ADDRESS TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM OFFICE.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move:
That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General on the occasion of the approaching termination of His Excellency's official connection with this country.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am quite certain the House will have pleasure in granting the request.
Some 'hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in the following words:
" To His Excellency Victor Christian 'William, Duke of Devonshire, Marquess of Hartington, Earl of Devonshire, Earl of Burlington, Baron Cavendish of Hardwicke, Baron Cavendish of Keighley, K.G., P.C., etc., etc., etc., Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
"May it please Tour Excellency:
" We, His Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, as well for ourselves as on behalf of those whom we represent, beg leave respectfully to convey to Tour Excellency an expression of the deep regret with which the Country has learned of the approaching conclusion of your official connection with Canada.
"We beg to assure Tour Excellency of the deep appreciation with which we have witnessed your unflagging zeal and devotion in the discharge of the duties devolving upon you as His Majesty's representative in this Dominion. We recall that it was in the midst of the tremendous struggle from which the Empire has victoriously emerged that Your Excellency assumed office. We thankfully remember the value of your services to the Country during days of storm and stress, as we gratefully acknowledge their worth during the difficult period of consequent readjustment.
" Your Excellency has by travel acquired a wide and deep knowledge of the country and shown a sympathetic understanding of the ideals and aspirations of its people, and we beg leave to assure you of our appreciation of your interest in, and advocacy of, every national cause, and your support of Art, 'Science, and Education.
"We feel that any acknowledgment of your services would be Incomplete without an expression of your sense of the gracious part taken by Her Excellency the Duchess of Devonshire, and by your family, in the varied duties attending your office. Her Excellency's name will ever recall to the people of Canada all that is dignified in an exalted station, and the remembrance of yourself and your family, everything that is lovely in private life.
" We venture to hope that when Your Excellency resigns your trust into the hands of the King, you will assure His Majesty of the unalterable loyalty and devotion of the Canadian people to His Majesty's throne and person, of their abiding affection for the Motherland, and of their firm resolve to maintain and strengthen the ties which bind together His Majesty's dominions.
" In bidding farewell to Your Excellency, to the Duchess of Devonshire, and to your family, we beg leave to express our warm wishes for your future welfare and happiness."
In moving, with the unanimous consent of the House, the adoption of the Address which you, Sir, have just read, and which I venture to think will be unanimously concurred in, I am animated by somewhat mixed feelings, which I think the House will share. The country has been uniformly fortunate in the succession of distinguished men who have represented the authority of His Majesty's Crown in this Dominion; and none has more fully upheld the traditions of this high office, or established a place of warmer regard in the hearts of the people of this country, than has His Excellency the Duke of Devonshire. But, while we shall heartily join in grateful ackowledgment of his services, it is with very deep regret that we contemplate the approaching conclusion of his term of office.
His Excellency, as the Address recalls, assumed office in the midst of war, and his support of every national activity, whether

governmental, patriotic, charitable, or other, was a source of inspiration to the country during the trials through which it has passed. His example and assistance have been no less valuable during the difficulties of the period of readjustment to the ways of peace.
If we reflect on the purpose and scope of the office of the Governor-General, we shall, I think, conclude that it is one which, if its purpose is to be the wisest, its scope the most ample, requires special, and may employ the finest talents. I do not now, in this place I do not need to, refer to the position of the Governor-General as the constitutional representative of the King's Majesty. It is sometimes forgotten, perhaps we, here, are likely to forget, that government is not the sole expression of society's mind and activity. There are regions of life which lie beyond its range; but they do not, I think, lie without the scope of the office of a Governor-General who desires to bring his energy and capacity to the service of those among whom he occupies that exalted position. National life has many facts, many organs and methods for expressing its purpose, and it has been peculiarly the service of His Excellency to this country that he has sought to understand them all, and to support those which are of good augury and report. Remembering titoafc uprightness exalted a nation, he has exerted himself to evoke those qualities which alone can make a nation great.
In the manifold duties of his office, Her Excellency and their family have taken an extensive and gracious part. All have received the respect, and, I will beg leave to say, have earned the regard of the whole people of the Dominion. Their tact, their charm, their simplicity have contributed much to enhance that regard, and while we shall regretfully bid them farewell, we congratulate ourselves that in a critical and eventful time, when error, indiscretion or any failure or imperfection would have been followed by consequences the most unfortunate, we have had at the service of this country what was once described by Burke as " the temperate, permanent, hereditary virtue of the whole house of Cavendish."


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: 
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join with the right bon. leader of the Government, and the hon. official leader of the Opposition in support of the motion which is now before the House. It is, as all motions coming before this House are, more or less formal in character, but nevertheless it properly and correctly expresses the obli-

gations under which the Canadian people rest to their Excellencies the Governor General and the Duchess of Devonshire, not only for the fine manner in which their official duties have been discharged, but for the free and sympathetic way in which they have come in contact with the Canadian people in the various offices which they have had to perform. The interest of their Excellencies in Canada is well known to all. There is scarcely a corner of this Dominion which they have not at some time visited, and the Canadian people will long remember the pleasure of those visits. They have endeavoured at all times to familiarize themselves, not only with the official relationship, but with the actual personal relationship with the people. That interest has always been first, and I venture to say that in the years that are to come it is the personal relationship that will linger longest in our memories. The Duke and Duchess of Devonshire are leaving us after a full period of official duties, and they carry back to the homeland not only the abiding regard and affection of the Canadian people, but as well our very best wishes for their future happiness.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, having served for
nearly four years as Prime Minister under His Excellency, I may be permitted to associate myself with what has been so eloquently and appropriately said by the speakers who have preceded me and also to- add a few words. It was at no small personal sacrifice that the Duke of Devonshire undertook the duties which he has fulfilled with such distfindtion and acceptance since the autumn of 1916. Inheriting a tradition of distinguished public service which in his family has extended over many centuries, he has evinced the possession of great qualities for which many of his name have been noted; remarkable ability and aptitude for public affairs, rare good judgment, firmness, steadiness, and last, but not least, a fine sense of proportion.
He came to us endowed with an experience which is most important, if not necessary, for a Governor General of this Dominion. More and more in all the Dominions the constitutional relation of the Governor General to his ministers has approximated to -the relation of the King to the British ministry. Especially is this true of Canada. The Duke of Devonshire was educated in public life, and thus he thoroughly understood and appreciated the trend and development of constitutional relations. One could always observe that
his mind was thoroughly receptive of the constitutional developments which have been somewhat marked in recent years.
As Prime Minister my relations with His Excellency was necessarily of a very intimate nature. On all occasions I gave to him my entire confidence in all that concerned public affairs, and I have a very grateful recollection and appreciation of the thoughtful suggestions and wise counsel which he gave to me on many occasions of stress and difficulty.
As Governor General he has thrown himself wholeheartedly into the current of our national life, and there are few Canadians who know our country as thoroughly as he does. The Duchess of Devonshire who ever since her girlhood has been intimately associated with the history of this country, and whose charm has won all hearts, has displayed the same active and earnest interest in all that concerns the welfare of our people.
Doubtless many years of active and honourable public service remain before His Excellency after his return to the United Kingdom. He and the Duchess and all the members of their family will carry with them to the homeland the warm affection and universal respect of the Canadian people. In bidding Their Excellencies and the members of their family Godspeed, we hope that we may say not farewell but au revoir; and we feel that in spirit and at heart in leaving us they are still Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. leader of the Opposition, that a message be sent to the Senate, informing their honours that this House has passed an address to His Excellency the Governor General, on the occasion of the approaching termination of His Excellency's final connection with this country, and requesting their honours to unite with this House in the said address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the hon. leader of the Government in regard to the reports pub-fished yesterday and to-day in the press of Canada to the effect that Lord Byng had

been appointed Governor General of Canada. May I ask the right hon. leader of the Government whether he is in a position to make a public announcement.


Arthur Meighen: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in a position to make an announcement.



JUDGE SNIDER'S REPORT

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe):: As the session is drawing to a close, may I ask the right hon. leader if it is possible for the House to have the report of Mr. Justice Snider before prorogation?


Arthur Meighen: I caused inquiries to be made
of Mr. Biggar immediately after the hon. gentleman spoke on a previous occasion, and Mr. Biggar informed my secretary that it was expected that the final report would be ready at the end of this week, or, at the latest, the beginning of next week. I earnestly hope myself that it will be ready to-morrow.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: I would like to point out to my right hon. friend that he is under a misapprehension as to what is asked for. There was a special Order in Council passed directing a special inquiry in regard to the destruction of certain volumes. That is one matter. The statement is that that inquiry is completed and the report made and adopted by council. There was another Order in Council passed directing another inquiry into other things at the Bureau, but that other inquiry which is still proceeding has nothing to do with the first one, which was complete when the report was made.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to speak too positively, but I think the hon. gentleman is wrong.


Charles Murphy: If the right hon. gentleman makes inquiries he will find that I am correct.


Arthur Meighen: That there were two
Orders in Council?


