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: By whom was he replaced?


John Dowsley Reid: He resigned and the position was not filled because we were waiting until the Canadian National Railway Act was brought into force. When that is done, we will decide on the reorganization of the directors.


Mr. WHITE:: Is there any representative from the western provinces other than Mr. Riley of Winnipeg?


John Dowsley Reid: We had Mr. Hamilton from Saskatoon, but he resigned. We expected that the arbitration would be finished at any time, and then the reorganization of the whole board would take place.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is any salary or
emolument to be paid to the directors and what will be the amount?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not decided that. That will be decided when the board is appointed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The other night we
very fully but, perhaps not sufficiently, discussed this item. I find, however, that we did not get very satisfactory information from the minister as regards this national enterprise. The Canadian National railways are owned by the Canadian people. This enterprise is supposed to be operated as a business venture by the people, under the role of public ownership of railways. Many of our friends in this House and out of it were expecting great things from national ownership. I remember, when the policy was inaugurated and put into operation, that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said that in two years from that time the undertaking would be a commercial success. We have had four years of experience in operation in this connection and instead of getting better, we are getting worse; the deficits are getting larger all the time. I have a right, both as one of the owners of the road, as one of the Canadian people, and as the representative of my riding in this House, to know how we are going to proceed in connection with this very extensive undertaking.
In speaking on the Budget I made some reference to this railway; but the minister was not in the House, he did not hear what I said and I am sure he is too busy a man to be called upon to read speeches delivered in this House in his absence. Perhaps I could very briefly bring to his notice some matters that I referred to at that time in connection with this particular undertaking. I pointed out on that occasion that we had spent millions on deepening the St. Lawrence channel, and on equipping the harbours of St. John and Halifax. I also pointed out that arrangements were made, perhaps not at our expense, in the harbours of Sydney, Montreal and Quebec, for handling the national business. I also pointed out that we had built two lines of railways, one of them going to Halifax and St. John and the other, the Transcontinental, going, at all events, aa far as

Moncton, with a view to handling national business. We had ports on the Atlantic and the river St Lawrence to receive the trade of the country It seems to me extraordinary that after all that money is expended, we go to work and buy a system of railways with its chief terminus in a foreign country, at Portland, Maine. We cannot escape the responsibility of buying a road with its chief terminus in a foreign country. I suppose the minister will have to acknowledge that he intends to give all the business that he can to every part of the great system we control. I would like to know what he intends to do about the general business. Is he going to send it to Montreal, Quebec, St. John or Halifax, or is he going to send it to Portland, Maine, outside of the Dominion of Canada? Does he undertake to say that there is enough business to keep the whole system in operation with business percentages or returns from the railways which we own ourselves within our own bounds; or if there is not enough business for all, is one going to be sacrificed for the other? What is to be the policy?	Are we	going to
abandon keeping up trade at Portland and give traffic to our own ports? These, I think, are legitimate questions that should be answered. The policy in connection with this matter should have been settled before the Grand Trunk was taken over. The Minister of Railways of to-day was Minister of Railways at that time, or shortly afterwards; at all events, he was a member of the Government, and no policy could have been adopted without his knowledge. I think the committee has a right to know if the Government, before they took over this huge enterprise, had adopted ft policy as to how they were going to deal with this Portland business.
I have learned lately that we now own a very large coal mine in the United States. It is interesting for the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime Provinces who are engaged in the coal business to learn that the Government of Canada is also now in that business, and that one of their competitors henceforth in supplying the Canadian market will be the Dominion Government. We had the sales agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway before the Fuel Committee the other day, and he told us of the large output of the coal mines that that railway owned in the United States. I think it is a legitimate question to ask the minister whether it is the purpose of this Govern-fMr. McKenzie.]
ment to carry on a coal business. Is the Government going to supply their own railways with coal mined out of their own mines in the United States to the exclusion of coal that might be offered for sale by other people in this country? It is of the greatest possible interest to the people of my own province, to know what the policy of the Government in this matter is going to be.
I think it is only fair that the minister should also give the committee a definite statement of the operating expenses and expenditure generally of each railway under the control of the Government since the roads have been taken over. For instance, how have things been going for the last three years on the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern, the Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and on the Grand Trunk itslef since we become responsible for the expenditure? How do receipts compare with expenditures of all kinds upon these roads? How do we stand as between the income and outgo on each one of these railways? I think that that is information which the minister might well have expected would be required by the committee, and I think he should have it and give it to the committee. I would like to have the information put on Hansard in a clear and definite way so that any person who takes enough interest in the business of the railways to read Hansard will be able to see for himself just how things are going.
I would also ask the minister to tell the committee how much he thinks is necessary for betterments on the whole system to bring the railways up to the proper standard for a first-class business-up to the standard of the Canadian Pacific, for instance, or any other road with which we might compare our own system.
These are matters that I think it is only proper that hon. members, whether sitting on that side of the House or on this, should know so that they will be able to explain to their people in a clear and definite way the facts in connection with this great enterprise which we have taken over. I do not wish to say more at the moment. The minister has got my questions, and I would like him to give the information. Whether I shall have anything more to say I cannot tell at the moment. Much will depend on the clearness and conciseness and intelligibility of the information which we receive from the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: The questions which the hon. member has asked are fair ques-

tions, and I think the committee should have the information that he has asked for. I shall try and answer his questions in the order in which he has put them.
With reference to Portland, Maine, the hon. member knows that when we took over the Grand Trunk system, that comprised the whole system, including Portland. So far as Portland and our own Canadian ports are concerned, the policy of the Government has been, and I should think would continue to be, to develop our own Canadian ports in preference to others. We should be in a far better position to develop our own ports now that the Government owns these roads for the reason that we shall be able to divert to Canadian ports a very large portion of the traffic that comes over the Grand Trunk. We shall now have control, through the board of management, whereas before the control was in the private company. I think that the ports of Montreal, St. John, and Halifax should be benefitted by our taking over the roads. I should judge that no Government in the future would try to develop Portland to the disadvantage of our own Canadian ports, which this Government is endeavouring to build up.
The next question of the hon. member was with reference to the coal mines. It is true that the Government in taking over the Grand Trunk took over a large coal mine. Through becoming the owners of the stock we, of course, control the coal mines owned by the Grand Trunk in the United States. Several years ago the Grand Trunk purchased a large coal mine in Pennsylvania, and I am informed that it is a very valuable asset. I do not fear, however, that any of the coal that might be brought from that mine would come into competition, at least, to any great extent, with any of the coal produced in Canada, for the reason that the coal that came from that mine to the Grand Trunk came mostly to Ontario, and some possibly as far east as Montreal. The coal would go to Port Arthur, but, of course, all the coal that has been used in the past by the railways from Port Arthur almost to Montreal has been coal that came from the United States. I have been informed frequently, that there is no trouble in selling the coal produced in the United States by the mines owned by the Grand Trunk. It is easily disposed of, and a large profit is made on it. As regards the mines in Nova Scotia or the West, if at any time in the future they are able to send their coal into the centre of Ontario, there will be no difficulty in disposing of it.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the output of the mines owned by the Grand Trunk in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information here.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
a growing concern?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes. It supplies
the coal used by the Grand Trunk. In a conversation with me, Mr. Kelley stated a few moments ago that they produced the coal for their own system and, apart from that, sold a large quantity. That coal is one of the best kinds produced in Pennsylvania. It will not come in competition with the coal from Nova Scotia so long as that coal can be sent to Quebec and Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But it is competing
with us now.


John Dowsley Reid: It probably has been
because we were not able to get freight until a short time ago. The old Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk have probably been bringing coal from the United States without reference to the Nova Scotia Coal Company, but now that the railways are to be under Government control the mines in Canada will receive every consideration. The coal produced in the United States can easily be sold there because there is a big demand for it. As to betterments, the question is somewhat difficulty to answer. Betterments are carried on from year to year, and a good deal is done while operation is going on. No estimate can very well be made, therefore, in this respect. The question was fully answered before the Special Committee, and if the hon. member will read the evidence given before the committee he will find much more information than I could give him to-night, because the whole subject was discussed by the official in charge of the operations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be much
more satisfactory if the minister would tell us what it was stated before the committee would be required to standardize the road?


John Dowsley Reid: No estimate of that
kind has been made because the work is carried on from year to year, and there is a certain amount of work done that goes into capital account. The roads are in fair shape and while they are not up to 100 per cent standard, each year improvements are made from the earnings. There is no way in which you could arrive at

an estimate of what it would require to bring the whole system up to 100 per cent standard; and, on the other hand, there are a great many parts of the line where there is not so much traffic that it is necessary to bring it up to 100 per cent standard. There are many reasons why an estimate such as is asked for by the hon. member could not very well be given, but the whole matter was gone into thoroughly before the committee. The officials are fully posted on these questions, and the report of the committee tabled a few days ago gives full information. Several hundred copies were printed, and the hon. member can get much more detailed information from the report than I could give him at the present moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In 1916, when the
Drayton-Acworth report was submitted, those gentlemen said it would take at least $50,000,000 to bring the road up to standard. How much would be necessary now to carry out the suggestions contained in that report?


John Dowsley Reid: I thought the hon.
member was referring to the Canadian National system.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want all the information possible, but I want to be informed on this particular question.


