PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That the Orders in Council P.C. 2483, dated October 23, 1920, and P.C. 2652, dated November 1, 1920, in respect to changes in the organization of the Law Branch of the House; and also, the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission with respect to the compensation for certain positions on the staff of the House; the whole pursuant to subsection (1) of section 45B of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1919, be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. K. SPINNEY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918. He said: In this Bill there are incorporated in italics some tentative restrictions which cannot be considered as final, but rather on account of the Bill not being allowed to be presented in blank. It is the purpose of the Government, after the second reading, to move that the bill be referred to a Special Committee of the House.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny.-Mr. Ross.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. C. MEWBURN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 121, (from the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. DAVIDSON:: 1.	Was foundation stock for a herd of Guernsey cattle on the Experimental Farm, Nappan, purchased by the Department of Agriculture, during 1919 or 1920?
2.	If so, what was the 'breed, age and price of the said cattle, from whom were they purchased and what are the respective addresses of the persons from whom they were bought?
3.	What was the total expense in regard to the animals purchased respectively in Canada and in the United States in regard to transportation, commissions and exchange?
4.	On whose advice and recommendation were the animals purchased?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE :: 1.	A foundation herd of Guernsey cattle was purchased for the Experimental Farm, at Nappan, N.S., in the year 1920.
2.	As noted above the breed was Guernseys. The age and price of animals and name and address of persons from whom they were purchased were as follows:
A.	Bought from C. S. Houghton, Stan-nox Farm, Holliston, Mass. (1) 7 years "Segne Christine of the Isle", $600; (2) 4 years "Queen of Sherburn", $400; (3) Heifer calf from "Queen of Sherburn", $200; (4) 7 years "Princess of Stannox", $900.
B.	Bought from Mixter Farms, Gilbert-ville, Mass. (1) 3 years "Mixter Princess," $2,000; (2) 1 year "Mixter May Rayder," $2,000.
C.	Bought from H. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S. (1) 6 years "King's Blanche of Hillside" $2,000; (2) 4 years "Princess Daisy of Hillside," and calf., $600; (3) 4 years "Cabbage Rose of Hillside" and calf., $1,000; (4) 3 years "Princess Dairymaid" and calf., $400.
3.	Transportation on lot bought in Canada, $42.80; transportation on lot bought in United States, $185. No commission or exchange.
4.	These animals were selected and purchased by the Director of Experimental Farms, Ottawa, and the Superintendent of the Experimental Farm, Nappan, N.S.


TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON LIVE STOCK FODDER
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Did the Government pay transportation charges on hay, straw or other fodder for live stock in the southern portions of the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta during the winter of 1919-1920?
2.	If so, what amount of transportation charges were so paid?
3.	To what transportation company or companies was said freight paid and how much to each company?	-


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes, on certificates issued by the Provincial Governments.
2.	In all to date an expenditure of $897,196.15 has been incurred in transportation charges on hay, straw and other fodder for live stock, and also on the transportation of live stock from dry areas to feed areas and return. Of this amount $429,927.12 is collectible from the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, being 50 per cent of the freight charges on shipments under certificates issued by them. It is not possible to give the amount for freight-charges on feed alone.
3.	The following will be the amounts paid to the different companies in connection with the transportation of feed and live stock:
Canadian Pacific Railway.. . .$556,402.82 Canadian National Railways.. 228,101.26 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.. 75,152.91 Edmonton, Dunvegan & British
Columbia	 197.25
Total	$859,854.24
Of this amount, as stated above, 50 per cent is collectible from the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. An amount of $37,342.15 has also been paid to the province of Alberta, being 50 per cent of freight charges in connection with the movement of stock under certificates issued by them. This makes a total expenditure by the Dominion Department of Agriculture on account of freight charges for the movement of feed and stock for the winter 1919-20 of $467,269.27.


MAIL CONTRACT, WHITE HORSE-DAWSON
Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon) :: 1.	How many tenders were received for the present mail contract between White Horse and Dawson, Yukon Territory?
2.	Who were the tenderers?
3.	What was the time limit in each tender?
4.	What was the amount of mail to be carried on each trip?
5.	What was the amount of money asked for each class of service?

6.	When was the present contract made?
7.	When does the present contract expire?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Summer service, one; winter service, two.
2.	Summer service: British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited; winter service: Mr. C. W. Cash; Messrs, D. H. Coates and
O.	F. Kastner.
3.	Summer service: British Yukon Navigation Company; semi-weekly between White Horse and Dawson, and weekly between Atlin and Careross; winter service: C. W. Cash, (a) 18 days; (b) 12 days; (c) 10 days; winter service: Messrs. D. H. Coates and O. F. Kastner, 15 days.
4.	Summer service: unlimited; winter service: C. W. Cash (a) fall period, 700 pounds per trip; midwinter period, 1,200 pounds per trip; spring period, 700 pounds per trip; (b) same as above; (c) same as above. Winter service: Messrs. D. H. Coates and O. F. Kastner, fall period, 750 pounds per trip; midwinter period, 1,200 pounds per trip; spring period, 700 pounds per trip and 500 pounds without cost on any extra winter trip made in midwinter period.
5.	British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited, summer service, $35,000 per season. C. W. Cash, winter service, (a) $96,000 per season; $115,000 per season; (c) $125,000 per season. Messrs. D. H. Coates and O. F. Kastner, winter service: $85,000 for winter, 1920-21, and if contract awarded for two years, $75,000 for winter, 1921-22.
6.	British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited, contract made November 17, 1920; Messrs. D. H. Coates and O. F. Kastner, September 30, 1920.
7.	British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited, present contract expires at the close of navigation, 1921; Messrs. D. H. Coates and O. F. Kastner, opening of navigation, 1922.


DAYLIGHT SAVING IN OTTAWA
*Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	Has the Government been advised by the Corporation of the City of Ottawa that daylight saving will become effective in the city on Sunday, May 1 ?
2.	If so, is it the intention to invite both Houses to conform to city time after that date, during the present session?
3.	Is it the intention to apply Ottawa time to the public departments for the coming summer?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The question of change as to the hours of the House of Commons and the Senate is in the hands of those bodies.
There has been no decision arrived at so far as the Government is concerned.
3.	The departments will comply with city regulations, according to the usual practice.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	How many automobiles does the Government own and use in Ottwa?
2.	How many chauffeurs are employed, what are their names and respective salaries?
3.	Who are the Ministers and Deputy Ministers who use the said cars?
4.	What other officials are using them and for what special purpose ?
5.	Have any of said automobiles been used on Sundays during the last fiscal year? If so, by whom?
6.	Has the Government any garage in the city of Ottawa?
7.	If so, what did it cost during the last fiscal year for maintenance, wages, gasoline, repairs of all, and tires respectively?
8.	Was the said garage purchased by the Government? If so, from whom, at what price, and when was it purchased?


EXTRADITION TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: I would like to direct the
attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to the announcement in the press that an extradition treaty providing for the extradition of certain classes of offenders from Canada to the United States has been approved by the Senate at Washington. I desire to ask whether that treaty has been submitted to the Parliament of Canada.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: The treaty in question is
one that has been standing for quite some time since it was made. As far as my knowledge goes, the treaty has not been submitted to Parliament, but I shall look into the question and see exactly what the situation is.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it understood that
we always wait in all things for the lead of Washington.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not always, but action on our part would not be of any use unless we had the evidence that the United States was willing to accept the treaty. It would perhaps not be possible for us to take any definite action until we knew their attitude on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a
reason for the United States to do nothing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would suggest that
we can do nothing under a treaty until both parties agree.
2688	COMMONS


William Stevens Fielding: We are one of the
parties.


ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve) :: May I ask if it is the intention
of the Government that the House shall sit next Thursday, which is Ascension Day? We never sat on Ascension Day before.


Arthur Meighen: The matter has not been under consideration, but I presume that the usual practice will be followed.


RELIEF FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: Com-
[DOT] munications have come to me directly and I have also seen statements in the press to the effect that a large number of returned men, some of them disabled, are in most dire need in some of our Canadian cities. May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether any measure of immediate relief has been provided, and if not, whether the Government intends to take any immediate steps to assist these men?


Arthur Meighen: The Government has
throughout the winter taken measures which I think are well known to the House for the relief of unemployment generally, and very special measures for the relief of unemployed disabled soldiers. As spring approached there was some modification of the relief as regards the special class. I am sure that I could state with exactness just what that modification was. Requests have been made for the commencement of public works, and for putting men on pay and allowance. Many requests are made on the supposition, no doubt, that there is an infinite reservoir of supply. As yet these additional special requests have not been granted.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac) :: On
March 14* as appears at page 95 of the Votes and Proceedings, an order of the House was passed for a copy of all official correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba respecting subsection 5 of clause 325 of the Consolidated Railway Act of Canada. The papers have not been brought down, and I should like to ask

the Minister of Railways when they may be expected.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) :: I will inquire.


RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 116, to amend the Research Council Act and to establish a National Research Institute.
He said: Before the House goes into committee it would probably be well to make a short explanation, although I think the House is already pretty well advised as to the objects of the Bill from the fact that the matter has already been before two committees of the House, has been reported on by each committee, and the report was unanimously assented to by the House.
Hon. members are aware that some years ago a start was made on the line of scientific investigation and research by the appointment of the Honorary Advisory Council, made up of representatives of scientific institutions, representatives of business, and representatives of commercial interests. The basis upon which this Advisory Council was formed was that the components of it occupied honorary positions and gave their services gratis. Their expenses in attending the meetings of the council were met, of course. The>
gentlemen composing the council were selected from different parts of the Dominion, and for two or three years they have been functioning along the line of the powers set out in the Act upon which their appointment was based. There was one paid officer, and that was the administrative chairman of the council. Dr. Macallum was unanimously chosen by the Advisory Council for that position. He occupied the position until a couple of months ago, when he resigned, having accepted a professorship in McGill university. He is at present out of the country, engaged upon some special work for the Rockefeller Institute in China. At the present time his place is being taken by Dr. Ruttan, who performs the service gTatuitously, no permanent nominee having been appointed as chairman of the Advisory Council because we had in view this legislation and thought it well not to make any permanent appointment until it had been brought before the House and the opinion of Parliament expressed with reference tc

it. The line of action generally taken by the Advisory Council was, in the first place, to unite, as far as possible, scientific persons from every part of the Dominion on committees along the lines of their particular pursuits, and in co-operation with the central Advisory Council. That involved a good deal of communication, personal and otherwise, which occupied a great deal of the time of the Advisory Council. They have been eminently successful in gathering together these units of scientific research in all provinces of the Dominion and uniting them in co-operation with the work of the Advisory Council, and have, by means of studentships, bursaries and fellowships, interested and kept in research work, students who during their progress through the universities have shown a particular aptitude for such work, and who have been enabled after their graduation, by means of these studentships, bursaries and fellowships-not of any large amount, but still adequate for the purpose-to carry on their labours'and to prosecute research along the different lines mapped out by the council. In this way a great deal of very useful research work has been carried on, and, what is better still, a force has been registered and enrolled, so to speak, forming a basis for more mature and extended research work in the future, and providing the human material necessary therefor. The war introduced a disconcerting feature in the matter and, of course, there has not been accomplished quite as much as would otherwise have been done.
I suppose we are all agreed that the results to be obtained from research work are in one respect problematical and, in another respect, require length of time in order that we may judge whether or not they will be successful. That is to say, research cannot be begun along a certain line and carried to successful completion, with practical results, within any stated time. Some lines of research take much longer than others. Some are followed for months and months and afterwards are found to have been ineffectual and consequently nothing has resulted from them. There are two or three noted cases, however, which have so far resulted from the work of the Advisory Council. I may mention, amongst these, the investigations that are being made with reference to the peat industry, with the co-operation of the Advisory Council, the Government of Ontario and the Department of Mines, in whose laboratory, and with whose assistance,
much of the preliminary work of research was carried on. In regard to the briquetting of low-grade lignites, I think a notable work has been in process of successful completion under the co-operation of the Advisory Council and some of the departments at Ottawa. The matter had proceeded so far, and the laboratory research had been so promising, that the Dominion Government and the two governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan united their financial contributions to the building and equipment of a unit for briquetting lignite, and the work is now well on the way to completion at Este-van, Saskatchewan. In a few months, it is believed, the commercial product will be turned out in such a quality and under such conditions that two difficulties will be overcome, difficulties which made it almost impossible to transport and use the low-grade lignites-first the difficulty of handling, and second, the difficulty due to the effect of the weather upon the lignite. With proper briquetting you have a concentrated product which is nearly, if not quite, equivalent-to the same weight of anthracite coal. I shall, not go into the matter any further than to mention these as examples of a progress towards actual results which, if everything turns out well, will mean many millions of dollars in the utilization of our natural resources and in the economy of manufacture, of production, and of living.
It has been found, however, that something more was needed than the line of work carried on by the Advisory Council, and for the last two or three years a great deal of examination has been carried on with reference to the formation and establishment of a national research laboratory or institute for the Dominion as a whole; and the committee appointed under the chairmanship of my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn), during the past two years, has made a pretty thorough examination of that subject and has reported in favour of the establishment of such a researchinsti-tute. That report was unanimously agreed to by the House, and it is towards concurrence in it, and for the purpose of carrying out its recommendations, that the main part of the legislation which is being introduced to-day is directed. I do not think any one will deny the fact that if Canada is to compete in productive processes with the other nations of the world, and is to maintain her rate of progress pari passu with them, much more attention must be given to this matter of scientific research
[Stage Direction]
than it has so far received, as well as to the solution of the problems which occur in every line of production, and the difficulties which are encountered in manufacturing or producing processes and which must be solved in some way or other if the cost of production is to be reduced to the lowest possible figure and if waste products are to be economically utilized. Our own manufacturers have done something along those lines, but it has not been at all commensurate with the need. In the United States great industries carry on, at. their own expense, very extensive laboratories of research, and some of them spend millions of dollars a year in carrying out those researches. They are, however, very rich and powerful corporations and they are quite able to do it. It is also true that the Federal Government in the United States has established a well equipped and extensive laboratory and bureau of standards and research in tne vicinity of Washington and is carrying on, on its own account and in co-operation with manufacturing industries, extensive research in almost every branch of production, even down to domestic economies.
In Great Britain a lesson was taught- we have often expressed the idea ourselves, and it has been very often expressed by the British people themselves-a lesson was taught in the war when, by a certain conjuncture of circumstances, Great Britain was cut off from her sources of supply. She was thrown back upon her own resources, and found that those resources were absolutely inadequate, in so far as regards making the desired progress. Consequently great expense was incurred and great loss was caused, dire peril almost was encountered at times, because of the lack of these research facilities in the active processes in the country necessary to the successful carrying on of. the War. Spurred on by that lesson the British Government has been very active since. It has formed an Advisory Council of Research upon which we based ours two or three years ago. But the British Government has also made an appropriation of a very large amount of money-a million of pounds, I think-and it is using that as a help and an incentive to the different guilds and associations in order to found and carry on researches into the different scientific processes. I hold in my hand a sheet lately issued which shows twenty-three of these research associations in Great Britain, now absolutely formed and at work, besides a great many others that are under way.

It might be of use to know just the lines along which these associations are forming themselves. There is, for instance, the British Boot, Shoe and Allied Trades' Research Association; the British Cotton Industry Research Association; the British Empire Sugar Research Association; the British Iron and Manufacturers' Research Association; the Research Association of British Motors and Allied Manufacturers; the British Photograph Research Association; research associations in cement, in the woollen and worsted industries, in the manufacture of scientific instruments, in rubber and tire work; the Linen Industry Research Association; the Glass Research Association; the British Association of Research for the Cocoa, Chocolate, Sugar, Confectionery and Jam Trades; the Shale Oil Research Association; the British Launderers' Research Association, and so on through the entire list. By arrangement with the British Government a certain amount of the money allocated by it is, under certain conditions, placed at the disposal of these associations, who themselves raise the additional funds necessary to carry on their work.
Now, the institute which it is proposed to establish in Canada will run something along those lines. That is its object will be, in the first place, to establish standards fori weighing, measuring and1 otherwise judging materials used in industry and commerce, and to extend the knowledge and use of those standards. It will conduct researches itself, independently of guilds or associations of outside industries. In addition, it will equip a laboratory to a certain extent, and will throw that equipment and that facility open to associations and guilds m industries Who then provide their own funds and their own researchers. Those researchers will thus be given a central point from which to act and the advantage of an equipment which it would be difficult for the individuals themselves to supply, and the advantage also of intimate relationship with, and supervision by, the staff of the institute itself where it is asked for.
Without going further into the subject, it is proposed now that Canada, in this manner and with federal influence and aid-and it is believed to be high time- should assist the producers of Canada towards an extension and a widening of scientific (research, so that these great forces of nature which are found all about us, and which are at present unutilized, may be more quickly brought into

use on our farms and in our industries, and thus the natural resources of the country may be more fully and more speedily developed. We in Canada must all put our shoulders to the wheel and try to give an incentive and impetus to these indispensable factors in the future productive life of the country. It is not to be assumed that this is simply to aid manufacturers, or to aid any special interest. This research has done in the past, and may well do in the future, as great and signal a work in connection with the processes of agriculture and all the fundamental production of the country, as has been done in the line of what we call especially the manufacturing industries. There is this also to be said in reference to the matter. Unless some impetus be given from a central federal point, although the work may ultimately be accomplished, that work will occupy longer time than would otherwise be the case; and the lack for a few years of these productive aids may mean a very great disadvantage to the Canadian people not only as regards their own productive powers and comfort, but in connection with production at lessened cost and the greater utilization of what is now wasted, such as will enable them to successfully face competition in the world about them-not only in the home market but in the foreign market as well.
The proposed legislation divides itself into two parts. There is, first, an amendment of the present Act. A sub-committee of council was established under that Act, composed of myself as chairman, and three of my colleagues. It was thought that it would ibe useful to have this matter carried out under the auspices of such a sub-committee as the body to which the advisory council should apply, and from which it could get the approval of its measures. As a matter of fact it has been found impracticable to carry the work out in that way. You can get meetings of the Cabinet with reasonable regularity of attendance, where you have the interests of the whole to be looked after; but when you make a sub-committee stand in the place of the minister with reference to a branch of work being carried on under him, practical difficulties arise. It works out in the end to this-the chairman of the sub-committee must take the responsibility and in the main must carry on the work. So much delay is caused in getting together the members of the sub-committee that it keeps back all the work of the department, and if you a.dhere to that method absolutely it
is very difficult to make progress or to have satisfactory administration. Therefore it is proposed to put the Advisory Council under the charge of a minister-the Minister of Trade and Commerce-with the usual reference to the Governor in Council.
I think that will have the effect of making the administration much more easy and satisfactory.
That is one purpose of the amendment in the first part of the Bill. Besides that, the council, which now consists of eleven members, will be increased to fifteen, it being thought advisable to have a little larger and, maybe, a little wider representation of the Advisory Council on the Institute of Research. As before, these men who work on the Advisory Council are not to be paid salaries. The chairman may be paid a salary. It works on the same old principle of the services being honorary, but with the expenses of the members of the council being looked after when they are engaged on the work of that body.
Mr. BUREAU:: Might we have some
explanation of the second part of the Bill which seems to be new?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Yes. The explanation of the second part has been partly given, although not in a very comprehensive way, in the observations I have already made. The kernel of the matter is this: First, there shall be established at or in the vicinity of Ottawa a National Research Institute. The staff is to consist of a director and such scientific and technical and other officers, clerks and employees as may foe necessary for carrying on the work of the institute. It is to be placed under the supervision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The director is to devote his whole time to his duties as director of the institute, and he is to report to the council on the work of the institute from time to time or whenever called upon so to do. He is to have the right to be present and take part in the discussions, but not to vote. He is to a certain extent the agent or servant of the council and does their work under their instructions, and reports to them when called upon so to do, but he has no determining vote in any matter. The institute is to have charge of researches undertaken to promote the utilization of the natural resources of Canada. It is also to have charge of researches undertaken with the Object of improving the technical processes and methods used in industries, and of discovering new processes and methods which may promote the expansion of

existing or the development of new industries. It is also to have charge of researches undertaken with the view of utilizing the waste products of our industries which to an immense value are to-day being lost.


Jacques Bureau: If the minister will allow me, I think I can save him the trouble of further explanation. I understand this Bill is for the establishment of a laboratory to try and get all the by-products possible from our industries?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Is the initiative to be taken by council, or can any man engaged in industry ask them to make the necessary researches to see if certain byproducts can be recovered and utilized?


George Green Foster: For instance,
suppose the people engaged in an industry come up against some difficulty in the course of their work. They bring the problem to the institute. If they are a wealthy body, or one of a line of industrial as-siciations working in the same industry, they are given a place in the institute, and they can put their own investigators upon the problem. Or they can get the institute itself to assign them an investigator, and then with the advice and supervision of the staff of the institute they conduct their research work in order to get results as best they can. I may say that already certain large industries have signified their intention of doing research work on extensive lines the moment that the institute is put in a position to give them the necessary facilities. No one is restricted from bringing his problem to the institute and putting it before the council. Of course, the council must use its own judgment as to whether the problem is of sufficient importance for them to undertake its solution. Naturally, it would not be possible to take up every proposal.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand rightly, the equipment of this laboratory is to be at the disposal of the particular industry that wants to carry on certain research work which the council does not itself want to undertake?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Subject to the supervision of the council?


George Green Foster: Yes, that is, the council itself undertakes to carry on its own research work and it affords facilities for any association or body to carry on their own research work. Then, there is the [Sir George Poster.!	.
standardization and certification of the scientific and technical apparatus and instruments for government service and for use in the industries of the country. I think I ought to mention that in the course of the work of the departments at Ottawa there have been various lines of investigation and research set on foot in a more or less limited way, and that excellent work has been done. It is not proposed to duplicate that service, neither is it proposed to do anything else than co-operate with those services that we already have in order that through co-operation results may be secured. But with all that we have, there does seem to be a necessity for correlating them and drawing them all together; and that will be one of the primary efforts of the Research Institute, as it has in fact been of the Advisory Council up to the present time.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell) :: Mr. Speaker, the explanations that have just been given by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in connection with the Bill whose second reading he has moved, will make easier an intelligent consideration of the provisions of the Bill when it reaches the committee. Notwithstanding all that the right hon. gentleman has said, one or two observations may, I submit, be advanced by way of pointing out a few things that have been omitted in the right hon. gentleman's very admirable address.
We were told in the course of that address that this Bill proposes to set up a new national institution called the National Research Institute. Now, in these days of deficits that occur from day to day and keep on careering skywards, it might possibly be of interest to the House-although at times the House does not show very much interest in such subjects 4 p.m. -and it certainly would be of interest to the people of Canada, to know what additional outlay will be occasioned by the setting up of this new National Research Institute. It is conceivable, Sir, that this new departure may involve a very large annual expenditure -an expenditure which, I submit, no prudent government, no prudent minister, would embark upon at the present time, We are all agreed upon the desirability of applying science to industry, but there is not such general agreement as to the method proposed in this Bill being the best method by which that can be brought about in this country. There are a number of people, engaged in business in a very large
\

way, who hold the opinion that the creation of this institute is an unnecessary addition to the departments of government and that it is an unjustifiable addition to the public debt. Besides that, I may point out that the right hon. gentleman mentioned that at present there are a number of departments of government in which scientific and technical work is carried on and has, in fact, been carried on for many years. In that connection let me suggest that it would be very much better to try to improve the work of that character carried on in these departments than to create this National Institute. It would be very much better, I submit, to pay particular attention to the work of the Mines Department, from which a number of capable scientific men have gone into larger fields promising them greater scope for the exercise of their ability and larger remuneration for their services. Canada during the last few years has lost the services of a number of capable and promising men, because of the fact that those men found that their services were not sufficiently recognized,-men, Sir, who had achieved distinction in their professions and in regard to whose scientific ability there could be no doubt. I submit that instead of creating this new National Research Institute it would be more to the point to make a close and complete survey of the research and ..scientific work now being carried on by the several departments of the Government, and to make provision to retain the services of those who are employed there by giving them adequate remuneration and thus making sure that no more of them will leave Canada to seek employment in larger and more lucrative fields. My fear, S^ir, is that this institute, instead of attracting men of undoubted scientific ability, men qualified to make research, will attract, as have other branches of the Government-I do not mean under this Administration particularly- men who through Constant organization and the exercise of publicity characteristics, make the public believe that they are scientific men, that they are adepts in research: Now, there is a certain class of persons in this country-and I assume that Canada is not peculiar in that regard -who take the attitude that the country owes them a living. So firmly do they hold that conviction that their chief occupation in life is to make other people entertain the same view, and it is notorious that they fasten themselves upon public institutions, secure employment at fat salaries, and through the agency of well-directed propaganda acquire reputations which do not rest on any solid foundation. As a college man, Sir, I am sorry to say that a good many of these gentlemen are the product of our colleges and universities. I have in mind a man who is a type of that class of person. During the years of peace, particularly during the years immediately preceding the war, this gentleman set himself up as an authority on peace. It was therefore necessary to have something established in which he could display his ability as an authority on peace, and propaganda developed until a job was found here; we were going to celebrate one hundred years of peace by the erection of a memorial or something-I think it was to be at Niagara -and this particular college gentleman was the great exponent of the one hundred years of peace. One fine day war broke out, and presto, overnight this same gentleman became an authority on war; within twenty-four hours he passed from the position of an authority on peace to that of an authority on war and he secured another government job as an expert on war problems. He held that position throughout the war and, at a good, fat salary, was an authority on all matters connected with the war.


Mr. NESBITT:: How about peace now?


Charles Murphy: I am coming to that; I have the whole case. The war ended, and presto, in another twenty-four hours this gentleman changed from an authority cm war to an authority on re-establishment of soldiers, and to-day he enjoys a fat salary as an authority on that subject. Now, Sir, I am afraid that is the kind of "scientific expert" who will attach himself to this institute, no matter what party is in power and no matter what administration may be charged with the duty of administering this Act. If I did not have so many examples of this kind before me during a residence in Ottawa almost as lengthy as the years that have passed over the heads of some hon. gentlemen in this House, I would not be so sceptical about the success of this institute. But knowing what these gentlemen, who believe that the world owes them a living, are capable of doing, and having so many examples in Ottawa of what they have done, I may be pardoned if, on this occasion, I inform the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) that, as regards his Bill and the institute to be carried on under it, "I'm from Missouri."
The right hon. gentleman did not mention that up to the present time any Canadian industry had availed itself of the work done by this Advisory Council of

Industrial and Scientific Research. That fact may, without any unfairness, be taken as proof that up to the present time this Council has not impressed itself upon the industrial life of this country to such an extent that those who conduct business operations within that portion of our national life feel themselves likely to be benefited by appealing for assistance or advice to this Council.
The right hon. gentleman, at one point of his address, commenced to enumerate the results up to date. He stated that there were three. I followed him closely, and I heard him mention only two. I made a note of those two. The first was that the Council had carried on investigations in connection with the peat industry, and he made a very proper observationwthat if success attended those investigations, then one of the great problems connected with fuel might be solved. He did not give us any proof that those investigations or experiments had gone the length of supplying peat as a substitute for coal or wood. In fact, we who live in Ottawa know that for many years experiments in the production of peat have been carried on within a short distance of the city, but nobody in Ottawa is prepared to venture the assertion that, up to the present time, the production of peat in that particular locality has been a success. In fact, you will find in Ottawa many people who have been induced to buy peat, largely for the purpose of helping to develop this industry, who will tell you that under no circumstances would they use it again. Therefore, according to such information as is at my command, I am unable to see that any success has attended the efforts of this Council to develop the peat industry.
The right hon. gentleman stated that another result of the operations of the Council was that a plant had been established for the briquetting of low-grade lignite at a point which he mentioned out in the West. That subject came up a few days ago when an item of the Estimates was under discussion, and in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), the right hon. gentleman said that, in that regard also, no partic-Qlar results had been obtained, but that it was expected that in a few months' time those briquettes would be turned out. That observation, I think, my right hon. friend repeated to-day. So that with regard to the briquetting of lignite, we are in the same position as we were a few weeks ago; we are still living in hope, but we have not 
any lignite from this plant in the shape of fuel. [DOT] In view, however, of what my right hon. friend stated, I think it would be only fair to suspend any criticism on that point until we have something definite to go upon after the expiration of the next few months.
fTo come back for a moment to an observation made by my right hon. friend with regard to the work done in several of the departments by officials who possess scientific knowledge and who are experts in research work, let me point out that, up to the present time, the Government of Canada has expended, roughly speaking, about $2,000,000 in providing apparatus for officials who are engaged in this class of work in these several departments. I have no doubt that, if we have regard to the increase in prices, it would not be possible to replace that apparatus to-day at an expenditure of less than $4,000,000. This is an investment that the Government of Canada has made which is likely to be scrapped if this National Research Institute proceeds upon the lines laid down in the Bill,-although I observe that my right hon. friend mentioned that it was not intended to disregard officials in the several departments of their work; but as I have said, my fear is that newspaper "scientists", newspaper "research experts", will be the men, who, in the main,, will be connected with this new research institute, and that the thoroughly capable Government official, the man of undoubted scientific knowledge and of research ability, will be shoved into the background, will lose heart, will eventually leave the service and will go, as so many of them have gone, to the United States where their services are better appreciated. That is a contingency which, above all others, should he guarded against in connection with the present legislation. I am not, as I said before, opposed to the establishment of a national research institute, still less am I opposed to anything that may be done to bring about the application of science to industry; but I have grave doubt whether the method proposed by this Bill is the best way to secure that result.
In connection with the Bill itself, may I point out to the right hon. gentleman that there is nothing to prevent this institute from duplicating the work of any department of the Government without reference to the department engaged in that particular work? For that reason, I would suggest that he ought to incorporate:

in the Bill a provision that would make duplication of work absolutely impossible.


George Green Foster: A guard will be inserted in that respect.


Charles Murphy: I am very much pleased to hear that. My observations so far have borne fruit.


George Green Foster: The fruit was on the tree before my hon. friend observed it.