Charles Murphy: There were two different investigations

one into the destruction of the volumes, and the other was into other things connected with irregularities in the Printing Bureau.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong. There was an investigation directed by Order in Council under the Inquiries Act. Judge Snider was appointed. He made certain inquiries, and he made an

interim report on that investigation, but there was still more to be done. I do not think any other Order in Council was passed. The investigation simply was not completed, and it is the completion of the investigation which will be embodied in the final report. There was an interim report, but I do not think that is followed by any other Order. I think the continuation of the inquiry was merely in pursuance of the Order.


Charles Murphy: You will find the investigation into the destruction of the volumes was a separate investigation, and a separate report in regard to it made to the House.


Arthur Meighen: There was an interim
report. I do not know whether it completed the investigation into the destruction of the volumes. It was all one investigation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will the report be made public as soon as it is received by the Government?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of any
reason why it should not be. The Government has nothing to conceal about the matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not suggesting that.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the course
is for the report to fee submitted to His Excellency the Governor General first, and then it comes before the Government. I have not the least doubt that the report will be made public.



GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton and Victoria) :: I should like to know from
the Prime Minister if the Grand Trunk arbitration has been resumed. If not, when it will be resumed, and what is the general condition of the matter about which we legislated a little while ago?


Arthur Meighen: The House, of course, is aware of all that has occurred up to the acceptance by the Grand Trunk of the terms fixed by Parliament on the recommendation of the Government. That acceptance took the form of an agreement, a copy of which is included in the papers. Following that, the Government nominated directors for the Grand Trunk, and in pursuance of the agreement, the Grand Trunk Directors had their own directors resign and the Government nominees were elected by the

Grand Trunk directors. Then the remaining Grand Trunk directors resigned. That places the Government nominees in full position as directors and sole directors of the road. After that, the Government passed an Order in Council, as authorized by the Statute, reviving the arbitration and fixing a period of three months within which that arbitration should be concluded. The revival was to take effect on Wednesday last, and I believe the arbitration tribunal was called together for that date. I saw a report in the press that the Hon. Mr. Taft was not able to be there. I am informed that they actually started work on that date. That is the position of the matter.



REPRESENTATION OF MAISON-NEUVE AND GASPE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer) [DOT] May I ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the fact that the double representation of Gaspe and Maisonneuve was referred to the Elections Committee, if we are to have a report from that committee?
Arthur Meighen: I am not a member of the committee, nor have I spoken to any member on the subject here. I understand that the report has been on the table for five weeks.



GRADING OF DAIRY PRODUCE

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture), Bill No. 206, to regulate the grading of dairy produce, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivm in the Chair.
On clause 2-definitions.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Has the minister received pressing demands or requests from , the agricultural interests of this country to enact such legislation as is before the committee now? If he has, what procedure does he expect to take in detail to carry out the wishes of the interested parties?


Mr. TOLMIE:: There have been requests from time to time from various dairy organizations asking that the proper grading of dairy produce for export he carried out by the federal Department of Agriculture. Perhaps one of the most important requests was made by a meeting of deputy ministers at a convention held in the Chateau Laurier in March, 1920. These men were called together to confer with
representatives of the federal Department of Agriculture with a view to going over the whole of the agricultural situation in Canada, and also with a view to avoiding any duplication of work between the provincial and federal departments. At that meeting, this matter of grading of dairy produce was brought up. It was pointed out that we were building up a very important industry, and particularly an export industry; that we were competing with countries on the other side who wer. carrying on their work under careful it spection, and that in many cases those countries graded their products before sending them to market. A resolution was passed by that meeting asking the federal Department of Agriculture to take such steps as would bring such a Bill as this into force whenever they thought that was necessary.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Was every province represented?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes. In addition to
that, there was a demand from the National Dairy Council, the largest dairy organization in the Dominicn, in which all the provinces are represented.
At a recent meeting held in Toronto they passed a similar resolution asking the Government to bring in a Bill for the grading of dairy products. Other organizations have been heard from, and a number of dairymen of prominence throughout the country have demanded legislation of this kind. I have been very much encouraged in bringing down this legislation by the excellent results obtained by the measures for grading eggs and fruit, which have enabled the farmers of this country to put these two products on the market in first-class condition, and in a manner to meet competition no matter where it comes from. If this Bill passes, it is proposed to put it into force perhaps in a year from now, as it will require about that length of time to get properly ready for its enforcement. We also propose to consult the various organizations interested in the production, sale and export products, in connection with the preparation of any regulations that it may be necessary to frame to carry this Bill into effect. That is a brief outline of the foundation of this Bill.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister, I think,
should realize that we are not very actively engaged in building up an export trade in dairy products, in butter especially. The export of butter during the last ten years, instead of being on the increase, has been

on the decline. And just to emphasize that point I would quote a figure given to the House the other day by the minister himself. He stated that the consumption of butter in Canada was 600,000,000 pounds. I must say that that figure appeared to me to be somewhat exaggerated. That would mean the consumption per year-


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That figure was not the
consumption in one year, but during the period in which oleomargarine had been permitted to be imported and manufactured and sold in Canada-it would be pretty nearly three years.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Even so, the figure is rather large, but I am not quarrelling with the minister over that. We realize that the consumption of butter in Canada is very large. I would judge that the export would be 20,000,000 pounds per year at the outside, so if the regulations that are under contemplation have for their object the grading of butter and other dairy produce destined for export, only a very small proportion of our total production of butter would be covered. I do not say that with the intention of formulating any opposition to the Bill, but to call attention to the fact that the measure is a very important departure from the conditions that have prevailed up to this date, and I am afraid that unless the different agricultural and dairy societies are made aware of what is proposed, and are thoroughly consulted before any definite step is taken, there will be a good deal of opposition in the country to Hm legislation. I would impress upon the minister the necessity of again getting into' touch with the agricultural department of each province, and I think he should leave it as much as possible for them to decide what measures should be taken in regard to the grading of these products. It might entail a good deal of expense on the part either of the Department of Agriculture or the dairy societies.
Before I resume my seat, may I ask whether there has been any complaint made to the minister from importers of butter and cheese in foreign countries? Have the importers of cheese and butter complained of the quality of the products that Canada has sent across, and is that a reason for the minister bringing down this legislation?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That has not been one
of the reasons for bringing down this legislation.	*


Mr. EDWARDS:: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in regard to this

Bill, inasmuch as last session I introduced a resolution for the standardization or grading of Canadian butter and cheese for export. That resolution, I am glad to say, was received with favour by hon, gentlemen on both sides of the House, and the Bill which is now before Parliament is the Bill which the Minister of Agriculture intimated last session he would introduce along the lines indicated in my resolution, if the dairy interests of Canada in the meantime gave any indication to the Government that they wished such legislation to be brought down. Since last session the dairy interests have given that indication to the minister. The Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Association and the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association have unanimously passed resolutions asking for this legislation, and I believe that associations in the province of Quebec have also indicated their desire for the proper grading of butter and cheese for export.
I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beland) that he is wrong in stating that our exports of butter have been on the decline. Our exports of butter in 1914 were 1,228,753 pounds; 1915, 2,724,914 pounds; 1916, 3,441,183 pounds; 1917, 7,990,435 pounds; the figure dropped in 1918 to 4,926,154 pounds, but rose again in 1919 to 13,659,157 pounds, and in 1920 to 17,646,235. The hon. gentleman will see that the figures very clearly indicate that our exports of butter are not on the decline, but that they have been increasing very materially from year to year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, I accept the
figures my hon. friend has just given. Is my hon. friend in a position to tell the committee what proportion that 17,000,000 pounds exported in 1920-taking that year, for instance-bears to the total production of butter in Canada?


William Cameron Edwards: As far as I can obtain the information, II think that the statement made by the hon. gentleman himself a few moments ago was pretty close to the mark.
Our production of butter in Canada totals between 200,000,000 and 220,000,000 pounds a year. Three or four years ago our production was estimated to be about 203,000,000 pounds. But I fancy there has been an increase and I would put the average at 210,000,000 pounds a year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
William Cameron Edwards: Yes. It is true that the proportion of export is not large. We must look abroad more and more for markets for our surplus production of butter, and we shall be forced to do so increasingly because of the favour which is being shown to oleomargarine. There can be no question in anyone's mind that olemargarine takes the place of butter, and the introduction of that article of food into this country in ever increasing quantities means the displacement proportionately of the home production of butter, driving us into foreign markets to sell our over-production. Last year we introduced into this country, in round numbers, about 7,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine, and that forced us to look abroad for the sale of that much of our butter. We are disposing of our surplus butter to some thirty-five or forty different countries, and our product has to come in competition with that of certain countries, which have taken very careful means to establish an international reputation for their product, such as New Zealand, Austrialia-Australia not to the same extent, of course, as New Zealand- Denmark and Holland, all of which have for years developed this matter scientifically and obtained an international name in the foreign markets for their product by a careful system of standardizing for export. We have to compete with that, and it seems to me that so far as our Canadian product is concerned, the time is past due when we should do something to secure for our butter an international reputation if it is to compete successfully with the products of other countries which are carefully graded and systematically handled as is the product of New Zealand, Denmark, and other places. If there is any one province of Canada more than another which is interested in the passing of this Bill and the proper grading of dairy products, it is the province of Quebec. Ontario has won the honours so far as the quality of cheese is concerned; that is to say, Ontario produces a larger percentage of cheese of number one grade than does the province of Quebec. But while Ontario has forged to the front in that respect in regard to butter the province of Quebec leads every other province in the Dominion in the percentage of first-class production. I shall give some figures which go back to the year 1917. I have not taken the time to get figures later than that, but I do not think that I am giving ancient history in the figures I submit now, and I think they may be taken as fairly indicative of conditions as they are at present.
In 1917, of our cheese production of over 1,000,000 boxes exported from Ontario, 93.38 per cent graded as No. 1, for which we were entitled to receive the highest prices: 6.42 per cent graded as No. 2; and .20 per cent graded No. 3. In Quebec, of 755,000 boxes sold, only 70.88 per cent graded No. 1; 27.13 per cent graded No.
2 and 1.99 per cent graded No. 3. Of Prince Edward Island's output, of 17,000 boxes, 90.85 per cent graded No. 1; .9 per cent graded No. 2; and 1.5 per cent graded No. 3. For all Canada 84.22 per cent graded No. 1.