John Dowsley Reid: We have had no information regarding the Grand Trunk since the Drayton-Acworth report. Our engineers have been gathering evidence which is now being submitted to the arbitrators, and it would be impossible for me to get that information before our side of the case comes up, which will probably be in ten days or two weeks' time. The hon.
member has also asked concerning expenditures in connection with the other railways, as well as their earnings. When I made my statement on March 17, as will be found at page 1056 of Hansard. I gave a comparative summary of operating results for the twelve months ending December 31, 1920, and 1919. In that statement I gave the operating revenues of each of the different roads, and indicated how they were earned, by passenger traffic, freight, etc. I gave the operating expenses of the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Government railways, the Canadian National, as well as the distribution of expenditures on maintenance of way and structure; maintenance of equipment; traffic; transportation by rail; transportation by water, miscellaneous and so on. Then I gave operating ratios of the several systems and operating deficits, average mileage operated and so on. I think the statistics cover several pages. This is all in Hansard and I will send it over to the hon. gentleman. It gives all the details for which the hon. member asks in so far as the Canadian National Railway system is concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My idea was for the minister to make a statement in a concise form in connection with this item. What I want is the total earnings and total expenditure of each one of these systems, showing the deficit in each case and the probable deficit this year so that the public can grasp the facts without very much difficulty.


John Dowsley Reid: All I can do is take the facts as I find them in Hansard. I get there the following figures:
Canadian National Railways Canadian Northern Railway System Canadian Government Railways
Comparative Summary of Operating Results 12 Months Ending December 31,
Operating Revenue

	1920
Canadian Northern.. .. 3 66,695.398 80	3
Canadian Government. 44,537,803 85 Canadian National.. ..	111,233,202	65
Operating Expenses-
Canadian Northern.. ..	82,953,978	60Canadian Government. 54,987,680 28 Canadian National.. ..	137,941,658	88
%
Increase or Decrease 24.52 10.84 18.66
60,034,023 92	22,919,954	6S	38.1847,728,205 73	7,259,474	55	11.86107,762,229 65	30,179,429	23	28.00
53,562,177 57 40,179,380 93 93,741,558 50
Increase or Decrease $13,133,221 23 4,358,422 92 17,491,644 15
My hon. friend also asks for a state- Hon. Mr. REID: No, it does not include ment of the deficits. I have that state- the Grand Trunk at all. The total for the ment here.	Canadian Northern and the Canadian Government railways for the year ending De-Mr. McKENZIE: Does it include the cember 31, 1920, is $26,708,456.23.	InGrand Trunk?	1919 the amount was $14,020,671.05.	To

that has to be added the fixed charges or the interest that we had to pay on the Canadian Northern railway. I find that the figures for the Grand Trunk Pacific are also here and perhaps I had better give them as well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Give the figures
separately for each system if my hon. friend can do so.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do so. They are as follows:
Gross Earnings
1920	1919
Canadian Northern System.. Canadian Government..	..
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Operating
Canadian Northern System	
Canadian Government	
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Operating
Canadian Northern System	
Canadian Government	
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Or $16,000,000 more in 1920 than in the previous year. But that was just the operating deficit, and to that you have to add the fixed charges on the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, totalling in 1920	$33,488,764.71, and in
1919, $27,928,925. Now, if you add the operating deficit and fixed charges-and all this information will be found on page 1052 of unrevised Hansard-for the three systems: the Canadian Northern system, the Canadian Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, the total for 1920 amounts to $70,331,734.88, as against $48,242,536.65 in 1919.


William Stevens Fielding: Covering what lines?


John Dowsley Reid: These are the details: for 1920:
Canadian Northern system.. .. $40,414,568 28
Canadian Government	 10,449,876 43
Grand Trunk Pacific	 19,467,290 17
Total	$70,331,734 88


William Stevens Fielding: That, I suppose, would include everything except interest on the original Intercolonial capital?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and on the Transcontinental.


John Howard Sinclair: When you speak of the Canadian Government system, do you mean the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and the branch lines that are attached to the Intercolonial.
$ 66,695,398	80	$ 53,562,177	5744,537,803	85	40,179,380	9314,408,549	66	11,294,617	87$125,141,752	31	$105,036,176	37Expenses	$ 82,953,978	60	$ 60,034,023	9254,987,680	28	47,728,205	7324,543,063	60	17,587,567	37$162,484,722	48	$125,349,797	02Deficit	$16,258,579	80	$ 6,471,846	3510,449,876	43	7,548,824	8010,134,513	94	6,292,949	50$36,842,970	17	$20,313,620	65


William Stevens Fielding: Including the Prince Edward Island railway?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I remember the minister's statement early in March, he gave us a forecast of the probable results for the current year. Could he repeat what he said then or tell us what he thinks now?


John Dowsley Reid: Sixty million dollars was the Estimate submitted to me by the present management of the Canadian National system.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand, we took over or became responsible for the Grand Trunk on the first of February, 1920. Can the minister tell us what were the results for the balance of the year; and also, if he can, how we are faring this year in our operation and management of the Grand Trunk.


John Dowsley Reid: I can only give what I presented in the same statement last March. I then informed the House:
I have Hot been able to get the annual doe-ing statement from the Grand Trunk management up to the present time. Their staff is busy in connection with the arbitration proceedings. I had to send one of our expert auditors to s>ecurt*e from their books, and submit, a statement as to results of operations for the years 19'19 and 1920* and he gives me the following report as approximately correct. After providing for operating expenses, tax accruals, income deductions, etic., the amount available for in-


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to change the line of discussion now being pursued, but while we are on the Railway Estimates I wish to submit to the committee and to the Minister of Railways a question of local importance, it is true, but of great interest to my electors, and also affecting our Canadian National railways, as I intend to demonstrate. At the present time there is being built on the Canadian National railway in the city of Joliette a bridge across the L'Assompition river, which has been under construction for over a year. When the preliminary work was being carried out last year a resolution was passed by the municipal council of the corporation of Joliette.
I may say that I have two resolutions, which were drafted in French and which I shall read in French, but they can be summarized in a few words, and I will explain them after reading them in French. The first resolution reads as follows :
Province of Quebec,	*
District of Joliette.
The-Corporation of the city of Joliette. Extracts from the minutes of a meeting- of the
council of the city of Joliette, held on the
30th of June 1920:

Mr. Goulet, alderman, seconded by Mr. Brousseau, alderman, moves:
Whereas the Canadian .National Railways are rebuilding the bridge which they own on the Assomption river, at Joliette;
Whereas it would be in the public interest that this bridge be so rebuilt so as to afford on each side of the -new bridge, a public highway for both the pedestrians and the vehicles ;
Whereas, that the improvement would even be in the interest of the Canadian National (Railways whose traffic would thus be considerably benefited owing to the present conditions, in as much as the population of the county of Joliette, to the north east of the Assomption river, has no direct and advantageous exit to communicate with the C.N.R. station.
That this Council prays the officials of the Canadian National Railways to grant the request of the citizens of Joliette and the public in general, by building on each side of the new bridge a public highway both for the pedestrians and the vehicles and to take advantage to accomplish this, of the bridge in course of erection. Carried.
True copy,
A. D. Marsolais,
Secretary-treasurer.
About the time that this resolution was adopted I communicated with the management of the national railways with the object of bringing about acquiescence in the demands contained in it, but the answer given me at that time was a negative one, as I shall explain in a moment. Now, on April 13, 1921, the following resolution was passed by the same corporation:
Province of Quebec,
District of Joliette,
Corporation of the city of Joliette.
Extract of the minutes of a meeting of the corporation of the city of Joliette, held on April 13, 1921 :
Alderman Tremblay, seconded by Alderman Lachapelle, moves:
Whereas the corporation of the city of Joliette has, on June 30, passed- a resolution requesting that the Board of -National Railways take advantage of the construction of the railway bridge which was -being built at the time on river 1'Assomption, at Joliette, so -as to provide a roadway on each side of the said bridge for vehicles and .pedestrians ;
Whereas, on August 30, 1920, the said hoard replied to the corporation that they could not comply with the wish expressed by the population of Joliette, because they were using material in their work wHich had' been used) else-' where on their system, and- that according to estimates made by their engineers, it would- cost them a sum of $60,300 for a single roadway 16 feet wide ;
Whereas this corporation has now been informed that -the said hoard intends to rebuild the said bridge with stronger material, which would allow the board to grant the request made by the city of Joliette, without such heavy cost;
Whereas the reasons given by the corporation, in its resolution of July 30 last, are still the same and1 that the proposed improvement is more and more pressing';