Charles Murphy: Then the country will pluck it. I have in mind, perhaps, the section of the legislation to which my right hon. friend refers; but if I am correct in that surmise, I wouild point out to him that greater precaution than that is necessary. To prevent this work of duplicating-in plain language, to prevent the wasting of public funds-[DOT] my right hon. friend ought to provide that amongst the increased number who will compose the members of the Council as set forth in the Bill, there shall be included several present officials of the Government who are engaged in scientific and research work in different Government departments. If these men are placed there, they will be a check upon this duplication, and will be a protection for their fellow-employees who are engaged in similar work.
Another suggestion in the same line that I would like to offer is that to make sure that the ends towards which I am directing attention should be attained, the right hon. gentleman should define in his Bill the per-connel of this council, so that there would be no doubt as to who would compose it, and as to the particular bodies and departments that will have permanent representation upon it. If that be done, I submit, the country's interests will be well safeguarded, and the prospect that the industries of the country will receive benefit from real scientific work will be immeasurably increased.
In addition, I would also suggest that my right hon. friend should embody in his Bill provisions conferring authority upon the proposed institute to make provision for cooperation and co-ordination in the carrying on of scientific research by the institute with the various scientific branches of the Government to which I have referred, as well as with private enterprise. On that score I have had the advantage of several discussions with the heads of a few of the most successful enterprises in Canada, and if provision such as I have last mentioned be made in the Bill I am in a position to say to my right hon. friend that this measure.
will meet with very much greater acceptance among the practical-minded and successful business public than it is likely to meet with if it is left in its present form.
At the present time I do not think that I can offer with advantage any further observations to the House upon this measure.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) :: Mr. Speaker, after the very full way in which the minister has covered the introduction of the Bill I should hesitate about delaying the House were it not that as chairman of the former committees which had this subject under consideration I might be able to give a word or two of explanation, and so clear the ground.
The suggestion has been made-I do not say on this occasion, but on former occasions-that perhaps the universities of the country would be the proper bodies to take charge of scientific research. While, as I say, that suggestion has not arisen to-day, I think that a word on this subject might be of interest and service. Let me say, at the outset, that the universities have to play a most important, an almost preeminent part in scientific research. Without their aid, without support by them, practically the whole subject of scientific research would starve and dwindle. But that they can take charge of scientific industrial research ds quite another matter, and in order to explain that, I must ask the House to bear with me while I endeavour to make clear the difference between what is called pure or fundamental science and applied or, as it is sometimes called, industrial science.
Perhaps the best definition is that supplied years ago by that celebrated scientist Huxley, when he gave what he thought was in the mind of the pure scientist in his work:
That which stirs our pulses is the love of knowledge and the joy of discovery of the causes of things, sung by the old poet-the supreme delight of extending the realm of law and order ever further towards the unattainable goals of the infinitely great and infinitely small, between which our little race of life is run.
The dividing line, indeed, between pure and applied science is vague. At times the two merge into one another. There cannot be any such thing as applied science without pure science, because applied science utilizes the discoveries of the pure scientist. In other words, pure science discovers, applied science utilizes. The fundamental difference between the two is one of motive,

As one of the witnesses who came before our committee said, the researcher in pure science seeks for the light; he sees it in one direction; he goes towards it; if to right hand or to left the light looks brighter, he turns that way. He may not find what he set out to discover, but he may find something of infinitely greater importance.
The actuating motive of the applied scientist is success; utility. Unless he can find something 'that is going to be of commercial benefit, he very soon will be out of his job and have to take up some other means of life. Industrial research is always conducted with some utilitarian end in view. Pure science, on the other hand, seeks constantly to advance the boundaries of human knowledge. Now the university is the proper place for the cultivation of pure science, for the instruction of youth, so that they may become researchers in either pure or applied science.
. Without going too lengthily into the subject, I might say in short that in Great Britain, in the United States, and in this country, after investigation of the point, the decision is almost unanimous that the universities should be confined to a great extent-perhaps not altogether-to the study of pure science, that they should be supported and encouraged in every way to that end; but that applied or industrial science must be carried on outside of their walls. I cannot do better than to read the evidence given to the committee, if I am in order in doing so, by President Mackenzie of Dalhousie University, a man who has spent the greater part of his life in scientific research, a university man, who, as he says, if any one could be prejudiced in favour of the universities doing this work it would be such as he. After going into the general question of the advisability from the political and financial side of aiding twenty or more universities throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion to carry on scientific research, of the caballing and intrigue which might take place if that were done, of the fact that education and universities are the obiect and care of the provinces rather than of the Dominion, he goes on to say:
That is one point of view. I would like to lay before the committee another point of view. Suppose you selected three or four universities throughout the country and said: we will subsidize these only, I am assuming- now that subsidizing research in universities is a good thing for^ industrial research. Suppose you did subsidize them, what I want to bring out is that every one of these universities would feel that [Mr. Cronyn.j
it ought to be able to take up any problem, whether in rubber, in electricity, or in biology

 make it as diverse as you like-and for them to' be satisfied or to toe effective they would wish to toe so organized and so staffed and equipped that they could take care practically of any problem that might arrive, not only in their own neighbourhood, but throughout the country. That meant what? It meant that you would require to have not one large central institute, as we propose, but a central institute at every university. The economic significance of this phase of the matter is so obvious that we felt we could not lay before the Government a proposition which meant establishing as many research institutes as there were universities, and which would result in continuous insistent calls and demands upon the Government. .* .
There is one other phase of the question that I wish to bring out. It is not only that this would not be a proper proposal financially to lay before a government, but from the standpoint of the majority of the Council-I might say almost the entire Council, representing, as I have said, so many university men

And more than fifty per cent of the Research Council are university men.
-it was clear that it would be bad for the universities, and not the -best thing for industrial research. I feel that to saddle the universities with the problem of carrying on the industrial research of the country would be subversive of the best interests of the universities, and would not be conducive to the best kind of industrial research, for this reason: it has already been brought out, but I think it needs emphasizing-the whole strength of a university's research lies in its perfect freedom, in its being absolutely untrammelled.
Well, Sir, I venture to lay stress on that point so that members of this House should know that the subject has received due consideration both by the Research Council and by committees of the House, and that, as stated by President Mackenzie, a decision was reached in favour of a research institute.
Now, to take up very shortly some of the remarks that have already been made. I heard something this morning elsewhere about Old Soldiers' homes. Well, this is not a proposal to found a home for decayed scientists or pseudo-scientists. I agree that an immense amount will depend upon the man or men placed in charge of this institute. Unless we get the best available men for the purpose, men such as those who are at the head of some of the successful institutions in other countries, the scheme cannot possibly succeed. So that I am like my friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy), "from Missouri," so far as the selection of the head of the institute is concerned. Nothing would dismay or disappoint me more than to see "newspaper scientists," as he calls them, placed in control of this institution.
Something was said about the fact that industries had not so far applied to the

Research Council for aid to solve their problems. I am not sufficiently well advised to say just what the facts are with reference to that statement, but we should bear in mind that the Advisory Research Council was, as its very name implies, simply a preliminary body to survey the field, to advise the Government, and to inform us what, in their opinion, should be done. I can testify that since taking an interest in this matter, and by reason of the position I held as chairman of the committee, I have received on every hand, from every part of the country, an extraordinary number of encouraging resolutions, letters, and suggestions in favour of this institute. I have here some thirty resolutions from all parts of the country and from all kinds of public bodies. My hon. friend says that the practical-minded and successful business man casts doubt upon this institute. Well, all I can say is that I have not heard from him. It is strange that we should hear only from one side; and if this "practical-minded and successful business man" is represented on boards of trade and other bodies of that nature he certainly has not been able to let his voice be heard to any extent, because almost every board of trade in the country and many other bodies besides have passed resolutions of the strongest Character in favour of the institute. I have come across individual cases-of course, one cannot count too much on isolated individual cases. But only the other day I happened to meet on the train one of the most successful leather tanners in the whole country. His tannery was described to me by an American expert as being, in his opinion, the best one not only in Canada but probably in America. I did not introduce the subject, because I did not know that this tanner was aware of my interest in it. But he said:	"The tanners of Canada are most
anxiously awaiting the foundation of the scientific institute in which you are interested. We have many problems which we shall jointly strive to solve, and if we can get that institute as a rallying point, and with the advice, assistance and counsel of the scientific heads of the institute, in co-operation with our own scientists whom we expect to pay, we shall hope to get some clear solution of our difficulties. We know that across the line the big tanners and their associations have solved some of these troubles, and the solution of them is regarded as a most valuable trade secret. We fear that unless we too can solve them we shall run behind and find ourselves left
in the race of competition." Labour, too, has expressed itself in unmistakable terms in favour of this institute. The Congress of Labour and other labour bodies have passed strong resolutions. I came across the other day a curious phase of Labour's attitude towards scientific research. As you know, the railways of the United States, like our own, have been operating with great deficits, and the railway unions have made certain representations to the Labour Board with regard to these deficits and their causes. I shall not attempt to go into that question at any length, but in a copy of the New York Post, dated the 20th of this month, I find a list of suggestions in regard to the subject, and among them, No. 9, which is as follows:
Railroad administrators have been so backward and so addicted to rule-of-thumb methods that they have neglected or refused to establish scientific laboratories and bureaus of research for the improvement of the railway service, as has been done successfully in all progressive industries.
Now, I have had the advantage, like my hon. friend from Russell, of conferring with certain of the heads of the departments of government who are interested or engaged in scientific work. I agree most fully with what he says about the pay which these gentlemen receive. There can be no doubt that also, as he said Canada has lost, and is losing, the services of many of these men simply because they do not receive a remuneration	at	all	commensurate with
their training, and accomplishments. But if I may be permitted to say so, I think these scientists have a wrong impression with regard to the work of this institute and the effect it may have on their own particular jobs. In the first place, to my mind, it would mean the utter ruin of the institute if we took over, or endeavoured to take over, any considerable part of the routine laboratory work done in the Department of Mines, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. I doubt very much, whether an institute such as this could do anything in the Department of Agriculture so far as that department works out-of-doors. It might be able to take up certain laboratory problems, but to my mind the idea of the institute is rather to be a central point co-operating with the various departments, working together and co-ordinating, as my hon. friend says, the whole scientific effort of the Government, avoiding duplication and overlapping to the greatest extent, and helping us to take further steps forward.

Some question was raised as to the exact working of the institute, and I thought it would perhaps make it more easily understandable if I explained for a moment how that is done in the neighbouring republic. Take, for instance, the Mellon Institute, Pittsburg, which while its overhead is paid by the munificence of two prominent bankers-one of whom, if I am not wrong, is now the Treasurer of the United States -is otherwise managed op a commercial basis. There you have a huge building, divided into laboratories with a highly trained scientific staff in charge, and the associations of industry of the country are free to go there and, if there be room, to either place their own scientist or have the institute select a scientist to solve the problem in which they are interested. They pay the entire expense of the scientist and in addition a share of the expense so far as heat, light and power are concerned. A significant thing, which the minister has touched on, is this: the Mellon Institute will not take a research problem on for less than one year, and it strongly advises a period of two or three years towards an effort at solution. Well, an association applies-for instance the Laundry Association which contains some 1,800 members scattered all over the United States

and secures a scientist to investigate its problems. What happens? If there be room this man will first confer with the heads of the institute. Next he will go to the well-equipped library with which the institute is furnished, and for a week, or two weeks, or three weeks will study the situation from the point of view of present knowledge. When everything in that respect has been ascertained he will go to one of the member factories of the association so as to get a practical knowledge of how the problem is affected by every day working conditions. That may take one or two weeks. Then back he will come and establish himself in the laboratory and with the advice and assistance of a wonderful band of young and energetic scientists he will go to work and in the most extraordinary fashion, solve what were at one time considered insoluble problems.
I do not know that I can add anything more to these somewhat disjointed remarks, except to repeat what I have said before in this House-that with no personal interest in such a matter, and having always tried to view it from an impartial standpoint, I have come to be a firm believer in the necessity of such an institution and in the 
good results which will flow from its foundation.
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON' (Yukon) : I wish to say a few words in reply to some observations that fell from my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) who has evidently given this matter some study. As a member of the special committee that sat last session, and the session before, and heard the evidence that was submitted perhaps I can, in a measure, throw some light upon the questions which my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House. He seemed to think that there would be overlapping of the work carried on by this central institute because it would invade the field already occupied by the scientific branches of the different departments of the Government, particularly that of Mines, Agriculture, and there is one other that escapes my memory at the present time, but there are three laboratories in particular that do very considerable work. Now I would be sorry if this Bill, and this organization which the Bill creates, should have such an effect; my idea is that it will not have that effect. Instead of invading these various branches of science and monopolizing the services of the men who are already engaged in these pursuits, it will co-ordinate the work of these various branches and in that way help to develop the field of each. That, I take it, is the central idea of the Bill. There is no doubt to m'y mind, and I -am sure there is not in the mind of any one who has given this subject any thought at all, that there is plenty of work for all and that there are fields of human activity into which the scientific mind is only just beginning to penetrate. It is in these fields, and along that line, that this organization will find its most beneficent work.
My hon. frend from Russell referred to the matter of peat. In a codntry such as ours, living in the northern latitudes as we do, fuel is one of the very basic things that enters into our civilization and development. If we can establish in this country a fuel industry which does not now exist we shall certainly be contributing something to the sum total of human happiness and prosperity in Canada. It is a scientific fact, it is an historical fact, it is a geographical fact, that our coal measures in Canada lie not in the centre of the country but in the eastern and western portions of the Dominion. Canada is the only country on the North American Continent that has coal measures on the sea board; no other country between here

and Patagonia is so well endowed by nature, in that respect. We have large measures of very excellent coal in Nova Scotia and also in Vancouver Island. We have large measures of coal in the Rocky Mountain region, and large measures of lignite underlying the prairie sections of our country. But this is the great problem: Ontario, the most populous and most wealthy of our provinces has not, so far as I know, coal within its borders, neither has the province of Quebec. In a word where our great centres of population are, there are no coal measures within striking distance; but to the east in Nova Scotia and to the west in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, there are enormous fields of coal. Now the Government of the country has allocated certain sums to develop the lignite industry of the West to the point where lignite can be used as a fuel. Lignite, as every one is aware who knows anything about coal, is an inferior quality of coal. It is a coal that, in the language of geologists, is a "young" coal, and when mined it very soon disintegrates and is not easily transported; in fact, as a fuel it is an inferior article. Scientists are endeavouring to carbonize this lignite, find a binder for it, and make from it a fuel which will be much superior to the original article. According to a pamphlet which I have in my hand, and which I believe was issued by the department over which my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce presides, our scientists have succeeded to a very commendable degree in their efforts to this end, as the following quotation will indicate:
This study embraced an examination of the character and extent of the lignite deposits, the possibilities of carbonizing this fuel and the best method of briquetting, the question of suitable binders for the briquettes and all other details of manufacture. Extended experiments were then made on carload lots of the lignite, which resulted in the production of excellent high grade fuel in the shape of small briquettes which are clean, easily handled and convenient to burn. An extended test just completed of this briquetted fuel in comparison with the Pennsylvania anthracite imported into Canada, shows that the briquetted fuel has a heating power practically identical with that of anthracite coal.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if that is the fact, sufficient has been done already to warrant the amount of money which has been expended on this enterprise. If it is possible for us to briquette these lignites into coal which is nearly as good as anthracite, we are accomplishing a great service for this country. Why? Because instead of bringing from Pennsylvania hundreds of thousands of tons of anthracite
and sending out our good Canadian dollars to enrich the Pennsylvania coal operators, we shall send our money to the Plains where our own men will mine the lignite, manufacture it into briquettes, and haul those briquettes down to the head of the Lakes, where our own boats and seamen will carry them to our eastern lake ports for use in Ontario and Quebec. It would be a great economy if this city itself could buy its coal within Canada instead of sending so much money to Pennsylvania and the other coal mining states of the union. I take it that the statement made in this pamphlet is correct, and, if so, I think it is a reasonable answer to the remarks of my hon. friend from Russell touching the lignite question.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it anticipated that these briquettes can be sold profitably in Ontario?


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon) :: I am given to understand that these briquettes can be manufactured at a price which will warrant their transportation by rail to the head of the Lakes and thence by boat to lake Ontario ports to compete with Pennsylvania coal. Whether that is true or not my hon. friend may be better informed than I am. But even if it is not true, even if those briquettes can be brought down only as far as the head of the Lakes, or even if the city of Winnipeg alone can be furnished with those briquettes to take the place of anthracite coal, we will keep in this country many thousands of our good Canadian dollars for the development of our own resources instead of those of the United States.
Now, a word about peat, to which my hon. friend from Russell referred. The utilization of peat is of great importance to the people of this particular section, and this pamphlet again furnishes me with information. Those of us who have paid any attention to this question know that we have spent a good deal of money in trying to make our peat a commercially successful fuel, and if our efforts have not been successful, as my hon. friend from Russell states, we hope that sooner or later we shall be able to bring our experiments to a successful issue so that our immense resource's of peat may be made available for use as a fuel in just as large a measure as . peat is used in many countries of Europe. This pamphlet contains the following paragraph on the subject:
The Department of Mines reports that there are at least 37,000 square miles in Canada covered by peat bogs. These bogs are from 5 to 10 feet deep. Many of them lie in Central


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Canada where there is no coal. About 1.8 tons of air dried peat are equal to 1 ton of coal for heating purposes.
Now, if it is possible to convert the peat bogs which lie between here and Montreal into a fuel that can be used in this city and in the towns around the bogs, of which there are quite a number, it would keep a great deal of money in this country. This pamphlet states, further:
Last summer-
And although this is not dated I take it that it refers to the summer immediately past.
Last summer they made 5,900 tons of excellent air-dried peat at this bog.
That is the bog I am referring to, at Alfred.
This was sold under commercial conditions in the city of Ottawa, and in some 25 smaller cities and towns of Central Canada. It was found to meet with a ready market everywhere in competition with coal, and ten times as much could have been sold had it been possible to produce it. Offers were received, from individual companies to take the whole output of the bog. The peat was sold at varying prices, which, however, in every case left a good margin of profit.
I mention that in reply to my hon. friend from Russell, because it may be news to him.
Charles Murphy: No, I am well aware of it, but it cannot be substantiated.


Alfred Thompson: Then the information furnished by the department is not to be relied upon?


Charles Murphy: That is not correct.


Alfred Thompson: I give the House the information for what it is worth, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry if it is not correct, as I am sure my hon. friend is too, because if we would utilize these peat bogs we would be doing excellent work for this part of Canada. My hon. friend referred in the course of his remarks to the fact that we have some $2,000,000 worth of scientific plant in Ottawa, which would cost to replace $4,000,000 to-day, and that if this organization were created those plants might have to be scrapped. If that were so when money is scarce and when our interest bill is not only large but continuous, it would be very difficult for me to bring myself to vote for this measure. New plant no doubt will have to be secured, but under the plan which the committee had in mind there will be co-operation and co-ordination of these various scientific

branches rather than the elimination of any one of them.
I was glad to find that my hon. friend for Russell is not opposed to the principle of the Bill and, after all, that is the important thing. He made an observation or two in regard to representation on the council, and in that connection I would like to draw his attention to section 8a of the Bill. I am doing this because I have this matter very much at heart, and I feel that in order to make it the success that we all hope it will be we need all the co-operation we can get, and any criticism of a constructive character I think should, if possible, be incorporated in the measure. Regarding representation on the council, section 8a provides:
The said Council shall have power, with the approval of the minister, to appoint such scientific and technical officers, as may be necessary for the conduct of its business, and subject to the approval of the minister, to prescribe the remuneration to be paid the same.
I do not know whether that meets the objection raised by my hon. friend from Russell or not.


Charles Murphy: It does not. Supposing the council never exercise the authority there conferred on them and do not appoint?


Alfred Thompson: Exactly.
When my hon. friend was speaking that is the thought that occurred to me, and I think the Bill might be amended so as to provide for just that contingency, because it seems to me the criticism is a fair one. Therefore I would make that suggestion to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Another important suggestion the hon. member for Russell made which appealed to me at any rate, was the co-ordination or co-operation of firms who might desire some assistance from this research council. I would ask your attention, Sir, and the attention of the hon. member for Russell, to section 13, subsection 2 of the Bill; I think it meets the objection which the hon. member had in mind:
The Institute shall have the charge, direction or supervision of the researches which may be undertaken, under conditions to be determined in each case, by or for single industrial firms or by such organizations, to toe known as Trade Guilds for Research, as may desire to avail themselves of the facilities offered for this purpose by the Institute.
It struck me that the criticism which my hon. friend directed to the Bill was important in its nature and of a constructive character. I shall be glad if the Minister

of Trade and Commerce will take the matter into his consideration, and if such an amendment as I have suggested is incorporated in the Bill it will have my entire support.
Now, I do not care to delay the House any longer, because from what I have heard the proposed measure will receive the support of the House. It is unnecessary to argue for the principle of the Bill at this stage of civilization in Canada, but if it were necessary to do so I would not hesitate to take issue with any hon. gentleman who argued against the proposal. The day of science has arrived. The scientist is a reputable person to-day, as he. was not in the days of our grandfathers and
5 p.m. great - grandfathers. Seventy-five years ago a man of science was rather looked down upon. One hundred years ago the surgeon and the barber occupied the same office and pursued the same vocation. The barber's pole to-day is simply the surgeon's sign of one hundred years ago. But these days have passed and these circumstances are matters of history. It is only within the past seventy-five years that the leading universities of England have recognized science as a profession. Some English universities do not do so even yet. But we do; we believe science is one of the great things that is going to advance the civilization which we represent. The English people themselves, as the right hon. gentleman has pointed out, are devoting a considerable amount of money yearly to the development of science. One hundred years ago last Christmas day, as Faraday was experimenting in his laboratory, he noted that a magnet swung round an electric current, and from that discovery the electric motor was developed; all the electrical energy which we use to-day has been developed from that basic principle.
In closing I should like to quote a few words from the presidential address of Professor D. Fraser Harris, of Dalhousie University, before the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, on "The Man of Science in the Community of To-day":
Science teaches us to si-ft, discriminate, weigh, relate and assess. It trains us to investigate without personal or racial bias.
Science is antagonistic to all mental laziness and all mental haziness. It is opposed to all tradition which cannot give a Justification for its existence. Superstition flies before the light of science. Science impresses us with the dignity of facts: with the majesty of the inexorableness of law, the inevitableness of the bond between cause and effect, and the omnipresence of the principle of continuity. It does not allow us to accept the opinions of any man however
171i
exalted unless he can demonstrate them to us as derived from observed data by processes, of reasoning similar to those used by all genuine students of science:
And thus, finally, we are led to recognize three orders or degrees in science,-
The collection of data;
The correlation of cause and effect;
The philosophy of science.
Now, my conception of this measure is that it will result in a development in this country of an organization, which in turn, will develop the philosophy of science and aid us in developing our own natural industry by employing our own scientists. The effect of the establishment of a National Research Institute will be to encourage original investigation, to tap new sources of energy, to develop our natural resources, to make our soil more productive, our forests renew their trees, our fisheries a greater asset, and our mines of greater use in the development of our country. I have great pleasure, Sir, in supporting this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Council increased from 11 to 15.
William Stevens Fielding: As a matter of drafting this Bill is very much open to criticism. The method of striking out a word here and inserting another word there, and adding something else in another place, is not good drafting, and it does not make for intelligent consideration of the subject. When a clause is to be changed in that way, it would be desirable to have the whole clause repealed and a new one substituted. I would ask my right hon. friend to give that point consideration.
I am afraid what some of us have called a tendency towards autocracy has been manifested in this Bill. I see that the minister has to do a good deal, but the Governor in Council has not much to do in it. Instead of the minister being given all the powers, at several points the approval of the Governor in Council should be required and not that of the minister.


George Green Foster: I quite agree with my hon. friend. What I spoke about before going into committee brings about what my hon. friend finds objectionable, in that there are many amendments of single words and two or three words, and as we progress through the Bill, this gives it a very pied appearance. What I pro-

pose to do is, first to affirm the principle which I spoke of before-that is to substitute "minister" or "Governor in Council" as the case may be, for the "sub-committee." Quite a large number of these amendments have to do with carrying that principle through, After the committee has approved these amendments I do not propose to take the Bill out of committee to-day; but I would then put it into new shape, that is practically a consolidation of the amendments, so that we would have the legislation clearly before us. In the meantime, we might discuss the amendments proposed'; if we approve them, they can be passed, and before the Bill goes out of committee, it will be put into such shape that hon. members will see consecutively just what is meant.
With reference to the matter of too much autocracy on the part of the minister, the minister does not want that; he would rather have the power the other way. There are several points as we go through the Bill where I propose to substitute "Governor in Council" for "minister."
In the first place, in order to carry out the plan of substituting "minister" for the "sub-committee of the Council," I move to amend clause 1 by adding after the word "fifteen" in the fourth line thereof the following words: "by striking out the words 'Sub-committee of the Privy Council on Industrial and Scientific Research' in the third and fourth lines thereof and the words 'sub-committee' in the fifth line thereof and substituting therefor 'Minister of Trade and Commerce' and 'minister" respectively." The section will then read thus:
The Council shall consist of not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the Covernor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, hereinafter called the minister.
That will carry out for section 3 the complete change of substituting "minister" for "Sub-committee of the Privy Council of Industrial and Scientific Research."


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: Will
there not be a tendency to continue a certain amount of the overlapping that is going on, not only in this institute, but in other departments, with the work of the Mines Branch and the Geological Survey Branch? Is the minister satisfied that nothing of the kind will take place in that regard?


George Green Foster: The minister is of opinion that overlapping ought not to

be allowed in the future, and that overlapping which at present exists ought to be rigorously stopped as soon as it can be. It is my intention absolutely to prevent both the one and the other.
The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) stated that in these days we must be careful with our expenditures. I am entirely at one with him in that regard. I would not go in for this expenditure today, except that I think that out of it so great an advantage may come to us, if we deal properly with it, that it is one of the ways of overcoming existing conditions and approaching a readjustment and revival in the most speedy and effective manner. It is the best of economy to make an expenditure in a line which promises, in its broad distribution of effect, to be so helpful towards the readjustment and the productive activity which is so greatly needed in our country.
As to the matter of co-ordination, I am now considering an additional clause which I hope, when we go into committee again, to have ready for the consideration of the committee, and which I think will meet some of the objections of the hon. member for Russell. I have gone thoroughly over the data which he himself has no doubt gone over, the work being done by the departments at present and the representations which they have made. Those who make those presentations are in favour of this industrial research institute, but they also want a recognition of the work which they have done, and where it is not necessary to interfere with that, they do not want it interfered with. I am quite in unison with that. I believe, as the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) says, that there are many things which are done in the department which the institute of research could not do well economically; but there is another point, that departments, starting up and doing what they can do well,' have a sort of tendency to enlarge their operations beyond what they can do best. That is where this institute would come in.


Charles Murphy: As regards draughtsmanship, might I suggest to my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) that when he is discussing that feature further with the draughtsmen, it might be considered whether this first section of the new Bill might not be broken up so as not to deal with so many sections of the Act which it is amending? This amendment is somewhat confusing; section 3, section 4, sec-

tion 8 are all embodied in the one section of the new Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not make the
new Bill a consolidation? Can my right hon. friend give some information as to the present state of affairs regarding peat operations at Alfred? Every time we pass that place, we see evidences of work being done. Is the work being done by this Advisory Council or by private parties?


George Green Foster: It is being
done by the Government in co-operation with the Ontario Government. The two are putting their heads together and are carrying out the experiment that is being made there under the supervision of the Advisory Council. With reference to the peat business, ever since I was a boy down in the Maritime provinces, I have heard of people struggling with the peat problem. Many, many years ago, I know, in one of the counties of New Brunswick we supposed that the immense peat bogs there were just on the point of being developed as a useable fuel, but the experiment did not pan out.
With reference to the peat bog at Alfred, they have made notable progress. If my hon. friend has the time to read a little brochure which has been placed in the desk of each member, he will get some information with reference to peat. In a word it is this: Owing to the experiments ' which have been carried on in the way I have mentioned, through the co-operation of these two under the supervision of the Advisory Council, they have made greater advances than ever before in Canada, in bringing peat to the point where it becomes a commercial commodity, economically possible, and in fairly large quantities. They are still experimenting. They are even now making improvements on the machinery which they thought would probably do the work successfully when they put it in. They are going on with the experiments, and they have great hopes that in a short time they will come to the point where they can economically put upon the market a valuable peat fuel, which will find its users in the districts round about. I have seen some of that peat. It has been used, as was stated by my hon. friend. They could have sold ten times the amount they had available for sale last year. The supply was not equal to the demand. Wher. the demand exceeds the supply, that is a pretty good proof that the manufacture is being brought to a practical point.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: For a number of years I have taken an active
interest in the Mines and Geological Survey branches. I am convinced that there should be a general re-organdzation of these branches at the earliest possible moment. If this new branch is going to be organized, and overlap the others and entail extra expense in connection with the work already being carried on, I feel that some definite steps should be taken to change the present condition of affairs.


Charles Murphy: In connection with the
production of peat, and the observations that have just been made by the right hon. gentleman, engineers have drawn attention to the work at Alfred, and have stated in answer to the question, why cannot peat be produced here the same as in the Old Country? that it is chiefly a question of . the difference in climate. In the Old Country, when the material is excavated it packs down and solidifies, making small blocks look like black bricks. In our climate, on the other hand, when the material is excavated and left exposed to our severe winter weather, instead of packing down and solidifying, it disintegrates. That is also the explanation with reference to the first formation of the bog itself.


William Stevens Fielding: These experiments at
Alfred have been going on now for a great many years. I had something to do with this peat question when we had an appropriation in the Estimates for experiments at Alfred a good many years ago. We ought to be patient, I suppose, in all these things, but I think it is about time that the Alfred experiment ceased to be an experiment, and that we know something more about it. I have had some knowledge of experiments of that kind in the eastern provinces. I should not be surprised if my hon. friend from Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Spinney) once had an opportunity of making some little investments down there, which we found a permanent investment. With regard to the experiments at Alfred, I think it is about time we had some results.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It appears that this
Research Institute is going to be under the wing of the Department of Trade and Commerce. This idea of an independent corporation in connection with a department is entirely new to me, and I do not like the idea. I can readily understand there being a great many branches in any one department, and I can understand that a scientific research branch might very usefully be added to the Trade and Commerce Department under the supervision

of the minister, but I do not quite appreciate the necessity for making it a separate entity. I would like to see it a part of the department, entirely under the control of the minister and the deputy minister, that is, a part of the general machinery of the department. Perhaps the minister will explain the reason for this new departure. I think this is the only instance in which we have an independent body separate and apart from the machinery of the department itself.
I have heard a great deal about this peat business. We have been providing the money for experiments on it for at least the last 17 years, ever since I came here. We had in Nova Scotia at one time a newspaper gentleman very much of the Mark Twain type. He went into farming, and he told me once that he was raising pork at $3 a pound. He would raise a colt a little way, but it would not be finally raised. That seems to be the idea in this peat business. If we are raising any at all, we seem to be raising it at the rate of $5 or $6 a pound, and some it refuses to be raised at all. I think there are a great many other directions in which we could use our money and our energies to better advantage in the production and cheapening of fuel in this country. I am looking at my good friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan). He has been devoting a lot of useful energy to this question of fuel in the last two weeks or so, and I am sure that by the time he is through he will throw to the winds this idea about peat, and devote his attention entirely to coal, coke, briquetting and that sort of thing, which will give us more practical results. I would not encourage the rather wasteful expenditure of money on peat until the peat age comes, and we have not reached that age yet. It is said that some day the coal resources will be exhausted, and mankind will have to get heat from the sun through some form of machinery erected for that purpose. But we shall not be here when that time comes. It seems to me that in this matter of peat we are trying to work ahead of our age in seeking to make a fuel out of it. There are plenty of other fuels, much cheaper, and which give much better results. My own opinion is that we will get better value for our money in connection with other kinds of fuel than peat. Perhaps the minister would explain why this new corporation is to be entirely separate and apart from the machinery of the department.
[Mr. McKenzie.!


George Green Foster: This Bill has been prepared after very careful thought by the Advisory Council, in co-operation with my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn), and with the assistance of business men. I have taken the Bill largely as it has come to me. I can see one very good reason, though, for this departure. I do not see how, in connection with a political department, and under the minister, you could deal with the matter of taking bequests and donations which might be given by philanthropic men. In the first place, I do not think that is practicable, and even if it were practicable it is not advisable. The minister and the department, which is political to some extent, should keep away from that line of investment and of management. The council will be given corporate powers and will then become a trust body to receive bequests, of which we hope we shall have many. We have been promised some already, and it is our sincere hope that we shall have a good many more. So that in time these bequests will become a very valuable reserve fund in trust for the working out of the purposes of the institute. My hon. friend himself will see that it is best that this matter should be removed absolutely from the management of the department or of the minister.
Now, with reference to the question of fuel. The hon. gentleman thinks that there is plenty of fuel in this country and that there is no need of experiments, all that is necessary being to get it and distribute it. Of course, he knows that the distribution is uneven, and if we could utilize the immense deposits of peat in those provinces that have no coal of their own, and thereby provide a home fuel reasonably cheap, it would be an untold benefit to very large sections of the country, if we went no further. If my hon. friend will look at the little pamphlet that has been distributed he will see what has been done by the Research Council and the Peat Commission. I remember that in the reminiscent days of many years ago, when I used to see people struggling with peat, immense pressure was used to extract the water. The problem then seemed to be to get the water out of it, and the means adopted was pressure. But it was not very satisfactory, and the sun drying-process is being now used. The Research Council, after careful study of the situation extending over the last forty years, decided that it would be possible to cut

down the cost of producing air-dried peat and thus put a material on the market at a price that would make it readily saleable. They, therefore, arranged with the Dominion Government and the Provincial Government of Ontario for the appointment jointly of a peat commission and for the provision of grants for the carrying out of its work. And so the Peat Commission decided to undertake this work. They have used a machine similar to that formerly supplied by the Department of Mines, and have designed a new machine of greater efficiency. They have succeeded in gradually reducing the cost of manufacture, and that, I think, will be good news for my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Last summer they produced 5,900 tons of excellent air-dried peat, which was sold under commercial conditions in the city of Ottawa and in some twenty-five smaller cities and towns in Central Canada. This product found a ready market everywhere in competition with coal, and ten times as much could have been sold had it been possible to produce it. The peat was sold at varying prices which, however, in every case, left a good margin of profit; and I think that is one of the most encouraging features of the whole matter. The Peat Commission believe that a still further reduction in the cost of production may be made by further improvements in the machines now in use, and in order to bring their work to a successful conclusion, with a view to delivering peat at the lowest possible cost to the community, they have asked the respective governments for a continuation of their grants for another season so that they may go on with experiments.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this peat sold at
such prices as to compete with ordinary fuel?


George Green Foster: Yes, the 5,900 tons produced last year was sold at prices which gave a profit on the production, and it was eagerly sought. So that I think it must have approved itself to the householder or it could not have met with the sale it found.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The peat in this country must be different from that in the Old Land. In Scotland they burn sun-dried peat. I was never there myself, but that is the information I have. They cut it in small blocks and dry it in the sun without any artificial means, and they have a
splendid fuel. I think the peat here must be different from that.


George Green Foster: The climatic conditions are different.


Frank S. Cahill: How will this commission be financed until they get the donations expected?


George Green Foster: The council
and the institute itself must be financed by the Federal Government. The building will have to be constructed, the equipment provided, and the expenses met by vote of Parliament.


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend
seriously contend that a department of government can be divorced from political control and still be consistent with our system of government? This would seem to be analogous to the Canadian National and the Canadian Northern scheme, where you set up a body that is to be independent of the people's representatives. Does the minister think that such a thing is properly possible under our system? Or is he advocating Bolshevism?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is becoming very, very intemperate in his language.


Frank S. Cahill: Not at all.


George Green Foster: He surprises
me, because 'he is generally so mild; but this last explosion gets on my nerves. Yes, I think it is absolutely possible for the institute to be managed in the way I have *stated and still be consistent with responsible government. The Government brings in a measure which Parliament makes law, establishing a body which can receive bequests, donations, and aids of all kinds.


Frank S. Cahill: And expend public money? That is the point.


George Green Foster: When they
expend public money they do so under the supervision of the Governor in Council. And even with reference to bequests, if there is no indication in the bequest as to the special purpose to which it is to be applied, if it is merely a general bequest, when the council makes expenditures out of that fund it does so under the supervision of the Governor in Council. That is the basis upon which it is proposed to ask for the legislation. I should be very sorry, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, to receive benefactions or trust moneys and expend it in the ordinary way under the

department. I do not think I could do that; I do not think it would be advisable. It is quite possible to establish a trust in a body, appointed by legislative enactment, and carry it on in a perfectly honest and straightforward manner without falling over the precipice into Bolshevism.


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend really contend that he can separate all the departments of government from responsible control, by appointing commissions in respect of one department after another, to administer the affairs of the country, thus divorcing the whole administration of public matters from responsibility? Is he going to allow some other body than the elected representatives of the people to be responsible for expenditures and for the conduct of those things for which the Government should be responsible to the people?
There are a number of matters in regard to which we are told here from day to day that they are sacred, that they are "in the hands of the commission," and that we must not touch them. We cannot go into the details of a department, we are told, because the Government have a cloak over them, a cloak in the form of a commission, which will absolve the Government from any blame. Does my hon. friend think that is a good system to follow? Is it not leading towards what I mentioned a moment ago, a system of Bolshevism? Is not that likely to be the case where you have a certain set of people who are said to be a sort of "Divine righters" who are spending the people's money without coming to Parliament in the ordinary way for authority as the custom has always been in the past?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is getting mixed in his metaphors. First he warns us against Bolshevism as the great danger, and then he tells us to be on our guard against "Divine righters."


Frank S. Cahill: Bolshevists and "Divine
righters" are virtually the same.


George Green Foster: I am not being obsessed by either of these two mighty powers. I see no difficulty in the matter. The Government is not trying to get out of any of its responsibilities; the Government is asking for this legislation and it is for the House to say whether we shall have it or not. As to the question raised by my hon. friend from Sydney (Mr. McKenzie) as to whether it was wise to form this corporation for the reception of these trusts and bequests, l answered him that 
I thought it was a fair and reasonable proposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was going to say to
the minister that even if he had a branch of his department taking or handling moneys from another source altogether outside of the Government, there is a precedent for that in the Sick Mariners' Fund. The money for that fund is collected from ships at different points and finds its way into the Marine Department where the fund is administered for the benefit of sick seamen and there seems to be no particular difficulty about it. If any moneys should come to the Department of Trade and Commerce to be utilized in connection with research work I see no insuperable difficulty in its being handled by some of the officers of the department. We do not wish to be told when we make inquiries about this matter that nobody in the Government is responsible. I suppose a certain responsibility does lie with the Governor in Council, but there appears to be no department that is directly responsible to the House. If this institute were under the control and direction of the Trade and Commerce Department the minister, as head of that department, would be answerable to Parliament and we would have direct control. That we do not appear to have when we are dealing with a corporation of this kind.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like to ask the
minister a question with reference to the wording of the second last line on the first page of the Bill, where it says:
It shall have power to acquire hy gift, grant, bequest, donation or otherwise any such real estate, property, money or securities for the purposes of this Act.-
Does that mean that it would be possible for this body to purchase real estate?


George Green Foster: It shall have power to acquire hy gift, grants, bequest, donation or otherwiseand so on. Well, I suppose that is put in to cover every possible form of bequest, or donation, or gift, or grant. I am not a lawyer, but I often see that expression in legal papers.


Frank S. Cahill: But does the wording
mean that this council would have power to acquire real estate by purchase?


George Green Foster: I should suppose that they could acquire real estate for the purposes of carrying out the work of the Institute.


William Stevens Fielding: If they had any
money?


George Green Foster: Yes, if they
had any money, and if they get the assent of the Governor in Council thereto-they would have to have that.


Frank S. Cahill: Would they have to have the consent of Parliament before they could spend any money in the purchase of real estate?