Henri Sévérin Béland: By whom was this grading done?


William Cameron Edwards: It was done at Montreal.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens) :: The British Purchasing Commission did the grading during the war.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes. They would be responsible for the figures, which I have no doubt would be absolutely reliable. I think my hon. friend is correct. Such firms as Hodson, Alexander, Ayres, or any cf the big exporters of Montreal pay according to the grade of the cheese.


John Ewen Sinclair: According to their own standard?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes. Now, if we assume, in connection with cheese, that there would be only half a cent per pound difference in price between grade No. 2 and grade No. 1, it is easy to calculate the actual loss to Ontario producers on grade No. 2. This would amount to $40,000, and to Quebec producers, the difference between the prices obtained would total, on the figures I have given, $98,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is, in regard to
cheese?	.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, in the quantities I have mentioned. That is to say, if instead of Quebec shipping 27.13 per cent of its total export as grade No. 2, it had brought that cheese up to the standard of grade No. 1, the farmers would have been in pocket some $98,000 on a calculation of a half a cent per pound difference in price.
Now, let us consider the figures relating to butter. Our Ontario butter exported in the year I have given graded only 70.33 per cent No. 1, wihereas Quebec butter graded 94.48 per cent No. 1, a very great difference. Alberta's product graded 90.28 per cent No. 1; Saskatchewan 71.66 per cent, and Manitoba 81.10 per cent. Taking

the market reports, which are carefully prepared and may (be accepted as reliable, I think I am correct in stating that there is a difference of 2 cents per pound as between butter graded No. 1 and butter graded No. 2. Accepting that as correct, then the loss to Ontario producers in exporting No. 2 butter-to say nothing about grade No. 3 and lower grades-instead of grade No. 1, would be $169,779; to Quebec $37,831; to Alberta $17,440; to Saskatchewan $24,917; to Manitoba $20,870; or a total of some $270,000.
Now, while it is true that our export of butter is only, perhaps, 8 per cent of our total production of that article, a quarter of a million of dollars is a loss which we should try to prevent if it is preventable. This is what appeals particularly to me in regard to this matter. The province of Quebec has evidently taken a great deal of pains and given a great deal of attention to the production of first-class butter-to the production of butter which in quality competes very successfully with the best Danish, or with butter from Holland or New Zealand. Here is a shipment of butter, we will say, going out from the port of Montreal. Some of it is from the province of Ontario, and some from the province of Quebec. It goes overseas and is placed on the market in England or in some other country as Canadian butter. Now, is it fair to those people who have carefully studied the matter and are producing an article which reveals the highest percentage-viz., 94.40 of No. 1 quality- this being the showing of Quebec-to have the reputation of that article destroyed by mixing the product of a province which is not giving to the industry the attention it should give and whose export butter shows only _ 70 per cent of No. 1? The very province which produces butter of the highest quality is the province which is bound to suffer through lack of systematic grading. In the same way the province of Ontario, which produces cheese of a better quality and more uniform grade, and produces a higher percentage of No. 1 than does the province of Quebec, is going to lose because the cheese of the latter province is not graded according to its quality. That is as it appears to me-it cannot be otherwise. Our exports of butter and cheese are competing now in some thirty-five different countries. Those countries are taking very great pains, and have gone to considerable trouble to grade their products for export. In fact, New Zealand follows its cheese and butter across the ocean from the country of origin and sends a man to 
Liverpool to inspect that butter and cheese after it has landed. So careful is New Zealand of its reputation that it does not take any chance of its products deteriorating in the voyage across to England, and it has a competent officer in the Old Country to give that butter and cheese a further inspection before they are finally placed on the market there. The result is that when New Zealand butter or cheese appears on any man's table in the United Kingdom, the mere mention of the country of origin is a sufficient guarantee of the quality of the product. I maintain that Canada should be in the same position and that every ]*>und of Canadian butter going into consumption in Great Britain, or any other country, it should be a number one article. If all the butter exported from Canada graded as high as does the butter from the province of Quebec, we would be in a pretty happy position. If all our butter sent from Canada graded over 94 per cent No. 1, there would not be much chance of its reputation being damaged in the foreign market. It does not grade that way, however, and I do say that the dairyman who takes the trouble to put up a factory and keep' it in a sanitary condition, who pays high wage and employs a first-class, competent man to produce butter or cheese, is entitled to be protected when he exports those articles. He is entitled to be protected from the man who is merely carrying on his business in a perfunctory manner, indifferent as to whether the factory surroundings are sanitary or not, and as to whether the man in his employ is a thoroughly competent, or a thoroughly incompetent, individual.
I do not want to take up any unnecessary time in connection with this matter. Let me say, however, that I have igiven it considerable thought, have gone into it very carefully, and have satisfied myself that this is the proper course to take. I am supported in that view by the expressed opinion of the Eastern and Western Ontario Dairymen's Associations, and I am still further supported by action on the part of some of the provinces towards grading. Of course the province's have the right to deal with that question in so far as the sale of products within their own boundaries are concerned. Let Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, or any other province make all the regulations they like in regard to the (grading of dairy products for home consumption. We are only dealing here with the over-production of these commodities which must find a market elsewhere than in Canada and which, in doing so, must compete

with the over-production of countries which have for years studied conditions very thoroughly and have adopted a system of grading and toy that means have won a first-class reputation for their products in every market in which they are sold. This is the kind of competition we must face to an ever-increasing degree as our own production grows, and that is the reason, I believe, why the minister is introducing this Bill. I see no reason why this legislation should-and in my opinion it does not

interfere with the rights of the factory men in disposing of their commodities. I cannot see in what way the Bill will cause them any inconvenience. Every possible difficulty has been guarded against in the legislation, in my opinion, and I commend the Minister of Agriculture very warmly for the attention he has given the subject. I commend him in particular for this fact-that throughout the provisions of the Bill there is an evident desire for one thing and one thing only:	To induce the
producers to go to the trouble to manufacture a first-class article and then to give them the necessary protection in the sale of the commodity in markets where they have to compete with products which have been graded. Sufficient time is given so that nobody will ibe taken unawares-as I understand it, the Bill will not go into effect within a few hours after its enactment. It will take time to work out its provisions. The minister is inviting the opinions of all the men in the trade; he wants them to give him their assistance and co-operation. I firmly believe that once this legislation goes into effect it will advance the good name of our dairy products overseas, and will enure to the benefit of the producers of those products to a very substantial degree indeed.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if the large increase in the quantity of Canadian butter exported was not due to the fact that the British Food Ministry fixed the price of cheese at a much lower figure, with the result that the dairymen turned to the manufacturing of butter rather than the manufacturing of cheese?


William Cameron Edwards: The price of our cheese, as I have always understood, was fixed by the British Food Board on a basis which gave our producers two cents a pound more than that paid by the board for the total cheese output of New Zealand. At the same time, the definite and substantial price that was paid for our cheese had its effect, I
believe, in encouraging our farmers to put on their farms every cow they could carry. To what extent that influenced the export of cheese, I am not prepared to say. On looking at the figures I find that our exportable surplus of butter was greater last year than it was in any year of the war, but I believe our cheese exports have fallen.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, any system of properly grading dairy products would naturally be conducive to the improvement of their quality, and I for one do not object to the Bill, but I believe that there will be great difficulties in the application of the law. I should like to know from the minister if the grading would apply only to those products which are destined for export, or to all the products enumerated in this Bill, whether destined for export or for domestic consumption?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The present intention is that it shall apply only to products destined for export, and arrangements will be made to facilitate the application of this measure as much as possible by a thorough discussion of the whole situation by all the interests dealing in or producing the various dairy products.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it intended to make provision for the application of the law during this summer?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Our Dairy Commissioner estimates that it will require about a year to carry on a campaign of education and to get the opinions of the men interested on which to formulate the necessary regulations.