Whereas the corporation believe it advisable to renew their request, hoping the hoard will find that the expense is not much greater when compared to the advantages it will give to the inhabitants of the large district situated at the northeast of the river l'Assomption, and to the great benefit to be gained by the railway traffic, when there will be a direct access to the C.N.R. station, whilst now people have to go round by DeLanaudiSre street passing close by the C.P.R. station.
That this corporation again request the board of the Canadian National Railways to take advantage of the construction of its railway bridge on river l'Assomption to provide a public roadway for vehicles and pedestrians on each side of the bridge.
That the secretary-treasurer be asked to forward a copy of the present resolution to the president of the iBoard of Canadian National Railways, to the Minister of Railways, to the Hon. Prime Minister of Canada and to the member for the county of Joliette.
Carried.
True copy.
A. I>. Marsoi.ais,
Secretary-treasurer.
Accompanying this resolution I received from the secretary-treasurer a letter which I shall not read to the committee, but which asks me to try to obtain wihat is asked for in these resolutions. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Railways has no doubt understood in large measure the requests made in these resolutions. In a nutshell, the point is this: there is being built in Joliette the bridge that I have just mentioned. It is on the line of the Canadian National between Montreal and Quebec, passing through the city of Joliette. At that point, as at many other points, the Canadian National is in direct competition with the Canadian Pacific. It is asked that this bridge be so constructed that accommodation be provided on each side of the railway track for vehicular traffic, thus enabling people on the east side of the river L'Assomption to communicate directly with the Canadian National station at Joliette. At first sight it may seem that it would not be greatly to the advantage of the Canadian National to do this, but I would point out that it would be greatly in their interests to do it, because all the people coming from the east side of the river L'Assomption and proceeding to the city of Joliette and other points on the west side of the river have to go down the river about one mile from the Canadian National bridge, cross a bridge at that point which belongs to the city of Joliette, and from there enter the city. In order to get to this city bridge the people have to pass the Canadian Pacific station, and consequently the Canadian Pacific are obtaining an enormous traffic which would go to Canadian National if, as is suggested, the railway bridge which is at present being constructed was so built that it would accommodate vehicles on each side of the railway tracks. The city of Joliette would not ask that alterations be made to a bridge already built, because such alterations would be costly and would perhaps not result in advantage to the company. But this bridge being now under construction, the provision of roadways for vehicles would not involve a very large additional expenditure, and I submit that it is primarily in the interest of the Canadian National Railways that the suggestion made in these resolutions be adopted. The country through which the Canadian National railway passes in the county of Joliette and the adjoining county to the east is very thickly populated. A great deal is produced in that district, which is developed away up north, even through the Laurentian mountains. There is an enormous traffic coming down to Joliette from vthe parishes to the north. I know the situation well, and I am in a position to" say that if these roadways for vehicles were provided on the bridge, considerable additional traffic could be obtained for the Canadian National railways. That being the case, the question is one into which the minister should make immediate inquiry with a view to having this traffic going to the Canadian National instead of to the Canadian Pacific as it does now. I repeat that the Canadian National needs freight traffic if it is to get out of the difficulties in which it now finds itself; in fact, to say that, is simply stating something which every one knows. In the annual statement made by the Minister of Railways with regard to the operation of the Government railways he recognized the seriousness of our present railway problem, and even went to the extent of asking for advice. If advice of any kind should be given, I would certainly ask the Minister of Railways to do everything in his power to get all the traffic which can be got for the Canadian National railways. It is only by augmenting the traffic of that line, and also through the development of the country generally and increase of population that we shall ever get these railways out of the hole in which they are now. Knowing the situation, knowing the local circumstances as I do, I firmly believers is stated in the resolutions which I have just read, that if this project was put into operation, it would be first in the interest of the national railways, and, of course, very much also in the interest of

the city of Joliette, and the people east of the river L'Assomption.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad to have the information which the hon. member has just given. Of course this is all new to me; I do not understand the situation as he does; but I shall take Hansard to-morrow and draw the attention of the management to it, and suggest that if it is in any way possible, they should endeavour ,to carry out the request of the hon. member.


Richard Smeaton White: The minister a few moments ago, in answer to a question of mine, stated that there was only one representative from the three western provinces on the board of directors of the Canadian National railways. That gentleman, I believe, is Mr. R. T. Riley, of Winnipeg.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Richard Smeaton White: If there were more directors from the western provinces, it would be a good thing for the railways and those depending on the railways. In -the special committee, when Mr. Hanna was asked what Mr. Riley's experience was in the matter of transportation and navigation, his answer was that Mr. Riley had at one time sailed a skiff on the Red river. That was the only qualification he seemed to have. I know Mr. Riley as a business man, and I have no doubt that he understands his business as a financier very well. I do not know whether the Canadian National railways have a traffic or business manager at Winnipeg for the western provinces, but I know that the Government railways could do three times the business if they were properly managed and equipped. The returns show that although we have many branch lines in the -most productive part of the country, we do only half the business or less in that western section.
As I pointed out in the special committee, we know that when the Government was paying for transportation of feed from one part of the two provinces to the other, the Canadian Pacific got about twice as much money for carrying it as our own two railways did. Another thing that I would like to point out to the minister is the difference between the operation of our own lines and that of the Canadian Pacific. Last year, when the crop movement began, every siding along the Canadian Pacific was filled with empties waiting to take out the crop. On the other hand, along the line of the Canadian National railways, there were no cars at all, nor on a large section of the western division was
fMr. Denis.]
one empty car received, except what came in with merchandise, and those who were fortunate enough to secure them were able to move out their grain. A memorial or petition presented to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization when they were at Edmonton, showed that only 264 cars in something over two months had arrived on the western division. Therefore, I say that Mr. Hanna's statement to the committee that all that was needed was business was altogether wrong. They have too much business, and at most times of the year it is difficult to ship out anything, even grain or stock. I took advantage of the Manitoba Grain Act and applied, and had others apply for me, for six cars before my grain was threshed, and when I left to come down here on February 10, -there were 64 ahead of me, and I did not receive one car. I know that there was no congestion and no shortage on the Canadian Pacific. I heard the minister state to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) that they -had more rolling stock by some thousands in the West than the Canadian Pacific had. The hon. member replied that he did not know where they were. I do not know where they were, and I saw no sign of them. Even the superintendent on the western division stated to the delegation that went to see the Prime Minister that he had been making every effort to get more cars in, and that he had been able to receive a promise of only 30 cars daily over that whole country, whereas two or three thousand cars daily were required. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is for lack of business on those lines that there are deficits. That part of the country is the most productive, and there is -plenty of business if there is good management. If one director was appointed for each province, the board might get acquainted with the true situation at different times. The man in charge of maintenance and operation, Mr. Hungerford, according to his statements to -the committee, had no knowledge whatever of conditions as they were at that time. He asked me some questions about where those cars were, and he did not seem to know that there was such a shortage as I stated. His reply -to me about the grain they had taken out, and what was left there was altogether wrong. He had no idea whatever, or -if he had, he did not give the proper information. This is a serious question. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Oalder) if I could get his attention for a moment, knows very well that he was met by delegations

at many points along the Canadian National railways, and it is a remarkable fact that the Canadian Pacific were keeping their storehouses and elevators clear.
I am bringing this matter up now so that the same situation will not occur this year. The indications are that we shall have a larger crop in the West this year than ever before, and unless there is some better method of distributing the cars, the railways will not be able to handle the crop at all. Last year the elevators were filled within two weeks after threshing began, and up till the middle of last winter there was no relief at all. The elevators were full, and there were no cars to haul out the grain. I hope the minister will bring this matter to the attention of the management so that the railways will
12 m. be in a better position to meet the situation this year. Many millions of dollars were lost last year owing to the farmers not being able to get cars until the price had dropped. In parts of Alberta and the West the farmers did not want to ship when the price was low, and there is a great quantity of grain now on hand for the reason that present prices will not pay the freight. With that large amount of grain on hand, added to another heavy crop, the situation will be very serious this year unless the management take steps beforehand to provide the necessary cars.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the car situation, I think I stated to the 'hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) that some 18,000 cars had been supplied to the Canadian National railways. 'I do not think I stated that those were all delivered in the West; if I did, that was not my intention. Since we have taken over the Canadian Northern we have been purchasing cars from year to year of different kinds, and the system now has 18,000 cars more than it had two or three years ago. I think that this year we shall be in a much better position to meet the situation than in previous years for the reason that we have now got the cars back from the American side. I learned about the difficulties last year when the wheat was threshed and ready for shipping, and I must frankly admit that my conclusion was that the management did not start soon enough to send cars to the West. They were using cars at this end, and they could not get the cars in the United States back in time. I think that experience of the management last year will make them take good care
that the same thing1 does not occur this year. I shall, however, make it a point to follow this matter up, and do my best to see that every effort is made to meet the situation this year.
With reference to the additional director on the board, every province has been asking for representation. The matter is under consideration, and in the near future the Government will have to decide how the board shall be composed.


William Stevens Fielding: Before the discussion broadens out again, I would avail myself of this quiet moment to 'once more draw the attention of the minister to a matter down in Eastern Canada, where a small extension is much desired to the Halifax and Southwestern railway, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian Northern. A year ago I brought this matter to the notice of my hon. friend and of the committee generally. The view I advanced then was that as we were making large appropriations for extensions in the West, for good reasons, no doubt-I did not object to that-we might reasonably ask that any small extensions needed to the system in the East might well be considered, and the case I brought to the notice of the minister was that of an extension, really a siding or branch, requiring the construction of about four miles to bring the Halifax and Southwestern railway into the town of Lockeport. Lockeport is a very interesting and important fishing town; it is an incorporated town, with a numerous fishing population, with a large cold storage establishment, and with many facilities for business, but lacking railway communication. When I stated the case at that time I thought I had made a very favourable impression on the mind of my hon. friend, because, if he will permit me, I will turn to page 4247 of Hansard of June 25, 1920, where I find that my hon. friend spoke as follows:
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) again drew my attention to the fact that Lockeport was three or four miles from the Halifax and Southwestern railway, and asked that consideration be given to that. I think I have already taken up that matter with the Board of Management. When it is drawn to their attention I cannot see why that should not be done.
That was a very encouraging report, but so far, I regret to say, no further action has*been taken. The minister on several occasions gave me the assurance that the matter would probably be investigated, and while I do not want to hold him too rigidly to his promise, I think it

is a reasonable proposal. If we were refusing to make construction anywhere, I would have to abide by that, but when we are regarding the 'Canadian Northern system as unfinished, and are making appropriations for large extensions in the West-again, I do not object to that-I do not think it is unreasonable that a little matter of this kind should be pressed upon the attention of my hon. friend, and I again desire to draw his attention to it.


Hon. Hr. REID:: The hon. member is
right. Last year, and again this session since my Estimates were up before, I mentioned the matter to Mr. Hanna. I said that I had promised to have it investigated, and see whether anything could be done. The policy this year is not to go on with any new work, but only to proceed with work that had been promised and on which construction had started some years ago. That was the reason he gave me a few days ago why this extension that my hon. friend desires had not beer, gone on with, as it was really a new work. It is not very much, as the hon. member has said, only 4 miles of railway. All I can say at the moment is that I will press the matter again, and see if it is not possible to include it in some of the work this year. It might be regarded as a siding; sidings are not considered as new work, but as improvements to the service, and from what my hon. friend has said, this extension would amount practically to a siding.