George Green Foster: Parliament is
giving its sanction here.


Frank S. Cahill: What is Parliament giving to this organization?-the power to purchase real estate providing they can find the money?


George Green Foster: For the purposes of the Act and with the approval of the minister.


Frank S. Cahill: Would it not be necessary to first submit to Parliament an estimate of the amount of money that would be required, or could the commission with the approval of the minister go and purchase any real estate they desired?


George Green Foster: They could
not purchase unless they had the money. If they got money by -means of bequests, with the direction as to how it should be used, they would not need to come to Parliament, but simply get the assent of the minister. If they had no money with which to make the purchase an appropriation would have to be got from Parliament before any expenditure could me made; no expenditure of public money could be made unless Parliament authorized it.


William Stevens Fielding: I would take it that
this Bill does not provide for any appropriation whatever. The council could not do anything except it obtained an appropriation from Parliament?


George Green Foster: Exactly.


William Stevens Fielding: Which would have to
appear in the ordinary way in the Estimates?


George Green Foster: Exactly.


Charles Murphy: There is this feature
connected with the matter however, that some person or persons with money to spare, and who might desire to be regarded as public benefactors by the Administration of the day, might make very large bequests or grants to this council.


George Green Foster: It would be a
fine thing if they did.


Charles Murphy: Yes, it would be a fine
thing, but therein lies a danger, which I think is in the mind of my hon. friend from Pontiac, (Mr. Cahill) as to the extent to which they might be allowed to operate in that direction.


George Green Foster: There could
be no operation except for the purposes of the Act.


Charles Murphy: That is quite true,
but the purposes of the Act are rather loosely defined, and cover a pretty wide territory. The Bill as at present drafted would afford a very large field for operations, I would submit to my hon. friend, if the gentlemen composing this council had the money.


George Green Foster: I am afraid
they will not be over-endowed with money.
1	want to make an amendment on page
2	by substituting the words "Governor in Council" for the word "minister" in the sixth line.


Charles Murphy: Is the right hon. gentleman replacing the word "minister"* with the words "Governor in Council" throughout the Bill?


George Green Foster: No, but whenever there is any reference to the expenditure of money the minister would prefer to have the Governor in Council behind him, than to give authority on his own responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Green Foster: One other
amendment and I will move that the committee rise. It is for the purpose of carrying out the substitution of the word "minister" for the word "sub-committee" and the elimination of the word "chairman," which I spoke about before. That will complete the amendments in the old Act. Before we go out of committee I will have them put into shape so that hon. members can see the Act in its amended form.


Charles Murphy: Would my right hon.
friend consider one of the last suggestions made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's-to bring in a consolidating Act, instead of amending the present Act?


George Green Foster: That is what
I propose to do. The latter part of the Bill is absolutely new, and we may just as well have the first part consolidated. If the suggested amendment is adopted all that is necessary will be to make the

consolidation. The amendment proposes to add the following to the present clause one:
(6)	Sections five, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven of the said Act are amended by striking out the word "Sub-Committee" wherever it appears in the said sections and in each case substituting therefor the word "Mini-ster."
(7)	Section eleven of the said Act is amended by striking out the words "Chairman of the" in the fourth line, and "Chairman of" in the seventh line and "Chairman or the" in the ninth line.


Charles Murphy: The Bill will not go
out of committee?


George Green Foster: No.
Progress reported.


INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 73 to authorize the ratification and carrying into effect of the protocol of the sixteenth day of December, 1920, accepting the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice of the thirteenth day of December, 1920, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-power to ratify protocol:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether it is desired to discuss this Bill. I would assume there would probably be something to be said upon the subject. That is to be expected; and I had in mind that we would take the Bill up at eight o'clock rather than initiate a discussion now for the next few minutes. Therefore I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not need to rise; we can call it six o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well, call it six
o'clock.
Progress reported.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House reverted to the Order: "Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees."


RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lamb-ton) presented the fifth report of the

Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Health) presented the report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 81, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
On motion of Mr. Meighen, the House returned to the Order:	"Government
Orders."

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 73, to authorize the ratification and carrying into effect of the protocol of the sixteenth day of December, 1920, accepting the statute for the permanent Court of International Justice of the thirteenth day of December, 1920.-Mr. Doherty.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the House
rose at six o'clock, clause 1 of the Bill was under consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It might perhaps be found useful by the committee, and I would hope that it would not be considered tedious, if I made a concise statement explanatory of this Bill and the schedule to it containing the statute with regard to the court which is by the Bill itself authorized to be ratified. The statute providing for the establishment of a Court of International Justice, which is found in the schedule to this Bill, comes to us in its complete form as the result of action by the League of Nations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The project, however, is not as new as the League of Nations. The establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice, to which the nations might have access and which would fill as between the nations the role which domestic courts of domestic justice fill as between the nationals of the respective countries, has long been an object of aspiration. Without going further back, it may be pointed out that the Hague Conference in 1899 and again in 1907 took up this matter of the establishment of a court to settle international disputes. In 1899, by the convention for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, what was known as an arbitral tribunal was established. That tribunal, however, had not the character of a permanent court as finally determined upon. It consisted simply of a list of jurists from whom nations, when they deter-

mined to submit differences between them to arbitration, might select their judges. That list was composed of nominations by each one of the states, parties to the convention, each one naming four members of the tribunal who were to be men of high moral character and integrity, and men having the qualifications which, in thei? respective countries, would be looked on as making of them suitable persons to be judges of the highest court, or men of established repute as international jurists. That convention was carried out to the extent of appointment by the respective nations of these members of the arbitral tribunal. Some cases have been dealt with by them. In 1907, the need which had previously, indeed, been realized, the need for something more in the nature of a permanent court, that is a body composed of designated judges who would sit permanently in that capacity and have jurisdiction, irrespective of their being selected for each particular case, again occupied the attention of the conference, and an endeavour was made then to arrive at an agreement for the establishment of such a court. Without going into details, I may say that, save upon two points, it was found possible to reach agreement, but upon those two points the nations did not find that it was possible for them to reach a common conclusion. The two points were first:	The method of constituting and organizing the court, in other words, the method of determining who should be the judges of the court, and the second question upon which agreement could not be reached was what should be the nature of the jurisdiction of the court. That is to say, the second question to be determined, which was not successfully determined, was whether that court should have compulsory jurisdiction, so that one nation, having, as it believed, ground of complaint against another, should be entitled to summon that other nation before the court without regard to any consent on the part of the nation summoned. On these two points, agreement being found impossible, the conference did not succeed in constituting the tribunal.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Those were vital points, indeed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very vital. That was the state of the matter at the time of the Peace Conference at Paris. The conference did not consider that it was in a position, under all the circumstances, to take up
and deal with those two particular points which have remained unsettled and which, as the hon. gentleman has just pointed out, arfe absolutely vital to the creation of the court. But there was a common consensus of opinion that the creation of such a court was eminently desirable, and, as a consequence, it was provided by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, that the Council of the League should charge a committee to draft a project or plan for the constitution of such a court to be submitted to the members of the league. I have not the text before me, and possibly those are not the identical words, but there is no doubt that is the substance. That court was to have jurisdiction to determine such cases as might be submitted to it by the nations, parties concerned therein, and furthermore was to have a consultative capacity upon questions that might be referred to it by the council or by the Assembly of the League of Nations. Following on the provision, the Council of the League, some time in the course of last year-if I remember rightly, the proceedings were held, at all events, in the summer of last year-constituted the committee referred to. That committee was composed of a number of very eminent jurists. Included amongst them were not only distinguished jurists belonging to countries which had signified their acceptance of the league and become members, but at least one very distinguished gentleman, citizen of a country which had not and has not since become a member of the league. The gentleman to whom I refer is a jurist certainly of world-wide reputation, a citizen of the great Republic to the south of us, a gentleman whose name is known not only throughout that country, but I think, throughout the world, the Hon. Elihu Root. Upon that committee was a very distinguished British lawyer in the person of Lord Phillimore. I was going to say a representative, but these gentlemen were not there in any representative capacity; they were there as being selected as competent men. Amongst them was a very distinguished Japanese jurist, Mr. Adatci. Perhaps no good purpose would be served by going over the names.


Mr. JACOBS:: Was no Canadian present?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No Canadian was
selected upon that committee.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many were on the committee?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The committee were ten in number. As I say, the selection was not made upon the basis of representing countries at all. The council of the league selected these gentlemen because it considered them to be eminently qualified. If this be of interest, I might perhaps give the full list of the gentlemen composing the committee. They were:
M. Mineichiro Adatci, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, at Brussels;
M. Rafael Altamira, Senator, Professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Madrid;
M. Clovis Bevilaqua, Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil;
Baron Descamps, Senator, Belgian Minister of State;
M. Francis Hagerup, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the King of Norway, at Stockholm;
M. Albert de Lapradelle, Professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris;
Dr. Loder, Member of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands;
Lord Phillimore, Member of the Privy Council of His Majesty the King of England;
M. Arturo Ricci-Busatti, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the King of Italy, Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy;
Mr. Elihu Root, Former Secretary of State of the United States.
These gentlemen held their sessions at the Hague from June 16, to July 24, 1920, and as a result of their labours, produced the project or plan of the constitution or statute establishing such a court, which statute, having been submitted first to the Council of the League, and by the council transmitted to the Assembly of the League for consideration, and having, in passing through the council and through the assembly, been subjected to certain amendments, with which amendments it was unanimously assented to by the Assembly, is the statute that is now before us.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was Mr. Elihu Root a member of that board that drew up this protocol?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He was a member of the committee constituted by the Council of the League which drafted the original project of the constitution of the court.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was he not occupying rather an anomalous position, seeing his country was not a member of the league?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have already pointed out that these gentlemen were not selected as representing any country at all. The Council of the League desired eminent jurists to prepare a project, and they selected these gentlemen.


Samuel William Jacobs: At large?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At large, and none of them were there in a representative capacity at all. They were there giving their personal services and the advantage of their high personal ability in the doing of this work.
As I have said, the project, as so prepared by the committee, was prepared at the instance of the Council of the League, and in consequence their report went to the Council of the League. The council subjected the project to some amendment; I think there is but one, perhaps, that is of major importance. That project passed on to the assembly, and there again was subjected to certain amendments. It might possibly be said that none of them were of major importance, though several of them, I think, certainly operated towards a substantial improvement, but that was mostly in matters of detail. As I have pointed out, the two difficulties which prevented agreement at the Hague Conference were, first, the impossibility of agreeing as to the manner of determining the composition of the court, and secondly, the impossibility of agreement upon the question whether the jurisdiction of the court should be compulsory, or subject to the assent in each particular case of the nations concerned to come before the court. Both of these questions received solution at the hands of the committee of last summer appointed by the council. They solved the question of the appointment. We may, if the committee desires it, and it is found necessary to go through the statute section by section, perhaps go into the details, but I would say that they solved the general lines of the settlement so as to meet the difference of opinion between the nations which at the previous Hague conferences had made agreement impossible.
Agreement had previously been impossible because of the great difficulty of conciliating the principle of equality of all the nations with the view very strongly entertained that the more important nations, those of greater power, those which, in the euphemism of the Paris Conference, were

described as the nations of general interests as contrasted with those of particular interests, should have in the court a guarantee of greater representation than the smaller nations. While absolute equality has not been established by the system adopted, I think it might safely be said that we have got as near to absolute equality as under the circumstances it is possible to get.
Now, of course, this question of equality became a burning question, because of the fact that if you were going to have a permanent court you could not compose it of such a large number of members as would allow every nation to have representation upon it. You necessarily had to have a number of judges very much inferior to the number of nations entering into the agreement and thereby becoming subject to the jurisdiction of the court. After a great deal of discussion, the plan arrived at, An its large lines, was this: the judges are to be elected by the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations, a majority in each of these bodies being essential to the election of any individual, but before a person can be eligible for election it is required that he should be nominated. That nomination is not placed in the hands of the governments of any of the nations. The power of nomination is placed in the hands of the members of the existing arbitral tribunal, that is to say, of the gentlemen who figure upon the list of arbitral judges established as the result of the conference of 1899. On that list, as I have already pointed out, each of the nations which was party to that convention has four judges of its nomination. The nomination, so far as there is a nomination on behalf of a country, has to be made by each one of these national groups, each group having the right to nominate four candidates. Of the four, however, not more than two are to be the nationals of the country to which the nominating group belongs, so that, while having the privilege of nominating four, the members of the group of judges belonging to any one country are limited so far as their own co-nationals are concerned to nominating two. There are to be in all eleven judges, and four deputy judges. The nomination having been made in the manner mentioned, the names of the candidates are submitted to the Council and to the Assembly of the League.
I might perhaps as well mention at this stage the method which was unanimously adopted to secure to Canada and the other Dominions, as well as to nations which
had come into existence since the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, the opportunity of taking part in the nomination. Those nations not having been parties to the Hague conferences naturally had no members on the arbitral tribunal, and if the power of nomination had remained strictly limited to the members of the arbitral tribunal those nations, including Canada, would have had no means of making nomination. That difficulty was overcome by a provision, which will be found in the statute now before us, that those nations which had no national group on the arbitral court should be entitled to constitute a similar group, selected in accordance with the rules for the selection of members of the arbitral court-that is, a group of four men of their own country having the qualifications I have mentioned, of high moral character and standing, and fitness for occupying high judical office, or men of high reputation as international lawyers. Each of the nations, as I have said, having no group on the court, is authorized to constitute an analogous group which have the same privileges of nominating candidates for election to the Permanent Court.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do I understand the
minister to say that those nations which are not represented on the court of arbitration, but which are members of the League of Nations, have the privilege of nominating four candidates who may all be nationals of those countries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, perhaps it was
only a slip of the tongue, but the minister said " four men of their own countries."


Charles Joseph Doherty: The four whom any nation names are not named directly as candidates for election. They name four men to constitute a group.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who are eligible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I beg your pardon. Their function is to do the same thing that the national group on the arbitral tribunal could do.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see the point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that way, all the members of the league, irrespective of whether they have national groups on the arbitral tribunal or not-


Henri Sévérin Béland: They would play the
part of national groups on the court of arbitration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. They have the one function of the national groups, namely, the power to nominate. Of course, no nominees could be judges on the existing arbitral court if the nations naming them were not parties to the convention, because those nations would not be entitled to have judges in that court. The nominations being so made, the election is by the assembly and council. To election it is essential that the candidate should have a majority in both bodies. This operates to give to the nations that are members of the council two votes: they have their vote in the council and their vote in the assembly; and that is so far a concession to the most important powers who, as we all know, occupy permanently seats upon the council. Save to that extent there is no distinction between the voting power of the different nations. I want to be as general as possible at the present moment, but there are proceedings, which we may perhaps take up as we go through the clauses, for deciding what is to happen if all the judges requiring to be elected do not succeed in obtaining this dual majority. There are second and third ballots, and then there is a commission, representing the council and the assembly, which endeavours to arrive at a conclusion. The details are set forth in the statute.


Samuel William Jacobs: The personnel of the
court changes from time to time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the judges are appointed for a period of nine years. A judge may be re-elected, and any vacancies that occur during the nine years are filled by elections in the same manner as in the original election.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are salaries provided for?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, salaries are provided for. When we come to the details we shall see that they are not by any means all equal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they supposed to give all their time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, not the judges.
The president of the court is obliged to live at The Hague, which is the seat of the court, and while I do not know that there is any mention of his giving all his time, manifestly it becomes necessary for him to make that his business, and he gets a very much larger remuneration than the judges. There is a fixed salary for all judges including the president. The president also gets a special allowance in addition to his

salary, which allowance is very much larger than his salary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister might
make the position very much clearer if he would take a concrete case, say, Canada. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, and perhaps he might demonstrate the operation of the machinery so that we might see how we can delegate judges who shall form part of the court if they are chosen by the league?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman does not mean to convey the impression that any one becomes a judge by being delegated by his own country. It is a matter of being elected upon his personal qualifications.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman was perfectly aware of the fact, but I merely wanted to avoid any possible misapprehension. Now, our position is this: We are entitled to constitute a group of four members analogous to the group on the arbitral tribunal. That group would be entitled to nominate four candidates for election to the Permanent Court. Of these four candidates, not more than two must be Canadian nationals. If the group belonging to a country desires to avail itself of its full power of nomination of four, it must, out of these four, nominate two men who are nationals of some other country. These four having been nominated, and four or such number less than four from every other group of the various countries having similarly been nominated, the list is submitted to the council and to the assembly, and from that list there are elected eleven judges and four deputy judges.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who constitute the board?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All constitute the court. Now in the selection of these judges it is expected that the election will proceed not from the point of view of securing representation of particular countries, but from the point of view of obtaining thoroughly qualified men from among the candidates who are nominated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are four original groups; how are they appointed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The four members of the groups that make the nomination are appointed by the government of their country, just as the groups on the arbitral

tribunal were appointed by their respective governments.


Mr. CANNON:: As far as Canada is concerned, will the Civil Service Commission have any say in the appointments?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is somewhat surprising considering the attention which the world has of late given to Canadian affairs that they actually do not seem to have discovered the Civil Service Commission.


Samuel William Jacobs: What has become of our
Publicity Bureau?


Mr. POWER:: I can only suggest that
we send to Europe that evidence of our civilization.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can only leave it
to each gentleman to appreciate for himself how highly the gift would be valued.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask if there is provision for a Canadian judge being appointed in the event of a case being tried in which Canada is interested?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there are special
provisions to govern that. If it happens that in a particular case both of the countries litigating have a national the ease proceeds without reference to that fact. If one of the two parties litigant have among the judges a national belonging to it and the other has not, then the party who has not is entitled to designate a judge for that particular case; matters are thus evened up so that if one has a national on the court the other will also have a national on the court.


Samuel William Jacobs: Neutralizing it so to
speak.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is another consideration, and I think it is one that has some weight. There is a value in having men on the court perfectly familiar with the respective conditions, and the views, the laws, and so forth of the countries that are in litigation. Apart from their own personal part in the decision, I think it is rightly realized that to the court as a whole there is an advantage in having among its members a man, or men, familiar with the conditions of the country engaged in the litigation. However sufficient, or insufficient, those reasons may have been, that is the system that was adopted.


Mr. MORPHY:: What about the question of the language used in the hearing of cases; how is that worked out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The French and the English languages are both official languages of the court.


Lucien Cannon: Would a representative of Canada be allowed to sit on the tribunal if, for instance, the Irish question were submitted to this International Court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I see no reason why he should not. Of course I am expressing no opinion as to the possibility of the Irish question being submitted-that is another matter. I see no reason why a man who happened to be a Canadian should not sit. As I pointed out a little while ago the desire is to avoid any conception that men sit in the court as representatives of their country. Of course, men have to belong to some country; but, as I pointed out, the selection is expected to be made from the point of view of personal capacity, and fitness. Now there is another provision, which is not without its effect, and that is the provision that in making their selection the parties electing should see to it that the great leading systems of law and the leading diverse civilizations should find representation. That is what may be called a council of wisdom, a council of perfection. It is not a law whose nonobservance would entail any nullity, or any consequence of that kind; I simply mention it as indicating what is sought to be attained. It is not a body representative of particular nations, but a court sitting in judgment as between all the nations, and whose authority is found in the fact that the individual men have been selected, in the manner I have indicated, by the voice of the majority of the nations whose disputes are to be submitted to them, in the manner that I have outlined. Thus the first question that had been found insoluble at the Hague Conferences found its solution-a solution that was accepted, not only by the members of the committee who made the original draft, but by the council, and finally unanimously accepted by the Assembly of the League.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose the only parties that could come before that court would be members of the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Members of the league, and access to the court is also extended to the nations mentioned in the schedule to the Treaty of Peace even though they have not become actual members of the league. Under that provision there would be access to the court, say, for the United States,

even though it had not become a member of the league. There is provision, however, that in the case of countries not members of the league availing themselves of the service of the court, there shall be a settlement of what they are to pay in the way of expenses.
The other question, that is the question whether the jurisdiction of the court should be compulsory or subject to the consent of the parties in each particular case, was solved by the committee of jurists at the Hague in the sense of compulsory jurisdiction. The council of the league did not accept that conclusion, and they modified the project to the extent of making the jurisdiction of the court dependent upon the consent of the interested parties. In that shape, as regards that question, the matter came up for consideration by the Assembly of the League. I think it is quite safe to say that the majority-and I think I may safely say the large majority-of the members of the assembly would have been disposed-to restore the solution of the committee and make the jurisdiction of the court compulsory. It was, however, found impossible to have unanimity upon that question and so the statute as it had been modified in that regard by the council was accepted by the assembly. I may say so large a number of members of the assembly entertained the view that the jurisdiction should be compulsory, and so earnest were they in that conviction, that a special protocol was inserted to enable such nations as desired to do so to express their readiness to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court as between themselves and any other nations also willing and also signing the protocol.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is, to make their judgments executory, I suppose?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not a question of the execution of the judgments; it is a question of recognizing the right of the court to summon the nation before it. The rule of the statute is that the jurisdiction of the court in each case depends upon both parties having agreed to submit their case to its adjudication. What is contended for by those who ask for compulsory jurisdiction is that any one nation should have the right to summon another nation to appear before the court, and that the court should thereupon have jurisdiction whether the summoned nation consented to accept such jurisdiction or not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would this court deal only with cases between nation and nation, or with cases between nationals of the respective countries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The court is intended to deal solely with cases between nation and nation. I understand that under its provisions if a nation chose to take up the case of one of its nationals and to charge itself with the conduct of the proceedings as against some other nation, that matter might be submitted to the determination of the court, because there the parties would both be nations; but the court is not ppen to individuals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Therefore it does not differ materially from the Hague Tribunal. I understand that when nations agree to lay their cases before the arbitration tribunal sitting at the Hague, as we did the North Atlantic Fisheries case, the award is binding on the nations parties to it. The same principle underlies this court; there is no compulsory jurisdiction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The exercise of the jurisdiction is not compulsory, save that certain particular matters under the terms of the Treaty of Peace itself are to be settled by this court. There is this distinction also, that in the case of the arbitration tribunal under the Hague convention the parties selected their own judges. There was not any permanent court, but there was a list of judges from whom you might select your arbitration tribunal.


Samuel William Jacobs: There was an organization.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But in this case the court sits as a court, exercising jurisdiction conferred upon it by the common consent of the nations. It does not derive its jurisdiction directly from the particular parties that are before it in the sense that its members are not selected by
9 p.m. those particular parties. But the exercise of its jurisdiction does under the present statute depend upon the common consent of the parties under a treaty existing between them by which they have agreed to submit their differences to the court, or, in the cases I have referred to, where it is determined by some condition of the Peace Treaty itself that it is a matter for adjudication by the Permanent Court.	.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is, the league does not delegate its powers to the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it is not a matter of delegating the powers of the league to the court. The league establishes the court, just as this Parliament established our Supreme Court. Of course, there are certain powers which under the covenant may be exercised by the court if the parties choose to submit their dispute where under the covenant such disputes would be submitted to arbitration.
There is one other respect in which I think the court differs from the arbitration tribunal, although I am free to admit that it is not very clearly defined. But in view of those who constituted the court it was considered that they were creating what would be more in the nature of a court of justice than the arbitration tribunal was. That is to say, it is contemplated that the present court shall sit as a court of justice to apply the accepted principles of international law which the nations have recognized as binding upon themselves. It is to perform its duties as a court deciding questions of law and of right between the parties. It is not intended, unless the parties should especially ask it, to introduce into its procedure the element of conciliation or compromise. The desire is to build up a jurisprudence that will result in a more complete system of international law.
Now, with regard to the question of compulsory jurisdiction, I think everybody was agreed-even those who would not vote for it-that that was the ideal we ought to look forward to, and although all the nations were not ready to accept it then, they were all willing to join in expressing the hope-perhaps more than that-the belief that if the court were once constituted and the nations began to submit their disputes, and its manner of adjudicating those disputes satisfied the nations that it was realizing the hopes reposed in it, we might look forward in a comparatively brief period to the general acceptance by the nations of the compulsory principle. Until we get tj^ere we will not have realized the ideal. After all, the purpose of the establishment of the court is to provide a method whereby justice may be done between the nations without resort to violence. What is hoped is that it may prove possible to repeat as between nations what history teaches us has happened as,' between individuals. Before you had courts regularly administering justice to which individuals might have recourse, and at whose hands they could obtain justice and the vindication of their rights against other individuals, you had the
resort to personal violence, each man taking the law into his own hands and endeavouring to vindicate his right by such force as was at his disposal. That is what we have to-day; that is what we have had as between the nations, I suppose, in all time past-a resort to the exercise of force to vindicate rights, real or believed in. The purpose of the court is to endeavour to provide for the nations, just as the nations themselves have provided for the individual, a method of administering justice and securing to each nation its nespective right without the necessity for resort to force.
I think it would be no exaggeration to say that in providing a court, whose success of course depends upon its ultimate acceptance, the League of Nations, if it should never do anything else for the world, has done a very great service. There is no doubt that the great purpose of the establishment of the league is the maintenance of peace. There are many people-perhaps more now, as we emerge from the terrible war that we have been through, than there were at other times-whose hearts are set upon peace beyond and before everything else-so set upon it as perhaps to forget that possibly there is something more precious even than peace, namely, justice. But perhaps it is not necessary to enter into any discussion as to which of these two great boons is the more precious. I recognize that there are men thoroughly competent to speak who look upon peace as more precious than justice, but as I say, it is not necessary for us to settle that. After all, a little reflection, I think, will show that the condition of permanent peace is the maintenance of justice. As human nature is constituted-and I do not think it is to the discredit of human nature-there is, after all, permeating mankind a desire for justice-a desire for justice, perhaps, every one for himself and each country especially for itself; but even when you get outside of the personal interest or the national interest there is a sense of justice that is in us all and that moves us to resentment or to protest when the conviction exists that justice is ignored and that there is no possible remedy. It would seem then, that there is no possibility of permanent peace unless you can rest it on the firm foundation of a well-established justice. I was very much struck with the manner in which a distinguished French statesman, Mr. Leon Bourgeois, expressed that idea; in fact, he goes perhaps a step further, and quite properly so. He


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
defined peace by saying: "La paix c'est la duree du droit"-peace is the stable or continued existence of right. You cannot separate the two things. Even, then, if it be not at present worked out in perfect form, anything that points to the development of an effective system for the maintenance of justice as between the nations without there being necessity for resort to force is the very best guarantee-is at least the very surest hope, of the realization of our aspirations for the maintenance of peace.
Lucien Cannon: In what part of the
protocol are to be found the clauses concerning the execution of the judgments of the tribunal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are no provisions dealing specifically in the statute with the execution of the judgments. In the Covenant of the League of Nations itself with regard to certain matters powers are conferred for taking steps to enforce the decisions of the arbitration or the decisions of the council, and it was believed that those clauses were wide enough to be made applicable in proper cases, at all events in cases where there was danger of rupture of peace, to the enforcement of the judgments of the court. Further than that, though the matter was discussed, it was not thought wise to go. After all, this must be conceded: that you will have in the large to rely, for the respect of the judgment of the court, upon the pressure of the public opinion of the world.


Lucien Cannon: More of pressure,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, more of pressure. The hon. gentleman may or may not concede that upon a nation the opinion of its fellow-nations is of a nature to operate. If we approach this subject with the idea that nothing is done without the creation of a system which is perfect and which will absolutely assure us of the execution of every judgment, we might just as well abandon our efforts. We are not going to make the world over in a day, either from the point of view of peace or from the point of view of justice, and if we cannot have the patience to create institutions and foster them and endeavour to popularize them and ultimately to get them accepted-[DOT] well, I think there is nothing for us to do but to abandon any effort at all. As the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) pointed out the other day, in the last analysis it is public opinion which in our own individual and national societies

or states ensures, by and large, the observance of the law. It is true that an exceptional man gets haled before the court and is punished, but what is it that makes the great mass of the people obey the law without being brought before the court? It is that through long generations we have been trained up to the respect for layv and that our peoples have come to have that general conception that the law calls for obedience.
That is the operation that has to be entered upon, striven for as between the nations, and I am not here with any Utopian doctrine to preach of the immediate renewal of the face of the earth. We have to come to that gradually, but to-day what we can do is to start to lay the foundation. If we have not a perfect thing to-day, let us strive to make it more perfect to-morrow. This would be very much more an approach to perfection, if all of the nations were ready to accept the principle of compulsory jurisdiction. But it is fair to remember this, when one is disposed to criticise those of the nations who will not accept, and that is that the hesitancy to accept comes, as a rule, from the greater and more powerful nations. There is, perhaps, some little disposition to reproach them all the more because of their power. But it is fair to remember that in coming into the scheme, and, above all, if they accept the compulsory nature of the court, the great powers would be making a sacrifice, because, by virtue of their power, they do not need the court; they can take care of their rights by their strong right arm. It is the weaker nations that require the court, and it is only natural, after all, that they should be unanimous for the compulsory principle of this court. So that, while I think the latter principle is the sound principle, it is fair to recognize that. It was pointed out by Mr. Elihu Root, who was a supporter of a compulsory principle, in the discussion of the matter at the Hague that that ought to be realized, and that, therefore, we ought not to be ready to condemn, at all events, to condemn in too unmeasured terms, the greater powers which at the present moment feel that we have not had sufficient experience to know how this court is going to act and which hesitate to forego the advantages that result from their greater powers by accepting absolutely the principle of submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of this proposed court.
In all these matters-this is true of the league itself as well as the partic-

ular court

there are two things that we want to bear in mind, if either or both of them are going to succeed. One of them is the unwisdom of exaggerated claims on behalf of either the one or the other, claims which can be at once seen and demonstrated to be unfounded, and which are of a nature, therefore, to disgust people with the whole proposition, and the other is a too great readiness to be discouraged, because things are not achieved all at one blow.


Lucien Cannon: The jurisdiction of this tribunal will be limited to questions of an international character, will it not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, to questions
between states.


Lucien Cannon: These international
laws will be passed by the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no determination as to how international laws are, in the future, to be enacted. The court will have to take up its duties with such international law as we presently have. I may say that the committee at the Hague made recommendations looking to the establishment of organisations for the study and development of international law. I would be glad to discuss them on some other occasion. I think, in dealing with the court itself, we have all and, perhaps, more than we can attend to this evening.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Supposing there is a dispute between two nations belonging to the League, is it compulsory that they shall submit this dispute to the court for settlement?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not in principle compulsory, unless the dispute has reference to some one or another of the particular matters which, by the Treaty of Versailles, are prescribed as being matters which are to be determined by the court, or unless those nations have some treaty by which they have undertaken to submit their disputes to the court. In the absence of either of those conditons, the court has jurisdiction only by the consent of the parties to submitting the difficulty to it.


John Howard Sinclair: Would not the League of Nations go so far as to agree that all their disputes amongst themselves should be submitted to this , court ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That was sought to be attained. In the first place, that was the
172J
report of the committee of jurists who prepared the project or plan of the court. Their report was in favour of a compulsory jurisdiction on the part of the court. Of course, that compulsory jurisdiction would come into existence only if you had agreement by acceptance of the statute containing that condition. In my personal view, it is unfortunate the Council of the League did not see its way to accept that provision making the jurisdiction compulsory, but though, as pointed out a little while ago, I feel safe in saying that the majority of the members of the Assembly would, had they had the power, have been prepared to establish that compulsory law, inasmuch as unanimity was necessary to bring that about, the Assembly accepted the statute although it is without compulsory provisions.


Samuel William Jacobs: Section 36 seems to recognize some form of compulsion, does it not? ,


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am speaking of
compulsion to go to the court. Section 36 reads:
The jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it-
There is nothing compulsory about that.


Samuel William Jacobs: A little further on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the rule that the jurisdiction is in the cases that the parties refer to the court. Then we have a provision enabling those nations who desire so to do to agree that it shall be compulsory. I think this is the clause:
The members of the League of Nations and the states mentioned in the annex to the Covenant may, either when signing or ratifying the protocol to which the present statute is adjoined, or at a later moment, declare that they recognize as compulsory-
The jurisdiction and so on. Then, of course, for those nations who declare that, in virtue of their special agreement, the jurisdiction will become compulsory.


Samuel William Jacobs: (Reading) :	.
The members of the League of Nations and the states mentioned in the annex to the Covenant may, either when signing or ratifying the protocol to which the present statute is adjoined-
That is this particular statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They may choose to sign the special protocol.


Samuel William Jacobs: The protocol under question just now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are two protocols. There is a protocol by which the parties accept the statute of the league as it stands. Then there was prepared a separate protocol for signature by those members who desired to make the jurisdiction compulsory as regards themselves.


John Howard Sinclair: What
position did Canada take in regard to that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Canada has signed
the general protocol. She has not committed herself in one way or the other as to making the jurisdiction compulsory. The reason for that is this:	While one
may believe that the compulsory principle is the sound principle, that is one thing, if everybody accepts the compulsory principle; but it is another thing, before you know, what other countries are going to accept that principle, to go and bind yourself to accept that compulsory principle. You may find yourself, in that case, in the position where the only people who accept the compulsory principle, and whom therefore you could compel, were people with whom you never had any relations at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is a question of competency of the court, it seems to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With all respect, it is
not a question of competency of the court. If a nation says "I will not agree that you should have the right to summon me before the court" and therefore we would not have the right to summon her before the court- do we want to say to her, "We will give you the right to summon us before the court?"


Samuel William Jacobs: I agree that that would
not he reasonable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to
say what Canada ought to do when we find ourselves face to face with the complete list of those nations who have declared their readiness to accept the compulsory jurisdiction.


Mr. DEMERS:: Does the minister believe that Canada can be summoned before the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, there is nothing in this to subject us to be summoned.


Lucien Cannon: Is this to be the only
tribunal, or are there to be other tribunals constituted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as I know, it is
not intended to constitute another tribunal. The parties may submit matters to arbitration outside of this court, if they deem

proper. When they so submit them to arbitration, they determine to whom they will submit them. There is in ,the covenant provision for the creation of one court, and one court only; I am speaking now of the court proper. There is provision for the constitution of bodies to decide certain questions about transit and communications but looking at it from the point of view of the court of justice, this is the one court.


Lucien Cannon: What about the court
suggested by the United States? Should that court be constituted, what position would we be in?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is, as I understand it, the court that was suggested, so far as any court was suggested, by the United States of America. Mr. Root, as I pointed out, took a most prominent part in the work of the committee.


Lucien Cannon: Is this the court suggested by the United States of America?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as any court
with a plan can be said to have been suggested by the United States of America, officially, the United States have never suggested any court at all, so far as I know. Of course, if the hon. gentleman has information that they have, then I am speaking about something that I do not know.