Mr. THOMPSON (Hastings) :: The Ontario Dairymen's Co-operative Company at Montreal have a similar system in vogue to that proposed, and I understand that the inspector appointed by this Government inspects their cheese.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Inspection was carried on at Montreal for that association as long as they sold their cheese by auction. Just as soon as they began to sell privately, the inspection was withdrawn. It will not be resumed until they again sell by auction.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Will the minister notify the different cheese boards throughout Canada, so they may be represented, rather than rely entirely on the Dairymen's Association?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This information will be disseminated as broadly as possible and the co-operation of all invited.



KEVISED EDITION. COMMONS

Thomas Henry Thompson: The district I represent is one of the largest dairy districts in the country, and we have there a system of inspection in the factories which has been practised for thirty or forty years and has given complete satisfaction. Although last year the Ontario Dairymen's Co-operative Company was furnished by the Government with an inspector, and the factories were given the privilege of sending their cheese to this company, I do not believe that five per cent of their output was so sent. New Zealand has had its system for eighteen years, but to-day our cheese is selling from one to two cents more per pound than the New Zealand cheese. When I was in Picton a few weeks ago, the local cheese board passed a resolution asking that they be consulted. Last year, one factory in that district sent its cheese to Montreal to the co-operative company, but discontinued sending its cheese there during the season, and this year is selling its output on the local cheese board, along with all other factories in the county. I believe the Bill permits the minister to make regulations, and before those regulations are finally adopted, I ask that the members of the cheese boards throughout the country, who are the representative men of the dairy interests, be consulted.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I am not very much in favour of this Bill. It does seem to me that we are making deliberate efforts, not to benefit but to destroy some of the very best industries of the country. I know the farmers are not in favour of this legislation. Cheese factories in Ontario have been closing up by the dozen during the last five or six years, and the dairying industry, one of the most important in the Dominion, is not going forward very fast. The other day we passed a Bill allowing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. While I have not anything to say against this commodity I believe that in the course of a few years it will be the greatest menace to our dairying industry. If there is any industry in this country that at least requires to be left alone to work out its own salvation, so to speak, so far as restrictions are concerned, it is the dairying industry. The conduct of a dairy business is the most slavish work under heaven, and hundreds and hundreds of farmers are going out of the business. Now, the minister fcnows that Canadian cheese under the present system stands at the very pinnacle on the British market. If our cheese producers have been so successful in that market,

which is the greatest cheese market in the world, why should we be asked at this late stage of the session to pass this Bill to provide regulations for grading export cheese? A good deal has been said about hurrying legislation through in the last days of the session. We are now having morning, afternoon and night sittings; we were here this morning until between three and four o'clock; and now when we come back here at 11 o'clock we find a Bill before the House which to my mind may be ruinous to certain branches of the dairy industry. I am speaking for the farmers in my district; the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Thompson) and myself come from a district in which the largest cheese dairying industry in Canada is carried on-the largest cheese producing districts are in Central Ontario and in the Oxford district. The cheese men are opposed to this measure.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are opposed?


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes, they are opposed to the measure, there is no doubt, and I would seriously advise the Minister to let the Bill stand until another year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: On what ground do the
dairymen of my hon. friend's district oppose the measure?


John Albert Sexsmith: Under our present
system the cheese is inspected in the factory. No cheese maker in my district will sell to any buyer without the product being inspected right there in the factory.


John Ewen Sinclair: Inspected
by whom?


John Albert Sexsmith: By the buyer, of
course. A few years ago, the cheese buyers of Ontario brought their industry to the highest pinnacle it had ever reached, but now it is dropping down by millions of pounds every year-and it is not because there is any dissatisfaction with the mode of sale or inspection. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has spoken about the increase in butter. In 1908, 1909, and 1910 we were producing hardly any more butter than we consumed, but now the butter industry has gone up and the cheese industry has gone away down.


Mr. PROULX:: The last statement that
was issued by the Department of Agriculture showed an increase of over 6,000 pounds of cheese produced as compared with the corresponding period during the previous year.


John Albert Sexsmith: I have seen a lot of
figures from some of the departments that I do not place very much reliance in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Albert Sexsmith: Well, I put it in this way; I am not casting reflections upon any of the departments, in a sense, but it is their estimates that I refer to. Ofcourse, we have reports with regard to every pound of cheese which is made in our cheese factories, but how can we tell how many pounds have been manufactured on the farms all over the country and consumed on the farms? Any figure as to the amount of butter produced is only an estimate and a mighty rough one at that. But the fact remains that the cheese industry is falling back and will continue to do so. One reason has been the difficulty in finding labour. Another reason was that the price of butter during the war, as the hon. member for Oxford said, not being controlled, went up and that had its effect upon the production of cheese. The price of hogs and of calves increased and that also had its effect. I know that in my district ten or fifteen years ago they undertook to start a butter creamery. It operated for six months and then was obliged to close up, because it was unable to compete with the cheese. Three or four years ago, when veal calves were selling at $25 to $40 each, at six weeks old, it was worth while to have the skim milk retained on the farm. Fifteen or twenty years ago, when veal calves were worth from $2 to $4, it was quite a different matter. I do not want to delay the committee, but I did not know that this Bill was coming up this session, much less in the last days of the session, and I think the minister would be well advised if he would let it stand over for another year.


Edmond Proulx: May I ask the minister
whether the department has an inspector in Montreal? Is there a Mr. Barr making inspections for the department there?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Barr is at present
stationed at the head office in Ottawa; he is in Montreal only temporarily, for a few days. We have inspectors at Toronto and Montreal.


John Ewen Sinclair: The part
of Canada from which I come manufactures and exports to the British market a considerable quantity of cheese from the standpoint of per capita production. Of course, Prince Edward Island is a small province and the aggregate amount produced is not as large as that of some of
the other provinces. Now, we have had a good deal of difficulty during the past ten years in keeping up the quality of the cheese-I speak of cheese particularly-[DOT] for export, for the reason that it was hard to get the cheesemakers to bring home to their patrons the necessity of paying par->
ticular attention to the quality of the milk supplied to the factories. It is well known by any per'son who has had experience that unless you get good milk at the factories you cannot make good cheese, and as long as we leave the grading of dairy produce to the buyers we cannot encourage the producer to eliminate the number two article and have a high percentage of No. 1. To the practical producer, Sir, that is one of the most important reasons in favour of having the product graded. As I understand it, this Bill will put the grading of dairy produce in the hands of a qualified independent grader instead of leaving it to the buyer. It is also important for us to have the cheese and butter- cheese particularly-graded for export to the British market. During the past num-' her of years we have been able to sell our dairy produce because the price was high and continually rising and the demand was greater than the supply, on account of conditions to which I need not refer. But now things are different and during the next few years we may find it difficult to get a market for our product. Conditions in the British Isles are not as good as we would wish, and it may be that from force of economic circumstances, our dairy produce exported there will have to take a low price. It is only 'by paying strict attention to the quality of the export that we can expect to command a position in that market as against other countries that are trying to get in there as we are trying to do. For those reasons I will support the Bill. I would like to see the Bill a little more definite. It is simply a skeleton Bill, [DOT] leaving the regulations in the hands of the minister and his officials in the department, and we do not know in what way the grading will be administered. In saying that, I do not wish to oast any reflection upon the efficiency of the minister or ihis officials, but it is not good policy for this House of Commons to leave too much legislation to regulation by Order in Council. I should like the minister to state specifically in the Bill that the grading of dairy produce for export is compulsory; and he should put in the body of the Bill as much as possible in regard to the regulations and control necessary in

putting this legislation into operation. Some hon. members, during this discussion, stated that provincial departments should be allowed to say how far the grading should go in the different provinces. I cannot agree with that at all. We want a united control in the matter, and any grading done for export should be controlled entirely by the federal department.
When the minister is making the regulations, he should have in view the fact that it is necessary, as far as possible, to have the certificate of grade given near to the point of shipment. When I point out to him the conditions in which we are in Prince Edward Island, he will understand better the point which I am making. We can ship our cheese to the Old Country through Halifax or Montreal. If a certificate of grading is given in a warehouse in Montreal, that makes it necessary for us to ship to Montreal to come under the grade. I would like the minister to have in mind, and if possible to have the grade of certificate given as near to the producer as possible. In that way we get a double benefit. As well as getting the benefit of having a good name in the export market, we have the benefit of bringing home to the producer the necessity of raising the quality of his product and converting what is now second-grade stuff into first-grade stuff for export. That, ito my mind, is the greatest thing that we are going to gain by having dairy produce graded.