William Stevens Fielding: The people down there do not care very much whether you call it a siding or a branch. I have no doubt that if the minister asks the officials for a report as to whether this will pay from the beginning, he will be advised that it will not, but no new construction ever does pay right from the beginning. I again urge my hon. friend to consider this matter. When one goes down there and tells these people that you cannot get a little work of this sort, and they tell you that in other sections of the country large sums of money are being expended on extensions, it is an awkward situation. I again urge the matter on the attention of my hon. friend, and I hope that this work will be done.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a small matter in connection with my own constituency. I have mentioned it to him privately and in the House on various occasions, but so far I have made no pro-fMr. Fielding.]
gress. It is in reference to the establishment of a fully equipped station at Monastery on the branch between New Glascow and the Straits of Canso. This station was built some years ago and the traffic has increased so that it is now one of the most important stations on the road. But there is no station master there, and it is impossible for one to get a ticket. The station is in charge of some official, and is kept open, but it is not, in the fuli sense of the word, a station where you can buy your ticket. There is no care taken of the traffic that comes there. The freight that is sent to the station must be prepaid, and the goods are thrown on to the platform and sometimes are missed. The receiver of the goods can get no notice, because there is no one to notify him. Altogether, therefore, it is very unsatisfactory to the people in that locality, and there is really no reason that I can see why a station master should not be appointed, especially as, at this station, business has been growing rapidly compared with some of the other stations on that eastern line. I took occasion to ask the minister for details of this growth of business, and he gave me the figures some time ago. In regard to the year 1920, I asked for the number of tons of freight received and shipped at that station and others between New Glasgow and Monastery, and the following answer was given:
Tons	Earnings
Piedmont	
134	$	493 20Barney's River	
226	799	00Marshy Hope	
1,355	2,502	00South River	
3,475	10,353	88Heatherton	
2,588	8,237	39Tracadie	
2,053	7,247	54Monastery	
3,494	9,137	10
It will be seen from the statement I have just read that there is only one station between Peidmont and Monastery that earns anything to compare with Monastery, and that is South River, where the business, in the year for which these figures are given, was over $10,000, being a little better than the earnings at Monastery, which amounted to $9,000 odd. This fact itself would indicate that it is worth the minister's while to place an officer there to look after this freight. But there is another reason why a station master should be appointed. At Monastery station now the daily mail arrives from Guysborough and Boyleston and all the district to the south, and passengers arrive day by day in coach for points on the railway.
If they are to travel any distance, they

must drive to the next station at Tracadie for their tickets. It is very inconvenient to those who come to Monastery station to take passage by train, and it is particularly inconvenient in winter, when passengers have to drive through storms the whole distance between Monastery and Tracadie before they can purchase their tickets. Monastery station is the chief station for passenger traffic from the town of Guysborough and the village of Boy-leston, and from the way these places have been treated by the Government in the matter of railway facilities, one would have thought that the Government would try to do something now to equip that station. The minister knows all about this matter, for I have explained it several times. I did not want to let this session pass without mentioning it again, because everyone in that district is deeply interested in this question. It would pay to have a station master at that station, because the growth of traffic is healthy and it would grow much more rapidly if there were some one there to attend to the business. The expense would not be much, and if I could give the minister the number of passengers that took the train at that point during the course of the year, it would astonish him. I have been able to get only the freight, but his superintendent in that division could give him the information in regard to the passenger traffic. I trust that something will be done quickly in this matter because, as things stand, everybody in the district is inconvenienced. At the station itself there is a branch store run by Mr. D. G. Kirk, of Antigonish, and parcels coming there have to be thrown off on the platform, with the result that sometimes they disappear and the owner does not receive them at all. This is altogether an unsatisfactory way of doing business, and it is the one station on the road in which the people I represent are especially interested.


John Dowsley Reid: I realize the inconvenience that it is to any community in which there is not a station agent, and I will take this matter up to-morrow and see what can be done to meet the wishes of the hon. member. My hon. friend will, of course, remember that prior to the McAdoo Award, and prior to the war, when times were normal, one agent at a station like that could do all the work. In my own constieuency the agent lived at the station. Before the war people could go there at any time in the evening and get freight; the agent was there all day; but now, since the McAdoo
Award, the eight-hour day obtains, and to have some one at the station all the time you must either have two men engaged or pay overtime. On the Canadian Northern there is a small station where the agent is a woman, the telegraph operator. That station used to cost $65 to $70 a month previous to the war; it is but a small station, and there is very little traffic there; but now, owing to the McAdoo Award, it takes nearly $400 a month for its upkeep. After eight hours, they will not deliver freight, and if there were an agent at Monastery, he would have to meet all the trains. If a train came in at 6 o'clock in the morning, and the agent had to go to the station half-an-hour ahead of his time, of if the train came in at 7 o'clock at night, after the agent's eight-hour day, you would have to pay double time, and it would amount to a large sum. So that whereas a station might have cost $1,000 prior to 1914, it will cost between $4,000 and $5,000 now. Those are conditions which have induced caution on . the part of the management and have compelled them to try and keep down expenses. That condition will probably be remedied before long. Conditions are now becoming more normal, and I hope that soon the management will be able to give the people in different localities the same service they formerly enjoyed. I know the place about which my hon. friend has spoken. I have passed through it on the train, and I know there is considerable business there. I will take the matter up again with the management, and will let my hon. friend know the precise reasons why they hesitate to carry out his wishes. If the result is not satisfactory to him he can let me know and we will consider whether anything can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: Reference has already been made to the deficits on the Grand Trunk system. Those results are most disappointing in view of the minister's prediction as to what would happen when the Government took over the Grand Trunk system. When Parliament voted to take it over, as a result of the closure, my hon. friend explained to 'the House that the acquisition of the Grand Trunk was going to be a profitable venture. He told us that the Grand Trunk was an old system, that it had been paying dividends to its shareholders, that it possessed valuable terminals at various points that were required for the handling of the traffic of the other roads, and that if we got possession of that system we would be

able to make the other unprofitable railways pay that were in the hands of the Government. But the venture has turned out very much worse than we expected, and my hon. friend has not been able to show that his predictions have been realized. Now we want to get some information about the Grand Trunk lines in the United States which will be very interesting to the committee. The Government Blue Book does not reveal very much about those branches, and yet that information is very necessary. Will the minister tell us the names of the branches and how many there are in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: When we were putting the Grand Trunk acquisition through a schedule was attached to the Bill which gave a list of all the subsidiary companies in the United States.


John Howard Sinclair: That
does not give us the desired information. What we want is recent information.


John Dowsley Reid: There are no other
lines but those that were set out in that schedule.


John Howard Sinclair: So I
understand, but that information would not be up to date now. Will the minister state the names of the Grand Trunk lines in the United States to begin with?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes I can do that.
There is the St. Clair Tunnel; the Buffalo and Lake Erie Railway; the International Bridge-that is a bridge between the United States and Canada and there is a company in the United States as well as in the Dominion; the Chicago, Detroit and Canadian; the Michigan Air Line Railway; the United States and Canada Railway; the Cincinnati, Saginaw and Mackinaw Railway; the Lewiston and Auburn Railway; the Central Vermont Railway; the Montreal and Province Railway; the New London and White River Railway; the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway; the Detroit, Toledo and Lake Shore Railway. Those I think are all the lines in the United States.


John Howard Sinclair: Are
the books in the department in such a shape that the minister can tell us the earnings and expenditures of each of these lines?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information for the whole of the year 1920 since we took the Grand Trunk over. For the first part of the year we have not the details.


John Howard Sinclair: But
the Government took over the road in February 1920.


John Dowsley Reid: But the returns between the first of January and the first of February would go to the Grand Trunk. The return ,of any profit or loss to us would be after that time.


John Howard Sinclair: Well
can the minister give us a statement from the first of February 1920 to the end of that year?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not a statement of the returns for each road in detail.


John Howard Sinclair: Has
my hon. friend the gross amount of the operation from the lines in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not that here separately for the United States lines. I would have to take each one and add the figures up.


John Howard Sinclair: Surely my hon. friend can tell me the amount of the deficit on the operations of the Grand Trunk System in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I have any statement of that kind here. I can, however, get the figures and place them on Hansard.


John Howard Sinclair: I
should think your deputy would have that information.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not get those
details from the Grand Trunk management.


John Howard Sinclair: In your books are not the operations of the Grand Trunk lines in the United States shown separately?


John Dowsley Reid: They are all in the
statement. These are subsidiary companies.


John Howard Sinclair: Has
my hon. friend no idea at all as to the business of the Grand Trunk lines in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not that information. These are all subsidiary companies and the earnings all go in to the parent company. If there is a deficit they must pay it. I only had the statement containing the general results, which I gave to the committee a few minutes ago, showing that it would take $6,500,000 to pay the fixed charges.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the largest part of it in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: No. As I remember
a conversation I had with Mr. Kelley, until the United States Government gave the roads back to the owners that Government assumed all losses and paid any dividends that the railways had been paying prior to their being taken over. I think it was on September first of last year that the United States Government returned the railways to their owners. So if there was any loss on this railway it would be from September 1 to December 31 last, and as that is of course the busy time on the Grand Trunk I would not think the loss would be much.


John Howard Sinclair: About
the time it was first taken over by the Government I remember there was a very heavy loss on the Central Vermont, but I have not heard what the loss was on the other railways. How many ocean terminals are there in connection with the Grand Trunk?


John Dowsley Reid: Portland is the only
Grand Trunk terminal.