Lucien Cannon: My information is very
limited, but by reading the Bill and the schedule attached to it, I notice that this tribunal only refers to members- of the league. The United States is not a member of the league. Therefore, how can this tribunal be suggested by the United States?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not stated that the United States of America in any official way suggested this court, but I may point out that by provisions of this very statute itself the United States of America has access to this court, if it so desires, even though it should not become a member of the League, because to all those nations mentioned in the schedule to the covenant access to the court is extended. I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not in any sense speaking with any suggestion of criticism when I said that possibly the hon. gentleman had information with regard to the United States that I had not, because I am perfectly free to confess that I have never concerned myself with endeavouring to find out in any definite way whether the United States had ever made any concrete proposal for a court. If I am to give what I gather from the newspapers, I

gather that after Mr. Root's return he did speak in(high terms, as I understood him, of the court as projected in the plan to which he was a party, and I am under the impression that that was followed by certain expressions by a gentleman who at that time was a candidate for the presidency with regard to the value of a court, and I think he spoke of a court with teeth in it.


Lucien Cannon: If the United States of America, not being a member of the league, has access to this tribunal what advantage is there in our being a member of the League and paying as we have to do?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Any state not a member of the league that avails itself of its access of the court, will then find itself subject to having determined by the court what contribution it ought to make to pay the expenses entailed by the court by reason of that nation using it.


Lucien Cannon: Is there not a provision that parties appearing before the tribunal should bear their own expenses?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one provision, but there is another special provision dealing with those who are not members of the league.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: While the minister is looking that up, I might point out that the latter part of Article 35 provides:
When a state which is not a member of the League of Nations is a party to a dispute, the court will fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have endeavoured to put before the committee what seemed to me to be the salient features of the project. I shall be very happy, if hon. gentlemen have questions to ask, to answer them to the best of my ability.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is fully stated in Article 36?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The jurisdiction, as I 'have already said, as a rule depends on the referring of the matters by the party. Then that is extended. Article 36 provides that the jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it, "and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force."


Lucien Cannon: Then if Article 36 gives the full jurisdiction of this new tribunal, how can Canada, in view of her actual
status as a Dominion, be interested directly or indirectly in any question to be submitted to the tribunal, because each and every one of these questions has to be a question of an international character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That brings up a question which we have discussed on different occasions in this House, and upon which there is a marked difference of opinion. To my mind, Canada may be a party to an international question. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), Canada and the United States have a special tribunal established to determine international questions between them, and that is an international tribunal.


Lucien Cannon: The members of which are appointed by the Imperial Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Upon the recommendation of the Government of Canada.


Lucien Cannon: But officially, it is the British Government dealing with the American Government. Our Canadian Government has nothing to do with it officially.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Officially, it is His
Majesty dealing with the United States.


Lucien Cannon: As a matter of fact,
we do not fit in anywhere officially.


Charles Joseph Doherty: His Majesty is King of the entire Empire, and when the United Kingdom has a treaty to make His Majesty makes it. Similarly, when Canada has a treaty to make His Majesty makes it.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand that we are to have a Canadian Majesty, or an English Majesty, or an Irish Majesty, or an Imperial Majesty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not a question
of what we are to have; it is a question of what we have.


Lucien Cannon: Well, what have we?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have just one king and he is King of this entire Empire.


Lucien Cannon: His Imperial Majesty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Consequently, he is
king of each and every part of the Empire.


Samuel William Jacobs: Adyised by his English ministers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Pardon me; in regard to a treaty made by Canada he is advised by his Canadian ministers.


Samuel William Jacobs: Irrespective of the British ministry?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Quite irrespective of the British ministry. Hon. gentlemen's apprehension of His Majesty's being advised by the British ministry is because of the channel through which the communication goes. Now, let me -say to my hon. friends that in many of our differences upon the subject of Canada's nationhood we have differed because of this fact, that on one side we are looking at substance and on the other side we are looking at form. Those who say that His Majesty acts upon the advice of his Canadian ministers in matters of this sort base that statement upon the fact that the advice really comes from the Canadian ministers. On the other hand, those who say that he acts through his British ministry rest their case upon the fact that the advice, being there in writing, is transmitted through the British ministry. Now, let me say to hon. gentlemen who, in these forms, see such serious obstacles, that the very last thing that will disappear, in order that we may have complete nationhood, is form. Do hon. gentlemen recognize that if we looked at form we should have to conclude that we are living under an autocratic government? Yet all of us agree that there is no more democratic government in this world. If we let ourselves be guided solely by forms we cannot help but decide that we live under an autocratic government. The member for King's pointed out the other night a long list of things which His Majesty, not only in form, but as a matter of law, has a right to do; but if he did them our democratic liberties would be gone to the winds. He never does exercise these powers, and notwithstanding that in form this is an autocratic kingdom or empire, in reality,, as we all know, it is probably the most democratically governed country in the world. The same thing is absolutely true about our constitutional status within this Empire. We have the forms that have survived from the old colonial days, but we have the substance of a nation standing on a footing of equality, whose representatives tender their advice to its king, who acts on that advice. Look at any statute. We talk perpetually about this House legislating in the name of the Canadian people, and that is true. Yet look at the form: "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts, etc." That is if form is to determine a triumphant answer to all our contention that it is the people, through their parliament, that enact. After all, of course, the King merely assents, 
and constitutionally, if he did not assent, we all remember the saying of Mr. Dicey as quoted by the hon member for King's the other day, that the. King's veto is as dead as Queen Anne. Nevertheless, there is the form, and according to it, it is His Majesty that does the enacting. There is nothing more misleading that I know of in the whole field of formal phraseology, than the terms that are used with regard to the British system of government.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: We can assure the minister that we understand this perfectly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, but hon. gentlemen opposite asked for the explanation.


Lucien Cannon: I did, and the minister talks about expressions that are misleading. May I point out to him that he is speaking of the " King of the Empire." As a rule we talk of the Emperor of an Empire.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one instance of the anomalous expressions we all use. We speak of the British Empire, and still we all speak of the King.


Lucien Cannon: How can he be King of an Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one of the
puzzles.


Lucien Cannon: Would you suggest that it would be more in keeping with the fitness of things if he were styled " King of India and Emperor of the Empire?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: I trust the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) will realize that it is not my desire to impose upon the committee, The hon gentleman asks me fur an opinion. Well, I would only say that India is in its form of government an Empire and His Majesty is Emperor of India.


Samuel William Jacobs: A real Emperor.
Mr. DOHER.TY: Yes, a real Emperor of India. But His Majesty, as regards the rest of his Dominions, is King. His Majesty has two capacities. Now, we do speak of the whole aggregation of nations as the British Empire, and I can give no explanation why we talk of its King. There is a French story called, if I remember rightly " La vie a rebours," in which we are told of one of the characters: " On l'appelait Stanislas parce que ce n'etait pas son nom." I have to admit that some forms are anomalous, as are also some names, 'but there they are and that is what we call them. I cannot see the distinction between the

King's relation to England and his relation to the balance of the Empire.


John Howard Sinclair: I notice that this statute preserves the jurisdiction of the Hague Tribunal. The very first article says:
A Permanent Court of International Justice i-s hereby established, in accordance with Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This court shall be in addition to the Court of Arbitration organized by the Conventions of The Hague of 1899 and 1907,-
Now, my right hon. friend has explained that the jurisdiction of this court is opr tional-that is to say if the Canadian nation has a dispute with any other nation in the world they may submit it to this court, or may not, just as they please. Now, as I understand it, that is precisely the jurisdiction of the Hague Tribunal, and it looked to me as if we were simply duplicating that tribunal by setting up this other court. I would like my right hon. friend to explain if that phase of the matter has been considered? I would like him to explain if this court is merely optional, if it is one to which the nations can go if they wish to go, and if the Hague Tribunal is a court of the same description, why we should have the two running at the same time, and why we should establish this new court at all when the Hague Tribunal is in existence and has the same jurisdiction?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Hague Tribunal as I have explained-perhaps it is another case of misnomer-can hardly be said to have an existence; it is a list of judges, and people who want to have resort to it go, if they so desire, and select from that list some gentlemen to try their particular case. What is now proposed to be established is a permanent court which, as a permanent existing institution, will be at the disposal of people who choose to bring their suits before them. It will have a permanent existence and be composed of specific people chosen for their fitness. In the third place it is to be, as I pointed out, a court of justice, not a body open to considerations of conciliation or compromise. It is for the determination of questions of right on principles of right, in so far as they have been defined and established in ' what is called international law, and as a permanent body it is selected not only to contribute the judicial decision of future cases, but to build up an international jurisprudence that will go to improve and to govern the existing international law. The two institutions, I think, are very substantially different.
Now, as regards the arbitral court, or the arbitral tribunal, we are not concerned with the expense of it. It is not an institution of the League of Nations at all, and its expense to anybody is almost nil, because the men who are on the list do not get paid salaries for being on that list, and when they are selected by particular people to arbitrate between them-I do not think I am mistaken, but I want to safeguard myself by saying I have not looked it up specially-I* cannot conceive that they are paid salaries by anybody excepting ^ the people that use them. At all events it is no affair of the League of Nations. The League of Nations does not bear any expense of the Hague Arbitral Tribunal. The only body that the League of Nations undertakes to provide the expense of is this court that is now being constituted. It is not being constituted by any action of the league as a corporate body, but by conventions between individual members of the league. That is why we are asking tonight to ratify the protocol establishing a convention by which we adhere to this. It is well to bear that in mind. Neither the council, nor the assembly, nor the entire League of Nations, by anything that it idid in the council or anything that it did in the assembly, undertook to impose this body upon the nations that are members. What the council did was to have the project prepared. What the assembly did was to examine that project and in some respects to amend it, and to accept it in the sense that their members gave their assent to its provisions, but none of that bound Canada or bound any of the nations. After that convention was ripe for submission to the different nations, members of the league, among all the others it was submitted to us. The Government thought it proper to sign the protocol, which contains a special provision that it was not to be binding until it was ratified. Now, the Government comes before this House, before proceeding to advise ratification, to ask for assent for that action on its part.


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister be in a position to tell us how much this would cost the country?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will not cost this country anything directly. We pay a contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations. We will pay our contribution toward the expenses of the League of Nations so long as we remain a member, whether we assent to this convention or not. Of course, in so far as the League

of Nations finds its annual expenses increased by the expenses of this court, our contribution will be increased in the ratio of whatever our proportional contribution is finally decided to be.


Lucien Cannon: And we will be considered as a first-class power?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. In that regard let me point out to the hon. gentleman that the designation of a "first-class power"-I do not think the word is "power" but nation"-comes from the Postal Union arrangement and that is now being revised. If that revision by the Postal Union should not result in an apportionment which would operate fairly between the members of the League of Nations, then the league itself will take the matter up and adopt a different scale; and it is quite settled by, I think I can safely say, common consent, that the apportionment of the Postal Union aoes not operate fairly as between the members of the League of Nations in that under it, for instance, Canada pays an unduly large proportion. In one of the two ways I have mentioned that is intended to be rectified-by the rectification of the Postal Union contributions, or by the adoption by the league itself of another basis. It is expected that when that rectification is effected those nations which for the current year will have been found to have paid more than the amount settled as their proper proportion will be entitled to credit for such overpayment.


Marie Joseph Demers: Why was the International Postal Union scale adopted as the basis for our contribution?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It should be pointed out that the covenant was not drafted in a plenary gathering of the representatives of all the nations, but by a commission composed of a very limited number of representatives, and while I do not desire to indulge in any criticism of those representatives, I fancy at the time their minds were concentrated upon what seemed to them a much more difficult problem; in a word, I am afraid they adopted the Postal Union system without giving the matter sufficient thought and could hardly have had present to their minds the rules of the Postal Union. As was pointed out the other night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when 10 p.m. the Postal Union scale was v adopted the difference between what was paid by a first-class nation and by a second-class nation was relatively 
very small, and so far as one may judge by looking at the number of first-class powers composing the union one would think that every nation concerned said, "Oh, I may as well be a first-class nation. It does not cost much any way."


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that one of the small Central American countries, Nicaragua, has dropped out of the League of Nations because it thought the membership too expensive?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I saw that reported in the papers of yesterday or the day before.


Lucien Cannon: Because the membership is too expensive?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Mr. ROWELL:: As I have to leave the committee in a short time I would like to make one or two observations on the Bill before I go. The first is, that I believe the Government was acting in the interests of Canada when it signed the protocol; and that the committee will also be acting in the interests of the country if they approve this Bill and authorize the Government to proceed with the necessary steps to ratify the protocol.
It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the general provisions of the statute, that subject having been so fully and admirably covered by the Minister of Justice; but I wish to point out in view of the present discouraging aspect of the international situation that the progress which has been made in the settlement of international disputes by arbitration and by judicial means in the past twenty or thirty years is one of the most encouraging and hopeful signs in the world outlook. It is difficult to realize as Mr. Root pointed out in an address a few months ago before the New York Bar Association when discussing the constitution of this court-that as recently as 1899 the idea of arbitration of a more or less judicial character as a general method of settling international disputes was laughed at. He pointed out that at that time the idea of arbitration as embodied in the decision of the first Hague conference was put in to save the face of the Czar who had called the conference for the purpose of furthering a scheme of world-wide disarmament. The representatives of the powers found themselves unable to attain any measure of agreement on the subject matter before the conference, and in recognition of the Czar's action they agreed on a form of international arbitra-

tion, which was embodied in the first Hague convention. It is one of the most remarkable and interesting chapters in international history that from that situation in 1899 we have now reached the point where a body of representative jurists, among the ablest in the world, have framed the constitution of a permanent court and that that constitution has been approved by a majority of the nations of the world. That is a very great step forward.
Another encouraging feature in connection with this particular matter is that whatever the attitude of the United States may he finally on the question of the League, there is every ground to believe the United States will co-operate in the work of this international court. In the address of Mr. Root to which I referred, he suggests that the New York Bar Association is entitled-and I think properly	entitled-to some
measure of credit for incorporation in the Covenant of the league of the provision for the setting up of this court. There is no doubt that the New York Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and other bodies of jurists in the United States have been for years pressing for the constitution of a court of this kind; and in the inaugural address of the President, as I now recall it, he strongly supported the idea of such a court.
I want to express my concurrence with the view presented by the Minister of Justice on the question of compulsory jurisdiction. I am sure we all hope the time will come when full compulsory jurisdiction may he given this international court. That time has not yet arrived, as the right hon. gentleman explained, but the fact is the court has a substantial measure of compulsory jurisdiction at the present time-a larger compulsory jurisdiction than I think is generally recognized 

that is, the compulsory jurisdiction growing out of provisions in various treaties and conventions that disputes shall be submitted to it for determination. I am going to enumerate four or five of those to indicate the measure of compulsory jurisdiction which the court already possesses.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. member will permit me, I am sorry I do not agree with him or with the Minister of Justice on the question of compulsory jurisdiction. How can he reconcile the submission of a sovereign state to the jurisdiction of any authority beyond its own?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The state does it by its own agreement. If a state agrees that when any dispute arises between that state and another state or group of states the matter shall be referred to a certain tribunal for settlement; that does not involve any greater derogation from sovereignty than would be the case if it were agreed that a particular dispute should be referred to a tribunal for settlement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I recognize the distinction between being obliged to respond to a summons and being a party to a convention.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps my hon. friend has not understood the reference to compulsory jurisdiction. There can be no compulsory jurisdiction on the part of the court unless the states parties to this protocol agree to give it compulsory jurisdiction. That point was made very clear in the report of the commission of jurists who framed this convention. While they recommended compulsory jurisdiction, they pointed out that it could not go into effect unless the various states ratified a convention, and if they ratified the convention and accepted compulsory jurisdiction, then it became a treaty to which they were parties; it was no derogation from their sovereignty. Sovereign and independent states, therefore, could quite consistently join in setting up such a tribunal.
Now, I was simply going to point out certain important conventions or treaties under which this court already has compulsory jurisdiction, in the sense that parties to these conventions have agreed that disputes of a certain character shall go to this court for final determination. This court is the final tribunal for the settlement of disputes under the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty; it is expressly so provided in the labour clauses of the treaty. This court is the final tribunal for dealing with disputes arising under the Ports, Waterways and Railway provisions of the Treaty of Peace. It is the final authority on certain questions arising under the minorities treaties, and also under the mandates. If any dispute arises with reference to the interpretation of the mandates, the final authority is this Permanent Court of International Justice. That is also true of the International Air Convention, of the Arms Traffic Convention, of the Liquor Traffic Convention in Africa, and I think there are several other conventions in which it is expressly provided that where differences of interpretation arise

the matter shall be determined by this Permanent Court of International Justice. There is another aspect of the question to which the Minister of Justice referred and which might properly constitute one of the most important phases of the court's jurisdiction, namely, the provision in the covenant which entitles the council or the assembly to refer any dispute coming before them to the court for an advisory opinion. The members of the committee will appreciate that while this court has not compulsory jurisdiction, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, all parties to the league have agreed that in case of dispute arising which they are unable to settle by diplomatic means they will refer that dispute either to arbitration or to conciliation by the council. So that every international dispute that arises between members of the league must either go to arbitration or to conciliation by the council.


John Howard Sinclair: That is not the construction given by the Minister of Justice.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am speaking now of
the Covenant of the League of Nations, not of the statute creating this tribunal. Under the covenant every international dispute which cannot be settled by diplomatic means must be referred either to arbitration or to conciliation. If it goes to arbitration, the parties fix their own tribunal it may be the Hague; it may be a tribunal they set up, and that disposes of the matter. But if it is referred to the council, then the council has the right to refer all cases to this court for an advisory opinion. Let me give my hon. friend a very practical illustration. Take the appeal which Germany is now making to the League of Nations against the sanctions imposed, on the ground that they are contrary to the terms of the treaty. While Germany is not now a party to the League, the Covenant of the League contemplates disputes between states members of the league and states not members being brought under the jurisdiction of the league. Special provision is made for that purpose, and apparently Germany accepts that provision. Now, suppose the council took action and Germany accepted the conditions. One of two alternatives must apply to the dispute: either arbitration or conciliation. Under existing conditions one would hardly expect that arbitration would be resorted to by agreement; the alternative is conciliation by the council. If it is a question of the interpretation of the 
treaty, the council, one would think, would be very glad to avail themselves of a strong, impartial court to give an advisory opinion as to the proper interpretation of the treaty. It is not difficult to imagine that very important questions or subjects will be referred to the court by the council or the assembly in order that they may secure an advisory opinion. These expressions of opinion do not bind the council; they are simply the opinion of this court on the legal questions involved.
In reference to the importance of such a tribunal, may I quote the opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock who states the case admirably. He says:
The League stands for peace among the nations, assured by justice, but there can be no settled justice without judgment and no judgment without a tribunal.
One of the real hopes for the success of the great experiment of providing a method for the peaceable settlement of international disputes lies in the constitution of such a court.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Is it incumbent
upon all the nations who compose the league to pass legislation similar to this and for the same purpose?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No state need pass it.
No state need come into this court unless it wishes to do so. Action is purely voluntary; states may come in or remain out as they think best. One of the distinguishing characteristics of our British institutions, and of our Anglo-Saxon civilization, is the rule of law governing the relation of citizen to citizen and of citizens to the state. It is the rule of law that ensures us the protection of life and of property and gives strength and stability to the social and political organizations of the country. Statesmen and publicists have urged that we can only secure permanent peace in the world when public right and the rule of law are accepted in international affairs. We cannot have public right and the rule of law in international affairs unless we have a court administering justice in accordance with the principles of international law. For these reasons, without going into details in reference to the provisions of the court, I submit that it marks a very great step in advance and one which this Parliament is wise in taking, not only in the interest of Canada, but in the larger interest of the peaceable settlement of international disputes.

I know there is scepticism abroad. We are told that men have always fought, always will fight, and that it is hopeless to attempt to introduce any new experiments m order to avert the catastrophe of war. Exactly the same argument might have been applied to the original constitution of courts in Great Britain, but if advanced it was not accepted. Justice took the place of the old blood feuds-compulsory jurisdiction was accepted. Men once thought that affairs of honour had to he settled in a manner in which men of honour thought they should be settled. Now all accept the jurisdiction of the courts. One may confidentially anticipate that the nations of the world will in time come to accept the very same principle. There is no derogation from their sovereignty, from their dignity, nor from the interests which each Government is called upon to protect and conserve by doing so. If there are any who are prone to get discouraged in connection with work of this kind, I want to close by quoting the saying of that distinguished French man of affairs, Colbert, who said:
All human endeavour Is subject to disappointment, nevertheless, if honest and competent, it seldom wholly fails, and an undertaking of unexampled scope and unbounded opportunities deserves endeavour of the best.
Therefore, all men who are working for the constitution and the bringing into operation of a court of this kind, are putting forth endeavours that should promote the highest interest of our common humanity. To every man who is pessimistic or cynical, I would say the path of human progress has not been blazed by either pessimists or cynics, bu't by the optimists and idealists, the men who have had vision to see, faith to believe and courage to execute. Such men framed the Covenant of the League of Nations; such men framed the constitution of this court. This House will do well to put itself in line with the optimists rather than with the pessimists, with the people of faith rather than with the unbelievers, in a- great experiment to promote international justice and peace.


Lucien Cannon: I have listened with
great attention to the explantions given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and also by the hon. member who used to be President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). I think the time has come for members of this House to state very plainly and expressly their views on Bills of this kind. I do not wish to discuss the merits
of the question as to whether a tribunal of international justice, dealing with and trying to settle world problems amicably and without resort to war, would be a good thing. There is no doubt that it would be. But the question to be decided by this committee is not whether this tribunal would be good or bad; it is simply whether Canada has anything to do with affairs of this kind, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating that I do not believe Canada is in any way interested in this matter.
I base my views on three reasons. First of all, I say that Canada should not join in this plan because on the face of the document which has been placed in the hands of members of the committee, Canada will never be interested in any matter submitted to this tribunal. If I am not mistaken, the clause which deals with the jurisdiction of this tribunal is clause 36. Let every member of the committee read this clause carefully, and after having done so I think every member with a legal mind will cpme to the conclusion that Canada has nothing to do with the scheme. _ The jurisdiction of this court is a jurisdiction of an exclusively international character. This court will have to deal with international problems and cases. If you take this interpretation as being the correct interpretation of clause 36, and if you carry your argument further, you have to ask yourself: Will Canada, as a Dominion, not as a nation, because I do not believe that Canada has achieved up to now the status of an independent or separate nation within the Empire, be interested in this court? We are, as a Dominion, part of the British Empire, and the British Empire as a whole, that is Great Britain and the Dominions overseas, is a single nation so far as the other nations of the world are concerned. Therefore, we cannot be interested in any international problem submitted to this court and if we are not interested in 'matters submitted to the court, why should we elect one of the judges of the tribunal? Why should we bind ourselves to accept the decisions of that tribunal? Why should we bear the enormous cost of this very expensive machinery which will be instituted at The Hague? I think the people of Canada have had enough of our interference in European problems. During the war, Canada, as part and member of the British Empire, contributed to carry on the war. The war is over. Canada is an American country; Canada is situated on the American continent; should Canada take part in the

decision of European problems when our all powerful neighbour to the south refuses to do so? Is it logical for a small country like Canada, with its limited financial resources, with a limited population, to take the lead on this American continent? Although the United States of America refuse to join in this scheme, refuse to be a member of the League of Nations, refuse to be a member of this tribunal-although they assume this attitude, we in Canada would assume an altogether different attitude. I do not believe-and sincerely I state this before the committee-that the population of Canada is behind the Government or the Minister of Justice as regards this matter. I do not believe that the people of Canada are behind the Government or the Minister of Justice in this matter. We have enough of our own domestic problems, and enough Imperial problems, without poking our noses into matters with which we have absolutely nothing to do. Take, for instance, the problems which are at present attracting the attention of European statesmen. Take the plebiscite which has just been held in Silesia. Has any Canadian, no matter what province he lives in, any interest in the solution of that problem? Take the plebiscite which was held a few days ago in the old Australian province of the Tyrol. Who in Canada is interested in the outcome of that plebiscite? Let us go further, Mr. Chairman, and take the problems in the Balkans, the problems in the near East, the problems in Persia, and the many other problems which are facing European statesmen to-day. Are we as Canadians going to meddle in all these questions? Why should we? Even if we should express an opinion, our opinion would not carry any weight, because the opinion which is to be expressed is the opinion of the British Government, and of no other government. So much is that the case, Mr. Chairman, that treaties have been signed ever since the war which interest the whole Empire as an Empire, but the old policy of the British Empire has been continued unchanged. Our Canadian Government was not consulted, the Australian Government was not consulted, and we never will be.
_ We have to consider the situation as it is, not as my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice would like to have it, not as the hon. member who used to be the President of the Privy Council would like to have it, not as I would like to have it. No, we have to consider this question in rela-
tion to the actual condition which exists as between Canada and Great Britain, and the actual condition which exists to-day is the condition which existed five and ten years ago. The British Empire internationally is just one nation, and is not more than one nation, as hon. gentlemen on the other side have stated several times. We have no trouble in Canada with our neighbours to the south, we have no troubles with any other nation on the American continent. Why should we meddle in affairs with which we have absolutely no concern? Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my first point is that we should not join in this scheme because we have absolutely nothing to do with it. The court, being a court of international jurisdiction, Canada so long as she remains in the condition she is in to-day, of having no international status, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
My second objection to the scheme is the financial objection. In this protocol which has been signed provision is made for the appointment of eleven judges, and five deputy judges, if I am not mistaken. These eleven judges and five deputy judges will be the high tribunal of international justice. Sub-committees will be formed; I might call them subsidiary courts. These courts will apparently sit permanently. Not only will they sit at the Hague, which is the headquarters of this tribunal, but according to the provisions of the protocol they can travel wherever they wish. We will have a kind of commercial travelling tribunal of an international character, and who is going to pay the bill for that? Who is going to foot the account? Suppose, for instance, that this tribunal takes it into its head to go and sit for months and months on a dispute between two countries in Asia. Are we going to pay for that? Why should we? We have already for all these fancy ideas brought back from the Peace Conference by our delegates paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I understand that this year our contribution to the League of Nations is $200,000. We are treated, as the right hon. the Minister of Justice said a moment ago, as a first-class nation when the time comes to pay, and as a fifth-class nation When the time comes to receive. Whenever the time comes to take up the collection, the right hon. the Minister of Justice, who generally represents us at these conferences, chips in for Canada, and he has to chip in as the representative of a first-class nation; we are in exactly the same footing in that respect as the representative of Great

Britain or France. But when the time comes to receive, when the Reparations Commission sits, for instance, and when the allied nations of Europe are asking Germany to pay 4baek some of the money that was spent during the war, my right hon. friend is never consulted. My right hon. friend has taken a very active part in the Parliamentary debates this session; he has never been away once, but nevertheless, though this question of reparations has been discussed by all the statesmen of Europe nearly every week of every month, my right hon. friend has not been called to their meetings. Why? It is the same reason. When we have to pay, we are a first-class nation; when we have to be paid, we do not count at all. Our people in Canada are sick and tired of this situation, and it is about time that one member of this House would say so. These are all fancy ideas, some of the evils of the war brought back by our delegates from France, and by our ambassador from Geneva. I am quite sure that if they had brought back the natural product of Geneva, even if the ex-President of the Privy Council had brought back a whole cargo, he would not have hurt this country half as much as he has hurt it by trying to impose on it the burdens he is trying to put upon it to-day with this scheme of an international tribunal of justice. We have not the means to join in all these fancy schemes of parading throughout the world as statesmen of international status. This country is practically bankrupt Mr. Chairman, and unless there is a change somewhere we shall be ruined very soon. The little money we have, let us keep there.
If we want to consider exactly how we are going to be treated at all these international meetings, we need only consider how other American countries are being treated. The South American delegates from Brazil, the Argentine, and other countries went to Geneva and Paris thinking they were going to be called upon to settle the world's problems.
They soon discovered that they were called there only for the purpose of giving their financial contributions to the League of Nations scheme and for nothing else, and that is why some of them have already dropped out, as others will. There is another consideration we cannot overlook unless we are shortsighted. The new Republican administration in the United States has declared, through the mouth of its President, Mr. Harding, that they will have nothing to do with the League
of Nations. Well, if they do not join the League of Nations the league is dead, and I do not see why we should buy clothes for a corpse, especially when we cannot afford it. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) some time ago expressed views similar to those I utter to-night. I congratulate the hon. member for having had the courage to make the statements he made in this House, but I am sorry that the Tories on the other side do not follow the lead of the oldest and purest Tory in the House, the hon. member for Brantford. That hon. gentleman seems to be preaching in the wilderness and I hope that very soon he will have disciples, because his views on this point were very good; they were excellent. I do not wish to detain the House longer, but I would sum up my opinions in a concise sentence. Let us once and for all mind our own business. Let us confine our energies to our national problems. What is the real secret of Great Britain's greatness? It is that her statesmen for many years, I might almost say for centuries, pursued the policy of keeping their hands off the European continent. That policy was traditional with Great Britain for centuries and was undoubtedly a good one. In some respects it might have been somewhat selfish, but very often the best kind of patriotism is the most intensely selfish. All nations are selfish, and the more patriotic a nation is the more selfish is it inclined to be. In the late war Great Britain departed from her traditional policy of leaving the European continent alone.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :: Was she right ?


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about it. I do not think the hon. member would have any hesitation in saying that she was right, would he? [DOT]


Mr. GORDON:: He has just made up his mind.


Lucien Cannon: As I say, Great Britain has followed for centuries the traditional policy of minding her own business, and I think that we in Canada should follow suit. Let us cease from playing the role of hutter-in. We are always butting in on something or other nowadays, and very often when our delegates go to Europe to take part in deliberations-very seldom do they participate in decisions-they deal with problems altogether un-Canadian. I am speaking now as a member of this House and not in the restricted sense of

a member of the party represented on this side, and I think I may safely say that the majority of hon. members are sick and tired of the way the Government is dealing with these problems. It was all right on the morrow of the war for our representatives to go to Paris, because Canada had taken part in the war and had a right to be represented at the Peace Conference. But what I object to is the way in which Canada was treated there, and I say that so long as we do not obtain from Great Britain a larger share of international freedom, so long as we remain what we are to-day, so long as we are deprived of a real and distinct nationhood, so long as we are simply a dominion, and nothing else, within the British Empire, then let us mind our own business and confine our energies to our national problems; and Great Britain can continue in future, as she has always done in the past, to make the decisions which bind the Empire, including Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before the clause is carried there is an error in form which I desire to correct. I move to amend section 1 by inserting before the word "ratify," in the first line, the following words:
"to advise that His Majesty be humbly moved to"-
And after the word "ratify" the words:
-"on behalf of Canada."
The reason for the amendment is obvious. There was a clear oversight in regard to the question of ratification. Ratification is a matter that belongs to His Majesty and should be made by him. In adopting this form and carrying it out we shall be proceeding in the same manner as we proceeded when the German treaty was approved.


Lucien Cannon: Has the protocol been signed already by His' Majesty for the British Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been signed on behalf of Great Britain by Mr. Arthur Balfour. It has been signed on behalf of Canada because let me point out this is a protocol; it has not any of the solemn forms of a treaty-by the High Commissioner at Paris, under authorization of Order in Council, and has been signed on behalf of the other Dominions by their representatives. There have been no - signatures on behalf of the Empire as a whole; each one of the countries has signed through its representative, and it is now proposed that His Majesty, on behalf of

each one of the Dominions, shall so sign and ratify it.


Lucien Cannon: As far as this is concerned vie are in the same position as in the case of the Covenant of the League of Nations? Great Britain is a member and all the Dominions are separate members? ^


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. Although as an
actual matter of fact the representatives nominally of the British Empire have acted throughout as the representatives of the United Kingdom, with the Crown colonies and dependencies, and the enumerated Dominions have acted through their representatives. That is fully understood by Great Britain as well as ourselves and that is what has been done. Of course, we can only recommend that after that has been done it be ratified, and we are concerned only with that which has been done by Canada. I may point out-not but that I would be quite pleased to discuss on every occasion the question of our nationhood-that perhaps that matter is beside the question here, because what is being done is being done by members of the League as members of the League and there cannot be any doubt that we are members of that League.


Lucien Cannon: Could the minister tell
us why the Government has come to Parliament at all for its ratification? This is not a treaty, it is a protocol; why not ratify it in the same way as the Bulgarian and Turkish Treaties were ratified, by Order in Council? In those cases the Government never came to Parliament at all for ratification; why come now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The answer, I think,
is obvious: We have desired to adopt what I think is a thoroughly democratic principle, that wherever any useful purpose can be served a treaty should be submitted to Parliament. In the case of the Bulgarian Treaty-and I am not sure that it was the particular one; there was one treaty anyway that was so ratified-the reason it was ratified by Order in Council was because Parliament had just authorized the ratification of an identical treaty. In the case of the Austrian Treaty, I think, the treaty arrived before the then session of Parliament adjourned and we submitted it to Parliament. I repeat that we desired to adopt, as far as was practically possible, the democratic principle of submitting treaties to Parliament before ratification. The hon. gentleman, of course, is aware that constitutionally speaking it is not absolutely essential that all

treaties should be submitted to Parliament; but we do think it a better practice, wherever it is possible and wherever a matter of any consequence is involved, to bring the treaty to Parliament. That is why we- have done it in this case.


Lucien Cannon: I would be the last
man in the world to fail to congratulate the right hon. minister when he tells us that he has decided to adopt the democratic method of coming to Parliament to obtain whatever Parliament can grant, and not resort any longer to the undemocratic method of doing things by Order in Council, and I hope this promise will apply not only to this particular Bill but generally speaking to all measures in future. However, the point I wished to make is this: The minister has told us that this tribunal is the outcome or consequence of the Covenant of the League of Nations. We have signed that Covenant which was embodied in two treaties-the treaty with Germany and the treaty with Austria- therefore we have already bound ourselves to it twice. Parliament has approved of one treaty, the German Treaty, and the Austrian Treaty has been ratified by Order in Council-


Charles Joseph Doherty: And also by Parliament.


Lucien Cannon: The Austrian Treaty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Austrian treaty, yes.


Lucien Cannon: Then if we have already bound ourselves by approving of two treaties containing the Covenant of the League of Nations why the necessity for this special Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because the Covenant of the League of Nations did not bind those who signed it to accept this court. What it provided, with regard to this court, was, that the Council of the League of Nations should cause to be prepared a project for an international court for submission to the members of the league. The council caused that to ibe prepared, and the assembly considered it and found it to be acceptable, but the view entertained-and I think the sound view-was that under the covenant neither council nor assembly was entitled to bind members by the acceptance of the court, that the council's function consisted in having the project for such a court prepared for submission to the members of the league. There was entertained among the members of the assembly, at any rate by certain of the members, the view that submission to the assembly was a sufficient submission to the members of the league. There was a difference of opinion upon that question, and in view of that difference of opinion the view was asquiesced in -which I may say I personally think was the sound view-that only a member of the league could bind himself. Now this is submitted to us as members of the league, it has been signed subject to ratification, and we are asking Parliament to approve of it. The covenant did not by itself bind us upon this question.


Lucien Cannon: Has the British Parliament ratified this protocol?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware whether the ratification has, as yet, been executed.