Mr. BOYER:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I approve this Bill with great pleasure because I sincerely believe it is a starting point from which legislation often being improved, will bring a great development to the dairying industry. When the Minister of Agriculture tells us that this Bill is wanted by every provincial minister of agriculture, I believe that statement, because I know from good authority that the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec was asked to work along those lines. It is some years ago that we tried to have a bill enacted for the grading of the dairy products, particularly butter and cheese to be exported, and that grading is timely. A short time ago, as director of the "Conseil National Laitier du Canada," I attended a meeting held in Toronto, when we passed a resolution supporting the measure that was then before Parliament. The "Societe de Pindustrie laitiere de la province de Quebec" has also for a long time been asking for such a grading. As far as Quebec is concerned, we have already appreciated, when the Imperial

Commission was in existence, the benefits of such a classification. I may say that at the present time the standard of our dairy products is not fixed by experts but merely by exporters; that grading being left to the most interested parties, this has been for a long time a great handicap to the farmers, and the Government is right in doing away with it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation.) I see that
under this Bill, the Government will make the regulations which may be deemed necessary to avert this danger, and I think the measure is most timely and to the point. We have organized in Montreal, some seven or eight years ago, an association which bears the name of "La cooperative centrale." They have classified the products shipped to them and sold by them, and, Mr. Chairman, you could hardly imagine the good effects which this classification has had from an educational standpoint. "La Societe cooperative centrale" have established three different grades for the products shipped to them. At the outset, the small manufacturers, the factories badly equipped and those lacking in scruple wondered why their cheese was graded as second or third class. Whenever a complaint was made, inspectors were sent by "la cooperative" to the locality where that complaint originated and they would spend one, two or three weeks there if necessary in order to find out what was wrong and to show how the defects could be remedied. What was the result? Instead of 60 per cent of the manufacturers shipping inferior cheese, as was the case seven years ago, there are only this year 2 or 3 per cent of factories on the third grade list, 'in the province of Quebec. As you see, Mr. Chairman, this classification has been most useful; but it is only local in character and, therefore, insufficient to answer the general requirements.
The classification which was made by the Imperial Government during the war gave us a perfect idea of what could be expected from such a system. The Imperial Commission, which was independent of all groups, had classified the products shipped overseas in a perfect manner, and generally speaking, the results have been the very best to date. After the war, the Imperial Government decided to abolish that commission and we have reverted to the old methods of the past, from which we are now suffering, to a great extent,

by the fact that there is no classification process. So, when I happened to read on the Order Paper that the minister intended to introduce this Bill, I was glad of it and so were also the farming and dairy associations of the province of Quebec. Were it not for fear of treading upon dangerous ground, I would have this to add: Long before the province of Quebec, Ontario began to produce cheese, and improved it from year to year to such an extent that it was sold in England in much larger quantities than the Quebec cheese and became known as Ontario cheese. Later on, when we, from the province of Quebec, improved our own cheese and shipped it to the English market, we had to sell it under the guise of "Ontario cheese," which was unfair to Quebec while unprofitable to Ontario, for this province has no need of our cheese. If we wish to sell our cheese on the English market to-day as "Quebec cheese," the buyers in England will not give as high a price for it as they would for the "Ontario" or "Brockville" cheese. Nobody claims that our cheese is not as good as the other, but the buyers are accustomed to those brands and believe that others would not prove as satisfactory. The worst of it all is that inferior cheese, from whatever part of the country it comes, is shipped as "Quebec cheese." I protest most strongly against these methods. Now, if the Government decides to adopt a measure by which there will be three uniform grades of cheese, it will be equally just to all, everybody will be encouraged, and it will be to nobody's detriment.
Here is another point to be considered: The exporters, nowadays, are not all equally scrupulous., I have here several letters from exporters who are in favour of this measure. Now, a good many exporters rule the roost, and when I find that the Government is trying to put a check to such conditions, I am glad of it and I am satisfied that all who are interested in the dairy industry will feel thankful to the Government. Therefore, I shall vote for the Bill with pleasure, and I would ask the members from Quebec, especially those who represent rural counties, to realize the real usefulness of this Bill and to give it their full support.


John Albert Sexsmith: So far as butter is concerned this may be a good thing, and it might be a good thing for cheese in the end, but I do not think this is the proper time to bring this law into effect, and the main reason is that the farmers in the cheese districts will have to ship their
cheese to Montreal before it is inspected. Now, for the last forty years the great majority of the cheese that has been produced has been inspected on the shelves of the factory. Anybody who knows anything about cheese knows-I have seen it happen more than one-that you can take No. 1 cheese from a factory and put it in a car-not a cold storage car-and before it reaches Montreal the grade will have gone down to at least No. 2.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have never stated, so far as I am aware, that we had decided on having all the grading done at Montreal. We would be quite willing to make arrangements to meet any such circumstances as my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the committee.


John Albert Sexsmith: I quite realize that you may want an inspection at some western point. I am informed that all the cheese made west of Hastings last year found its market in the Prairie Provinces, but all the cheese made east of Hastings must go to Montreal or some other point where it can be inspected, for you cannot have a Government inspector going around and inspecting the cheese in the different factories. Under the old system Canadian cheese has made a wonderful reputation for itself in the world; no cheese has a better standing in the British market; our product has reached the pinnacle, and our farmers are proud of its reputation. But the minister is not satisfied, he wants to change the system, and brings in this measure for the grading of dairy products, perhaps to the detriment of the industry rather than its benefit. However, as the minister is anxious to have this Bill pass, I shall not take up any further time.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to say this to the hon. member (Mr. Sexsmith). He says that grading may be a good thing for butter, but not for cheese. Now, if any argument can be produced in favour of the grading of butter, I do not see why that same argument should not apply to the grading of cheese. As a matter of fact, grading has been going on for years, but in a haphazard way. The men who are engaged in the business at Montreal, the exporters of butter and cheese, are grading, but they have an interest in the grading. It Is to theiir interest, if there is a falling market for butter and cheese, to try and depreciate the grade of a first-class article. Manifestly it is up to them to try and get it at as low a price as they can, and they have degraded the product

to the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the producers of cheese in eastern Ontario, and that I could prove if time would permit.
May I point out that grading has been done systematically in New Zealand for twenty-five years, and that is not the only place where it has been done. In the province of Alberta they have a sample system of gradings It is not compulsory, it is true, but because the provincial authorities of Alberta have established that grading system those producing butter in that province have been practically compelled to get the government certificate on the grade of their butter, for they have found out from experience that otherwise they cannot put their product on the home market or the British Columbia market and successfully compete with the butter that has the government certificate to back it up. The same is true in regard to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In Quebec, the Quebec Agricultural Co-operative Society has been grading cheese for years. In their own interests they have found it advisable to protect the makers of good cheese, those who pay attention to producing a good article, from those who are indifferent, and they have formed this society for the purpose. Has the result been detrimental to the producers of cheese? Not at all, it has had the effect of bringing up the standard. Take, for example, the Montreal merchants who are in the export business. They do grading. What for? For their own protection, they make a difference between No. 1 and No. 2 grade. Who is hurt by that? The only man who is hurt by systematic grading is the man who is producing ia No. 2 or No. 3 article and wants to sell it as No. 1 What damage can you do to a person who is producing a first-class article by having a system of grading? Why should he not be protected from the man who is producing an inferior article and getting the benefit of the reputation that has been made for the product of the other man? The only person who is injured by the present haphazard method of grading is the man who has taken the trouble to make a first-class article. I say that the producer of the inferior article is not entitled to the sympathy of my hon. friend from East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) or anybody else.


Mr. BALDWIN:: I have owned cheese factories and milk factories, and at present I own more farms and more cows than any

man in the county I have the honour to represent. I have lost tens of thousands of dollars in the condensed milk business. I, therefore, have some knowledge of this matter. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has been trying to make the committee believe that the quality of butter depends wholly upon the manufacturer. Take the cow-tail butter, for instance, which is caused by filth in the stable, and the tubercular animals. I know the Minister of Agriculture is very ambitious and is anxious to travel on new lines and try out new ideas, this new thing and that new thing; but I say that instead of bringing in this legislation he would do more good if he went to the root of the matter and in every dairying centre had a man going around the country with a team, and a barrel of lime and a sprayer, to spray the farmers' barns and make them clean and wholesome. The member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson) is a practical cheese man and I think he and other members realize the importance of absolute cleanliness in connection with barns. You cannot help having various grades of butter and cheese, but you can help having microbes, and lice and other vermin in your barns, and we should do all we can to have conditions such that these delicious articles of food, namely, dairy products, shall be free from impurities.


John Albert Sexsmith: The member for Frontenac wonders why I am in favour of the grading of butter and not of cheese. Well, there is a reason. All cheese made in Canada is made in factories, under control but butter is made in thousands of different homes throughout the country and no two samples are absolutely alike. There should, therefore, be some grading in that respect.


Mr. DECHENE:: About the last of
April or the beginning of May a few carloads of butter were shipped from this country to New York, and it was discovered there that the butter was of very bad quality, containing more than 16 per cent of water. If there were no classification or grading, how would you deal with such exports, which hurt the trade of this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 4-


Thomas Henry Thompson: Mr. Chairman-	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Donald Sutherland: I must protest,
Mr. Chairman, against this method of rushing things. An hon. member has the floor, and I have endeavoured to address the committee on three or four occasions since the debate began, but I have not been able to get a word in.