John Howard Sinclair: What
is the tonnage exported or imported at Portland during the time that the Government has had control of the line?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not got that
information. That would be difficult to ascertain, because the Central Vermont and other railways from the United States border run to Portland and no doubt ship out their freight there.


John Howard Sinclair: I am
talking of the Grand Trunk system.


John Dowsley Reid: I know, but the Central Vermont is part of the Grand Trunk system. So if we had the total freight it would not be freight that all came from Canada. A very large amount of traffic that goes out of Portland is taken there by the Grand Trunk from Chicago and points west of the Detroit river. The Grand Trunk get the advantage of carrying that freight through Canada. Then there are other roads, the Central Vermont for example, in American territory that run into Portland. Of course I take it for granted that what my hon friend has in mind is the amount of Canadian freight that is gathered in Canada by the Grand Trunk and shipped out by Portland.


John Howard Sinclair: Can
my hon. friend tell me that?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I did not ask
for that detail. It might be very difficult to get.


John Ewen Sinclair: Has my hon. friend facilities for getting that information?


John Dowsley Reid: I could ask for any information.


John Howard Sinclair: Tomorrow?


John Dowsley Reid: It could not be available by to-morrow because it would take several days to separate the freight, even supposing it is possible to do so. I do not know whether it could be done.


John Howard Sinclair: I
should think it would be part of the bookkeeping that my bon. friend would have.
I remember hearing him say two or three years ago that if any of his officials should divert Canadian traffic towards Portland he would dismiss them. If he does not know whether they are doing it or not he is not in a very good position to carry out his threat.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend does not wish to press that matter, I would draw the minister's attention to the question of station accommodation. I am glad to hear the minister say that he hopes more normal conditions may be expected and that he may be able to provide station accommodation. There are two or three points on the Halifax and South Western where stations are without agents, for instance, at Wolfe's harbour, Shelburne county, and at Brooklyn, in Queen's county, and I am not sure that there are not one or two others. Representations have been made to the proper quarter concerning these stations, and the explanation was that given by the minister to-day, that owing to the increased cost of operating those stations they were not able to keep them open as formerly. We have had to be content with that reason, although it is not very satisfactory to the people. I hope the minister will see if conditions will not permit him to provide station masters at these points.


John Dowsley Reid: I will be very glad to look into the matter.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is it the intention of the minister to encourage to a certain extent the electrification of some of the Canadian National lines?


John Dowsley Reid: We are not considering it at the present time, but I have been sug-

gesting-because, of course, it is entirely in the hands of the management-that some of these branch lines where there is very little traffic might be operated by putting on a motor car, and experiments are being made. In that way you could operate a thirty-mile branch line at a very Slight cost and give probably a service twice a day.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is the minister
aware that petitions and resolutions were sent to the board of management of the Canadian National railways asking that the line between Quebec and Loretteville on the Canadian Northern should be electrified?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but owing to the high cost of materials it would be almost an impossibility to electrify any part of a railway at the present time. Within the past year I have had our officials investigating that feature for my own information, and I have been reading the evidence given in Toronto in regard to the electrifying of railways in Ontario, and I find that the cost runs all the way between $100,000 and $200,000 a mile at the present time.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I think the minister stated that it was in his knowledge that a petition was sent to the board of management asking for the electrification of the line between Quebec and Loretteville?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as my memory goes, that is right.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I should like to put on record a letter which I received from Mr. Hanna, the president of the board of management of the national railways, which reads as follows:
Toronto, May 11, 1921. Dear Mr. Lavigueur,-I have delayed replying to your letter of the 4th instant with reference to electrifying the national railways between Quebec and Loretteville as I expected to have had an opportunity of speaking to you in Ottawa.
As perhaps you know, my time in Ottawa has been pretty well taken up by the committee inquiring into the affairs of the national railways and it is, therefore, difficult for me to make an appointment, and as far as this particular question is concerned, funds are not available to electrify this portion of the line in the immediate future, and, therefore, I do not see that any good purpose can be served at this time by meeting a delegation. We will be very glad indeed to keep the matter in mind and when general conditions improve we may Ibe in a position to give the request careful consideration.
If a careful investigation was made it would be found that Loretteville is a very
[Hion. Mr. Reid.]
important town industrially and commercially. The chief objection stated in Mr. Hanna's letter is lack of funds; in fact, he does not seem to urge any other objection to the carrying out of this work. I would ask the minister to keep this matter in mind and to see whether something cannot be done to give satisfaction to the people concerned.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In 1919 the minister promised that during the summer months he would send the engineers of his department to the county of Charlevoix in order to find out how a branch line could be built from Baie St. Paul to St. Urbain, a distance of about nine miles. I put before the minister at that time the necessity of building that line, pointing out that in that district there was a large mine belonging to a Quebec syndicate at the head of which was Senator O'Brien, a friend of the Government. Many people in Quebec are interested in this matter, but nothing can be done with the mine on account of the lack of railway facilities in that district. I am told that requests have been made to the department" along this line, but nothing has been done. A branch line between these two points would certainly be a good feeder to the railway, and I hope that the Government can see its way clear to take action in the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: There has not been much pressure on the part of those who own the mine with a view to securing this bianch line. So far as Senator O'Brien is concerned, he has never appeared before the Railway Department in the matter. The only one I have heard mention it has been the hon. member himself in the House.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They wrote to me.
The late Hon. Mr. Parent was a member of that syndicate.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events, no new
works have been undertaken except such as involve the carrying out of contracts already arranged, where the right of way has been purchased, the grading done, and so on-mostly in the western provinces, and in respect of works which were promised before the war. As a rule, if a person is very much interested in the carrying out of a certain work he shows some anxiety to place the whole matter before the authorities concerned. I suggest that these people place the matter before the management and find out just what view they take with regard to it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the county of Charlevoix I noticed last year that the platforms of the stations at different points were very small. I brought the matter to the attention of the department and I was promised that the platforms would be enlarged to meet the convenience of the people at these points, especially at the summer resorts- Pointe a Pic, Ste. Irenee, Murray Bay and Les Eboulements. This work would not involve much expenditure, but it has not been done; it seems always to be under consideration by the department or by the management at Toronto. As the summer season it about commencing I hope that the minister will give instructions to have this work done.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course I cannot instruct the management; I can lay the facts before them, but they must assume responsibility for whatever action is taken. I know that along the Quebec and Saguenay there are a large number of summer resorts, and I should think it would not require much pressure on the management to have them provide proper facilities at those places. I shall take the matter up again with the management and let my hon. friend know just what position they take.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like to bring
before the minister a matter which has come to my knowledge with regard to certain instructions given to the management of the Canadian National Railway, apparently by the department, concerning the use of the French language in certain parts of Quebec and New Brunswick. I have before me a letter signed by Mr. E. DeSales La-Terriere, of Les Eboulements, who lives also in the city of Quebec, is one of the most prominent citizens of that place, and is also inspector of registration offices for the province of Quebec. His letter, which is in French is dated at Les Eboulements, March 26, 1921, and is as follows:
(Translation)
Les Eboulements, March 26, 1921. Mr. Pierre P. Casgrain, M.P.,
Advocate,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Casgrain,-Enclosed please find document in re the disagreeable incident on board the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. Melangon was aible to make an inquiry, as I had not been notified, though usually, in such a case, the party who asks for an inquest as well as the party who is the object, are notified.
I have written to the Minister of Railways, as you may see by the voucher for my registered letter, but I have received no reply.
Wishing you courage in your immense undertaking.
Yours, etc.,
(Sgd.) E. de Sales LaTerriere.
I have before me a certificate of registration of a letter which was addressed by Mr. LaTerriere to the Minister of Railways and Canals, enclosing copy of a letter which he sent to the general manager of the district of Quebec, Mr. LeBlanc. I will read this letter, because it explains the position exactly. It reads:
Les Eboulements, Sept. 2. 1921. Mr. J. E. Leblanc,
Agent, Passenger Service,
Intercolonial Railway,
7 du Fort St.,
Quebec.
Sir: On Monday, July 18 ult., ooming back from Pictou, I boarded the Intercolonial Ocean Limited1 at Oxford for Montreal. At dinnertime, thinking I was speaking to a French-Canadian, I spoke in French to the waiter assigned to my table. " I don't talk French," he replied. I thought I had made a mistake and spoke to him in English, though I am not very familiar with this language, and the same thing happened at Supper-time. I got off the train at Mont Joli, and the next morning, July 19, left for the west by the Maritime Express To my surprise, the same waiter notified us that breakfast was ready and this with a decided Canadian-French accent. I asked' him why he had refused the previous day to answer me in French, and he told me that he had orders not to speak French in the Maritime provinces.	'	!	.1
The dining car conductor intervened, and, in the most brutal way, repeated to me that this boy had1 received orders not to speak French in the Maritime provinces. Were orders of that kind issued? If so, the duty of the authorities is clearly indicated.
We are in favour of the "Bonne entente" without which life would be impossible in this country, but it is not by encouraging persons responsible for such deeds that the authorities of our national railways will convince the public that they desire this "Bonne entente."
Please note that my statements can be corroborated by many people.
Believe me, Sir,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) E. de LaTerriLre, Inspector of Registry Offices for the Province of Quebec.
This letter states that apparently peremptory instructions were given not to use the French language in the eastern provinces even when certain persons were able to make use of it, and these instructions emanated from the Department of Railways and Canals, or from the management at Toronto.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Who wrote the letter?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The letter is signed
by Mr. E. de Sales LaTerriere. A copy of this letter was also enclosed in a letter to



[Stage Direction]
the minister who is present to-night, and Mr. E. de Sales LaTerriere told me that he had never received an answer from the minister and that no investigation was carried out regarding this matter.
John Dowsley Reid: What is the date of
the letter?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
John Dowsley Reid: Would the hon. member kindly translate the letter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does my hon. friend mean to say that the translation was made by Le Devoir?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Joseph Archambault: And paid for by the Government?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know if it was paid for by the Government, but I am informed that it was made by Le Devoir.