Lucien Cannon: Has any other nation ratified it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can give the hon. gentleman a list of the nations who have signed-


Lucien Cannon: I mean ratified it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: -who have signed the ratification; I cannot tell how many ratifications have come in. I think I may venture to say that there really is no reason to doubt the ratification of the majority of the members, because the opinion of the majority was that the acceptance of the assembly bound them; but I cannot say how many have ratified. I am in a position to say with very great confidence that Great Britain will most assuredly ratify and I think I can say likewise, with absolute confidence, that it will be ratified by the great majority of members and, I anticipate, all of the nations represented in the assembly. The hon. gentleman need have no anxiety but that it will be ratified. If it is not ratified by twenty-four it will not become effective, so that we are running no risk of being bound unless it is ratified.


Lucien Cannon: Does not the right hon. gentleman think it would be becoming for Canada to wait and see what the great powers like Great Britain and France, who are really interested, will do, and not be in such a hurry to bind ourselves and to disburse further sums of money?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There can be no doubt that Great Britain will ratify the protocol. We already have communications from the British Government inquiring when we will be ready. Then we have a communication issued by the secretariat of the league pointing out the importance of prompt action by everybody concerned. Now, if everybody whits until everybody else has

ratified the protocol we will never get ratification. There is no great advantage in being the last to ratify it.


Lucien Cannon: But I do not understand that England would ask Canada: When are you going to ratify this protocol? when she herself has not ratified it. Why be in such a hurry to push us ahead and stay behind herself?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Nobody is being pushed; everybody is acting voluntarily.


Lucien Cannon: What about herself?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Great Britain has not expressed any desire that we should make any special "hurry-up," but she has inquired whether we were ready or not. The urging comes from the organization of the league itself, who point out that if this is to be carried out it is a matter of holding the election at the next assembly of the league, that there is provision calling for the nominations a certain number of months before the election is held, and that it is desirable on the part of those who want to ratify that they should ratify in time to enable the nominations to be held.


Lucien Cannon: What would happen if Canada should ratify, as my right hon. friend is asking us to do, and Great Britain should not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If Great Britain did not ratify she would not have approved the convention. Canada would have approved the convention and would be entitled to exercise the rights that come to her under it. It does seem to me quite impossible to convey to the hon. gentleman this fact, that whether they are all entirely mistaken or not, all the nations over there look upon each member of the league as a member and treat him accordingly. They may be thoroughly mistaken, but they do not entertain the view that it is only Great Britain who is a member of the league so. far as the British Empire is concerned. Of course, in the hon. gentleman's mind they must be entirely mistaken, but that is the view they entertain. So much so, that I can point the hon. gentleman to discussions where Canada was not present at all, and where some of the greatest jurists of Europe laid it down as a matter that does not suffer discussion that the Dominions stand in the position of distinct states, in regard to the League of Nations at all events. However mistaken they may be, they believe that
11 p.m. and act upon it. But this is a matter for us to decide as a

member of the league. We have signed this covenant, we ask Parliament to ratify it, and I must confess that I do not appreciate the importance of our hanging back. If we think this covenant is right we ought to ratify it, and, as I pointed out a moment ago, if everybody stands around in suspicion, saying, "perhaps the other fellow will not sign, so I will wait until he does," we will never get any action.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman says that he does not see any usefulness in hanging back. Well, it is pretty useful- sometimes to hang back before getting into a hole. I think if our big brother, or to use the expression of my hon. friend from Durham, our elder sister in the system of Imperial Commonwealths, in other words, Great Britain, hangs back, we might do well to hang back ourselves. The countries that are really concerned in this protocol-not countries like Canada that have absolutely nothing to do with the scheme-as I said before, are not doing anything. Then why should we go ahead and ratify it before anybody else has done so, and thereby bind ourselves to pay out money? Great Britain has not ratified this convention, and we do not know that Australia or South Africa have taken action towards ratification.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will not pay a
dollar more because we ratify this convention than if we do not ratify it. As I pointed out, the expenses are paid by the league.


Lucien Cannon: Then if it is that bad
we ought to drop out of the league.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a matter we
may reopen discussion upon.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman has quoted as an argument that we are a distinct member of the League of Nations, an opinion expressed by a learned jurist of Europe. It may be that some jurists of Europe have expressed views of that kind, but whatever I have read in the French and [Italian newspapers or reviews in connection with this scheme is to the effect that the writers do not at all understand our constitutional status. Indeed the European statesmen are still asking themselves what the right hon. gentleman was doing at the Peace Conference as a representative of Canada. So much is that the case that I have seen articles by writers of world-wide reputation in La Revue des Deux Mondes and Le Correspondent saying that if Canada can

be a member of the League of Nations, why should not Madagascar and the other French colonies be also represented on the league. That is the way we are treated by French statesmen and publicists. Notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman may declare in this House, the French statesmen who took part at the last conference at Geneva do not understand our constitutional status, and could not realize what Canada was doing there as a member separate from Great Britain. I am quite sure that if the French people do not understand our position, the Italian people understand less, and I am equally sure that our brothers from the Hediaz and from the new republics in the Balkans or on the Russian border understand even less. And if we are to co-operate with people who misunderstand us to that extent, why spend our good Canadian money when we have got .so little of it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me assure the hon. gentleman that he does infinite discredit to the high intelligence of the gentlemen who represented France at the conference. They had not the slightest trouble about understanding our constitutional status, and they never questioned it.


Lucien Cannon: They had not the slightest trouble about' it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In more than one
instance that I clearly recall it was the French representative who pointed out the importance with regard to one of the sections of making it absolutely beyond doubt that the Dominions were entitled to be treated on a footing of equality with the other members. I have not followed the opinions of all the distinguished writers that the hon. gentleman says he has read, but I can assure him as a matter of personal knowledge that the representatives of France at the Geneva Assembly had no hesitation in accepting the position of the Dominions as we defined it. And for his information let me add that that was the case with the representatives of all the Latin races. Frankly, we have to come to Canada to find these grave doubts that do not exist in the minds of British statesmen nor in the minds of the statesmen of other countries. Those statesmen may be mistaken, but at all events they act upon their convictions in that regard.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman mentions doubts. We have doubts, and rightly so. The right hon. gentleman belonged to a group in Canada which always upheld the strongest Imperial tendencies or opinions. That group has always been willing to have our country occupy an altogether subservient position so 'far as Great Britain is concerned. Therefore, when the right hon. gentleman with his Tory traditions and his Tory past comes to this House and claims that he has obtained for Canada liberties and freedom and a status which great men in Canada have been trying to confer upon us for over a century, but without success, it is no wonder we have doubts. We have declarations in this House from the right hon. gentleman who heads the Department of Justice; we have declaration^ in this House from the hon. gentleman who was president of the Privy Council telling us of all the extraordinary and reniarkable changes which have taken place in our constitution in the last four or five years, and on the other hand we hear from members of the same government declarations of an entirely different nature. Are we not perfectly justified, therefore, in asking questions as we have asked them to-night? Let this Government be sincere in claiming for Canada a larger share of liberty and freedom. Let the right hon. gentleman as representing the Government tell us that he will do his utmost to diminish the imperialistic tendencies of both the Imperial Government and the Canadian Government. In a word, let the Canadian Government become a truly Canadian Government so far as our Imperial relations are concerned, and I for once will support the right hon. gentleman most loyally. But before I give him that support, I want to have the matter clearly understood; I want to have my reasonable doubts removed by sufficient explanations and assurances.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see a difference between Canada's position as a member of the league and as a party to this court. As I understand the right hon. gentleman's explanation, we can only come into this court as a British nation. If this court is to be of any use to us it will be in the case of Canada as a British nation settling a dispute with some other nation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member
will look at articles 34 and 35 he will see that the question of nationhood is eliminated so far as access to this court is concerned. Members of the League of Nations



[Stage Direction]
will have access to it, so that even if we were not a nation at all we should have access to it as a member of the League of Nations. The hon. gentleman has been assuming that this court will deal only with questions that lead to war, and so on. I would point out that we have actually pending at the present time before the International Waterways Commission many international questions as between Canada and the United States. We have furthermore pending before an international commission a large number of disputed claims on which there is litigation between Canada and the United States. If this court had existed, it would have been open to us and to the United States to prefer those claims there.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a court for the settlement of international questions. Now, when we use the word "international" in that connection, we are referring to questions as between the British Empire on the one side and some other nations on the other. It may be an Australian case or a Canadian case or a South African case, but in any event the party to the action would, as I understand it, be the British Empire. Otherwise, we should be breaking up into as many different nations as there are nations in the League, and Canada codld start forth on her own account and become party to an action entirely apart from Great Britain. I do not think that is the intention at all.


Lucien Cannon: What will be the effect if we kill this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will mean that there will be one member of the League which does not approve of the court.


Lucien Cannon: But we have already
signed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have signed, but subject to ratification.


Lucien Cannon: If this Bill is killed it means, as I understand it, that we shall not be a party to this international tribunal, but we shall still be a member of the League of Nations and therefore liable to a share of the expenses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We would still be a member of the League of Nations. The questions is: Do we think this court is a good thing?


Lucien Cannon: What will be our position if we, being in haste, as apparently we are, to do so, make this ratification and

no other nation does so? Would we have to pay all the expenses?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Unfortunately, many observations which I have made during the course of the evening have evidently not reached my hon. friend's ears. I mentioned the fact that it required twenty-four members to ratify the protocol, to bring the court into existence, so that if we signed all alone, there would not be any court at all; we would be just where we were before, and no harm would be done. My hon. friend can take my assurance for that.


Lucien Cannon: Referring to the protocol itself which we are called upon to ratify, would the right hon. gentleman explain why, in accordance with clause 22, "the seat of the court shall be established at the Hague"? I understand that we have gone to considerable expense at Geneva to secure quarters for the League of Nations. Why go away from Geneva now that we have bought there property which has cost a tremendous sum of money and go to the Hague to erect another building? I do not think that is business-like.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The business offices at Geneva are for the present purposes of the secretariat and other organizations of the League of Nations and they are occupied. It will cost no more money to have suitable accommodation at the Hague than it will at Geneva. The committee which originally drew up this project thought that the Hague was a desirable place, very largely, I think, by reason of its past associations with peace conferences and with the existing arbitral tribunal. As I have pointed out, this will make no difference in expense. The court is one organization; the secretariat and offices of the league constitute another organization. The buildings at Geneva are occupied by the secretariat and offices of the league; and if the court were established at Geneva, other accommodation would have to be found for it there. Accommodation will have to be found for it at the Hague, and there is no reason to believe that it will cost more in one place than in the other. At all events, the distinguished men who made this plan, thought that, largely for historical reasons and there being no objection from any practical point of view, it was a proper thing to fix the seat of the tribunal at the Hague.


Lucien Cannon: I did not go to Geneva and I did not take part in the last meeting

of the League of Nations, as my right hon. friend did, so that he is better informed than I am. I understand from the press that vast machinery has been established at Geneva; that many people are living at Geneva drawing fat salaries. I understand that nobody there will look at a salary that is less than $25,000 or $30,000. We have a large number of office buildings which we have rented or bought. Now we are going away from Geneva to the Hague, and when we need information from our officials of the league, what will happen? I do not think a tribunal which is nothing but part of the League of Nations, which, I might say, is the judicial part of the system of the league, should be away from the executive which is the league itself. To separate them in this way is about as logical as if the Supreme Court of Canada should be transferred to Vancouver when the seat of Government is at Ottawa.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause
carry?


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman does not want to give me the information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given the hon. gentleman all the information I have.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are we to go through the statute in detail?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is, of course, as the committee desires. This may be pointed out. The question is: Do we accept the statute, or do we not accept it? I quite understand that in order to come to an intelligent decision, it is useful to read through the statute which forms the schedule; but it has been before the House now for some considerable time, and I would rather have assumed that members ha'd read it, and if they had any observations to make, if they found in any of the clauses a reason why it should not be accepted, well, that is a reason why it should not be accepted. But, the question is not one of our amending or changing the statute; it is one of whether we accept it or not. 1


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must confess that I have had no time to read this, except the very first part of it, and, perhaps, we will get along just as well if we allow it to stand over to-night if there is some other work which we can go on with.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should be very glad to meet any suggestion that will enable careful examination of the schedule. I
quite understand that is only the right of members, but, perhaps, this might be' acceptable. We might get the Bill beyond the committee stage and let it stand for third reading. If the hon. gentlemen go through it and find that there is any matter which they want to bring up and which would necessitate the Bill going back into committee, I have no objection to its being referred back to the committee. I should like, however, to advance the Bill this stage, if that is acceptable to the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is for the members of the committee to say. For myself I am satisfied.


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 1 carried-


Lucien Cannon: Is clause 1 suspended?


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood it was carried.


Lucien Cannon: No. Is it fair that we be asked to approve to-night all of this protocol? Could the minister not adjourn consideration now so as to give members of the committee an opportunity of reading this more carefully and knowing what it all means?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly shall be
glad to do that if it is necessary. I pointed out,-and I am not saying this in any sense of criticism-that this protocol has been before members of the House for some little time, and they have had an opportunity of reading it. I am not implying any criticism. If it has not been convenient for hon. gentlemen to read it; if htm. gentlemen feel the need of further examination of it, I shall not insist on its being put through. The suggestion that I made to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) was that I would like to advance the Bill a stage this evening, if that were acceptable. I suggested to the hon. gentleman that if the Bill was passed through committee, I would allow it to stand for its third reading for any reasonable period to enable hon. gentlemen to study it, and if any hon. gentleman, as a result of that study, had a suggestion to make, necessitating the Bill coming back into committee, I would certainly agree to its being referred back to the committee. In that way, if further examination affords no ground for criticism which hon. gentlemen would think useful, we shall have made progress; if it does afford ground for such useful criticism, I am pledging myself to afford reasonable opportunity for its being made. I put that

suggestion forward if it is acceptable to the committee. If it is not acceptable to the committee and hon. gentlemen think that there is anything substantial to be [DOT]gained by keeping th^ Bill in committee, I will not persist in my suggestion.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand that the right hon. gentleman would like to have the Bill go through the committee stage, and then the third reading would be suspended so as to give an opportunity of further discussion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: The weakness of that suggestion is that on the third reading a member can make only one speech.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I woud undertake to suspend the rule in the case of the hon. member.


Lucien Cannon: Is it fair to ask the members of this committee to discuss the whole 64 clauses at one time? Is it fair to impose on the right hon. gentleman himself the necessity of giving a full explanation in one speech in reply to all the speeches on those 64 clauses? '


Charles Joseph Doherty: I stated that if anything in the study of any hon. gentleman brought about a situation which in his judgment made it desirable that the Bill should go back into committee, I would not object to a motion to refer it back. I want to give every opportunity for the study of the Bill. At the same time I would like to .get any progress that is possible and that is not inconsistent with that study, and I think my suggestion affords a fair method of reaching that result. Certainly I would not desire to do anything unfair, and as I have said, if hon. gentlemen feel that there is a serions need for leaving this in committee this evening, I will not persist in my request. But I do venture to suggest that it is a reasonable request and would ^ conduce to the expedition of business, if it turn out that there is no need for further discussion. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that in the opinion of any hon. gentleman there is such need, I shall consent to the Bill going back into committee.


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand it, we must either accept or reject this Bill in its entirety. All legislation of this character arising out of the war has to be either accepted or rejected, and any suggestions we may make will be carefully listened to, but that is all. Am I right in that?
*Mr. Doherty. ]


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Parliament cannot amend that convention. That convention was threshed out with a great deal of care. Eliminating Canada's representatives, who, in the opinion of some hon. gentlemen, it would seem would have done better if they had not been there at all, if that happy condition had existed that Canada had had no representatives there, I would be free to give testimony that that statute is the work of men who will be recognized I am sure by every member of this House as among the most eminent that the world contains. Not only is that true of the committee that drafted this but at the assembly we had he advantage of the criticism of certainly as distinguished men as I have ever had the privilege of hearing of' or meeting.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister will admit that some of the greatest mistakes in the world have been made by some of its most eminent men.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite prepared to admit that. Let me say that I have had the opportunity of watching these men- I claim no further part, because, of course, it would discredit the matter entirely, I suppose, if I suggested that I had had anything to do with it-and so far as I am a competent judge of such a matter this statute, if we are to have a statute at all, has been as well prepared as one can hope to have. Of course, if the view is that we should not assent to the court, that is another matter. It is equally clear that if there is a particular provision in that schedule that some hon. members or the House as a whole do not like, we cannot, unfortunately, take that one section and amend it. All we can say is:	We are
sorry, but we cannot accept the schedule, because we do not approve of that particular clause.


Samuel William Jacobs: In other words, the whole thing is cut-and-dried?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question that is
asked of all the countries is: Do you approve of this agreement? Nobody is seeking to force it upon them. If the countries do not approve, they do not approve. But somebody had to prepare this, if we are ever going to have a court, and the gentlemen I have referred to have laboured to prepare it, and it has met with the approval I have mentioned. I do not think I mentioned that at Geneva it went not only to the council and to the assembly, but through a careful re-examination by

another committee of ten gentlemen who were selected, at all events, in the belief that they were distinguished lawyers, and certainly some of them were. That, ten included five of those who had sat in the committee that prepared it originally, and five others, and I must say, as they come hack to me, the French member, for instance, on that committee-well, I was lost in admiration for his ability as a lawyer and as a draftsman.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who was he?


Charles Joseph Doherty: M. Fromageot. He
is the chairman of one of the commissions I have mentioned as sitting to arbitrate between Canada and the United States. He is the legal adviser of the French Foreign Office, and I would count him as very easily among the five most capable lawyers it has been my privilege to meet in a long professional career.


Lucien Cannon: Could we not make a
reservation?


Samuel William Jacobs: A mental reservation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is a statute constituting a court. Either it is going to be a law that will constitute a court, or it is not. I do not see that there is any room for any useful reservation. The fact of the matter is that the whole theory of reservations only amounts to this: it is a polite way of saying, "I do not approve of your statute." I frankly suggest to hon. gentlemen that they endeavour to make up their minds whether there ought to be a court, and whether this is substantially acceptable or not. It does not seem to me that any useful purpose would be served by trying to improve the verbiage or modify any minor details.


Lucien Cannon: I followed the attitude
of my right hon. friend at the Geneva conference, and many of his declarations and the declarations made by the other Canadian representatives were approved in Canada, because their meaning was clear; it was that they wanted the league to keep their hands off Canada. Now we had a debate in this House in which my right hon. friend, I think, took part, on our natural resources and communications, and he said there could not he any question of the league interfering with questions of that kind. Now in this protocol there is a special provision, Article 27 provides that cases relating to transit and communications shall be heard by the court. Are we to understand that we would here be binding ourselves to decisions that might be given concerning communications between this country and others?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have already
pointed out repeatedly, with regard to particular cases, save where there may be some special provision in the treaty, no state is bound to go to the court with these cases unless it consents. There are, with regard to transit and communications, certain matters that are to be determined by the court, but we shall not be bound in that regard by any agreement that cases of transit, etc., are to go to the court, unless we agree to the conventions respecting transit and communications, which are totally different conventions that are not before us now at all. I do not think they have reached the stage where they can be dealt with, and certainly they have not so far been dealt with. It will be for us to decide whether or not we shall join in conventions regarding transit and communications. If we do not agree to those conventions we shall not have to go to the court by reason of this Bill. If we do enter into the_ agreement regarding transit, communications, etc., then there is a clause that provides that those cases are to be decided by the Court.


Lucien Cannon: We have agreed to them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg pardon; we have not as yet.	*


Lucien Cannon: Those conventions are part of the Versailles Treaty, signed and ratified by us.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The conventions about transit and communications which are now being discussed will have to be prepared and agreed to and we shall be absolutely free, if we desire, to refuse to agree to them. This is not going to bind us, unless, in some other way, we have bound ourselves to go to the court. If we have by some other method bound ourselves to go to the court we shall be obliged to go whether we approve of these conventions or not.


Lucien Cannon: I would refer the hon. minister to another clause, section 26, concerning labour cases mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles. In that treaty, if I remember rightly, there are special provisions concerning labour. There is a kind of second covenant concerning labour, just as there was a covenant constituting the League of Nations. We have signed that treaty and agreed to those conventions,

and this protocol says that all cases concerning labour, mentioned in such and such a part of the Treaty of Versailles, will be adjudged in such and such a way. What is going to happen when these decisions are given?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as we have
joined in the labour conventions we are bound by them and are obliged to submit those matters to the decision of this court. The provisions here in regard to labour cases are provisions with reference to procedure. It is not in virtue of these that we shall be bound to submit our labour cases to this court. This is a kind of procedure.


Lucien Cannon: We are constituting a tribunal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the constitution of the tribunal there are certain provisions as to how certain cases shall be dealt with. For instance, with regard to labour, the principal provision is that in labour cases there shall be assessors who shall be joined with the court,-I am speaking now from memory. I think that if the hon. gentleman would accept the suggestion I am making we should be able to save this discussion. If the hon. gentleman will look carefully into it, he will find that this legislation does not bind people to go to any court. This creates a kind of court, and if we are bound to take our cases to that court it will not be because of this statute. It will be because, by some provision of the treaty, we may have agreed to certain con ventions regarding transit, communications, etc., thereby agreeing that they should be determined by this court. The special provisions here with regard to these cases are to regulate the composition of the court when it is dealing with these cases. In that respect it is a matter of procedure.


Lucien Cannon: The argument made by my right hon. friend is exactly the argument I make myself. We agree.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I do not know.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Lucien Cannon: I think that hon. members, instead of saying "carried," might read the provisions of the Bill and see wherein it holds dangers for us. It is not a year or two from now that the Bill should be carefully studied, but right now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is the hon. member willing to adopt the suggestion I have made and let us proceed with the Bill? If he is not willing to do that I am noft

going to insist on putting the Bill through. If he is willing, well and good; if not, he might answer my suggestion.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish in any way to be unfair or unkind to my right hon. friend-[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know that.


Lucien Cannon: -but this is one of the most important pieces of legislation, in a way, ever brought before this House, and members should not pass it without having had proper time for its due consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will you be good
enough to answer my question?


Lucien Cannon: I think the minister might let the committee report progress. We have made lots of progress. The minister has given explanations which will enable the members of the committee to get a better understanding of the Bill, and I am quite sure that if we were given an opportunity of further studying the subject the discussion would be very much more satisfactory to, both sides when we resumed it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite willing to report progress. I do not want to insist on going on now. I only thought that we might have taken the other course. We should have got the same results, and if a study of the Bill did not bring to the mind of any hon. member any observations he desired to make to necessitate going back to committee, then we should have been done with it. I do not know that it makes any material difference, but personally I think the balance of convenience would have been with my other suggestion. However, the hon. member is perfectly within his rights and I make no suggestion of unfairness on his part if he thinks that we should have further opportunity for fuller consideration of the measure. I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Public Works-salaries and contingencies, $683,510.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I appeal to the Minister of Justice that it is unreasonable for us to proceed further to-night. It was after one o'clock when we went home last night, and we have been doing a hard day's work to-day, attending committees

and taking part in the legislation in this House. We have to be on the job at ten o'clock to-morrow morning, and the right hon. gentleman should have some consideration of the health of hon. members.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite appreciate
that we have all been labouring in a fair measure, but last evening my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) while he got a great many compliments did not succeed in obtaining any money. Might I suggest to the hon. gentleman that one item at least has been pretty thoroughly threshed out, and perhaps the committee might pass a vote or two for my colleague just to encourage him on his way and then we might get home. I think that would be an honourable compromise.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must remind the right hon. gentleman about a story that our friend, the hon. Frank Oliver, used to tell about a compromise that the old man and the old woman had about blankets, the said compromise resulting in the old woman getting the blankets. The Minister of Public Works wants to get everything his own way and then he will be satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might suggest that if you give the Minister of Public Works a little bit of blanket you can have the whole bed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we must fight it out we will have to do so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to adopt that sort of attitude. Does the hon. member think it would be unreasonable that we should give a little time to the consideration of these Estimates and see if we would not be fully justified in passing an item or two? I recognize the desirability of getting home at a reasonable hour, but we all have a desire to expedite business and if we could continue for a while and advance, in some measure, the Estimates of the Minister of Public Works it would be most desirable.


Mr. PARENT:: An item that was under consideration last night represents something like five or six hundred thousand dollars in connection with the salaries of the Department of Public Works. Now if the discussion again starts on that particular item it may be greatly prolonged, especially in view of the present disposition of the committee.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We have a lot to say about it.


Mr. McCURDY:: If my hon. friends wish to go on with some other item, instead of taking the one that has been called. I am quite agreeable.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: I would like to point out to the minister that a number of the members now present sat on a committee this morning for two hours, and that eight hours constitutes a fairly good day's work. In some cases we work for nine or ten hours a day, if not longer. I think, in all fairness, we have already done a pretty good day's work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is only reasonable to ask that the committee should now rise.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We have gone far
abroad to-night in the discussion of international affairs, and I would ask the members of the committee before adjournment to devote a few minutes at least to the consideration of home affairs of a very practical nature.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Order.


Lucien Cannon: That is hard on the Minister of Justice.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If item No. 18, which is the one now before the committee, is too diffuse to make progress on, I would suggest that we take instead No. 129 which is not of that nature. I am sure if we do that we will be able to make some progress.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. McCurdy moves that further consideration of item No. 18 be now postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Public building, Nova Scotia, $207,000.
Frank S. Cahill: I think I have less desire than any member of this committee to sit here at a late hour, and I wish to protest against ministers coming here at twelve o'clock and starting the consideration of their Estimates-it is not fair to the committee. As the minister himself pointed out the House has been for several hours to-day talking upon international affairs, talking about something that, to say the least, was less practical than other matters that should engage our attention. However the arrangement of business is not a matter for this side to determine-that is in the hands of the Government. If hon. gentlemen opposite entertain the idea that they are going to pass their Estimates after

twelve o'clock midnight, when the day has been spent in discussing other business, we shall be quite satisfied, we shall not ask any quarter in that regard whatever, we are prepared to go on and discuss the Estimates at any hour of the day or night the ministers\propose to take them up; hut my hon. friend will find that there is a method invoked ' here by his distinguished leader, that will be very useful to him before he gets very far with his Estimates. I would appeal to my hon. friend to be a little more reasonable. Hon. members, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, are sitting on committees in the morning and there are committees that have obtained permission to sit while the House is in session. Thus we are expected to attend meetings of committees in the morning, in the afternoon and even at night, for one committee held a sitting last night. In spite of that we are asked to consider1 Estimates that are brought forward at twelve o'clock. I think that is quite unreasonable and unfair, and I therefore appeal to my hon. friend to use his good sense in that regard and not ask to go on with his Estimates at this hour because it will not be to his advantage or to the advantage of the committee.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend has appealed to my good sense in this matter. In reply I would say that I have been waiting since half past eight this evening to bring these Estimates forward. I would be the last man to urge the committee to proceed "with haste in the consideration of Estimates. At the same time, I must remind my hon. friend that last evening three-quarters of an hour, almost a whole hour, was spent on one item and no progress was made. I really would like, if it were possible and if my hon. friends could see their way clear, to make a little progress to-night. If so, we will not ask the committee to sit late, but comparatively speaking it is still early for we have become accustomed to sitting until one o'clock, or half past one o'clock, and even two o'clock. I would like if we could make a little progress but I will not urge the question at all. As I said last evening I am anxious to have the fullest possible discussion with regard to these Estimates, and I am sure the members of the committee will cheerfully co-operate with me in expediting the passage of these items which are essential to the conduct of the country's business.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think the minister is justified in complaining that he had to wait until this hour.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not complaining.


Lucien Cannon: The business to be transacted is brought forward by the Government and we are not responsible. For instance to-night one hon. gentleman on that side told us he- had to take his train at half past ten and before doing so he delivered himself of a lengthy speech on the League of Nations. I am quite sure that the debate in which he took part was brought forward in order to give him an opportunity to deliver that speech and catch his train. If the Minister of Public Works has had to wait until this hour we are not to blame: it is the fault of the Government. We are always ready to discuss business in a serious manner, hut unfortunately on many occasions the best part of the day has been taken up with the discussion of theories rather than practical questions. We have had four or five debates since the session began in which the big guns on the Government side began their speeches at three o'clock in the afternoon, or early in the evening, so as to ensure extended reports of their speeches in the press. They have talked about the appointment of an Ambassador in Washington, and about the League of Nations, and have delivered themselves of weighty opinions on these international questions. After such exhaustive utterances they compel my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who is green at the game, to plunge into hot water by bringing forward his Estimates at an hour in the morning when the committee are tired out. All I can say is I am sorry for my hon. friend. This is his first session as Minister of Public Works, but although he is a young member of the Cabinet he deserves better treatment, and I hope next time his Estimates come on he will choose a proper hour so that they may be fairly discussed.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have no complaint
to make with regard to the order of business as arranged, but I have been ready for hours to go on with these Estimates. I think one o'clock is a very reasonable hour at which to adjourn. I have become quite accustomed to going to bed at 1.30 and 2 o'clock in the morning and being ready for work at nine o'clock next day. I appeal to my hon friends to discuss these urgent matters for three quarters of an hour longer at least.
. APRIL 28, 1921


Mr. ROBB:: While members may be
quite willing to work until one o'clock in the morning, it is unfair to the newspaper men to keep them here night after night until the early hours of the morning. The newspapers are filled up with speeches of hon. gentlemen upon foreign relations, and very little attention is devoted to domestic affairs. I think the Government should plan out their work so as to bring on the Estimates hereafter a little earlier in the day.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall item 129 carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This item should receive a very thorough sifting. I do not quite understand why, when we are through with warlike preparations, we should be spending $25,000 to build a drill shed at Amherst. Speaking for myself and for hon. gentlemen on this side, we will have to oppose this item as far as we can.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend's statement is scarcely correct. This drill shed has already been practically built, and the appropriation asked for is for the completion. Whether or not the expenditure should be gone on with this year is a matter for the committee to determine.1


Georges Parent: What is the cost of the
building?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The cost of the grading and paving embodied in the item is $25,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
that complete the building?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The contract for the
building itself was $81,000.


Georges Parent: When was the contract
entered into?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: In January 1914. The
building measures 177 feet by 85 feet and has a one-story main hall 102 feet by 80 feet, with galleries at both ends. The ends are similar in size and two stories in height, that fronting on Acadia street having two four-story stone towers. The remaining walls are of brick with stone dressings. In the basement at the rear end there are shooting galleries, and at both ends there are furnace and fuel rooms. On the ground floor are the armouries and on the first floor officers', sergeants' and men's .quarters.


John Howard Sinclair: How
much has been spent?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: $97,000. The $25,000
asked for is to complete the grading,
paving, etc., around the drill hall. The work has been delayed-from year to year and might properly follow the construction of the hall. At the instance of members of the Opposition last year the work was delayed and the acting Minister of Public Works undertook to hold it in abeyance.
I am advised by the department of Militia and Defence and by the permanent officials of the Public Works Department that it would be in the public interest that this work should be proceeded with, but if the committee think it should be delayed further, I would gladly concur in that decision. However, as I have stated, that is contrary -to the advice I have received.


Georges Parent: How does it happen that this work was not provided for at the time of the construction of the building? This requires a little information from my hon. friend.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: Did I understand the minister to say that the contract for the building was $81,000?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: $97,000 has been spent.


John Ewen Sinclair: What was the amount of the contract?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: $81,000 and fittings.


John Howard Sinclair: If the contract is for $81,000 how is it that the department is spending $97,000 and is now asking for $25,000 additional, which makes $122,000?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If my hon. friend is at all acquainted with the requirements of a militia unit he knows that a building as a building is one thing and that a building with its fittings is another. The contract for the building itself amounted to $81,000; complete with its fittings the amount involved is $97,000. A certain amount of grading and paving around the building is necessary in order to make it a complete structure.


Mr. COPP:: As I live within ten miles of this building I know something about the location; I have been there on a number of occasions. The building was erected some few years ago, and I understand that the vote now asked is a revote of an appropriation made last year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I thought the expenditure was held up by the acting minister last year at the request of my hon. friend.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, the money was voted but the work was not done. I do not think the minister can fairly say, therefore, that

the work was held up because of the attitude taken by members of the Opposition. Of course, if he wants to give us credit for holding' up that work it is something for which we should be commended. The minister would be well advised not to go on with this work during this coming summer. No soldiers are quartered in Amherst; there are no regiments there of any consequence requiring the use of this drill hall, and practically the only use to which it can be put during this summer is the housing of the unemployed. My hon. friend says that $25,000 worth of pavement is to be laid around this building. Well, the building is not being used except on rare occasions; I believe that public meetings are occasionally held there, and things of that kind. The people of the town of Amherst are not looking for the expenditure of money on drill halls at this time; they are not desirous of expending money on buildings that they can get along without. Demands are being made from many sections of the country for public buildings which are absolutely necessary. The minister would do well, therefore, not to press for this vote. If the money were required for a post office or a custom house I would be the last to raise my voice against the expenditure. My hon. friend is appearing before the committee practically for the first time with his Estimates; I take this opportunity, the first which has been afforded to me, of publicly congratulating him upon the attainment of the position which he now holds. My hon. friend is a business man of integrity and experience and I say to him, in the best possible spirit, that this expenditure is not needed and is not in the interests of the people. I take credit for my attitude of last year in opposition to this vote, and I urge my hon. friend to consider what I have said in this regard. The people of the locality concerned-and this applies generally to all parts of Canada-will not blame the Government or criticise them if they do not proceed this year with the work covered by this vote.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I may say that the
work indicated in the vote covered by item 129 was asked for by the hon. member for Cumberland, his Honour the Speaker of the House, and by the Department of Militia and Defence as a work which they regarded as necessary. I have already indicated that the Government has spent $97,000 in the provision of a drill hall at Amherst. The reorganization of our militia
	,	.
units is a matter of importance. We must be prepared to defend our country;' to that end we must have a certain militia organization, and the Department of Militia have advised the Department of Public Works that it is expedient to complete the Amherst armouries. About a year ago, in deference to views expressed by hon. members opposite, the then Acting Minister of Public Works undertook to defer the work included in the vote under consideration. The Department of Militia have urged that this is a proper expenditure and that the wdrk should be gone on with. If it is necessary in the organization of the militia units of Canada that this work should be proceeded with, I as responsible minister of the Department of Public Works should be the last to stand in the way of that being done. I would ask the committee, therefore, to give the department authority to carry on this work. I appeal to the committee to trust me not to go on with the work if it is found that the expenditure covered by this vote is not necessary. No person is more seized with the importance of getting the finances of Canada on an even keel than I am. Money rates are at a high level in this country; as elsewhere construction costs are high; but I look confidently forward to the time when both will become more normal, when the country can again resume its rate of progress, and I can assure the committee that even expenditures which are authorized by this committee will not be undertaken unless circumstances are such as, in my judgment, warrant the expenditure of money voted by Parliament.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I agree to a very large extent with what the minister has said. If my hon. friend had the whole say as regards these matters, I would feel like leaving it to him to say whether or not this money would be expended. If I felt that, for the defence of our country, it was necessary to spend $25,000 to put a cement sidewalk around this building, I would also give my hearty assent to the request made by the minister. But my hon. friend says that one of the strongest reasons that has appealed to him in placing this particular item in the Estimates, is that the Militia Department has requested that to be done, stating that it was in the interest of the Militia Department that this pavement be constructed. My hon. friend must not forget that this is of no consequence whatever as regards the providing or preparing for the defence of our country. This

is to lay a sidewalk around this building. If any sudden emergency should arise and the town of Amherst should be called upon to house a number of troops to defend any part of the country, the building is there; those troops can get in and out of the doors; there is a cinder sidewalk around this building at the present time. For that reason, the statement of my hon. friend does not appeal to me. I know, as well as I am standing here, that my hon. friend feels that this is not a work of necessity, and I have a great deal of confidence that the work will not be carried on by my hon. friend. My hon. friend is before the committee for the first time asking for the passage of his Estimates at a time when this country is simply bending under the demands that are being made in all parts of Canada for the expenditure of public money. We have not the money to expend; we are burdened with a very heavy debt of responsibility, a very heavy rate of taxation, and, if I mistake not, within the course of a few days, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will come down with his Budget imposing a much heavier burden of taxation upon the people of the Dominion than has ever been placed upon the people of the Dominion than has ever been placed upon our shoulders before. For that reason, and not with the slightest intention of holding up or opposing any of my hon. friend's Estimates that I believe to be a necessity or in the interest of the country, I would say to him again that he would be well advised, as a member of this Government, coming from the Maritime Provinces, having the record that he has as a business man of high integrity, knowing and able to grasp the situation, as I know he can do and has done, not to place in the Estimates any appropriations nor ask expenditures to be passed by this committee for work that is not absolutely necessary in the interest of the country. I appeal to him, not for the purpose in any way of blocking his Estimates, nor to continue the discussion of this item a moment longer than it warrants in the public interest, that he would be starting right if he would cut out of his Estimates all items that the country can reasonably get along without during the present year. He will be looked upon with a great deal of credit by the people of this country if these items are taken out of the Estimates altogether, particularly if he does not intend to make the expenditures. Such action on his part would show that he,
as a young man, occupying the responsible position that he does, is going to be at least one of the first to take the stand that, as regards himself and his department, he is going to pare to the very bone his Estimates and to see to it that no Estimates are passed that are not absolutely necessary in the interest of his department and of the place where the money is proposed to be expended.