Georges Henri Boivin: Both hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity to speak. The majority of members said "carried," and the Chairman alone is to blame if he did not see the hon. member.


Thomas Henry Thompson: The member for
Frontenac spoke of the haphazard way in which cheese is inspected. If that is the case in Frontenac it is not so in other sections of the country like Hastings, Prince Edward, and Peterborough, for the cheese board have regulations governing this matter. In the case of a dispute between buyer and seller, the inspector who is employed by the Provincial Government, is the sole arbitrator and settles the question. The hon. member speaks of hundreds of thousands of dollars which dealers have lost. That must apply to Frontenac, for at their annual meetings at the different factories the producers have passed resolutions commenting favourably on the fair dealing between buyers and sellers. They had the privilege of sending cheese to Montreal to be inspected last year, and there were not five per cent of the farmers that did not take advantage of this arrangement. I am not opposed to the Bill provided the farmers are consulted. In an interview in the minister's office the other day I asked that the members of the cheese board, who are the representative farmers, be consulted. The member for Frontenac spoke of the Dairymen's Association. At this meeting I speak of, there were 13 farmers present and 7 of them voted for this measure. That is not representative of the dairymen by any means, and if the Minister will come to the city of Belleville, the town of Picton, or the city of Peterborough he will meet hundreds of representative farmers who are producing milk and are interested in this business. They will be willing to discuss the matter fairly with him. I only ask that before these regulations are adopted the men who produce the milk shall be consulted.


Donald Sutherland: This Bill is too important to be rushed through the House in the last days of the session without consideration. As the member for Queen's (Mr. Sinclair) has said, the dairy industry is facing a difficult situation. When you
realize that butter fat which a year ago was selling at 75 cents a pound, to-day sells at 35 cents, you can see how conditions are changing. The dairy industry of this country depends upon the men who produce the milk. I have been listening carefully to this discussion, and, so far as I can see, this legislation is not being introduced at the request of the producers. As the member for East Hastings has just pointed out, the Dairymen's Association is not representative of the dairymen. I have attended meetings of Dairymen's Associations where scarcely a dairyman was heard; but you could find any number of Government officials and dealers in dairy products represented on the boards, and they always endeavour to manipulate the appointment of officers in the associations so that they may have control of whatever regulations they try to carry on the board. The Minister would be well advised, after having had this discussion, to let this matter remain in abeyance for another year, and let the producers, upon whom the dairy industry depends, be heard, before taking steps that will jeopardize the industry. It is a very easy matter. The voice of the producer may not be heard. He may be in the business to-day very strongly, but in a very short time he may change his whole plan and system and go out of the business and you will never hear from him. That is very unfortunate for the industry and very unfortunate for the country. That is the very thing that is happening in many localities to-day. We ought to do everything we possibly can to stabilize industry in this country, and I think we should be much more careful than we are not to introduce legislation that may cause an injury to the stability of any industry in the country without giving it very careful consideration. I sometimes wonder, particularly during these trying times through which we are passing, whether we have got both feet down on the ground again and realize the difficulties with which we are confronted. We passed, without much consideration, legislation, some of which, I am satisfied, does not help the object that the promotors had in view. I think that a great purpose will be served by the introduction of this Bill, and having it brought forcibly to the attention of the dairymen of this country, that there is a demand. That demand may be from the Provincial Departments of Agriculture, and I believe that is where the demand has come from. I again say that the Departments of Agri-

culture do not always represent the dairymen of this country-not by any means. As far as the constituency that I represent is concerned, the manufacture of butter and cheese had for many years practically ceased. Owing to conditions that prevailed during the war the price of butter, condensed milk and other dairy products, went up to such a degree that the cheese industry suffered very materially, and the producers went out of business. But I find that during the present year many cheese factories are reopening again, and the prospects are bright for the cheese industry, unless something is done that may hamper it. If the producer was asking for this legislation, I would be inclined to give it much more consideration than I give it at present, because of the sources from which I believe the requests have come.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 3-regulations:
John Ewen Sinclair: I think we
should ask the minister to specify that such notice should be given at a certain time before the Act comes into force, so that those interested would have an opportunity to prepare to conform to the regulations.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think I can promise
that with perfect safety. Section 7 says:-
This Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by Proclamation of the Governor in Council.
And I can assure my hon. friend that ample opportunity will be afforded to these people.


John Ewen Sinclair: Would it
not be wise to state the time in the Bill?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture to the various officers, graders and so on, to be created under this Act. Are they salaried officer's of the depart-1 ment? Is there any provision made for the salaries of these officers, and what will be the financial commitments of the department for the enforcement of this Act? Then, again, I observe that the warehouse or grading store means "any warehouse designated by the Governor in Council as a place in which the gr'ading of dairy produce may be carried on." Does it mean that the warehouse will be the property of the department, or that it will not be the property of the people engaged in the industry?
[Mr. Sutherland.)	1	! : J i'llW


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As far as the warehouse is concerned, that will be fixed according to the best arrangement that we can possibly make. It may be an estab-1 lishment used for the storing of dairy products. For instance, take the building at Montreal now under construction, a very large up-to-date cold storage establishment-*


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it Government property?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is controlled by the
Harbour Commissioners. That will prob-1 ably be the point where the dairy grading will be carried on. With regard to the extra graders, I do not think we would require more than one or two to begin with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What salary do you
intend to pay?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think roughly about
$2,400 for a grader-around that neighbourhood.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At One o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at 2.30 o'clock.
PRIVILEGE-Mr.	WILSON (WENT-

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been called to an interview given by the Minister of Public Works of Ontario, in which he characterized my recent remarks in this House as deliberate lies, etc., and he further stated that he intended to challenge me to meet him on a public platform. I rise to say that I stand by every statement that I have made, and I have sent to Mr. Biggs the following telegram:
Ottawa, Ontario, June 3, 1921. Hon. F. C. Biggs,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Anticipating your threatened challenge to meet me on a public platform as stated in today's Ottawa Journal, would suggest an evening meeting in the Dundas Park at a date to be agreed upon tout within the next thirty days. That an admission fee of twenty-five cents be charged and that the proceeds be given the Citizens Committee of Dundas for Park Improvements. I will personally pay for all expenses incurred re this meeting.
G. C. Wilson.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Could not
that be staged on the same day as the Dempsey-Carpentier bout?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I desire to
return to the order of motions for the purpose of tabling a report of the Civil Service Commission.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure at this stage the House will consent to the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) presenting this report without the formality of going back to the order of motions.
Report tabled.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. R. W. Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) for the third reading of Bill No. 211 respecting the Department of Customs and Excise:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill passed through the committee stage at three o'clock this morning, and the moving of the Bill to its final stage at this moment; simply illustrates the condition into which the public business has fallen. I am obliged to object to this motion and to register a protest (I know it will be ineffective) against the scandalous manner-the adjective is not too strong-in which parliamentary business is being conducted today under the direction of the Government. We are told that the Prime Minister desires to go overseas to attend the Prime Ministers' Conference. We all realize that that is the right hon. gentleman's duW, and I do not think there is any desire on the part of anybody in this House to delay him. But, while I admit that it is the duty of the right hon. gentleman to go, I cannot admit that that is a reason why we should conduct the public business with the indecent haste that has been exhibited during the past week. The right hon. gentleman will not be the first Prime Minister to go overseas to attend to Imperial business; there have been others, and they have left under somewhat similar circumstances. They have gone to perform their public duty with the good-will and blessing of the Parliaments they left behind them, but they have delegated the conduct of the business to their colleagues, and the business of the House has been closed decently and in order.
The business of this Parliament is not being done in a decent and orderly manner to-day, and we are having evidence of it in many ways. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) is really acting like a slave driver in conducting the business of the House. Yesterday, this House sat eleven hours, including seven hours consecutively at night, finishing our work at 3 o'clock this morning. The right hon. gentleman is making Parliament meet morning, afternoon, and night, and at every stage we find business pressed forward with undue and unreasonable haste. In this Bill noiw before us we have a matter of a very important character. It introduces legislation entirely new, it imposes enormous taxation, much more than many people imagine, and is well worthy of grave Consideration, but it is pressed forward in the way I have described. If you want further evidence, look at what occurred to-day in regard to the Bill relating to the dairy industry of this country. I have no particular knowledge of that industry, and I speak with deference to the views of hon. gentlemen who are familiar with it. We have had for the first time a discussion to-day on that Bill, and hon. gentlemen on the Government side have declared that the matter is not only one of grave importance, but one hon. member, representing an extensive farming district, declared that it might mean the ruin of the dairy industry of this country. Yet the measure was brought forward today practically for its first discussion and rushed through its several stages to be sent to the Senate, and the two Houses are expected to deal with the Bill in twenty-four or thirty-six hours. Will the people of Canada think that proper treatment of a question dealing with the dairy industry of the country? Will the farmers believe that their interests are receiving due consideration? I express no opinion on the merits of the Bill, but I do say that the forcing through of legislation of this kind at the last moment is entirely to the discredit of the Government and of the House. I do not think it is necessary that there should be this indecent haste in order that the right hon. gentleman may get away. I must offer no opinion as to the ability of his colleagues to conduct the public business, but I would say that it would be far better that, the right hon. gentleman should proceed to the conference and leave ^ the business of the House to be wound up in a decent and orderly way.