Joseph Archambault: That is the alliance again.


Mr. POWER:: Who is the editor of Le Devoir?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Bourassa. The French used1 in the new translation was perfect, but it was never used and never put into force When I travelled from the time that I received the letter until the last time the parlour car was in service that summer.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why do you travel on
that line?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Because there is no other railway into my county, and I want to patronize the Canadian Government railways, for patriotic reasons. I pay for my seat, and I sometimes, eat on the car; that is just so much money for the Government. Continuing my remarks I say that the French language is an official language in this country. It is recognized in this House, and in all the departments. It is also provided by statute that bills of lading and express receipts must be printed , in both languages. None of the bills of lading or express receipts on this railway at the time I made my complaint were printed in French, and I do not think this grievance has been remedied up to the present time. I want to protest most
emphatically against the manner in which the Government has despised the French language in that part of the country, and I want to ask the minister if the instructions which have been referred to by the gentleman whose name I have mentioned were really given, and whether the minister will issue instructions-it is never too late to mend-so that the French language will be properly respected in that part of the country, which is absolutely French.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that a letter which was addressed to me was never acknowledged. That is not the way I treat my correspondence. I always give an answer of some kind. I do not remember receiving the letter, but if I received it I would, of course, forward it to the management with instructions to have the matter investigated at once. So far as I am concerned, I have never at any time given any instructions other than that the French language must be used wherever that can advantageously be done. I certainly would not take any other position, and I never have done so. I do remember receiving a letter from some person complaining of one of the conductors on the road east of Montreal, and I remember writing to the management to have an investigation made at once, and that if the conductor was ever found making statements of that kind again, he should be at once dismissed. I am sure that that investigation was made. Whoever it was that wrote to me about the matter received a reply, I feel sure. At all events, I have a reply from the management showing the result of that investigation. If at any time in the future, as in the past, while I occuply this position, I hear of any official casting any reflections on the French language, or not recognizing it as it should be recognized, I shall certainly draw the attention of the management to the matter with a view to having it rectified. That is the only reply I can give. The Government have never taken any such position as the hon. member has stated. I think the only point he made was that there had been no reply to the letter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No investigation.


John Dowsley Reid: There must be some
mistake. I have said that I have received a letter from the management as to the results of that investigation. What was the date of the letter?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: December 9, 1920.
The first letter I addressed to the official in Quebec was dated September 2.


John Dowsley Reid: I had been away, and
I returned just a few days before that. I have no excuse to offer other than there must have been some neglect on the part of the official who was gathering the data for my reply. I shall inquire why there was no reply, and let the hon. member have the explanation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not want to put all the blame on the minister. I know he would try to do his best, but, nevertheless, he has not made clear whether or not these instructions were issued by the management of the railway. He has simply said that he did not issue any such instructions himself. Have the management given any such instructions?


John Dowsley Reid: I have stated that this is the first time I have heard of any such charge as the hon. gentleman has made, and that I will take the matter up at once and see what the situation is. It is hard for me to believe that they would issue any such instructions as the hon. member has mentioned. Of course, as to any mistakes in the printing, they should take care that a properly qualified man does the work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Just to give another
instance of carelessness on the part of the management, this bill of lading to which I have already referred does not mention any of the stations from Quebec to Murray Bay. It refers to L'Epiphanie, Joliette, St. Paulin, Charette, Glenada, Aldred, Grand Mere, Garneau, Deschambault, Portneuf, and so on, all of which are on a line of railway that is not in that district at all, and it is therefore of no use to the public who travel along this line.
I also wish to make a complaint as to the conductor. The first time I took my seat on the car I paid a certain amount for my seat. The next week when I took a seat in the same car, the conductor in charge did not know the amount of the fare. He asked me, "How much did you pay last week?" I said, "You ought to know. You are the conductor. I am not running this railway." He said, "I do not know. Where are you going?" I said, "I am going to St. Irenee." He asked me, "Do you know what the fare is?" I said, "I think I paid 60 cents last week." He said, "Somebody else asked me for a ticket to Baie St. Paul. How much is that?" He did not have a booklet or anything, and did not know what to charge.

The next week I was going down on the very same train, and the same conductor was there in the same parlour car, and he was not properly dressed. He had no uniform at all, just an ordinary old suit of clothes. I complained and did not want to pay my fare. I said, "You are no officer of the company." He said "Yes, I am. I just got instructions to board this train a short time ago, and I did not have time to go home and change my clothes."


Arthur Bliss Copp: That did not matter. The
trains are never in a hurry.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I want to emphasize
that the railway is not being run in such a way as to bring in a proper return. I have a copy of the Canadian National Railway Magazine, of May 21, in which there are many advertisements, some pictures, and also some printed matter descriptive of the beauties of the peninsula of Gaspe, Chicoutimi district, and; other parts of Quebec, as well as the Maritime Provinces and Western Canada. I have never picked up one of these magazines, however, in which I have been able to find any reference to the many natural beauties of the county of Montmorency, which is an ideal summer resort, known not only throughout Canada, but in Europe and elsewhere. The exPostmaster General, the member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), visits that place every summer, and an ex-President of the United States, Mr. Taft, also goes there. It is a summer resort that is very much patronized, and I think that this magazine should publish something descriptive of the place. Not only do members of the House of Commons, who have passes, visit that district, but people from every part of the continent spend much time there. It is one of the oldest districts in the whole Dominion, and one of the most beautiful, but it has been shamefully neglected. Who publishes this magazine?


John Dowsley Reid: It is paid for out of
the operation expenses of the Canadian National Railways.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much does it
cost?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know, but I can
telephone to-morrow and find out, and let the hon. member know. There are a number of advertisements in the magazine which practically pay the cost of publishing it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I also see some pictures of tunnels along the line of the Canadian National railways. Well, we have splendid tunnels, magnificent harbours, and

beautiful scenery, to mention only the Montmorency Falls. We have also such splendid buildings as the navigation company's Hotel Charlevoix. Some of these things ought to be displayed in this magazine. I am sure that if the natural beauty, the tourist accommodation, and all the other attractions were properly advertised in this magazine the Minister of Railways would find that it would draw trade. The minister evidently is not alive to the fact that it pays to advertise, and this Government seems to be particularly reluctant about publishing abroad the advantages of Canada. I hope the minister will take steps to see that the county I represent is brought to the notice of prospective tourists and travellers.


John Dowsley Reid: I will take the hon.
member's suggestion into consideration.


Joseph Archambault: In justice to
the Minister of Railways, I want to say a few words in regard to the incident which has been referred to in connection with the Canadian National railway train between Montreal and Ottawa. My hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), were all present at the time. In my opinion, the parlour car conductor was indeed very insolent. I referred the matter to Mr. Hanna, and I believe that the Minister of Justice made representations to the Minister of Railways. There was an immediate investigation, with the result that the employee concerned was dismissed. He came to my office and apologized, and, as I thought that he had been punished sufficiently, I wrote to Mr. Pratt, the parlour car manager in Toronto, who wrote back informing me that they had had bad reports about this man from other places. I felt it was my duty to say this much regarding this incident. The minister acted in good faith, and the action that was taken was the result of an investigation.


John Dowsley Reid: There was another
case too.


Joseph Archambault: I am not aware of it. Now, with regard to the question of poor translation, I think this is due to the fact that this translation is done in Toronto, where they speak Parisian French, as my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) does. They probably know French, but they have no person who is capable of correcting proofs in French. In order to translate a language, you must have an
expert, and I would advise my hon. friend, the next time, to engage some good French-Canadian firm in Montreal. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier suggests Le Devoir.


Samuel William Jacobs: I said nothing at all.


Joseph Archambault: Well, some hon. member said Le Devoir, and the work would certainly be done well if they were consulted; but there are other French printers in Montreal.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why do you not move the head office of the Canadian National railways to Montreal? You would then be sure of having your translation work properly done.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: When the Quebec bridge was built, space was left for a highway, but that highway has not been finished. Is it the intention of the minister to complete it?


John Dowsley Reid: That matter has never been brought to my attention before. I will take it up and see what the situation is.


David Arthur Lafortune: I hope the committee will allow me two or three minutes in which to. submit a petition I have received from the citizens of Ville Lasalle. I have reference to the town of La Salle which is next to Lachine. The resolution in question was passed at a meeting the proceedings of which are recorded as follows:
Province of Quebec,	>
District of Montreal, ville Lasalle,
Office of the Municipal 'Council of the town of LaSalle.
Monthly and regular meeting of the Municipal Council of ville LaSalle, held on Wednesday, the 11th day of May, 1921, at eight o'clock p.m., in the hall of the Municipal Council of ville LaSalle, No. 13, Strathyre avenue, in the town of ville LaSalle, according to the provisions of the charts of the town.
At which meeting were present: His Honour the Mayor Anatole 'Carignan, and the Councillors Francois Xavier BSlanger, Cecil Platt [Newman, Charles Jean Mathieu, Malcolm Hodge, Thomas R. Smith, and Napoleon Alfred D'Amour, forming the whole of the imemlbers of this council, under the chairmanship of His Honour the Mayor Anatole Carignan.
F. Lafleur, the secretary-treasurer, is present.
Mr. S. A. Pelletier, legal adviser to the town, is present.
A report of the last meeting is read and approved.
Moved by Councillor N. A. D'Amour, seconded tby Councillor F. X. Bfilanger:
Whereas, St. Patrick street, along the south side of Lachine canal, within the limits of ville LaSalle is used for purposes of the canal.
Whereas the traffic on that street is very heavy and the street deteriorates very quickly.
Whereas the cost of maintenance of that street affects seriously the town's flnanow.