Frank S. Cahill: There is an item in this Estimate for repairs to a building damaged by fire at Annapolis. The minister a few moments ago told us that Mr. Speaker had requested that the first item in the appropriation, No. 129, be put in for his constituency. Apparently there is another item for the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson).


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Unescapable. [DOT]


Frank S. Cahill: He has escaped pretty
well on various occasions. I do not know that he was entitled to escape. I understand that he is rather an expert escaper, if that is what my hon. friend has reference to.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is no doubt that he is very capable.


Frank S. Cahill: At whose request was this amount of $17,000 placed in the Estimates for this public building at Annapolis?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This is an expenditure, the nature of which is such that it is not necessary for any member of Parliament to apply for it. The post office building at Annapolis was almost destroyed by fire, and the unmistakable duty of the Department of Public Works was to restore that building. That has been done, and the item asked for in the Estimates is the result of the attempt to restore that building.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister maintain that every request made by the officials of the department for improvements in public works should be carried out?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Undoubtedly not; but where a building is destroyed by fire, it is self-evident that the facilities which existed in the community before that devastating element appeared, should be restored. That is what happened at Annapolis. The building was destroyed by fire and the Public Works Department undertook to restore it.


Frank S. Cahill: A number of places have no public buildings of any kind, and unless a request was made by officials of the department or the member for the constituency, I do not think the department would put an item in the Estimates.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As a rule, the member of Parliament is careful of the interests of his constituency. There are certain circumstances in which the intervention of the member is not required. I am not advised whether in the case of the building at Annapolis the member for the district intervened or not. I would be long sorry to preside over a department where in the case of a post office being destroyed by fire the officials of the department would not, without the intervention of the member, seek to restore the facilities that had been destroyed. In the case of Annapolis the facts are patent. The post office there was destroyed by fire. The obvious duty of the department was to restore those post office facilities. We must come to Parliament and ask for a vote to complete that work; we are here for that purpose. I am quite sure that notwithstanding the observations of my hon. friend from Pontiac, far distant from Annapolis, the members of the committee will almost unanimously, if not unanimously, support this vote to restore the facilities that were destroyed.


James Alexander Robb: How is fire insurance
carried?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The department carries no fire insurance. Fire insurance companies as my hon. friend knows, operate for profit. There is no reason in my opinion why a department of Government cannot carry its own insurance, and in the final result come out better than if insurance was carried on all the buildings.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister say
that the hon. member for Annapolis is in no way responsible for the building of this post office?
Mr; McCURDY:	The hon. member for
Annapolis is in no way responsible for the fire, but as I understand it, the Federal Government is responsible for restoring to the people of Annapolis the facilities they enjoyed before the fire. This responsibility we undertook to discharge. Having done so, we now ask Parliament for an appropriation to finish putting this building in the condition it was in before the fire.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister maintain that the hon. member for Annapolis

had nothing to do with the reconstruction of this building? I am not accusing him of being responsible for the fire at all; it is the minister who suggested that.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member for
Annapolis is quite able to answer for himself. My hon. friend will recall that at the last sessioh of Parliament a vote was passed for the restoration of this building. That construction has been gone on with, and we require this year $3,000 to complete the warrant that was given to the department last year to restore this building.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend volunteered the information that a request had been made by the member representing the constituency in which Amherst is located, and that that was one of the reasons for asking for this vote. I am merely asking now whether the hon. member for Annapolis is in any way responsible for the re-construction of this building.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: These two votes are
entirely separate. When I was dealing with the vote of $25,000 for grading and paving around the Amherst drill hall, I referred to representations that had been received with respect to it. I made no statement that representations had been received from the hon. member for Annapolis regarding the restoration of the Annapolis public building destroyed by fire, and I think my hon. friend is quite astray in undertaking to connect what I said with reference to the Amherst drill hall with this item for reconstructing a public building at Annapolis.


Frank S. Cahill: I would ask you, Mr. .
Chairman, to read the resolution before the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: Vote No. 129, Public Buildings, Nova Scotia, total amount required, $207,000. The details are as follows:
Amherst-Drill hall, grading, paving, etc, $25,000.
Annapolis-To repair and rehabilitate public building damaged by tire, the walls and foundation being intact and i-n good order, $17,000.
Halifax

Dominion buildings: improvements, repairs, etc., $7,000.
Halifax-Quarantine station ; new buildings, $150,000.
Yarmouth

Public buildi-ng: restoration and alteration after damage by fire, and reconstruction of addition, $8,000.


Frank S. Cahill: I merely wanted to ascertain whether the minister or I was correct. I understood that the vote was No. 129, which includes the items you have just read Mr. Chairman. I did not understand

that the Amherst drill hall was a separate vote. I understood as did you, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution before the committee, No. 129, consisted of the several items you have just read. In connection with this resolution the minister volunteered the information on the first item that a request had been made for the construction of that work by the member representing the district. Since he volunteered that information with regard to that first item, I was naturally curious to know whether the same thing was done in connection with these other items in resolution No. 129. The Amherst drill hall is not a separate vote, as the minister appears to think. He apparently misunderstood my question whether the hon. member for Annapolis had requested him to construct this building, or he misunderstood the resolution, because he said that the information which he had given pertained to another item and was not to be taken as referring to any. of the other items in this resolution. It is only with a desire to gain what I would consider necessary information pertaining to this expenditure that I and other members of the Opposition are here at this late hour. We have no desire whatever to sit here in the small hours of the morning, and through the afternoon and evening except to elicit information with regard to the subjects that are before us for consideration. While I have no desire unnecessarily to criticize or quiz the minister in charge of the Estimates, I would seriously suggest to him that this committee is composed largely of grown up people from all parts of the country who feel that they are elected to represent the views of their constitutents and are therefore entitled to such treatment as is usually accorded ordinary citizens. When we ask for information we desire to get it as concisely, as clearly, and as speedily as possible, and I do not think that there is any ground for levity on the part of the minister, or for any show of peevishness, or any suggestion from him that he is unnecessarily detained in his hasty progress through his Estimates.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. member
permit me a question?


Frank S. Cahill: Certainly.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Oh, well, I do not think I will ask it after all.


Frank S. Cahill: That is just what I
would expect to emanate from a brain of such brilliance, especially at this hour of the morning. Now, I am asking the
minister perfectly fair and legitimate questions, but he is evidently following out the course he adopted in the earlier part of the evening when he apparently arrived at the conclusion that he would railroad his Estimates through and that it would be better for him to slide around the matter without giving any direct answers. I am curious to know how the member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) feels about this matter, and whether he thinks that as a representative of the district he really had any hand in getting this post office rebuilt on such short notice. The minister seems to give him no credit whatever in the matter. Indeed, he practically intimates that the member for Annapolis had absolutely no hand in getting the work done. That might be quite true, and, from our observations in this House, I should hot be at all surprised that a man of the hon. member's modesty would refrain from any intervention with the Public Works Department on behalf of his constituency. I should be inclined to believe the minister in his admission that the member for Annapolis had nothing to do with securing the post office for the district. Of course, since there is no patronage, it is just possible that the hon. member's recommendation would not have been considered in any event, and the officers of the department might have made the recommendation themselves and gone on and reconstructed the building without reference to the hon. gentleman. Since the minister is not anxious to let us know what part the hon. member played in the matter, I might ask him another question in reference to this-work. I want to know whether the building is as good as the one that was destroyed, or is better; what was the nature of the contract; whether there was a fair wage clause in it; and, generally, all the information that would ordinarily be given in regard to a matter of this kind. Will the minister be kind enough to favour the committee with this information?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I shall say a word on this matter, as I have personal knowledge of it. I am sorry that the acting leader of the Opposition has taken such a pronounced stand against a very much needed expenditure in a live town in my constituency. Annapolis is one of the most progressive and up-to-date towns in the province of Nova Scotia and was unfortunate enough to experience a fire a year ago, when a very valuable public building was partly destroyed. About $40,000 worth of property

survived the fire and would have been destroyed if the storms of winter had been allowed to work upon it. The Government, however, with that business sagacity which characterizes all its actions, very properly proceeded to repair the loss and ran the gauntlet of even such severe criticism as has been offered by so formidable a gentleman as the member who has just spoken. The Government is to be commended for its good judgment and its good business sense in conserving public property as it has so well done in this instance, and the people of that town who read Hansard will be gratified to know that the department has decided to go on with this work, despite any protests such as have been made by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). As regards the question of my hon. friend as to whether or not the present building is as valuable as the one that was destroyed, I can assure him that it is better but is indeed no better than the requirements of a community of so progressive a character as that of Annapolis demand.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I am with the member for Pontiac, and I must say that I am not at all satisfied with the answer given by the member for Annapolis in regard to this question.


Frank S. Cahill: Hear, hear.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: 
Frank S. Cahill: I am glad my hon. friend from Calgary is taking such an interest in this matter. He must have actually looked at the items under consideration because he will find there an expenditure proposed for Amherst, another for Annapolis a third for Halifax, and a fourth for Yarmouth. These proposed expenditures are all in constituencies represented by colleagues of the hon. gentlemen, who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman. If for no other reason it would be necessary to criticise these items and ask questions about them when these expenditures are being made in what my hon. friend would call "good Tory constituencies" or at least constituencies that are represented now by good Tories like himself. I have no doubt the minister started out with the idea in his mind, that since all these expenditures 

all these plums-were to fall to Tory members, it would only be right that he should give a certain amount of information as to how the votes originated. The minister started by telling us that the request for the first vote was made by the member representing Cumberland county in which Amherst is located, and naturally members on this side were desirous of knowing whether the same procedure had been followed all through, and whether out of the fullness of his heart the minister could not see his way clear to refuse any request from any of his Tory friends. He apparently did not see fit to give that information, but my hon. friend from Calgary supports my contention that he should have given it. The hon. gentleman, I think, is justified in that support and in criticising the department because the hon. member for Calgary has a post office grievance of his own. Doubtless he does not like the idea of the hon. member (Mr. Davidson) being able to get a post office rebuilt in Annapolis when he is not able to get a post office built in his own city.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Instead of waiting until the western Estimates come up I will answer my hon. friend now. I have requested a post office many times.


Frank S. Cahill: I am saying that my hon. friend had failed in his request and naturally is jealous of his colleague from Annapolis. My hon. friend has been unable to secure a post office for what I would say is a larger city than Annapolis.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: A little larger.


Frank S. Cahill: For a city that would be considered almost as progressive even as Annapolis. [DOT] My hon. friend from Calgary naturally would feel aggrieved that a city of the standing and enterprise of Calgary would be refused a post office while the smaller town of Annapolis-a town which my hon. friend does not wish to consider better represented than Calgary-is able to get a post office almost over-night. That is a reflection on the member for Calgary; there is no doubt about it. I can quite understand his grievance, why he should be so exercised over this question of a post office, and why he should be so anxious that the minister should give him full information about these items. It is quite true he has not been able to obtain that' reputation for eloquence that would win for him the privilege of being allowed to make a speech in order to get off to Toronto, but he is a fairly good speech maker at times and when the hon. member presents himself in committees in particular, he relieves himself of much eloquence on the least provocation. I am therefore not at all surprised that he has shown such heat because the member for Annapolis has so far outstripped him, owing to the able way in which he represents his constituency, as to get a post office ahead of the hon. member for Calgary. Now I would like to refer to the immediate	question	under consideration
and inquire whether this post office was contracted for by tender, whether the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, and who the contractor is?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I had hoped that this committee wTould have been able to report progress early in the evening, but the remarks	of my	hon. friend	fromPontiac (Mr. Cahill)	dissipated	thatexpectation which, I am sure, was shared in by all	members.	The	Annapolis	post
office, as I have already indicated, was almost destroyed by fire, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be restored. Tenders were called for its restoration and the work was proceeded with. Whether or not my hon. friend from Annapolis intervened to urge the department to do its duty or not is perhaps rather aside from the question, but I am sure that if the department had neglected to move in the matter my hon. friend would have urged it to attend to its duty.


Frank S. Cahill: I have no doubt of that.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As a matter of fact the lowest tender was accepted and the building- was. restored. I am to-night asking for a vote of the amount mentioned in the Estimates in order that payments in respect of that contract may be made. I am sure that all members will concur in granting this Supply, and.if in the final analysis *we are kept here for t)en, or twenty minutes, or even for one or two hours later than is necessary the responsibility will not rest on me but rather on those who by their somewhat trifling remarks have prolonged the discussion.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend is becoming a little flippant for a man holding a responsible position in the Government-not only flippant, but disrespectful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw both the words "flippant" and "disrespectful" as being quite unparliamentary.


Frank S. Cahill: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad that you do not take the minister's remarks as I do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: How many chairmen have we got over there? The minister has not yet attempted to answer the very plain straightforward question which I put to him in the first instance, and when he rises in his place after side-stepping for twenty minutes or half an hour in trying to defend his Tory colleagues-who we on this side have reason to believe are finding their way to the treasury-I think he is rather unreasonable, to put it mildly, in saying that he has been unduly detained. I think he will find there is a better method than the one he is pursuing in passing his Estimates. I asked him if the contract was let by tender and to whom?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I answered that.


Frank S. Cahill: I beg the minister's pardon, through you, Mr. Chairman. He did not answer the question. He told me the contract was let, but he did not say to whom it was let.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I was not asked that.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister was paying as much attention to the pertinent questions put to him as he was in trying to think up smart answers he would be making a good deal better progress. If the

minister thinks that one, two or three hours is a matter of indifference to the committee, I am quite prepared to agree with him that even ten hours is also a matter of indifference. If the minister takes the attitude that he is going to answer questions only in a way that he thinks will have the effect of 1 a.m. stopping further inquiry, I would like to have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, of informing him that he has adopted the attitude of slowness and that he will not make the progress that he had hoped. After attempting to read the committee a lecture on what resolution was before us, and finding himself wrong, he seemed to let his anger get the better of his judgment for a moment and gave an answer that might naturally cause some retaliation on the part of hon. members opposite. But this was not the case on the part of the Opposition. We simply continued to ask for the information, and I will give the minister credit for seeming to think that he was answering; but he did not quite answer the question as it was put to him. Had he done so he would have saved considerable time and would have been much further advanced with his Estimates. The minister I suppose has the privilege of refusing to answer, and I am sure that you as chairman of the committee, Sir, would not insist on his giving an answer, but if he decides to evade the issue members of the Opposition must exercise their privilege and continue to ask for the information. The same question naturally arises on other of these items, for instance, "Halifax-Dominion buildings; improvements, repairs, etc.; Halifax -quarantine station: new buildings, $150,000." Naturally any member of the Opposition would want to inquire whether there might or might not be any political patronage in a new building for immigration purposes at this time when the Minister of Immigration has intimated that he is keeping up the bar's rather than taking them down. There is an expenditure that may or may not be required. These are perfectly legitimate questions for the Opposition to ask, and it is for the minister to answer. I would again ask the minister to whom this contract was let. I do not insist upon his answering, but I would at least ask him to answer the question I was putting to him when he saw fit to get up and read a lecture to us.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the minister
rises to answer that question, I must direct

the attention of the committee to the fact that a discussion of the rights and prerogative of hon. members is not in order at this stage. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Pontiac, but I wish to point out that while hon members have the right to solicit, ask for, and seek to obtain the fullest possible information relating to the Estimates before the committee, discussions concerning the rights of the Opposition, the duties of the Government, and the question of taking up or not taking up certain items are certainly not in order and not relevant to the item under consideration.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think I can with confidence assert that the hon. member for Pontiac is rather alone in the stand which he has taken regarding this matter. The hon. member asked whether the work in, connection with repairs to the Annapolis public building had been arranged for by contract. I answered that question, and if the hon. gentleman had inquired as to the particulars of that contract I should have been equally ready to vouchsafe the information. His complaint with regard to the answer which I gave is not, I submit, well founded and in that respect I appeal to the judgment of members of the committee on both sides. But as the hon. member has proceeded to ask for information as to whom the contract was let for the restoration of the public building at Annapolis, I have pleasure in advising him that the contractors were Messrs. Condon and Denton; that the date of the contract was September 16, 1920, and the amount $26,300. The hon. member has spoken about the time taken in answering his question, and he made reference to twenty minutes or half an hour in that connection. But I submit that if there has been any undue waste of time it has been not on the part of the minister, but on the part of one member of the Opposition. The hon. member has referred to the proposed expenditure of $150,000 for new or additional quarantine buildings at the port of Halifax. I need not say that Halifax is one of the great national ports of Canada, standing in somewhat the same relation to Canada as the port of New York stands to the United States. It is one of the great entrepots of Canada. If there is immigration to Canada from overseas it must come, during the winter months at any rate, through either St. John or Halifax, and immigration	facilities-for
you cannot absolutely bar immigration- must be afforded. I ask the committee to
leave to the discretion of the minister what is considered to be the best way of expending that money. I suppose I shall not be violating any confidence if I say that my personal views are somewhat opposed to those of the permanent officials of the Department of Health. My view is that the present immigration and quarantine facilities at Lawlor's Island, Halifax, can be extended. The opinion of the permanent officials of the Department of Health is that new quarters should be created at Macnah's Island. I do not concur in that view; I think that facilities can be provided at lower cost at the present location on Lawlor's Island. The vote is asked for, however, on the assumption that the selection favored by the Department of Health be not adopted. According to information which I have, the improvement of the present facilities at Lawlor's Island would be the most economical procedure, and if it is most economical and in the public interest that is the view which I would continue to support. The member for Pontiac has asked me for information with regard to this appropration; I give it to him in all frankness. I have full confidence that if this vote is adopted1 by the committee the necessary facilities will be provided within the amount asked for. This appropriation of $150,000 is a substantial reduction on the amount asked for by the Department of Health for the provision of facilites. While I am speaking generally with regard to public expenditures, I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that, as regards the Department of Public Works, this year's Estimates are attenuated. The total Estimates asked for by the Department of Public Works for purposes of capital construction are less than 11/5 per cent of the total supply vote as outlined in the Estimates now before the House, excluding sums required for the payment of interest and amortization of the national debt. Almost all the appropriations asked for are for works which are under contract at the present time, and to my hon. friend from Pontiac and my other hon. friends opposite, who may or may not support his view, I would say that the Government of the day is thus obligated to carry such appropriations through. There are in the Estimates items which have been recurrent for many years. There is that item for Toronto harbour improvements, the improvement of St. John harbour, improvements at the great twin ports of Port Arthur and Fort William, so



[Stage Direction]
important to the business of the West. These are improvements that have been undertaken and that are being carried on from year to year.
When I come to this committee asking for a vote of supply, I can assure the committee that the amounts asked for are the minimum necessary to carry on the busi-nuess of the Government. No man is more impressed than I am with the importance of getting the national finances of this country on a sound and permanent basis. People talk of undertaking at the present time extensive programme of construction.
Is it not the duty of every legislator in this country, be he a member of the Dominion Government, be he a member of any of the provincial governments, be he a member of any municipal council, to proceed cautiously with expenditures under present conditions. This country has for several years been conducting its business under inflated conditions. Under those conditions prices of commodities, prices of labour, costs of borrowed money have been abnormal compared with pre-war conditions. We must get down to a normal basis. Ten years ago the Government of Canada could borrow at four per cent all the money it required. To-day it is fortunate if it can borrow at 50 per cent higher than what was a normal basis. What happens? Concurrently-I do not speak particularly of to-day, I speak of a year or six months ago, if the Government were to take money borrowed at 50 per cent above normal interest rates and expend it on permanent work, what would be the result? My hon. friends are hard-headed men; they know as well as I do that a dollar in money six months ago would not provide one dollar's worth of permanent . building under normal conditions. They know that construction costs have been inflated, and that it would be unwise in their own businesses to undertake permanent construction work. Would they think that it was wise for the Government to put money costing 50 per cent more than normal rates into permanent construction at construction costs which will give us properties at-what shall I say?-my hon. friends know as well as I do-much more than their actual value. Would they undertake construction enterprises in their own businesses under those conditions, when they felt that to-morrow or six months from now they must write off one-half or one-quarter of these costs? I do not think they would. So the past six months has not been a time for construction. The
	\
Government of Canada has adopted this policy of undertaking only urgent public construction that could not be deferred. Such an item is that of the Annapolis post office where the building was almost destroyed by fire.
There was only one course for the Department of Public Works to follow, and that was to restore those facilities. My hon. friend from Pontiac questions this, that, and the other thing. He wants to know whether the hon. member for Annapolis approves or solicited this expenditure. I am pleased to inform him that the hon. member for Annapolis does not need to solicit this expenditure, and that the permanent officials of the Department of Public Works, presided over by the deputy minister who is here tonight, a most capable official, do not need to wait for the solicitation of the hon. member who represents that riding. But I am bound to confess that should the deputy minister by any chance, which I cannot possibly conceive, fail in his duty, the hon. member for Annapolis would not hesitate to urge on the Department of Public Works that we proceed with the reconstruction of this important building, in a very thriving town in the electoral district of Digby and Annapolis. That is the idea which actuates the Department of Public Works. I am pleased to appeal to hon. members, whether they support the Government or the leader of the Opposition, for an expression of confidence in my judgment. I am here, not as a politician, but with the idea of carrying out to the best of my judgment whatever seems to me to be in the best interests of the country under present conditions. When my hon. friend from Pontiac sounded a discordant note, and offered criticisms which I do not wish to 'characterize by any opprobrious terms, for I am sure they were prompted by sufficient motives, I was pleased to note by the attitude of the members of the committee and by the fact that they refrained from comment, that he stood alone. Like the last rose of last summer he was left blooming alone. I do not need to assure the members of the committee that I am in earnest in the prosecution of the responsibilities which come to me as the minister of this department. I am not a politician; I have never been a politician.
Lucien Cannon: You are a Unionist.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am by the force of circumstances allied to one political party in whose principles I believe, but I can

assure tlie members of this committee that the various items of supply granted to the Department of Public Works will be administered so far as I know and so far as my judgment can carry me in the best interests of the people of Canada, in whose service I am pleased that I have the honour to be engaged at the present time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has given us a very calm and dispassionate discourse with regard to the Estimates that are before the committee. So far' as I personally am concerned I have always endeavoured to assist the ministers in getting their Estimates through. With regard to the resolution before us I heartily support at least a part of the vote for which the minister is asking. I entirely agree with the minister that the repairs to the Annapolis public building are necessary. As to giving information to the committee with regard to that work, I am sure he would be willing to give the committee the information they desire. The building in Annapolis is a very important one. I feel that the Government has an implied contract with the citizens of every town and city to see that they have public buildings commensurate with the importance of the town. The Minister of Public Works, representing the Government, has in that way an implied contract with the people of the Annapolis district, and of all the other districts throughout Canada, to see that they have proper buildings in which to carry on the public business.
I would not have risen to take up a moment of the time of this committee but for one thing. I regret that my very reasonable suggestions with regard to the work at the Amherst drill hall-my suggestions were made seriously, and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country, in that particular locality-did not fall apparently in the way I intended upon the ears of my hon. friend from the city of Calgary. He took occasion to make some facetious remarks in regard to some of the arguments that I used respecting the drill hall at Amherst, and because I had said that the drill hall was already surrounded by a cinder sidewalk, he said, no doubt expecting his remark to be received with great acclaim by hon. gentlemen opposite, that he would sit here all night to find out the number of cinders that had been placed around that drill hall. I am sure the minister knows I had no intention of making any criticisms of the cinder walk, and if my hon. friend from Calgary is anxious to 174i
know how many cinders there are around that drill hall, I can at least tell him about how many loads there were, and who supplied them.
I must say that I sympathize with my hon. friend from Calgary and with my hon. friend the ^Minister of Public Works. My hon. friend from Pontiac in the course of his remarks said a short while ago that the hon. member for Calgary was jealous because the hon. member for Annapolis had got a post office building and he had not. But my hon. friend from Calgary has a stronger jealousy than that. He is jealous because my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works occupies a seat in the Cabinet to-day, and my hon. friend from Calgary does not. That is where the jealousy comes in. As I said earlier this evening, I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works on his elevation to office. He comes from the Maritime Provinces, which deserves representation in the Cabinet, and I am sure that my hon. friend will fill the position as Minister of Public Works with dignity, and with credit to himself and the Maritime Provinces. The hon. member for Calgary should not have allowed his feelings so to run away with him that the Minister of Public Works was obliged to stand up and say that hon. members were unduly making speeches and were not at all serious. I have no doubt my hon. friend referred to his supporter the member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) who made a facetious speech, declaring he was prepared to stay here any length of time to find out the number of cinders around the drill hall in Amherst, and so forth. As regards this particular item, I for one commend my hon. friend for seeing to it that the building is erected. It is his duty and the duty of the Government to have the work done. I have no personal knowledge of the other items. If public buildings are required in the country it is the duty of the minister to ask Parliament for a vote, and the only proviso, so far as I am concerned, is that the money granted shall be spent economically in the best interests of the people. Now, irrespective of what the hon. member for Calgary said regarding the taking up of time discussing a small item like the paving around a drill hall amounting to $25,000, I want to say that while I have no objection to any reasonable work being done at Amherst or anywhere else, at the same time, as a member of the committee, and as a responsible member of Parliament, I

think that we should all see to it that not a single dollar is voted in this House during the next year or two that is not absolutely needed for indispensable work. I have no apologies to make for anything I have said in this connection. I opposed the expenditure last year, and I oppose it this year on one ground, and one ground alone, and that is that it is not absolutely necessary in the public interests at the present time. I believe that the public buildings in the diiferent towns and villages throughout the country should be put in as good shape as possible just as soon as the finances of the country will warrant this being done, and all hon. members on this side of the House, I am sure, desire only that public expenditures shall be made in the best possible manner. I am glad to know that the minister, as he says to-night, has been able to pare down the Estimates to as low a figure as possible, and I trust that this particular item will receive the economical consideration which he assures us he has given to other matters.	'
Mr. MeCURDY:	The hon. member has
referred in particular to the Amherst vote. He will not forget that last year this appropriation was passed without division.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And probably this one will
be passed to-night; but this does not say that we do not object.
Mr. MeCURDY:	The hon. member is
making a long tirade against the vote for the Amherst drill hall, but it was passed last year without division.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Certainly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We seldom divide on items in committee.
Mr. MeCURDY: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) will leave the expenditure of this money to the good judgment of the department. It will be in as safe hands as it was last year, when he assented to the vote.


James Alexander Robb: Having listened to this most interesting debate, I gather that there is little objection to the amount to be expended on the Amherst drill hall. Had the minister given ear earlier to the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) we might have made progress.
Mr. MeCURDY: I gave him all the information he asked for.


James Alexander Robb: It is now approaching two o'clock, and having in mind that there is some |16,000,000 to vote for this depart-

ment alone, and taking into consideration the votes for the other departments; and, furthermore, in view of our general experience of the past and our knowledge that in a very few weeks and, indeed, in a very few days, when the weather is hot, we are able to vote through hundreds of millions of dollars, railroading Estimates through,-


Lucien Cannon: We will not do it.


James Alexander Robb: Well, the men who object most are sometimes not here when we start to rush the votes through, and it seems to me that we have given this comparatively small item considerable attention to-night and might reserve some of our energy for the larger items later on. If the minister will let this $25,000 item stand we might vote the balance. I might say frankly to the minister that votes for military purposes, at this time, we on this side are not disposed to treat lightly. The country has a heavy debt and this is one regard in which they might economize. I am glad to know that the minister is providing, not only at Halifax, but at St. John and Quebec, for properly taking care of immigrants. The first impression an immigrant receives he usually carries with him throughout his lifetime. Many of these immigrants come as small children, and we want to make them as comfortable as possible. I therefore do not object to equipping the quarantine stations so that immigrants will be well received. Now, if the committee is willing, we might pass the balance of the vote provided the minister will let this $25,000 item stand for further consideration.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to interfere-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Order. As item No. 129 is involved in a larger total, the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Robb) cannot be entertained and is therefore out of order.


Lucien Cannon: I think the point of order raised by the Chairman is well taken. This is part of one resolution and we cannot separate it from the other items. Now, I rose to ask information in connection with the post office at Annapolis. We have been told that the contract was awarded for a total of $26,000. Last year we voted, in connection with that work, $20,000. This year we are asked to vote $17,000, of which $3,000 is a re-vote. That means that $17,000 must have been spent last year.

If we add to that $17,000 the $14,000 of the new vote this year, we have a total of $31,000. How is it that we are asked to vote $31,000 when the total contract was for $26,000?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Notwithstanding the
votes of last year and this year, the total amount to be expended by the department on the reconstruction of the Annapolis post office is $34,000. Regarding the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Huntingdon I would say to him, with all due respect, that all the questions asked by my hon. friend from Pontiac were answered categorically, and I do not wish the responsibility for the lack of information to rest on my shoulders. The hon. member for Pontiac asked if tenders were called in connection with the Annapolis building and I answered in the affirmative. Had the hon. gentleman asked for particulars as to the tenders they would have been gladly afforded. I entirely repudiate responsibility for the thirty-five minutes discourse with which we have been favoured by that hon. gentleman. I am quite prepared, and am only too pleased, to afford all possible information that is available to the members of this committee, but I do say, and I say it in all sincerity, that if this House is required to sit far into the night that responsibility must rest on the shoulders of those who are to blame for the delay and not upon the shoulders of those who are not in any way responsible.


Lucien Cannon: I have put a very
pertinent question to the minister and he has not given as complete an answer as he might have done. When''the minister stated that the hon. member for Pontiac stood alone in his efforts to secure information he laboured under a false impression; we on this side are a unit in wishing to obtain necessary information when any minister comes here and asks to have Estimates passed. However, I do not wish to be sidetracked; I desire to obtain more information than the minister has. yet given. He has informed us that the contract for this building was for a total amount of $26,300 but it appears that the expenditure has been $34,000, or a difference of $8,000 as compared with the original contract. I now wish to know whether the additional money has been spent upon extra work, whether tenders were called for that work, and why the original contract did not cover the whole cost of construction?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The contract for the reconstruction of the Annapolis public building called for an expenditure of $26,300 but in addition a contract has been awarded for $2,635 for fittings to the building, and we are asking for a margin of $5,000 for contingencies. There is a certain amount payable for inspection but the total amount of that Estimate will not be spent.


Lucien Cannon: The sum of $5,000 for contingencies seems considerable on a contract of $26,000, and especially when there is an additional $2,600 for extra work.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The chief architect of the department estimated that the fittings would cost $5,000. Since the estimate was made tenders have been received which have enabled the department to provide these fittings for $2,630. This leaves a balance of $2,370 unexpended, of which superintendence and contingencies may consume from one thousand to two thousand dollars. In order to be perfectly safe we are asking the amount which is stated in the Estimate.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has stated it was estimated the fixtures would cost $5,000 and that when tenders were received it was found the cost would only be in round numbers $2,000. The official responsible for that descrepancy ought to be dismissed.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Matters of this kind cannot be estimated closely. Since the estimate was made by Mr. R. C. Wright, the Chief Architect of the Department, prices have been gradually falling and I am sure my hon. friend will be equally pleased with me to know that instead of having to pay $5,000 for these fixtures we have been able to purchase them for the sum of $2,630.


Lucien Cannon: Why not reduce the
amount? I do not wish to be in any way unkind to the minister, but he reproached the hon. member for Pontiac with having made a long speech, although the length of the speech delivered by the minister was about equal to the length of the speech of which he complained. In giving his views as to the policy of his department be said he wanted to cut down expenditure wherever he could. This is an instance where he could apply that policy immediately.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have succeeded in
doing so.


Lucien Cannon: Why not cut down that item for the Annapolis post office exactly to the amount that it is going to cost? Why have any margin?
Mr. MeCURDY: There is no margin.


Lucien Cannon: The amount of the original contract was $26,000, then a second contract was let for $2,600, yet the minister is asking for $34,000.
Mr. MeCURDY:	My hon. friend is
fighting a shadow.


Lucien Cannon: I do not know-I am fighting you.
Mr. MeCURDY: The Estimates, as my hon. friend knows, were drafted before the tenders were received. If they are slightly in excess of the actual cost I do not see that any harm is done to the public interest, and I respectfully suggest that the item be passed, because any unappropriated portion will jevert to the consolidated fund.


Lucien Cannon: The minister says we are fighting a shadow. If there has been any shadow cast on this item it has been cast by the minister himself. I do not think that I am dense, but the more the minister explains the less I understand him. The minister says: "I want to economise and do not intend to spend a cent more than I can help." We ask the minister :	"Why not cut down this item to
exactly what the building is going to cost"? The only explanation given by him is certainly not of a nature to remove any shadows if there are any.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Shall the item carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to remind the Minister of Justice that when we commenced this business at twelve o'clock he told us that he wanted only half an hour. Now it is two o'clock. I am sure that I can appeal to him to honour that arrangement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sure the hon. gentleman will himself concede that if we count the time utilized we have not yet had the half hour I stipulated for. I think in all fairness we might be allowed to make some progress, if it is only to enable our friend the Chairman to tell the truth when he makes the report that he will have to make in a moment or two.