This is the King's Birthday. By a statute of Canada the birthday of the reigning sovereign is declared to be a public holiday. The people of Canada are expected to pay, in one form or another, due respect to the occasion. We require by law our banks to close. But while we do that and while we expect the people of Canada to honour the day, we have Parliament' sitting here on the morning of the King's Birthday up to three o'clock, meeting again at eleven o'clock, and again at half-past two, and sitting again to-night until God only knows what time. I say without the slightest hesitation that that manner of conducting the public business is not likely to lead to Parliament having the respect which it ought to have from the people at large.
As a further reminder, I want to say that last session we voted ourselves a very generous indemnity, and the ground upon which the vote was placed was that the duties of Parliament were so exacting and the sessions were becoming longer. Now, this is not a long session. We have been here only a little more than three and a half months. I believe it will be found, with the growing importance of this country, that you will not be able as a rule to do the business of this Parliament in less than four months. I do not think that four months at any time hereafter will be deemed a long session. And yet the business has been rushed through in this way.
I think the least we can do for the generous indemnity we are receiving is to stay here and attend to the business of the country. For myself at all events-and I speak for myself only-I respectfully offer this protest, and I say that the manner in which the public business is being carried on is not a credit to the Government, nor is it a credit to Parliament. We have large sums of money yet to be voted, including the Estimates of the Post Office Department, one of the most wide-reaching departments of the Government, involving large sums of money and involving interests which come close home to every hon. member. I believe we have not yet touched those Estimates. Some time to-day or tomorrow we will be asked to pass them.
These things have only to be mentioned to make the impression which I hope they will make on the public mind, and I do say without the slightest hesitation that this rushing through of the business of the country in the last few days of the session is a discredit to the Government and to Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, my first remark is that I consider that the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) delivered under these circumstances, is most unfair to the Administration-I ihad almost said unfair to myself. There has been no attempt of the Government whatever to rush the business of Parliament. There is the natural attempt of both sides towards the end of the session to have as little delay, as little irrelevant discussion and as little obstruction as possible, because at all stages of a session
mostly from the Opposition, naturally; sometimes even from the Government side -there is discussion of the nature of irrelevant matter or of obstruction.
What has the Government done that is "indecent" and "out of order"? I have made the statement that I felt it my duty to attend the session of this Parliament until the work is over. I feel it my duty still. If either on one side or the other there is a substantial feeling that it is too early to prorogue to-<morrow, we are ready to wait and be here next week. I do not think the Empire is going to fall apart, or that we are in any danger or dire peril if I do not leave on Monday. I have made no attempt to stampede the course of business in this House or to rush things through with indecent haste" in order merely that I may get away on Monday morning. In all efforts we have made to advance the business of the House, not with indecent haste, but with due expedition having regard to the importance of the business, we have acted in harmony with the Opposition.
What has been the subject matter that has been dealt with so rapidly and with such utter disregard of the interests of the country? Has any one observed, in the disposition of any Bill so far before this House, scant consideration of its provisions? If so, I do not know when it was. There has been consideration for hours at a time, very frequently late, it is true, because hon. gentlemen towards the end of the session, particularly when committee work is over, are prepared to sit late, and it is then that we exert ourselves to the uttermost and consideration is given to public business at the expense of great physical and mental effort on our part. That has been the history always as regards important legislation towards the end of a session. All measures that we have to do with are important; some not

as much so as otheTS, and much of that character is being considered just now. There is some that we have (not been able to reach, not because we did not want to, but we have not been able to get to it sooner owing to prolonged discussion on other matters.
Now, as to rushing business because we commenced business this morning at eleven o'clock and sat until three o'clock last night, let me remind the hon. member of this fact, that this is the first session, I think, in the history of our Parliament, that the holding of forenoon sittings has been left to as late a date as this. The Government has not suggested that Parliament sit in the forenoon except for the last two days of the session, and only for approximately a week have afternoon sittings commenced at two o'clock. It is true that we have had two or three late sittings, but I would like to know when Parliament did not sit late at night towards the end of a session when committee work was over. I say again that we have deferred morning sittings longer than ever before. Certainly never since I have been in the Hoiuse-and this is my fifteenth session-have we waited until the last two days before asking the House to sit in the forenoon. I do not think there is any precedent for waiting so long ibefore sitting on Saturdays as we have waited this session.
Now, my only statement is this. We have sought to act in harmony with the Opposition in this matter, and therefore I consider the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's directed against the Government as entirely unfair and uncalled for, and I am surprised at his making them. Let me repeat, while I might be justified in leaving the conduct of the House and go overseas when there is nothing left for discussion of an important character, nothing over which there may be serious contention, I do not think I would be justified, merely to get away on Monday, in leaving this House before its prorogation, with important or contentious matters left over. But there is nothing of a dire character going to happen if there should be delay, and although we have had a general understanding that we will endeavour, if we can with justice to public business, close on Saturday, let me say again there is no more desire on the Government side than on the other side, to prorogue then, and we are quite willing to co-operate with the Opposition in a friendly way and meet
with them next week if it is necessary for the due and proper discharge of business.


Michael Clark: I rise with some reluctance to present a view which is presented on my own account only and which differs from that of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I do this with the more reluctance because on many subjects I have admired the position taken and the ability displayed by my hon. friend and have been more than pleased to support him. Indeed, some of us in this part of the House have suffered, I think, misunderstanding along that line because we have been put under his wing by a very august personage in this Chamber for good and all. However, that personage, I am sure, will forgive me for breaking out from under the wing on this particular occasion.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have been only three months and two-thirds in session and that there has been a good deal of business done in the last two weeks. But I imagine, as the Prime Minister has said, that that has been quite usual in all the sessions of Parliament, at least that I have participated in. I personally have not been able to impress my views upon the majority of the Chamber, but it has not been because I have not had the opportunity of presenting those views on almost every topic, and especially upon the trade question, in which I take a vital interest. I think the whole House will admit that I have at least been able to keep up my end and to keep my views before the public and before the House of Commons. That my views have not impressed more members is a matter of very deep regret to me, but it is because of the perversity of the human understanding and of the human heart. As I look back over this session, having missed but two days of its sittings, on each of which two days I was delivering a speech outside the House, I am bound to say, Mr. Speaker, that it ir my deliberate opinion-speaking, as I say, purely for myself-that no public interest of any moment has suffered during this session from want of reasonable discussion. That being my impression, I feel bound to state it. I am exceptionally placed in regard to leisure-my little business interests do not call me away; I am in yery good health, and I could stand another month in Ottawa. But I very much question if the public interest would gain anything compared with what it might conceivably lose by the Prime Minister of this Dominion having to fail to keep arrange-

ments which he has entered into with the concensus of the majority of hon. members of this Chamber. I hold this view strongly, and I am almost certain that it will impress the majority of the members of the House. We hear a great deal about members of Parliament not earning their indemnity, and about "generous indemnities,!' and that sort of thing. Well, I can only say that when my hon. friend from East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) was talking this morning of milking being work of very great drudgery, I had the honest feeling in my breast that to milk six or eight cows before breakfast and again in the evening and to do a good deal of farm work between times was, on the whole, play for the body and the mind compared to the drudgery of public service in this House, and more especially in the administration of the country at this time. I have not been, I think, in the course of my career in Canada too prone to pay attention to passing waves of opinion anywhere in the country, and I want to say on behalf of hon. members of this House of all varieties of opinion that they are just as good as the rest of the people of Canada; they are fair representatives of Canadian manhood and Canadian opinion; they do their work honestly and well, and I resent any opinions that are presented to the contrary, whether in this Chamber or out of it. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's has not been well advised to make this protest and that in my opinion no public interest has suffered from want of discussion during this session.


Right Hon.   S@: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the meantime, I desire to remind the House that the motion before the Chair is for the third reading of Bill No. 211.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, is it necessary
for me to have the unanimous consent of the House that we may return to motions in order that a report may be laid on the Table?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Prime Minister
does not require unanimous consent to move that the House return to motions. It is quite within his competence to make the motion, but I am sure the House would consent without a formal motion.