Whereas the town has rebuilt the surface of that part of the street east of the lift bridge opposite ville Saint-Pierre.
Whereas it is only just that the Government should help to repair that part of the street west of the lift bridge.
Resolved, that the Dominion Government Ibe requested to grant a certain amount of money to that town in order to help it to rebuild the surface of that part of St. Patrick street west of the lift bridge, which is in a very bad condition.
Carried
Ville LaSalle, May 13, mi.
True copy.
F. Lafleur, (Secretary-treasurer,
Ville LaSalle.
I wish to say that the traffic near the Lachine canal is so heavy that the street is considerably damaged every day by the heavy trucks, express wagons, and other conveyances passing through the town on the way to the canal. I hope the minister will look into this matter because it is only just that something should be done to help the municipality in the repair of that street. The property belongs to the Government, and such being the case it is only fair that they should come to the rescue of the corporation and do something in the desired direction. I will place the documents before the minister, together with a plan showing the portion of the street which is so much damaged. I am quite sure that when he considers the matter he will come to the decision to aid La Salle.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will kindly send me the plan I will take it up with the officials and see if we cannot dc something to carry out the hon. member's request.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


John Dowsley Reid: I move to amend the item as follows:
Insert after the word " the," in the sixth line, the words " Canadian National Railway Company, the."
Insert after the word " the,'* in the eigth line, the words "Canadian National ;Railway system or the."
Insert after the word " system," in the ninth line, the words " or any of them."
Insert after the word " of," in the twenty-first line, the words " the Canadian National Railway Company or."
Insert between the words " the," and "Grand," in the twenty-ninth line, the words "Canadian National Railway Company or the."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Loan not exceeding $26,000,000, repayable on demand with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, to

be used (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insu..cient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any time (by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or any company comprised in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, (excluding herefrom, however, guarantees by the Grand Trunk Railway Company which are provided if-or in item (if) of the next preceding vote), on any of the following accounts:- (a) operating deficits, (b) acquisition of .property, materials and supplies, (c) interest on notes, (securities or obligations, (dj the principal and interest of maturing or matured loans, secured or unsecured, (e) construction and betterments; such loan to be secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on such -terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve. The loan or assistance herein authorized may be made in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly in cash and partly by guarantee, in the discretion of the Governor in Council. Any guarantee from time to time given under the authority herein may be of the principal and interest of the notes, obligations or securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and may be signed by the Minister ,of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such -form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve.
John Dowsley Reid: I move to amend this item as follows:
Insert after the word " the," in the sixth line, the words " Canadian National Railway Company or the."
Insert after the word "the," in the eighth line, the words " Canadian National Railway system or in."
Insert a/fter the word " system," in the ninth line, the words " or any of them."
Strike out the word "vote," in the twelfth line and insert instead the word "item."
Insert after the word " the," in the nineteenth line, the words " Canadian National Railway Company or of the."
Insert after the word " the," in the twenty-seventh line, the words " Canadian National Railway Comipany or the."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Miscellaneous works not provided for, $2,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it not possible out of this vote to make the few little repairs that I urged upon the minister a few minutes ago?


John Dowsley Reid: Where?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The repairs to the
platforms at the places I mentioned, and also have a proper translation made.


John Dowsley Reid: That should come out of the working expenses under another vote. However, we will try and do what the hon. member wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Printing and Stationery; Outside Service,
57.000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is that printing and stationery for the Canadian National Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, this is the annual vote to provide for a stock of stationery supplies to be available in the department for the Outside Service. The printing for the Canadian National Railways is all done in Toronto; it has nothing to do with the department here.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where does the appropriation for the Canadian National Railways magazine appear?


John Dowsley Reid: That is paid out of the operating expenses in Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment of expenses in connection with the acquisition of the Grand. Trunk and associated railway systems, and the arbitration proceedings in connection therewith,
51.000. 000.	!
John Dowsley Reid: That is to meet the arbitration expenses; to pay the arbitrators and all the officials in connection with the arbitration proceedings.


Samuel William Jacobs: It seems rather a tidy sum.


John Dowsley Reid: There are several
lawyers, there are a lot of officials, and then there are the arbitrators as well.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the Government to pay the fees of the three arbitrators?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the Grand Trunk pays one, the Government pays one, and each pays half of the fees of the third.


Samuel William Jacobs: Seeing that we have
absorbed the Grand Trunk this money will be coming out of the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Samuel William Jacobs: Are we not assuming the indebtedness of the Grand Trunk as set forth in the agreement?


John Dowsley Reid: Not for these expenses.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then as I understand it from the minister we are not paying, directly or indirectly any part of the Grand Trunk's share of this arbitration?


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask what fee will be paid the arbitrator appointed by the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: That has not yet been determined. With respect to the Grand Trunk the Bill that was put through in reference to that company made it plain that they have to pay their share of the arbitration.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister says it has not been determined what the arbitrator's fee will be? When is it going to be determined?


John Dowsley Reid: Probably when they get through.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that a businesslike
way in which to conduct the affair? It seems to me that when we are making the appointment to an important position of this kind, we ought to have some clear arrangement with the party whom we employ as to what his salary, or fee, is to be in order to obviate misunderstanding later.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there
will be any misunderstanding.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand we have
arranged with the counsel engaged by the Government as to what their fees shall be?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why is there a distinction made between the arbitrator and the counsel? Is it because the Government fears it would be well to have an understanding with counsel?


An hon. MEMBER:: One is a lawyer
and the other is a gentleman.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend may have some clear idea as to what a gentleman is. He may think that he is one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Government railways-toward any deficiency in receipts and revenues necessary to meet working expenditures for the twelve months ending December 31, 1921, the management of the railway being hereby authorized to apply receipts and revenues towards payment of the said working expenditures, 57,000,000.
Jacques Bureau: I want to take a minute or two of the time of the committee to draw the attention of the minister to a question which I consider of national importance -and that is the desirability of patroling the Transcontinental railway in the interest of preventing forest fires. I must tell the minister that during the year 1920 one engine alone set over twenty-five fires, and one engine in the space of 18 miles set forty fires. This must be due to negligence on the part of somebody. It is not a merely local question, it is one which affects the

entire country through which the Transcontinental runs from Quebec to Cochrane. I am told, and have reason to believe, that from La Tuque to Cochrane the road is not patrolled at all. I have taken a lot of trouble to gather information on this matter and I would like to acquaint the committee with some of the details I have learned as to the damage done by fire in that particular region. During the investigation of the railway situation by a committee of this House I put a question to Mr. Mitchell and I asked him where the deficit in the operation of the railway came from, and he told me in the territory from Port Arthur east. Now most of the traffic which is obtained for this railway from Port Arthur east is from forest products. The request I desire to make is that the Transcontinental railway be put under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that the regulations that were passed by the board on July 4, 1913, when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was Chief Commissioner, shall also apply to the National railways. I clipped from the Montreal Gazette of May 20, a report of another fire set by the Canadian National railways. It is as follows:
"The Canadian National railways are not only using up our income tax, but they are also responsible for serious losses In our forests."
Those were the words of Mr. Elwood Wilson, chief forester of the Laurentide company, used by him after detailing his experience in passing through a considerable area of wooded farms in which great damage had already been caused by fire.
This fire is yet in progress and is threatening the homes of many settlers and farmers in an area of approximately four square miles In the vicinity of Proulxville and St. Narcisse.
The Are originated last week, and it is stated by Mr. Wilson that, although information of the outbreak had' been given to officials of the Canadian National railways at Garneau junction, no effort was made to combat the fire then, with the result that it spread until now it will require the organized efforts of several hundred men to limit its progress.
At this hour of the night I do not want to go into details, but there are certain things which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. At a convention ol all the managers of the various forestry associations which took place in Montreal last January the principal complaints made were against the national railways of setting fires to the limits through which the lines ran. The chief of the Ottawa River Forest Protective Association, Mr. A. H. Graham, was present. The chairman of the convention asked him if he had any remarks
fMr. Bureau.]
or complaints to make as to the ravages caused by forest fires in his district. Now, I am going to quote Mr. Graham's remarks to show that it is possible for a railway to run through a forest without causing any great damage, and to illustrate the interest taken by the Canadian National railways in protecting forests from fire as compared with the interest taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway. In reply to the invitation of the chairman, Mr. Graham said:
Mr. Chairman, we are not so greatly concerned In connection with the matter of the methods followed by the Canadian Government railways, as we have none of their lines in our territory. However, I can say this, the railway Ares can, to a very great extent, be controlled or prevented entirely, through the exercise of proper precautions. We have about 100 miles of C. P. R. line in our territory, and I think that all our Ares, occurring during the last three years, those started by the railway run about three or four per cent of the whole; and the area burned in any one Are has not exceeded an acre. X think that is a pretty good record for any railway to maintain, and so far as we are concerned, we are perfectly satisAed. We have nothing whatever to say against the C. P. R.
The Chairman (Brigadier General J. B.
White) : You are satisAed with the system this railway has adopted? You And they take prompt action in case of Ares, and assist in every way in extinguishing those which they were not able to prevent altogether?
Mr. Graham: We get absolutely strict and satisfactory action from the C. P. R.
I do not want to be understood as desirous of criticising the Canadian National railways administration; I am simply bringing this up as a national question. Sir George Bury stated at this convention that the traffic from an acre of well-timbered land was worth the accumulated traffic of an acre of wheat for eighty years, because you have to bring in men, supplies and equipment and that from that traffic and the outgoing freight more revenue accrues to the railway than from a similar acreage of wheat.
I might also refer to a statement made by Mr. Sturgis, nlanager of the St. Maurice Forest Protective Association, who, speaking after Mr. Graham, said that the record of Mr. Graham was different from his, and that in his territory, through which the Transcontinental ran, the right of way was really dirty. Now, I do not ask you to take Mr. Sturgis' testimony for that. If the minister or any of the officials of his department have travelled over that railway they must have seen that the weeds on the right of Way have never been cleared, for you can walk knee deep through dry grass and weeds. To show the minister what damage has been done I have had

photographs taken at every five miles and you can see on each side of the Transcontinental spaces of one, two and three miles absolutely bare. Out of 292 fires in 1920 152 were set by the Transcontinental railway. To show that there must be some lack of supervision I took the trouble to ask the superintendent to give me the number of each engine and the fires it had set from May 7 to October 11, 1920. Here is the record:
Engine No. 1942	
6	fires,1932	
6	"313	25	"1888	12	"5516	
2	"1927	
4	"Engine No. 2801	
3 fires.3269	
2	"3227	
4	"1921	
2	"
During that year they burned 41,876 acres of forest land and other property valued at $53,560.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who pays for those
damages?