Mr. McCREA:: A good deal has been
said about the length of time spent and the

little progress made. Let me give this advice to the minister, who I think is a little younger than I am, and it is advice that might be useful' to all the members of the Government:	Since I have had the
pleasure of sitting in this House I have noticed that when it comes to 2 a.m. a question of voting millions of money, which is an important part of the public business, the Government have always chosen to wait until away in the morning when everybody is tired and sleepy and anxious to get home, and then the Government go to work to railroad through millions of dollars of public money. For my part I repent this kind of thing. I think the important business of the country should be done in the proper hours.


Lucien Cannon: In daylight.


Francis N. McCrea: Yes, or at least before
twelve o'clock at night. After midnight if there is any business done it should be business of minor importance. I certainly believe that my constituents do not expect me to sit up all night, but, on the other hand, they do not expect me to be absent when important business is being carried on, and I think it will be wise on the part of the Government to adopt the policy of coming down with their Estimates in proper time. The very fact that the Government wait until after midnight before bringing on the important business of voting supply of itself arouses suspicion that they are not acting in good faith, but are trying to rush the business through in the absence of many hon. members. Two-thirds of the members are home to-night, and we all should be home.
The contentious item as I see it is the vote for this drill hall. That money was voted last year and not used. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Copp) who claims to know this particular building has informed the committee that there is already a good cinder sidewalk surrounding it. If that is true, why expend money on grading and paving? At this time when the Government are sending out notices to every taxpayer that unless he sends in his income tax return by Saturday night accompanied with a cheque for 25 per cent of his tax he will be liable to a heavy penalty, the people are looking to the Opposition, but especially to the Government who have the means of forcing these Estimates through, to be very cautious about how their money is expended. If this particular work was authorized last

year and not undertaken-and I commend the Government for not doing it; I do not believe it was necessary-I think they had better hold it in abeyance again this year. If the minister will give us his word that this work will not be undertaken until the financial condition of the country will justify it, I shall not object to passing the item. If it is proposed to spend $25,000 to build concrete sidewalks and works of that kind that are really not necessary, I for one am opposed to it and would be glad to sit here until twelve o'clock to-day or twelve o'clock to-morrow night for that matter, to prevent any such expenditure. The members on this side are quite as much interested in the welfare of this country as are my hon. friends opposite. I am not desirous of objecting to any legitimate expenditure, of opposing any appropriation for works which are absolutely necessary, but such works as can be done without should ' be held back. The minister has referred to the necessity for military expenditures in order to maintain the safety of the country. I would like to know where the danger is. I for my part do not see any. In my opinion, the Department of Militia are spending large amounts of money for works that are not necessary. I do not object to drill halls when there is need for them, but what is the need of keeping these places lighted and heated during the winter when no drilling is going on? They are simply used as a rendezvous for people whox wish to have a good time-and I doubt very much whether they are improving themselves morally or physically or in any other way. The dlrill halls in our city are like theatres; they are lighted and heated all winter and have a janitor to look after them. If they have to pay the price that I had to pay for coal-eighteen dollars a ton-they could not keep these buildings warm without a large expenditure. The young men who frequent these places in the winter would be well advised to apply themselves to some useful work rather than sit up all night-as we are doing here-in the drill halls during the winter. I would strongly advise the minister to cut down all expenditures that can possibly be cut down. This item for the building of a concrete sidewalk around the Amherst drill hall is absolutely unnecessary; we cannot afford to spend any money in that way.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The expenditures for public works have been cut down to the smallest possible sum and the artillery of
my hon. friends opposite is concentrated on the few remaining items. Nobody has greater regard for the business judgment of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) than I have. But the hon. member has spent ten minutes in declaiming against certain expenditures, while the hon. member for Pontiac occupied thirty or thirty-five minutes in objecting to unavoidable expenditure in connection with the restoration of a public building in Annapolis. After all, the total vote under discussion is $207,000. The member for Sherbrooke, for whom I entertain the utmost respect, talks glibly about millions of dollars.


Francis N. McCrea: May I correct the minister? I was referring to the Government's custom of bringing forward large items in the small hours of the morning,_ involving millions of money. I say it is a custom that they had better correct.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Well, the item under discussion involves the sum of only $207,000. We have discussed it now for over three hours, and upwards of one-sixth of that time has been occupied by the member for Pontiac in an attack on unavoidable expenditure. I do suggest to the committee that this item be allowed to pass. I should be sorry to be instrumental in keeping hon. members in attendance beyond the hours when we should be in bed.


James Alexander Robb: What does the minister
think of the suggestion of the hon. member for Sherbrooke that he give us his word of honour that he will not spend this $25,000?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I really do not see the logic of voting expenditures to which any provision of that kind is attached. I think hon. members opposite should feel that they can leave the matter entirely in my hands. I will see that no expenditure is made which is not necessary.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We are afraid of your associates.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We trust you, but not the others.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Well, I think the hon. gentleman can safely trust me in the matter. I have had the pleasure of appearing before the committee on two successive evenings, and I would not like to go back with much cry and little wool. I suggest that we pass this item and that the com-

mittee then rise, so that we may repair to our homes as we all like to at this hour of the night.


Mr. DECHENE:: The minister says that he does not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) when he contends that money should not be voted which is not required. About half an hour ago the minister said that there was $5,000 in the Annapolis appropriation that he expected would not be required. If that is true in regard to the Annapolis post office, it may be equally true in regard to the Amherst drill halll and other public buildings. If there is no necessity for this expenditure at all, why not drop the item? I suppose this is just a shadow and the minister wants us to take the shadow for something that is very real. The minister stated that the new quarantine station buildings at Halifax are badly needed for immipants coming into this country. I may be mistaken, but I have not heard that we have been receiving many immigrants during the winter season. What number of immigrants passed during last winter through the Halifax quarantine station? If the number is small, the old buildings that are in a good state of repair should be sufficient to accommodate them. The minister asks not only for new quarantine station buildings at Halifax to be used in the winter time, but other Dominion buildings there, and he wants not only to keep them in good order, but to make improvements to them. What kind of improvements does the minister want to make to the Halifax public buildings? Have the contracts been let for those public buildings at Halifax?
Mr. MeCURDY: None whatever.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Were any contracts given for the quarantine station buildings there?
Mr. MeCURDY: None whatever.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: When the minister
states that contracts were awarded, we must understand that that was only for the Annapolis post office.
Mr. MeCURDY: Yes, and the building at Yarmouth.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The Government is then not tied up with the other improvements?
Mr. MeCURDY: No.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is it the intention of the minister to carry on the work this year?

Mr. MeCURDY: The need is great.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is the need very great for the new quarantine building at Halifax?
Mr. MeCURDY: Yes.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: We can expect that
the needs there will be met and that these buildings will be constructed?
Mr. MeCURDY:	Yes.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What kind of buildings are they-hospitals or sheds?
Mr. MeCURDY:	Quarantine station.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I have seen quarantine stations before, and therp are sheds for the detention of immigrants and first, second and third class hospitals. Some buildings are used only by steamship companies. Are these new buildings to be first, second and third class hospitals, and what amount of money is to be spent on each of them?
Mr. MeCURDY:	If my hon. friend will
take up the question of the nature of the buildings when the Estimates of the Immigration Department are under discussion, I am sure he will receive full information. My information is that these buildings are required in connection with the quarantine service at the port of Halifax. If my hon. friend will refer tr pages 38 and 39 of the Estimates, he wil find that there are similar apppropria tions for quarantine stations required a St. John and Quebec city.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: To say that there are
similar appropriations for quarantine stations in Quebec, or Ontario, or British Columbia, does not give me any information whether these buildings are hospitals or sheds or power houses or buildings for the use of quarantine nurses, doctors or the supenrintendent. What kind of buildings are they-?
Mr. MeCURDY:	As immigrants are
coming to this country in large numbers, proper quarantine detention buildings must be^ provided, and that is the intention of this vote. No particular plans have been drawn with regard to the quarantine station at Halifax. The hon. member will notice that last year this committee voted $250,000 towards the construction of a quarantine station at the port of Halifax.
I had expected my hon. friend to commend me for having devised a general arrangement that would reduce this proposed public expenditure by $100,000. I am corres-

pondingly disappointed when my hon. friend attacks the item.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The minister does not understand the position I take. I did not attack the item. I should like to know what this quarantine station is for. The minister says I should congratulate him for reducing this item by $100,000. That is all very well, but he could probably do better. If he has no plans for a quarantine station, on what does be base this Estimate?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The permanent officials of the Department of Health forwarded a request to the Department of Public Works for an appropriation of $250,000, which was the sum my hon. friend voted last year, for the building of a detention station at Halifax. In my opinion the plans of the Department of Health, which called for the erection of a building on MacNab's island were rather unnecessary.# I thought it would be better to improve the present buildings on Lawlor's Island than to construct the new buildings and therefore I am asking instead of a vote of $250,000, for a vote of only $150,000, for the improvement of the buildings on Lawlor's Island.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Just what kind of
buildings is it proposed to provide?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is for a hospital and detention building, which the Department of Health thought might be erected on MacNab's island. That would call for the purchase of additional lands and the erection of buildings on that site. My own view was that the public interests would be better served by making improvements to the detention building on Lawlor's Island. I had hoped to receive the support of my hon. friend in thereby effecting a saving of $100,000.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Will the minister tell the committee what are the plans of the department, and what the approximate cost of the building will be?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The approximate cost
will be $150,000. The tide of immigration from the Old Country is not unaccompanied with difficulties, as my hon. friend knows, and it is absolutely necessary that this country be prepared with the proper quarantine facilities to care for the immigrants who are arriving and will arrive in this country.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What will the hospital alone cost?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Without having gone
into the details, I think that an equally good service can be accomplished by the expenditure of $150,000 as if we had spent $250,000. I think that $150,000 will cover the proposed accommodation. I could have given details of the proposed expenditure of $250,000 but I cannot give the details of the proposed expenditure of $150,000 because those details have not yet been assembled. It is the opinion of the officials of the department, however, that $150,000 will provide the necessary facilities for ths hospital which otherwise would have cost $100,000 more than is asked for.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is it businesslike to
ask for the expenditure of $150,000 without the particulars?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The conditions arising
from the immigration that is coming to the country primarily come under the Department of Immigration and the responsibility therefor rests with that department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Passing the buck again. Where does the Civil Service Commission come in?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not passing the buck; I never do; I am always prepared to take my full share of responsibility.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: The Civil Service Commission is the goat.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not only have I taken my responsibility, but on my initiative the proposed expenditure is encompassed by $150,000, and the actual expenditure will probably be many thousand dollars less. I hope I am not too optimistic in seeking, if not approbation, at least recognition, of what I have done in this respect, and I am pleased to note that my hon. friend (Mr. Deehene) is alone in his adverse commnets.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: You have not heard the others.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The department, I can assure the hon. member, safeguards public expenditures to the uttermost. It was the opinion of the Department of Health that they should spend $250,000 in acquiring a new site on George's island to accommodate the large number of immigrants coming through the port of Halifax; but having a local knowledge of the circumstances I considered that a saving could be effected; hence the reduced vote.


Mr. LEDUC:: Were details given of the $250,000 last year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not know, but the officials of the Public Health Department were convinced that a new site, a new building and a new landing pier were absolutely necessary. My opinion was different from that department's, and while I do not doubt that they were equally earnest, at the same time I should not feel satisfied if I did not stand by my opinion until it was shown to be unsound, and so I now ask the committee to sanction this vote of $150,000, with which I am satisfied that the Department of Health can provide the necessary facilities to take care of incoming immigrants andto provide the necessary safeguards against the dangers attending immigration.


James Alexander Robb: It is now approaching three o'clock and the minister has but nine supporters in the House. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion put: Yeas, 20; Nays, 20.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Two hon. members
came into the chamber while the vote was being taken and was half completed. Their votes should not be counted.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to my hon. friend that the rule governing a vote in committee is not the same as the rule applicable to a division in the House. In the case of the former any hon. member has a right to record his vote providing he arrives in time to have his vote counted, and it is not necessary for him to be in the chamber and hear the question put. There is a well known rule that when a question is before the committee for discussion, the vote given by the Chairman should be such as to permit of further discussion. I must follow that rule and vote against the motion in order to enable the committee to continue the discussion.


Lucien Cannon: The decision given by the Chair on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Montmagny is perfectly right, but I think the rule contains the proviso that the members who vote must understand the question that is put. If the hon. mombers who entered the chamber and voted while the count was being taken can state what they voted on, their votes can be counted, otherwise they cannot-that is the rule.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point raised by the hon. member for Dorchester would certainly be well taken if it related to a division in the House-


Lucien Cannon: It applies even in committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: -but in Committee of the Whole the point as to whether a member has understood the question, or as to whether he has heard the question put, cannot be raised. All those hon. members who stand are counted either for or against the motion as put.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman, but now that we are in a committee where members can vote without knowing what they are voting on, the discussion ought to be restricted. It is a rather remarkable thing for hon. members to be allowed to come into the chamber while a count is being taken and be allowed to cast their votes without even knowing what they are voting on. It may be that the rules of the House allow the practice but it is rather extraordinary and exceptional. The gallant member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) and the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Clark) cast their votes in the way I have indicated. It would be much more satisfactory if these two gentlemen would remain in the chamber and it might be more satisfactory for their constituents. If they choose to stay away, however, that is their own lookout.
Coming to the question before the committee the Minister of Public Works, in the course of his many speeches to-night, stated that as regards the post office at Annapolis even though the member for the constituency had not recommended the expenditure it would have been made just the same, because the officials of the department would have seen to it that a public building in any part of the country when destroyed by fire would be replaced.
I am quite pleased with that statement, but I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that if the officials of his department are so wide awake to the needs of Annapolis, or of a town in any other constituency represented by a Tory, they seem to be less awake when the same needs and conditions exist in a constituency represented by a Liberal member. As far as our own city is concerned, the officials of the department have shown a lack of attention that ought to be denounced. Let me say at this stage, Mr. Chairman, that by the present entry into the chamber of a number of Government supporters the narrow margin obtained by the Government on the last vote seems to have had the effect of awakening hon. members opposite to their duties.


Mr. CO  PP@: They have come to hear you.


Lucien Cannon: One of my hon. friends remarks that they have come to hear me.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Lucien Cannon: A certain hon. gentleman says "No." I do not blame him for whatever I say will afford him very little comfort. I was saying that some years ago a fire occurred which destroyed a public building in the city of Levis, we are now asked to vote money to restore the public building in the town of Annapolis which was also destroyed by fire. The Minister of Public Works had stated that his officials saw to it that under such circumstances the building was immediately replaced. I hope that custom will be followed throughout. When the Intercolonial station was destroyed by fire in the city of Levis the officials of the department must have known about it, and yet we were left without a station at that very important point on the Intercolonial not for months merely, but for years. Needless to say the public in that neighbourhood were most gravely inconvenienced, and I hope that such a thing will not be allowed to occur again in our district. When the Public Works Department at last decided to replace the station that had been destroyed they put up a structure which did not give that satisfaction to the taxpayers of the town that it should have given. Our province, for reasons that I do not know but that 1 kind of suspect, is ignored by the Department of Public Works. The Government seems to be always willing to squander money everywhere else, but when it comes to our own province of Quebec, Mr. Chairman, the Government always hesitates- not only hesitates but-


Georges Parent: Refuses.


Lucien Cannon: -denies to the electors their right to have the public buildings throughout the country given proper attention. We have heard the minister speak about the immigration buildings in Halifax and also at other ports of entry. If, after the session he has any leisure, I would advise him to come down to our city of Quebec and inspect our immigration buildings, because I have great confidence in his capacity as a business man. I do not propose to vote against the improvement of immigration buildings in the city of Halifax. If they are needed, let us have buildings which will bear some relation to the importance of our country, consistent, of course, with our financial
resources. But in Quebec these buildings have been neglected, and the impression of Canada gathered by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who every year enter this country through our port cannot be very satisfactory.


Donald Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The item before the House is No. 129, and has nothing to do with immigration buildings in Quebec.


Georges Parent: How do you know?


Lucien Cannon: I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Algoma has had time to transfer his attention from the timber investigation in the province of Ontario long enough to raise this point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member
has anything to say on the point of order I shall be glad to hear it, but the hon. member should not attack the hon. member for Algoma. .


Lucien Cannon: I would not attack the hon. member for Algoma, Mr. Chairman, that is remote from my mind.


Georges Parent: Your time is too precious.


Lucien Cannon: But speaking to the
point of order, the hon. gentleman states that the it,em before the committe'e has nothing to do with immigration buildings in Quebec. He has not been as assiduous in the performance of His duties during this debate as I have been. If he had been in the House, as was his duty, he would have listened to the minister-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must again remind the hon. member that this is not the time or place to attack the hon. member for Algoma, and that one hon. member has no right to read a lecture to another. The chairman must certainly rule that it is not relevant to the item under discussion or to the point of order.


Lucien Cannon: You are perfectly right, Mr. Chairman. I do not think any member should lecture another, and I would be the last to discuss your decision. But coming back to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Algoma, I was saying that all members who were present during this discussion heard the Minister of Public Works give his views as to the general policy which was to be followed by his department, and he told us what he intended to do not only in the city of Halifax, which is mentioned in this item, but

also^ in the other ports. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, referring to the remarks made by the minister himself,-remarks which were not called to order and which were unchallenged by every member of this committee, although probably they might have ,	been challenged by the member
3 a.m. for Algoma if he had heen in the House at the time in view of his strict adherence to the rules,-I think it would be most unfair to members if after the minister was allowed to make those remarks on his general policy and and administration we were not allowed to discuss them. So addressing myself, Mr. Chairman, to what the minister said, I was expressing the hope and desire that he would apply his policy as far as the province of Quebec is concerned in as good a spirit of fairness and justice as he seems to wish to apply it to the province of Nova Scotia which he represents in the Government. I will now resume my seat for a moment to allow you, Mr. Chairman, to give your decision on the point of order.


Joseph Archambault: I wish to say a tew words on the point of order. If I understand the hon. member for Algoma, he raises the point that because the hon. member for Dorchester is speaking of the city of Quebec while we are discussing the item on page 38 of the Estimates:-"Amhal1, &rading' Paving, etc., ^25,000; Annapolis-to repair and rehabilitate public building damaged by fire, the' walls and foundation being intact and in good order, $17,000; Halifax-Dominion buildings, improvements, repairs, etc., $7,000; Halifax-quarantine station, new buildings, $150,000; Yarmouth-public building, restoration and alteration after damage by fire, and reconstruction of addition, $8,000;" it is not in order to speak about a public building in the city of Quebec. It seems to me that whenever the Government asks the committee to vote a certain amount for public buildings or for any other purpose which is for the welfare of the people, it is perfectly in order for an hon. member to submit that instead of spending public money at certain points in the Dominion it would be much more in the interest of the people to spend it in other districts. This is the first reason that I bring in support of the contention that my hon. friend for Dorchester was perfectly in order when he spoke about buildings in Quebec which had been damaged by fire. The Minister of Public Works has asked the committee to 
vote a certain amount of money for public buildings in the constituency of my hon. friend from Annapolis-buildings that have been damaged by fire. He has also asked us to vote some money for fittings to those buildings. I understood the minister to say at first that the amount for fittings was $5,000; subsequently he said that the estimate of the architects was only $2,500. I fail to understand why fittings should be needed for this building, especially when the hon. member for Annapolis made such fitting remarks in Toronto a few days ago.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry to have
to interrupt my hon. friend. His first remarks were quite relevant to the point of order, but what the minister may have said in connection with other items is not relevant to the point now under consideration.


Joseph Archambault: I was under
the impression that the item for the Annapolis public building was included in appropriation No. 129, which is now under discussion. However, I bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. I submit that in discussing the expenditure of money at other points in the Dominion is absolutely in order under this item.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: On the point of order,
I sumit that when the member for Dorchester called the minister's attention to an apparent anomaly which existed in that buildings destroyed by fire in one section of the country were rapidly repaired by the Government whereas .buildings destroyed by fire in other places did not receive the same treatment, he was perfectly in order. The intention of the member for Dorchester,
I am sure, was to keep the Minister of Public Works, who is a new minister, from falling into some of the errors with which his predecessors have been troubled in the past.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is perfectly right.


Joseph Archambault: I also approve
those remarks.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister, I am sure,
wishes to obtain the opinion of all members on questions of policy so important as those now under consideration. It is the duty of every member, including members of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, to assist the minister in carrying on the business of the country, and in making the remarks that he did the member for Dorchester was undoubtedly of great assistance to the

minister. Under the circumstances, therefore, I submit that the point of order raised by the member for Algoma has not been well taken.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I think that under the circumstances the hon. member from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), who followed the discussion very closely the whole evening, was perfectly in order in comparing the feelings of the hon. minister towards certain provinces in order to substantiate his remarks as to the province of Quebec. I had been here for some time and I may draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, upon the fact that in answering several questions of mine, the hon. minister himself referred to the buildings at the quarantine station, insinuating that some of his employees had been indiscreet, whereby I had been acquainted with what was going on. I must say that at that moment I should have called the hon. minister to order because he had no right to state that indiscretions had been committed, of which I had taken advantage. I was surprised at that unbecoming behaviour on the part of the minister; however, under the circumstances, I did not think I was bound to call the attention of the committee to the fact, so as not to offend the hon. minister and to allow him the utmost freedom in providing us with the necessary information. The aim which the hon. member from Dorchester had in view when acting as he did was merely to show the hon. minister how unjust is the attitude he takes under those conditions. That there was a fire from which the people of the district of Quebec have suf fered cannot be denied. We are now discussing estimates concerning reconstruction works to be done by the Department of Public Works on account of buildings which have been destroyed by fire, and I was calling your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that in the same page are mentioned buildings in every province which have been destroyed by fire. We have had an epidemic of fires.


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation.) I shall have to remind my hon. friend that he is digressing from the point of order.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Reverting to it, but to illustrate the position of the hon. member from Dorchester, I deem it necessary to state all the facts and to poir.t to every fire which has occurred right and left and which the hon. Minister himself has discussed. Now the Annapolis Are was certainly the largest one that district ever
witnessed-it was a political conflagration in anticipation of the coming election-and the hon. member from Dorchester is surely in order when mentioning it. Since the hon. minister himself has put water under the wheel, I think we are entirely justifiable in using that water to set the mill in motion and to do so until the wee hours of morning, if necessary. If the hon. member from Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) intends to raise points of order, he should do so in an appropriate manner.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the Chairman has been sufficiently enlightened to be able to render a decision on the very intricate point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). It is that under item 129, which is now before the committee, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) had no right to complain of the fact that no appropriation had been placed in another item for the reconstruction of a public building in or near the city of Quebec. If such had been the exact position, the point of order would certainly have been well taken. But listening to the discussion, as the Chairman has listened to it for some time, he is of opinion that it was not the intention of the hon. member for Dorchester, in his remarks, to complain of the fact that a certain building was not being constructed in or near the city of Quebec, but that he was using this as an illustration of his arguments in reference to the item which is at the present time before the committee. Assuming that to be the case, the Chairman is not disposed to say that the hon. member for Dorchester is out of order.
The Chairman would like to add that, in connection with the arguments advanced upon the point of order, the fact that the minister himself, in submitting his Estimates, had delivered a lengthy address which would have been more properly made on the motion to go into Supply, and which would naturally lead other hon. members away from the special item under consideration, is not after all sufficient reason to justify hon. members speaking aside from the question.


Lucien Cannon: The terms of the decision which has just been rendered by the Chair shows that the intentions of members of the Opposition are well understood by every well-meaning member of this committee. What we wish to secure, if that be possible, is a good Government for this country, and every argument which we use is not an argument simply to delay the

discussion, to embarrass the minister, but an argument and effort to reach the best results for Canada at large. I am pleased to see that the decisions which are given by the Chair, not only by the Speaker, but by the Deputy Speaker, are always decisions inspired by the highest principles of justice and fairness to hon. members of the House no matter where they sit.	-
Continuing my argument, I was stating to the Minister of Public Works that the reason which he had alleged for rebuilding the post office in the constituency of our most interesting friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) was that the building had been partially destroyed by fire. I was stating that, in other parts of the country where fires had also destroyed public buildings, the Government had not been as eager, or as hasty, or as keen, in replacing the buildings which were destroyed. In the course of the discussion which took place on this item, the Minister of Public Works declared that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) was like the last rose of last summer which was blossoming alone. I am pleased to see that the argument has been carried on to such a length, and that the members of the committee are enlightened to such an extent that flowers are bestowed on you, Sir, when you give us full justice which we ought to obtain in this House whenever we seek it. The public buildings of our Government ought to be not only convenient places for the transaction of public business of Canada, but ornaments for every place in which they are erected. Are they so? The minister has said that he wanted to economize, to cut down every item in his Estimates so as to provide some money where money was needed most by other members of the cabinet. I have not had the pleasure of visiting the cities in Nova Scotia where the moneys asked for in this item are to be expended. I have not such a parochial or provincial spirit as to oppose grants of money, simply because that money is to be expended in other provinces than the one in which I belong. . The spirit which animates every representative of Quebec is a truly Canadian spirit, and that spirit extends to every province of Canada. We are well satisfied to do everything in the public interest, whether that is to be done in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Applying this principle of the truly Canadian spirit to the question now before the committee, we do not oppose these grants, because this money would be expended in Nova Scotia, but we wish to obtain from the minister 
every assurance that the public moneys of Canada will be expended for a cause worthy of obtaining money from our public treasury. We have, first of all in these items, moneys which are to be spent for the paving or rebuilding or improving of a sidewalk around the drill hall at Amherst. Amherst is represented in this House by the Speaker of the House of Commons. I would be the last man to say the least word in condemnation of the hon. gentleman who presides over the deliberations of this House. The hon. gentleman has truly undertsood the role which he is called upon to play. I will interrupt niy remarks for a minute. I understand the Government has resigned. There are no representatives of the Government in the House.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I would like to ask the minister a question. The Government has gone.


Lucien Cannon: I was saying before the Minister of Justice came in that this expenditure of public moneys for a drill hall in Amherst will take place in the county represented by the Speaker of the House. Thg Speaker has the respect of every member of this House, and he deserves it. Anything I may say to-night in the way of criticism is not inspired by personal feeling toward the Speaker. The Speaker is a perfect representative of the traditions of English parliamentary life. He understands his duties perfectly, and he performs them to the best of his ability.
I do not think it is fair that my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice should be left alone on the front bench to face the music and explain the responsibility of the Government towards the Canadian people. ,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Look at the fun he
has.


Lucien Cannon: Is it fair that the Prime Minister of Canada, who is a much younger man, that the Minister of Immigration, who is a much younger man, and that all the other ministers, especially the Minister of Marine, who always has an easy time in this House, and who represents the same province as my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice, should leave the only Irish representative in the Government to face an opposition directed, not against his department, but against another department? This as but another example of unfairness towards the Irish race. They say that Quebec is isolated. We receive from the Government every day promises of better treatment. We receive what I might call "ouvertures," or openings. They would

like to have us on the other side of the House, but, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Government would never mention anything of the kind to the right hon. the Minister of Justice, because he would absolutely disapprove of such ouvertures. The Government are giving us an example to-night of Quebec's isolation. The only man in the Government that dare face the music tonight, the only one that has the courage and the strength to stand by his guns, is an Irishman from Quebec. Where is the representative of British Columbia? Gone to bed.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Do not believe it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the
hon. member that this discussion about where the ministers might be is not very relevant to the item under discussion.


Lucien Cannon: I have the greatest respect for the decisions given by the Chair, more particularly since the last decision. I wish to be fair to the representative of British Columbia. I wish to insert in Hansard that I was wrong, and that he is here, but seeing that the fight was waxing pretty hot, he withdrew to the back benches.
I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works coming back to his seat. Hon. members on this side of the House were most unfair, I think, to the minister when they said that these items were placed in the Estimates on account of coming elections. I do not believe that. The minister has told us that he is not a politician. I believe him. He is only a Unionist. He told us to-night that he was a politician either by mistake or by distraction; I think by both. I have enough confidence in the minister, however, to know that after his experience in financial business in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, he certainly will not consent to one dollar of the public money being expended where it should not be spent. Last year most of the money which was asked for was not expended. What were the reasons?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: There was a new
election coming on.


Lucien Cannon: The minister should
frankly state why this money was not spent then. If he will tell us why, he will see the most extraordinary spectacle of the loyal Opposition helping him to keep his supporters from squandering the public money. It is true that the member for Annapolis is an active member of the Government. I do not wish to lecture him;
I was told before that I had no right to do so; but notwithstanding what his position in the Tory party of Canada may be to-day, I say that he has no right to force an honest and respectable man like the Minister of Public Works to spend even $5 of the people's money unless such expenditure is absolutely fair and just. So long as the minister does not give an explanation of these matters we shall be justified in opposing this item.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member (Mr. Cannon) requires additional information regarding the restoration of the Annapolis public building. This information is freely available. My hon. friend has traversed many fields of public interest. He has gone into the operations of the Canadian National Railways.


Lucien Cannon: I did not mention anything about the Canadian National Railways or the administration of railways.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member referred to a fire that occurred at Levis, and spoke about the destruction of property which is under the direction of the Canadian National Railways. He said that that property was not restored with the same celerity as was shown in connection with the Annapolis public building. He knows I am not charged with the duty of operating the Canadian National Railways. Parliament in its discretion has placed the management' of the railways under the direction of the operating board. The responsibility in connection with public buildings and public works, however, rests with me, and I gladly accept it. If the celerity of the Public Works Department's operations compares favourably with that of the Canadian National Railways, so much the better for the Public Works Department. I will not discuss the destruction and restoration of the Canadian National Railway property at Levis; I have no personal knowledge of that matter. In regard to the public buildings at Annapolis, however, 1 may state that the sum of $17,000 asked for in the Estimates is to complete the restoration of those buildings destroyed on March 17, 1920, the work of which is under contract with Messrs. Denton & Condon for the sum of $26,300. The amount asked for in the Estimates of 1921-22 is made up as follows: Fittings, furniture, lock boxes, etc., $10,000; contingencies, $5,000; superintendence, $2,000. The appropriation last year Was $20,000. The probable expenditure last year was $17,000; the re-vote

asked for this year is $3,000, the new vote being $14,000, or a total vote this year of $17,000. The probable expenditure this year is $17,000, making a total of $34,-
000.	Now, if unfortunately there has been delay in the progress of the Commitee, it is not chargeable to any lack of disposition on my part to give information. I am prepared to answer every question that is asked, and while I sympathize with those members who are spending time when they might more beneficially be in a more healthful and fitting posture-


Lucien Cannon: Posture?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Did the minister say posture?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, physical posture- if the preference is to spend time here in this way, then it is a matter for their choice.


Lucien Cannon: The minister referred to the Canadian National Railways and said I spoke about their administration. He is evidently under a false impression; I did not. What I said was there was a fire in the city of Levis some years ago which destroyed the station and it was not replaced until a long time afterwards.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Was it built by the
Department of Public Works?


Lucien Cannon: I was under the impression that the Intercolonial Railway stations were built by the Department of Public Works. If I am mistaken I am quite willing to he corrected.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. gentleman is quite in error. These stations are not under the Department of Public Works.


Lucien Cannon: I accept the minister's statement. The blame therefore does not lie with his department but with the Department of Railways and Canals. I hope the minister will take occasion to inform his colleague the Minister of Railways that he ought, in the restoration and rebuilding of public buildings, to be as speedy as my hon. friend wishes to be in Annapolis. My hon. friend has said that he has given out a contract but no matter what figures he gives it always comes to the same thing. He has given a contract in the case of the Annapolis post office for $26,000 with extras-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not $26,000 worth of extras.


Lucien Cannon: Well, $26,300 is the
amount of the contract. No matter what my hon. friend says the figures he has given do not reach the total amount asked for in this item. My hon. friend has assured us that if we asked plain questions we should get plain answers. I will try and make my questions as plain as possible in the hope that the minister will give us clear and positive answers as he is in a position to give. I have not been a member of the House so long as my hon. friend has been, and I have no advice to give him except to say this-before he comes back again with his Estimates he might seek some advice from the Minister of Justice and I am sure the right hon. gentleman will tell him. When you want to pass your Estimates and question are asked by members of the Opposition always answer those questions. If my hon. friend had answered those questions round about half past eleven or twelve o'clock I do not think we would still be sitting here. My hon. friend has had all kinds of offers from hon. gentlemen on this side. We are perfectly willing to help him, he has our sympathy, but we cannot stand being asked to vote public moneys without receiving full information. Personally I can convey, through you, Mr. Chairman, the assurance to the minister that when he needs help, and useful help, to carry on the honest administration of public affairs in his department he can always depend upon me to aid him.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I appreciate the generous offer by my hon. friend from Dorchester, but I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the suggestion that any information asked for in connection with the Estimates of this department has not been freely vouchsafed. When my hon. friend states that I should furnish information at a quarter past eleven concerning Estimates which did not come under consideration until half an hour later I leave it to the judgment of the committee as to whether that is quite a reasonable proposition. I am quite capable of comprehending questions that are asked of me, but to suggest that a minister should anticipate questions that are to be asked; to suggest that is to demand qualities in a minister which he is not expected to possess. Now in order that the situation in regard to the Annapolis post office may be quite clear to my hon. friend I would repeat what I said a few minutes ago: This amount of $17,000 is required to complete the restoration of the Annapolis public building which

was destroyed by fire on March 17, 1920, the work of Which is under contract with Messrs. Denton and Condon, the lowest tenderers, at $26,300. Taking the year 1921-22 the amount required to complete the contract is $10,000; for fittings, furniture, lock boxes, et cetera, $5,000; contingencies and superintendence $2,000. The appropriation voted by this committee in
1920-	21 was $20,000, the probable expenditure $17,000. The re-vote asked for
1921-	22 was $3,000 and there is a new vote for 1921-22 of $14,000, making a total of $17,000. The probable expenditure for 1920-21 was estimated at $17,000 and the appropriation asked for 1921-22 is $17,000 or a total of $34,000.


Lucien Cannon: The minister informed
us that the Estimate for fixtures was $5,000, and that was reduced to $2,000 when tenders were called for. This leaves a sum of $3,000 which has not been spent and is not required. Then the cost of supervising the construction of this building is placed at $2,000. Why should this be needed when the minister has already at his disposal officials who should do the work of inspection? Will the minister be good enough to tell us the name of the man who is to receive the $2,000 for supervising this work, where he comes from, and upon whose recommendation he was appointed. I understand that the department divides up the country into different area's, with a superintendent at the head of each area responsible for the work done. Why was that man superseded at Annapolis? Why should we pay $2,000 to a third party who is not connected with the department when the officials ought themselves to do the work?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Cannon: I would like an answer to my question.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have answered it
several times.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think the
minister has answered my question as to why, when he already has officials at his disposal, he is paying $2,000 to a superintendent to supervise the construction of a building for which the total contract is $26,000. Is there any reasonable proportion between the salary paid to the superintendent and the total expenditure involved? Who is this man, and where does he come from? The minister says he is perfectly willing to answer straight questions. That is a straight question.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend from Charlevoix had the floor and I did not wish to interrupt him.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As the hon. member for Dorchester has put a question to the minister I think it would be only fair for him to answer it before I start my remarks.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend from Dorchester, I am sure, understands that all these amounts in the Estimates are what their name implies-they are estimates-and necessarily they are sufficient, or more than sufficient, for the purpose intended. Now, if my hon. friend is sincere-


Lucien Cannon: I am never anything else.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am certain that he is, Mr. Chairman. I desire to inform him that building's in various parts of the country are under the direction of the chief architect of the department. My hon. friend has referred to the engineering service. Under the constitution of the department the engineering service is an entirely distinct branch from the architect service. The architects have oversight of public buildings, and with particular regard to the item under discussion the architect within the province of Nova Scotia, known as the resident architect, has general oversight of buildings within that province.


Georges Parent: Is that the only province where there is a resident architect?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, there is one in each province.


Georges Parent: Who is the one for the province of Quebec?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There are two architects of the department in the province of Quebec, so I am sure my hon. friend for South Quebec has no grievance on that score. I am sure my hon. friend from Dorchester would be the first to
4	p.m. admit that it would be quite impossible for one resident architect to personally oversee the construction work on all buildings within the province.


Lucien Cannon: If such is the case, how is it that last year the staff was decreased throughout the country?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is in
error. Possibly he is misled by information regarding the engineering service of



[Stage Direction]
the department, which has to do with the construction of such public works as piers, harbours and river improvements.
Georges Parent: Or a wharf at Kingston.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There has been a substantial reduction of the staff in the engineering branch. With regard to that I shall have a statement to make when the item for the pay and allowances of engineers is under consideration. For the present I am referring only to the duties of the chief architect of the department and his subordinates. The resident architect in Nova Scotia is engrossed with many duties and when any special construction, such as that at Annapolis, is in progress, some outside person has to be selected to superintend the work. In order to allay the apprehensions of my hon. friend, I would say that this official is not appointed by the Minister of Public Works or on the recommendation of the member of Parliament for that constituency, but by the Civil Service Commission. The official in question was so selected. His total fees will not amount to the $2,000 mentioned for superintendence and contingencies, which is voted as being sufficient, or more than sufficient, for the disbursements in respect of that item. It would be most unfortunate if in making these appropriations an insufficient amount to meet the cost of the service was appropriated. Such a plan would lead to inconvenience to those connected with the carrying out of these works. The practice of the department, therefore, is- to allow a sufficient margin, and if any part of the amount appropriated is not spent it in effect reverts to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Georges Parent: The department has its architects and engineers; when a building is to be erected what is to prevent them from knowing at once what the total cost will be, thus avoiding these extras which come in afterwards and which result in an evasion of the law providing that for every contract amounting to more than $5,000 tenders must be called?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Far from the state of affairs existing which my hon. friend fears, tenders are asked for all these works. In this case tenders were called and the lowest tender accepted. Tenders for the fittings were received from the following firms:	J. T. Schell Company, Alexandria, $2,635; James Davidson's Sons,

Ottawa, $2,900; Art Furniture Company, Ltd., Kitchener, $3,493; Murray and Gregory, Ltd., St. John, N.B., $3,626; S. Bourassa and Fils, Montreal, $4,058; The Burton and Baldwin Manufacturing Company, Ltd., $4,700; Telfer Woodworking Company, Bridgewater, $5,480. Of course, the lowest tender, that of the J. T. Schell Company, of Alexandria, $2,635, was accepted. This statement should go to assure my hon. friend that there is no intention on the part of the department to dispose of the public moneys otherwise than in the most careful manner possible. If there is any further information I can give or any reiterations I can make, I shall be only too glad to oblige my hon. friend. The hour is late, but in the words of the leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to sit here all night if necessary in order to give the fullest information to members of the committee.


Georges Parent: What was to prevent
the departmental engineers from providing for the full amount to be expended on the main building? Why should they have to come back afterwards and provide for side-linesi give out sub-contracts and things of that kind?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As my hon. friend
knows, these estimates of expenditure have to be made up some time in advance, and no matter how careful the architect may be he cannot accurately determine the exact amount which will be required. I am pleased to be able to advise the committee that the actual cost of carrying out this work will be somewhat less than the total amount of the estimate, and to that extent, of course, the public is the gainer.


Georges Parent: As regards this Estimate, has work been performed on all these buildings by tender and contract, or has anything been done by day labour?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Everything tjiat has
been done under this vote has been by tender and contract.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: When I was last asking the minister a few questions about the hospitals, I started my sentence with these words: "Does the minister think it businesslike

?" At this point the minister jumped up and started quite a speech without waiting for the end of my sentence. What I thought was not businesslike was this. The minister, who is in charge of a big department, puts into the Estimates an amount of $150,000 without having before him plans and specifications on which to

base the amount. Any business man, before asking his board of directors for money, would first ask his architect or other advisers to draw up plans and specifications for his scheme. The minister stated a few minutes ago that he had architects to do the work and that usually his Estimates are made up after the architects prepare the plans. I have been trying to find out if plans and specifications have been drawn up by the architects. I have found that the whole amount of $250,000 that was asked by the Health Department for hospitals and other buildings at Halifax has been cut down to $'150,000. That saving of $100,000 is very good; but what is the use of asking for $150,000, if the proposed buildings are not according to the requirements of the Health Department?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The reason for asking for the $150,000 is that we consider it will be sufficient. If it is not sufficient we will come back to Parliament next year and ask for an additional vote. I said before that my personal opinion was that by adopting the plan of improving the existing quarantine buildings at Lawlor's Island, we could save the public $100,000. I am quite prepared to admit that the cost of improving Lawlor's island is uncertain, but in my opinion it will not excfeed $150,000; whereas, it is absolutely certain that had we gone on with the acquisition and improvement on MacNab's Island site, we would have spent at least $250,000. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Dechene) direct his observations to the quarantine station at Gross lie with which he is no doubt more familiar than with conditions in Halifax harbour.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: When we come to the
Estimates for Grosse lie, we shall have some questions to ask of the minister. At this time, as we are looking at the interest, not of our particular constituencies, but of the Dominion at large, we will inquire into this matter of improving the quarantine station at Halifax. I understand the minister's intention is to save money by leaving alone the George's Island scheme as proposed by the Health Department. The minister is asking for $150,000 for improvements in Halifax quarantine station as actually existing, but I understand that there are no plans or specifications on which he might base his Estimate of $150,000. If this situation is exactly what the committee believes it is, we are right in taking the view that this is purely
and simply a guess as to about what this work is going to cost. If this Parliament is here to vote money to any minister only on his good faith and honour, let it be known to the public that ministers are coming before the House and asking for money just on their own personality. The Estimates are discussed every year in order to find out if they are necessary in the public interest. During the last few years we have been under very heavy expense. Now that we are returning to a peace basis, we find ministers delivering many speeches stating their intention to cut expenditures here and there, but we also find many Estimates based purely on guesses. As the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) said a little while ago, this is not business-like. Every one of us is sending in his income tax returns; the hon. member for Sherbrooke has done his part; he has shown the example to all other members and to the public in general as regards their duty in this respect. We are sending in our cheques, and these cheques are turned into the treasury to be spent on buildings proposed to be erected here and there throughout the country. We cannot get any details from the minister as to these buildings.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I would point out that last year this House voted $250,000 to provide quarantine buildings at Halifax. I have already explained to the committee that in my opinion $100,000 can be saved by improving the present quarantine buildings instead of erecting new ones. I have also told the committee that no plans for rebuilding have yet been made, because since I put that proposal forward it has not been possible to make a close survey of what these improvements will cost, but I think, roughly speaking, that that saving can be effected. If my hon. friend's argument means anything, it means that we should renew the vote of $250,000 which he approved last year.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I deny that.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: -I would rather save that $100,000 by making repairs. The time will come when we can make a close survey of what will require to be done. In the meantime I ask the committee to allow this vote to pass and save the treasury of this country $100,000. My hon. friend is really arguing that the vote of last year should be renewed.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. The minister's argument is based on one assumption. That assumption is that

the hon. member from Montmagny has made such and such a statement. The hon. member from Montmagny has expressly denied having made such a statement. The rule of the House is well known that the word of an hon. member must he accepted; that rule applies even to a minister. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call the minister to order and to see that he keeps within the rules of the House.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I wish to speak to the point of order. A reference to the debates of last year will indicate that my hon. friend did not dissent from the vote of $250,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister is not speaking to the point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister asked permission to speak to the point of order. He is, as I understand it, speaking to the point of order and explaining why he made certain remarks concerning the attitude taken by the hon. member for Montmagny. I think he has a right to explain that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He is asserting a fact which the hon. member for Montmagny denies.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not asserting a fact. I am simply referring you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee to the records of Parliament, which I am certain will indicate that my hon. friend did not dissent from the vote of $250,000 last year. Therefore, how can he assert that my statement that he assented to that vote is incorrect?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I want to say a word on the point of order. I have said nothing about the item of last year. The minister was speaking to the point of order raised by the member for Dorchester, and in the course of his remarks he said that I was opposed to this item of $150,000 although I voted in favour of a larger item amounting to $250,000 last year; and when challenged by the member for Dorchester to substantiate that statement he said that the general attitude of the member for Monf-magny justified him in saying that he had voted for that sum last year. Well, he can come to that conclusion if he likes.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Did not the hon. member for Montmagny vote for it last year?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Where does the minister find that I voted one way or the other last year on this particular item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: He agreed to it last
year?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The minister cannot find any vote of mine recorded one way or the other in regard to the item. Now, his predecessor last year submitted plans in regard to the vote of $250,000 and we want the same in connection with this vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the member for Montmagny kindly inform the Chair exactly what statement was attributed to him by the minister which he, the member for Montmagny, denies?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: He said that I voted for this item last year and I deny that statement.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the statement attributed to the hon. member for Montmagny is that he was opposed to the item-


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What I said was that I was opposed to the item this year.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member cannot be explicit in regard to the statement he desires to deny it is difficult for the Chairman to decide the question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What the hon. member complains of is plain. It is the allegation that, whereas he is opposing the item this year, he voted for it last year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: He voted for a larger sum last year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing on record to show that he supported it last year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: He agreed to $100,000 more last year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is absolutely nothing to that effect, because there was no division on the item. By what process of logic does the minister say that the member for Montmagny voted for this item last year? There is no justification for that statement.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I did not say he voted for it; I said it passed without his objection last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, you said he agreed to it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Let the minister be fair.


Lucien Cannon: The minister is shifting his position.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: An hon. member has the right, and indeed the duty, to object to any item with which he does not agree, and if the hon. member did not object to the item last year, then the inference is that it met with his approval.


Georges Parent: He may object to it this year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, but he did not object last year, and therefore he is not consistent. That is all.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Last year the minister then in charge of the department had plans with regard to the $250,000 vote and we want the same thing this year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be glad to tell the House what I base my Estimate upon.


Lucien Cannon: Before the minister does so, if we wish to proceed regularly, I think we should have a decision on the point of order and discuss the items on their merits.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman has asked the member for Montmagny what the statement was that was attributed to him and which he wished to deny. The minister is certainly obliged to accept any correction the hon. member desires to make.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I desire to say a few words in regard to the agreement which has been brought about by the hon. member for Montmagny and the Minister of Public Works. At the opening of the discussion I referred to one or two matters in connection with this item and expressed my disapproval of certain amounts of money comprised in it. I do not know very much about the item in regard to the new buildings for the Halifax quarantine station amounting to $150,000. The minister has said on different occasions that we on this side were not satisfied with his cutting down the vote of last year from $250,000 to $150,000 thus saving $100,000, and that we were protesting against that economy. I do not think my hon. friend is entirely right in that statement. The item of $150,000 is not for the same work but what is claimed to be similar work located at a different place.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: For the same purpose.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And it is to be used for the same purpose, my hon. friend says. Well, my hon. friend has not given the committee, so far as I have been able to understand, any details with respect to the work for which this money is required, and yet last year when the sum of $250,000 was voted the plans and specifications, and the report from the officials of the department were laid before Parliament.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Would my hon. friend be good enough to give me the details as to that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not in charge of the Public Works Department. I ask my hon. friends whether I am not right in my
statement.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is quite a Celt-he has answered my question by asking a question himself. He made the statement that the plans and specifications and details were submitted to this House last year. I have asked him for the particulars as to that and I think it is really up to him to furnish them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is the first time I have heard a responsible minister of the Crown ask a private member to give details as to plans, specifications and reports in the possession of the Department of Public Works or any other department. Does my hon. friend say that there are no such reports in his department?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not saying it, it is my hon. friend who is making the statement.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am asking my hon. friend, as the responsible minister, whether there are any reports in his department regarding the item we are discussing to-night and for which the sum of $250,000 was voted last year giving the information in regard to the proposed expenditure?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is not the point at issue at all. My hon. friend made a statement that last year there were submitted to this House plans and specifications and detailed reports in connection with the vote of $250,000. I have inquired from him what those plans and specifications and detailed reports were? If my hon. friend cannot substantiate his statement I submit he should withdraw it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have nothing to withdraw. If I had said anything offensive to the minister I should be most happy to withdraw it; but I certainly understood that such a vote was asked for last year based on a report from the oflicials of the minister. That I believe to be true. My hon. friend is in charge of the Public Works Department and I ask him now if he has any report in that department from any of his officials upon which the vote of $250,000 was asked for last year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not in a position to state upon what the vote of $250,000 asked for last year was based. I am very

pleased to be able to enlighten my hon. friend to the extent that the records of the department will permit. I find there is a memo in the records to this effect:
The Department of Health states that Law-lor's island is unsuitable as a quarantine station under conditions existing in Halifax harbour and it suggests that land be purchased at Indian point, MacNab's island and a new station
constructed there,
Appropriation	$250,000
Probable expenditure 1920-21	. .	100,000Re-vote asked for 1921-22..	..	150,000
No work was performed on1 this project this year and this department is waiting for an amended detailed report of requirements from the Department of Public Health.
That is all there is to it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the minister say that is the report that was under discussion last year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not say that is the report, I made no statement whatever in regard to it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am asking my hon. friend, I am entitled to the information. It is a public document. I ask my hon. friend as Minister of Public Works whether there was in the department last year a report from some officials of the Government in regard to the vote that was then asked for and passed by this House.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend apparently was in attendance last year and knows what was said.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am asking the ministei
whether there was not a report filed, anc I am entitled to the information.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have already read to the committee the statement in regard to this item-


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is the $250,000 item.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: -which I assume refers to the item passed last year, but as a matter of fact I cannot enlighten by hon. friend. If he chose to vote or to abstain from registering his dissent to the passing of the $250,000 item last year, I do not know what impulses actuated him. I have no doubt, however, that he acted in perfect good faith. As to the information that was vouchsafed to the committee last year, I can find in Hansard no references in detail to the quarantine station, and I therefore assume that nothing was said about it. I have been perfectly fair with the committee to-night. I have said that in my opinion this proposal to establish a quarantine station at MacNab's island involving the pur-
TMr. McCurdy.]
chase of a large tract of land is not in the public interest.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is Lawlor's island?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, the new proposal was to establish a quarantine station at MacNab's island. I know some-
5	a.m. thing about the physical position of these properties, and T say that in my judgment-it is more or less a rough and ready guess-$100,000 can be saved by remaining at Lawlor's island. When the proposal came before the department to re-vote $250,000 for the building of new immigration sheds at MacNab's island, I dissented. My hon. friend from Mont-magny, who is an expert in immigrants' diseases-


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that the minister withdraw his words that I am an expert in diseases affecting immigrants. I never made a statement saying that I had any special knowledge of such diseases.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Mr. Chairman, I am
happy to withdraw the expression and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I rose to a point of order, TVIr. Chairman, and I suppose I have the right to expose that point.


Joseph Archambault: Who has the
floor?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Montmagny, desires to state a point of order.	-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is different.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order and to do so in French, since the hon. minister finds it so hard to understand me when I happen to speak English. The hon. minister has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that the member for Montmagny was an expert in diseases affecting immigrants. I never laid myself open to a statement of that kind on the part of the minister and not being a member of the medical profession, I say that he has no right to reiterate at every turn such a statement, and that he should withdraw it.


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.)
Mr. Chairman, before you give your decision:


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: (Translation.) I think the Chairman may give his decision without any additional information as to the point of order.


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.) 1 understand that, Mr. Chairman, but have I not the right to speak on the point of order?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: (Translation.) No, the Chairman may invite hon. members to express their views regarding the point of order, but all the hon. members have certainly not the right to speak on every point of order which is submitted.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Montmagny is in regard to a statement made by the minister that the hon. member is an expert in diseases affecting immigrants. He draws attention to the fact that he is not a member of the medical profession, and therefore resents the expression used by the hon. minister in referring to him as being such expert. If the hon. minister had not hastened to withdraw the remark I think the point of order would have been well taken, but, while the hon. member for Montmagny still had the floor, the minister said that he was happy to withdraw the expression if it offended the hon. member. I am of the opinion that the hon. minister gave evidence that he was not disposed to injure the feelings of the hon. member, and the expression having been withdrawn there is no point of order before the Chair.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Je ne parle pas facile-ment le francais, Mr. Chairman, and that being the case I was not able to follow very closely the statement made by my hon. friend from Montmagny. He expressed the desire to press his point. I did not quite grasp his meaning when he continued in French, but I thought he was a medical man, and I can assure him that I withdraw any statement which he may consider as reflecting upon him in any way.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend would be
better advised to make his argument and answer the questions without attempting to insinuate that hon. members on this side voted for a certain item last year and are opposing it this year. Last year mj hon. friend's predecessor assured the Houss that it was in the interests of this country that we should vote $250,000 for a new quarantine station on MacNab's island. We accepted that advice, and now my hon. friend comes here and tells us that his predecessor was wrong; that he did not have the proper specifications and plans and reports from his officials. The minister
goes on to say that without the aid or assistance of his engineer, without the help of a report from any of his officials, but simply by going down to Halifax and taking a glance at the situation, he sees where he can save $100,000 in the construction of a new quarantine station. But my hon. friend is not a superman. He may be honest in what he says, but he has not the proper information. He says that his predecessor was not correctly informed; I suppose when a few months hence my hon. friend himself is succeeded by some one else, we will be told that the present minister has been misinformed and that the amount can be reduced by another $50,000. My hon. friend is a business man from Nova Scotia. He says: I went down to Halifax; I looked over the situation and I saw at a glance where I could save $100,-000-and that without any report, without any plans, without any suggestions, without any information as to how large the building was to be, how many immigrants it would accommodate, or anything of that kind. My hon. friend certainly has not given us that direct and positive information that we have a right to expect from a minister of the Crown asking for such a large vote as this. With regard to the Amherst drill hall, I would like to ask my hon. friend if he has any report from his engineers or officials with regard to the paving work? How much grading has to be done, and what are the further details of the work?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be glad to give that information. But before proceeding with that pleasant task I should like to express my appreciation of the advice my hon. friend has offered.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no charge for it.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is an old adage
that free advice is not of value, but in this case I am sure the hon. member has tendered me, as a new minister of the Crown, advice that will be invaluable. I am sure I will make the best of it. Coming from my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Copp), I value it all the more. The memorandum I have is as follows:
This revote of $25,000 is required for waterproofing the basement walls, and asphalt floor in the main hall, sidewalks, grading etc., at
the new drill hall at Amherst.
Estimated Cost-
Mastic floors	$ 7,000
Waterproofing	 5,000
Concrete walls, grading, etc.. ..	9,500
Contingencies and superintendence.	3,500
Total	$25,000

Tenders were called for the above work by public advertisement on August 29,1920, but none was received, and in view of the impossibility of obtaining any tenders due to the unsettled condition of the cement market, the chief architect on September 29, 1920, suggested to the Department of Militia and Defence that the work be deferred until next year, when it is hoped more favourable conditions will prevail. On October, 1920, the Department of Militia and Defence agreed to this suggestion and, as a consequence, the work was not proceeded with.


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.)
Mr. Chairman, no one can accuse me of having taken too much of the time of the House this evening, or rather this morning. I rose but once, and this to speak to a point of order. I would not have people think that the Opposition have cross-questioned the Government for the purpose of preventing the items which are shown on page 38 from passing. No doubt, we are anxious to get further information about these items. It is the duty of every member, when large sumo are being voted, to ask the minister in charge, for information, concerning these items, but that, however, is not our principal reason for objecting and for the questions we have asked. The principal reason, Mr. Chairman, is this: as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) expressed it so well a few moments ago, it is the duty of the members of this House, when a minister comes here with his Estimates, to ask for information concerning these Estimates. If we make this request, it is because we wish to know how the money which is voted by Parliament-the people's money-is spent. We cannot properly discuss the Estimates after midnight or at a late hour of the night, after a good day's work. Besides, if we remain here longer than we should -keeping into account the fact that we have to come back to-morrow for our daily task-it is because we want the minister to understand that each time that he takes up his Estimates after midnight, we shall deem it our duty not to prevent their being passed but to discuss them thoroughly, so that, when other items come up, the minister, instead of dealing all day with subjects of a purely academic interest, such as those which were discussed yesterday, will submit them earlier, thus allowing us to discuss them properly.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons by which I wished to state in support of the fact that, the Opposition has remained here (iii. McCurdy.]
and will yet remain a few hours more to discuss the item in question.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: (Translation.) I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres.
I hope that when my hon. friend has occasion again to criticise the presentation of the Estimates of the Department of Public Works, more accurate, direct and specific information will be available, so that the observations which he has just directed through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, will not be. called for.


Joseph Archambault: I am sorry that, although my hon. friend has shown his good disposition by saying a few words in French, he has not understood what I have said. The question I raised is not that we did not get details regarding the different items. The principle object of this prolonged discussion is the fact that these Estimates were not brought up before midnight. I wish to emphasize the remarks of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) that it is impossible for a member to attend to his duties the next morning if he has to stay in the House and examine Estimates after midnight. On the other hand it is our duty to be in the House when these Estimates are being discussed, so that we are, so to speak, in a kind of a fix. I hope my hon. friend understands my remarks in English. I know I do not speak English very well.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I understand them well in English and tolerably well in French.


Joseph Alfred Leduc: I would prefer to speak in my own language, but I wish to be understood, and therefore I shall attempt to speak in English. The House does not often hear from me. Perhaps that is because I am not a politician, as the minister stated of himself at the beginning of this discussion. I am a business man. I think the minister will have learnt a lesson as a result of bringing up his Estimates at such a late hour. Who amongst us would think of discussing his own business affairs at two or three o'clock in the morning? If the minister had taken the advice of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke and had struck out this item of $25,000, I think the resolution would have gone through with very little trouble. What is the use of spending $25,000 to lay a cement sidewalk around a building that is not used? What is the use of wasting the money of the people

at such a time as this, when we need all we have? The hon. members on this side of the House are not disposed to allow to pass Estimates that are introduced into the House after midnight, not because they wish to obstruct business, but because they are here to protect the people and to scrutinize properly the Estimates that come before the committee. I am willing to stay here until the minister has given us reasons why he wants us to vote this item of $150,000. He has stated that he is willing to save $100,000 and I approve of that idea, but we want to know by what means he is going to save that money. As my hon. friend from Westmorland has pointed out, the minister may be making a mistake again this year by asking for $150,000.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Why again?


Joseph Alfred Leduc: At all events, the minister's predecessor made a mistake last year by asking for $250,000, for the minister says himself to-night that only $150,000 is required. This building is not absolutely needed, and if we wait till next year we may find that $150,000 is not required. I also would urge the minister to strike out this item of $25,000.


John Flaws Reid: I wish to say a few words at this hour in the morning when the cock is beginning to crow. I have every respect for the Minister of Public Works. I was very glad to hear him state this morning, or perhaps it was last night, that, like myself, he is not a politician. I have heard of the business record of the minister, and it certainly is goou. When my hon. friend was taken into the cabinet, I was asked what I thought of him as a cabinet minister by several people in my riding. I said that in my opinion he was well qualified for the position, and I still think so. I am sorry, however, that he did not accept either the proposal which was made by the hon. member for Huntingdon, or the one made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. The first proposal was that we would allow this resolution, No. 129, to go through provided the minister would strike out the item of $25,000 for a cement sidewalk around the drill hall at Amherst. The other proposal was to put the item through on the word of honour of the minister, which, of course, we would accept, that the money would not be spent. Unfortunately, the minister did not accept either proposal. As to this item for a drill hall, I have worn the King's uniform and done my share as a soldier for my country,
and I venture to say that any soldier who has drilled in the army would rather walk on a cinder sidewalk than on a cement sidewalk. The cinder sidewalk is much easier to drill on. Because it is only $25,000 is no reason why this item should be rushed through. At a time like this, when we need to cut down expenses as far as possible, this is a considerable sum of money. The people will have to bear a heavier burden of taxation the coming year than they did last year, and what will the ratepayers think if Parliament sanctions extravagance? I know that the minister would not adopt the principle of bringing down Estimates at twelve o'clock at night before a board of directors in any private concern in which he was interested. The Railway Committee sat yesterday morning for over two hours, and those of us in the House now were here from three o'clock until six, and then from eight until twelve, at which time the House should have adjourned. The minister should consider the advisability of adjourning if we pass the item.


Frank S. Cahill: When the minister interrupted me some five hours ago he was giving a dissertation on the last rose of summer, and since that time I have not had an opportunity of asking him the question I wanted to ask. I want to know where this building is to be located in Halifax. Is it to be on the new terminal property or in some other part of the city?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Hon. gentlemen are
labouring under a misapprehension, and I am surprised at my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid). It has been said that the Estimates were brought down after midnight. Every one who was in the House knows that that was absolutely not so.
Mr.,ROBB: The Estimates were brought down at ten minutes to twelve.


John Flaws Reid: At fifteen
minutes to twelve.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The member for Mackenzie said that I should have accepted the proposal made earlier in the discussion, that the committee should report progress. Well, I have been awake all through the discussion and I never heard such a proposal. I am a reasonable man, and if such a proposal had been made I should certainly have seriously considered it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I appealed to the
minister himself, and afterwards to the Minister of Justice.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I did not hear my
hon. friend. Now, it is unreasonable to expect that the committee should report progress when it has made no progress. Even if one item, however small, had been passed, there might have been some ground for such a proposal.


James Alexander Robb: The all-night session has injured the minister's memory. Hansard will show that I suggested that the $25,000 item should stand, we should pass the other items, and adjourn. The Chairman, at that time the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) ruled that this could not be done as the $25,000 item was included in one vote. Afterwards another offer was made that we allow the item to pass, provided the minister would give his word of honour that he would not spend the $25,000 unless it was absolutely necessary. Hansard will show these statements to be correct.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will not be absolutely sure, but I am certainly under the impression that the words "absolutely necessary" were not added. The suggestion was simply that the minister should give an undertaking that he would not spend the $25,000, and, of course, if such a guarantee were given he might as well not ask the committee to vote the item at all.


James Alexander Robb: It was I who made the proposition and I am sure the qualifying words which I have quoted were added. Hansard will show who is right. We have not been trying to obstruct the minister, but the real objection is to his bringing on his Estimates after one o'clock. I do not blame the minister for bringing his Estimates on, but we on this side made up our minds that it was about time to put a stop to Estimates being brought on after midnight, and supporters of the Government are as much annoyed at this as we are. For the last two sessions we have been rushing Estimates through in midsummer heat after midnight, which is intolerable, and it is most unreasonable to expect that we should continue this practice. I think the minister would make more progress if he would take a reasonable view of the matter, rise and report progress now, and bring on his Estimates at four or five o'clock in the afternoon.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member has
chided me for having brought on my Estimates late at night.


James Alexander Robb: Do you deny that?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, I do not deny the fact, but I deny the propriety of the charge.

Government business has to go on at some time, and if other parts of the day are taken up with other business Government ' business must follow later.


John Flaws Reid: We are going to run two shifts; that is all.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am just as much disinclined to sit all night as hon. members, but I am quite willing to stay here for whatever time is necessary to accomplish the business of the House.


James Alexander Robb: We want you to preserve your strength.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. The Minister of Public Works has the floor.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If I must stay here during the night and carry on my departmental duties during the day I am willing to do it. I have not sought the issue. As my hon. friends for Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon, Sherbrooke and Mackenzie know very well, it was not a matter of my choosing I came on the night before last with my Estimates and made no progress. I came on again yesterday, with a similar result. With all due respect to my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon I will be much surprised if Hansard shows that , there was any tail to his proposition such as he says. Had I heard it I would have gladly accepted the proposal.


James Alexander Robb: Send up for the record now.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That record will speak for itself. I expected all through the evening that some such proposal would he made, but here we are in the cold grey dawn. Answering for the third time the question which my hon. friend from Pontiac has propounded, I would say that this proposed immigration building is a reconstruction of the existing detention hospitals at Lawlor's island which has for many years served as the quarantine station for the port of Halifax.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that we should divide up into shifts, and that it is not necessary for members to be here when the Estimates are being passed. And, further, he states that he is ready to stay here.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not from choice.


Francis N. McCrea: The fact that he is willing to stay here to put his ..Estimates through is not fair to other members who come here to look after the country's af-

fairs to the best of their ability, and the most important part of the business we have to do here is voting Supply. While this is being done I think every member should be present. We spent the afternoon session and a lot of the evening session listening to a lot of hot air of very little importance. It would be a good deal more to the point to get down to business early in the day when members are here ready to do their part. It may be satisfactory to the minister to bring on his Estimates at one o'clock in the morning and continue right through, but that is neither satisfactory nor fair to the members who should be here and want to be here when the people's money is being spent. The argument is advanced that item Estimate 129
6	a.m. which comprises five different items cannot be dealt with separately. I am not an authority on procedure, but if that is the case that is all the more reason why those five items should not have been grouped together. You have five items that the committee is agreed are legitimate expenditures, but there is one item we do object to. I would advise not only the Minister of Public Works, but every other minister to bring down their Estimates item by item, so that if any particular item is not found satisfactory it can be laid over for further consideration.
I do not know whether the minister understood my proposition, but the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon had made a proposal to pass that item leaving the item for the Amherst drill hall for further consideration.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am quite prepared, as I have always been prepared, to accept that proposal of the hon. member for Chauteauguay-Huntingdon. He, has said he had made that proposal, but I never heard of it. If my hon. friend from Sherbrooke now makes that proposal it is quite satisfactory. I woud have been glad if it had been made at a quarter past twelve.


James Alexander Robb: It was made.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Hansard will tell
the story. It may be so, but I did not hear it. I am a man of peace, and I will be very glad to accept that proposal, and with that understanding, I move that the committee rise, and report progress.


Frank S. Cahill: There is no Understanding that any part is going to be dropped and the rest carried through at this hour.
Protest was made that the minister started his Estimates at the wrong hour, and that is the principle we are fighting now.


Francis N. McCrea: The hon. member-


Georges Henri Boivin: (Mr. Power): Order. The motion has been made by the Minister of Public Works. Shall the motion carry?


Frank S. Cahill: What is the motion?


Georges Henri Boivin: (Mr. Power): That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is all right.


Frank S. Cahill: But the minister started to make a condition.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The
motion before the House is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Frank S. Cahill: Is that the minister's
motion?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If that is the motion I withdraw it. I propose that this item pass with the proviso that my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon said he made earlier in the evening and which the hon. member for Sherbrooke made just a few minutes ago.


Frank S. Cahill: He said he made it at the time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Might I be allowed-


Frank S. Cahill: The proposal was made shortly after the minister started on his Estimates, when the protest was entered against the minister coming down at that late hour with his Estimates. The proposal would have been acceptable then. But if the minister is not prepared to say that in future he is going to bring in his Estimates at a reasonable hour and if the Government are not prepared to give an assurance to that effect then there is no proposal that is going to be acceptable to this committee at this time, and the minister might as well understand that now as later on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Chairman, if we insist on sitting here until we determine that one party or the other to this misunderstanding was absolutely right, I do not think we would get very far. I do not for one moment doubt the word of the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, but as I understood his proposition, and as I have no doubt the Minister of Public Works understood it, it did not convey-


Francis N. McCrea: You might have been
sleeping.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps so, but I am endeavouring to approach this in a perfectly conciliatory manner.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That was only a joke.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Sherbrooke thought that a suitable moment to introduce a joke of that kind. But let that go. Last evening at a quarter to twelve these Estimates were called. It is quite true that the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria did protest against our taking them up. It is equally true that I did ask that we sit for a short time to pass one or two items. I cannot say at exactly what stage the proposal of the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon was made, but I certainly can say that we did not understand it as the hon. member states he made it. If it had been understood that there was a willingness to pass that item subject merely to the minister stating that he would not spend that $25,000 unless it was absolutely necessary, I am quite confident there would have been no objection to its acceptance. Is that proposal open now?


Frank S. Cahill: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am asking the question.


Francis N. McCrea: I made that proposal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon says he made it.


Francis N. McCrea: He made the proposal in the first place that we pass the item, leaving the $25,000 for the drill hall for further consideration. The hon. member for Perth was in the Chair, and he ruled that the items under 129 could not be separated. When I got the floor I made the proposition that if it was satisfactory to the minister to pass the whole item under article 129, but to give his word of honour that that $25,000 for the drill hall would not be spent, I thought the members on this side would accept either one proposition or the other.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. member's recollection would be quite in accord with my own, at all events so far as his proposition is concerned. He says his proposition was that the item would be passed if the minister would promise that the $25,000 would not be spent. But the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon
	,	l 3 ,
tells us-and as I say I do not doubt his statement-that his proposal was that the whole item be passed if the minister would promise that the $25,000 would not be spent unless it was absolutely necessary.


Francis N. McCrea: He did not make that statement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those are the last
words that unfortunately we did not grasp.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, apparently as the Minister of Justice says, there have been mistakes on both sides. I did state a few minutes ago that I had made the first proposition which Was ruled out of order. My recollection was that I made the second proposition. My hon. friend from Sherbrooke says he made it, but I make it again now. I think it is very reasonable. I repeat the statement, that these items for drill halls and drill sheds throughout the country we are opposed to on this side of the House because we believe the expenditure is altogether unnecessary. If the minister will make the statement which he has not made yet I think we can reasonably let the item go through.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Will the hon. member re-state his proposal so that there will be no mistake?


James Alexander Robb: What is the minister's statement? He has heard my proposal.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My proposal is to pass the item. I understood my hon. friend's proposition to be that the items be passed subject to the sum of $25,000 which was to lie over.


James Alexander Robb: No, the minister was to
give a guarantee that he would not spend it this year unless it is absolutely necessary.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is quite satisfactory.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Shall the item carry?


Georges Henri Boivin: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understood the Chair to state a few moments ago that there was a motion before the Chair that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. That motion is certainly not debatable, and I would like to know under what grounds it is being debated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member
withdrew the motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. In reference to the point of order raised by the hon. ex-deputy speaker-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The member for
Shefford.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is
quite true as he stated that the Minister of Public Works had a motion before the Chair, but it was my understanding that he had withdrawn that motion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He would have to have permission of the House to do it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There was no question raised by any member as to whether or not the minister had permission of the House to withdraw it, so I took the silence of the committee to give unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 6.15 a.m. Friday.
Friday, 29th April, 1921.