Jacques Bureau: I can give the hon.
gentleman particulars of the amounts paid. The amount paid out by the St. Maurice Forest Protective Association for the season ending December 31, 1920, was about $51,000. This sum was contributed to as follows:
By Cash, Brown Corporation	 Assessment 1920, $9,893 37
Laurentide Co. Limited	
"	"	8,867	20St. Maurice Lumber Co	
"	"	6,594	40St. Maurice Paper Co	
"	"	6,134	40Belgo-Canadian P. & P.	Co.	Ltd	
"	"	3,669	73Wayagamack P. & P. Co. Ltd	
"	"	3,587	20Union Bag & Paper Co	
"	"	1,526	40Tourville Lumber Mills Co	
"	"	1,185	20J. A. Rousseau	
"	"	310	40Rodney L. Turner	
"	"	72	00William Copping	
"	"	194	40J. H. Dansereau	
"	"	120	00Reed & Company, Limited	
"	"	160	00Ellwood Wilson Company	
"	"	156	80Manouan Lumber P. & P.	Co	
"	"	36	00E. B. Eddy & Co. Ltd	
"	"	80	00G. C. Pich4	
"	"	25	00Cie Bois RlviSre Blanche	
"	"	17	50W. H. Weber	
"	"	3	50St. Maurice Paper Co. Ltd	Assessment 1919Wayagamack P. & P. Co	Rodney L. Turner	Union Bag-Paper Co	Manouan Lumber & P. Co	J. A. Rousseau	C. C. PichO	
"	"Cie Bois RiviSre Blanche	W. H. Weber	
"	"Canadian National Railways	Quebec Government Appropriation and Fire Fighting 1920	
Cash in Bank, January 1, 1920

1,507	97

2,476	23

I should add that the Canadian National railways paid in addition to the $167 other amounts totalling about $2,000.
The appeal that I want to make to the Minister of Railways on behalf of the lumbermen in that district is that the Transcontinental be brought under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, that the regulations contained in the order made by the commission when the Minister of Finance was Chief Commissioner should apply to the Transcontinental the same as
it does to the other railways, and that the Transcontinental should be made to patrol its right of way and pay its share of the cost whenever men are called upon to extinguish these fires, which would enure both to the benefit of the Transcontinental and the people of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that when the Canadian National Railway Bill becomes law the Canadian National system will be subject to jurisdiction of

the Railway Commission. But I am surprised at the statement of my hon. friend that there is any misunderstanding and that the order to which he refers does not apply to the Transcontinental railway. I gave instructions to the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners that if any complaints were made against the National Railway systems the hoard were to act as they would in respect to any line which was under the board's jurisdiction. Now, I did not understand until the hon. member brought it to my attention a few days ago that that order was not in force. I will send for it to-morrow and take the necessary steps to make it applicable to the Canadian National Railways.


Jacques Bureau: Can we expect the Act
respecting the Canadian National Railway Company to be soon put into effect?


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as we can
arrange it the board will be constituted and the whole thing put under one management. That will be done at an early day.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not want to delay the
committee in the passing of these items, but the hour is now late and we do not want to sit here all night. I have no objection to all these items passing except one, upon which I may have an opportunity to discuss the Canadian Government Railways when we next go into committee.


John Dowsley Reid: All right, we will leave one item.


Arthur Bliss Copp: With the understanding that we may discuss the Canadian Government Railways on that item?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for -the purchase, at prices not exceeding the amounts herein specified, of the following railways (the debt of each railway to the Canadian Government railways to be cancelled) ; interest on the purchase price of each to be payable at the rate of five per centum per annum from the date of taking possession to the date of transfer of title: (Such of the said railways as are within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada are hereby authorized to sell their respective assets and undertakings accordingly) :-
York and Carleton railway, $18,000.00-, revote, $4,5001; Moncton & Buctouche railway] $70,0100, revote, $70,000'; Caraquet & Gulf fhore railway, $200,00(0, revote, $50,000; interest estimated-from date of taking possession to March 31, 1922, not exceeding (including revote $39,0000, $47,500*-$172,000.
Mr. TURGEON:: This vote contains an item with respect to the Caraquet and Gulf

Shore railway. A delegation interviewed the Minister of Railways last winter with regard to the proposed extension of the line from Tracadie to Newcastle. The minister was not able to promise that the road would be constructed but he did say that a survey would be made during the summer. I trust that that will be done so that during the course of next year there will be better results from the operations of the railways in that part of the country. When in 1911 the Caraquet Railway was provided for by the Government of that day, the extension of line from Tracadie to Newcastle was also contemplated, but nothing has been done, the war intervened, and conditions have been unfavourable to any action. I do not blame the Government so much for not proceeding with the matter during the war, but I hope that the minister will now have the necessary survey made with a view to taking action. At the same time I suggest that he have a survey made with regard to an extension from Caraquet to Point Mrcel, where there is one of the finest hrbours in the Maritime Provinces. This is a distance of only seven miles, and I hope that when the minister is making the survey for the other line he will have this matter also attended to.


John Dowsley Reid: All right.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Joseph Doherty: Before the House adjourns, I desire to give notice that later in the day the Prime Minister will move:
That on and after Friday, the third day of June instant, until the end of -the present session, the House shall meet at Eleven o'clock in- the morning of each day except Sundays, and that in addition- to -the usual -intermission ait Six o'clock, P.M., there shall be also, an intermission every day from One to Three o'clock, P.M. and that the various committees of the House be at liberty to sit during the sessions of the House.
It has been suggested that the noon-day adjournment should be from one to two o'clock. That is a matter that might be considered by hon. gentlemen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman when he expects prorogation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have had hopes for Saturday, and with a little co-operation-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you not received co-operation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have, and the cooperation that we have received has strengthened our hopes.


Jacques Bureau: Hon. members who sit behind the minister should settle any little grievances they may have amongst themselves-this is only a friendly suggestion 

and members of the Opposition should be given the time of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With a view to help towards reaching prorogation, I wish to say in all friendship to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) that if he intends to proceed with his resolution on the Insurance Act, he may have some difficulties, because I can tell him that from the attorneys general of all provinces and the various insurance companies there is very strong opposition to that resolution.
I do not say that the Bill which he intends to introduce is so contentious that it should not pass under ordinary circumstances, but it is too late in the session to rush the Bill through. I would suggest that the hon. member give notice to the insurance companies of the tenor of the Bill that he intends to introduce, and that he introduce it at the next session so that we may go home on Sunday.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps we might take these resolutions up now and see if we can get rid of them. It will not take long to discuss them. The main subject has been before the House now for two years. It was reported on favourably by the committee last year. They reported that the Bill of last year should go through. It has, in principle, been in the hands of every insurance company that has taken any interest in it for two years, and for six weeks as far as this Bill is concerned. Some important interests will suffer if this Bill does not go through.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in earnest. These are friendly suggestions to my hon. friend. I have taken pains to move for the correspondence exchanged between the department and the various provincial governments-	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is just
on one point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can see that from
the attorneys general of the different provinces there is a hue and cry against this Bill. The minister will simply invite strenuous opposition in this House and in the other chamber. I do not say that as a threat; I am giving the advice of a candid friend. It is too late in the day to promote this Bill. Let us go on with the ordinary business.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
to accommodate my hon. friend. There is one section which the provinces object to, and it may be that that section will have to be dropped. There is another section which was also contentious, although it has been agreed to half a dozen times. That is the section under which I propose to reduce the tax to a nominal amount on the net insurance. There should be absolutely no objection to the main part of the Bill which is simply for the purpose of putting Canadian companies on an even competitive basis with British and foreign companies that are now carrying on business in Canada. It has been once recommended; it has been before the House a long time. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there may be delay in connection with the clauses regarding agents.
I am not saying that I am going to insist on those for a moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree as regards the provision in connection with foreign companies operating in Canada, but the minister will receive opposition from all the provinces as regards licenses. There are other contentious clauses that I know of, and I have followed the resolution from the beginning. I have received a mass of correspondence and I know that the first thing my hon. friend will hear, after having, not lost, but taken the time of the House in the dying days of the session, will be that delegations are coming from Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg, Halifax to protest against some of the clauses of the Bill, and then my hon. friend will do what I suggest he should do now. Let us be businesslike and proceed with business that will surely pass and leave this contentious Bill until next session.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we
may be able to drop the contentious part of it.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT, 1917

[Stage Direction]
On the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to amend the Insurance Act, 1917.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. .LEMIEUX:	If I had known that
the minister intended to go on with this to-night, I would have objected at this hour to taking up the discussion of this matter.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the suggestion came from the other side. Order stands.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 1.57 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, June 2, 1921.