Arthur Meighen: After the inquiry of
the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) this morning regarding the Snider report, I made investigation. The hon. member was under the impression that an Order in Council had been passed authorizing an inquiry and that, upon that being made, another Order in Council was passed authorizing a further inquiry into some distinct matter connected with the same affair. I thought there was only one Order in Council. I find that we were both, in a measure, right and both, in a measure, wrong-or rather I was right in substance and my hon. friend was right in form. There were two Orders, but they were both passed before any investigation.' An interim report was made; hut as explained in the House, the interim report was not laid on the Table, the intention being to await the final report, as there might he danger that the interim report would do injustice to men referred to therein, in respect of whom the effect* of the interim report might possibly be modified by the final one. At noon to-day I spoke to Col. Biggar who was of counsel prosecuting the investigation, and he delivered this letter to me this afternoon:
Answering your question of to-day, no evidence has been given before His Honour Judge
Snider since the date of his interim report (10th March) which would affect the conclusions therei-n or render it unfair to anyone to publish the interim report without the final report. The evidence necessary for the preparation of the latter is now complete and I think His Honour intends to send in the report as soon as the notes of the evidence (of which the last was taken on Saturday last) have been extended.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd) O. M. Biggar.
I am also advised by Col. Biggar-and I rely on the correctness of his advice- that the interim report has been submitted to His Excellency, and, therefore, I lay the interim report on the Table.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1922, was presented by Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the order that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to amend the Insurance Act, 1917-Sir Henry Drayton.
Arthur Meighen: In view of the fact that we have not been able to reach this order as soon as we had expected, and of its importance, I beg leave of the House to withdraw it.
Order discharged.



PATENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 140, to amend the Patent Act.
Mr. S. F. GLASS (East Middlesex) :: I will endeavour, as quickly as possible, to state my objections to this Bill and to offer suggestions by which I think it can be improved [DOT] and made more acceptable to some hon. members. The basis or need for this legislation is primarily, as I understand the matter, to carry out the international obligation of this Gov-
3 p.m. ernment pursuant to the adoption of the Versailles Treaty. In that treaty an arrangement was made by the parties who were signatories to the treaty, that certain rights and privi-

leges under the Patent Acts of various countries which patentees had forfeited by reason of not having paid fees or carried out the requirements of the Patent Acts, should, in view of the long duration of the war, be reinstated for a period after the war. After the matter had been given most generous consideration this Article 307 was inserted in the Treaty of Peace of Versailles:
A minimum of one year after the coming into force of the present treaty shall he accorded to .the nationals of the High Contracting Parties, without extension fees or other penalty, in order to enable such persons to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, pay any fees, and generally satisfy (any obligation prescribed by the laws or regulations of the respective states relating to the obtaining, preserving, or opposing rights to, or in respect of, industrial property either acquired before August 1, 1914, or which, except for the war, might have been acquired since that date as a result of an application made before the war or during its continuance, but nothing in this article shall give any right to reopen interference proceedings in the United States of America where a final hearing has taken place.
All rights in, or in respect of, such property which may have lapsed by reason of any failure to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, or make any payment, shall revive, but subject in .the case of .patents and designs to the imposition, of such conditions as each allied or associated power may deem reasonably necessary for the protection of persons who have manufactured or made use of the subject matter of such property while the rights had lapsed. Further, where rights to patents or designs belonging to German nationals are revived under this article, they shall be subject in respect of the grant of licenses to the same provisions as would have been applicable to hem during the war, as well as to all the .revisions of the present treaty.
I understand that this gives the right to patentees to revive a patent in their own country within one year of the passing of this Act by the payment of any fees which might be required. The date on which this Act went into force was January 10, 1920. Therefore, the right to pay fees with a view to reviving a patent which had lapsed expired on January 10,
1921,	but where one bad paid his fees in order to .revive a patent which had elapsed provision was made that he might not be required to manufacture it within the country till a period of two years from that date, which would carry it to January 10,
1922.	In January last a Bill was introduced into the United States Congress, known as the Nolan Bill, the purpose of which was in part, to allow patentees in the United States to revive patents which had elapsed within a period prescribed under the Act. I shall read only a few sec-

tions of the Bill which bear on this discussion. The Nolan Bill enacts:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the rights of priority provided by section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, for the filing of applications for patent for inventions and designs, which rights had not expired on the 1st day of August, 1914, or which rights have arisen since the 1st day of .August, 1914, shall he, and the same are hereby extended until the expiration of a period of six months from the passage of this Act in favour of the citizens of the United States-
Mark this:
-or citizens or subjects of all countries which have extended, or which now extend, or which within said period of six months shall extend substantially reciprocal privileges to citizens of the United States, and such extension shall apply to applications upon which patents have been granted, as well as to applications now pending or filed within the period herein :
By section 3 of that Act it is provided:
That no patent granted or validated by reason of the extensions provided for in sections 1 and 2 of this Act shall abridge or otherwise affect the right of any citizen of the United States, or his agent or agents, or his successor in business, to continue any manufacture, use, or sale commenced before the passage of this Act by such citizen, nor shall the continued manufacture, use, or sale by such citizen, or the use or sale of the devices resulting from such manufacture or use constitute an infringement.
That is, protection given to any person who during the period of the war had commenced to manufacture or to make actual use of the patents which had elapsed. In the Bill now before the House similar legislation is enacted. There is one other section of the Nolan Bill which I think it is very necessary I should quote in this discussion. Section 6 of that Act provides:
That where an .invention was made by a person while serving abroad, during the war, with the force of the United States, civil or military, the inventor thereof shall be entitled, in interference and other proceedings arising in connection with such invention, to the same rights of priority with respect of such invention as if the same had been made in the United States, and where an application became abandoned or forfeited, during the time the applicant was serving with the forces of the United States, by reason of his failure to take action or pay a fee within the time now required by Jaw.
Apparently the purpose was primarily to protect the interests of men who had been serving overseas and who by reason of such service had been unable to pay the fees and revive the patents.
In order to fulfil our obligations under the Versailles Treaty, it was provided and understood that any foreign patentee in

this country who desired to revive his patent, by the payment of the fees required, which had been allowed to lapse since the first of August, 1914, should have the right to exercise that privilege up until January 10, 1921. If he had exercised that right and revived his patent by the payment of the fees, he would not be required under the provisions of the Act to manufacture the article within this country, until a period of two years after the passing of the Act. That would carry him up until January 10, 1922.
Naturally the question will arise, what is my objection to this Bill. It is this. First of all, the fundamental object of this legislation is to carry out and ratify international obligations. I have not one word of objection against that, because we all agree that to the full limit of our ability it is our duty to discharge every obligation under that treaty to which we are a party. But the United States Nolan Bill, requiring reciprocal legislation, only requires on our part that we should give a quid pro quo for their Bill so as to enable their patentees in Canada the right to revive patents which may have lapsed since August, 1, 1914. We are going beyond that in this Bill. The Bill before the House proposes not only to reciprocate the privileges extended to citizens of Canada by the United States, but to go them one better and extend the time within which a patent may be revived until one year frofn the date of the passing of this Act.
My fundamental objection to this legislation is on the ground of a patent which was recorded by a French chemist .in the Patent Office of Canada in the year 1913, a patent which, to my mind, is of very great national importance. It is not so much that I want to deprive that man of any right he may have, for under our treaty obligations he has had over eight years within which to revive that patent. I have the figures here as to the proportion of patents that are revived, and they are the latest I can get from the Commissioner. I find that last year 11,000 patents were extended for the first period of six years. Only 2,500 of these patents were revived or extended for a further period of six years, and out of the whole 11,000 only some eight per cent y/ere extended for the whole period of eighteen years. In London, Ontario, we have a firm of manufacturing chemists, who for five years have been energetically trying to solve a problem which is of great national importance to this country-and my hon. friends will not be surprised when I say
that that problem is an improvement in the retting of flax straw. This firm has made such progress that last summer, in company with the Director of the Experimental Farm, I visited their laboratory, and we were shown some samples of flax straw retted under this new process, which were pronounced in tensile strength, colour, and in every other respect, superior to anything done under the process of dew retting. The chief of the fibre department was so impressed with this important discovery that arrangements were made for this man to come to the experimental flax station here at Ottawa, to ..demonstrate, by the use of a 4- or 5-ton lot the commercial possibilities of this new process. This patent that has been registered by this French chemist directly conflicts with the experiments that have been carried on by these men, entirely apart from any knowledge they may have had of the patent registered. This man is trying to sell the patent and wants to control its use here, which he would practically have a right to do for eighteen years longer. I do not care about that so much, but when men, in an honest endeavour, have been working for five years and have made important discoveries, if we have to go outside of international obligations and by some super-magnanimity extend to United States patentees advantages that are uncalled for, I submit that the passing of this Act in its present form will not be in the national interest of this country. I do not object to the principle of the Bill, because I think it is good, and it is quite possible to make an amendment to it in committee that will fulfil every obligation we owe to internationals by extending the right to persons to revive patents to January 10, 1922. That is one plan. Another plan I had in view, but which is not so desirable, although it would be better than passing the Bill just as it is, is an amendment to the Bill to provide that all patents revived under it should be held to operate in the future under section 44 of the Patent Act. Either of these would be acceptable, but I strongly urge upon the minister that if we fulfil our international obligations to the limit by passing reciprocal legislation, we have complied with every necessity of the law, and have not reached the point of injuring any individuals in the matter. An opportunity will come for discussion of this matter in committee, but in this general debate I desired to lay these matters before the House so that we may have an intelli-

gent grasp of their purport as affecting the interests to which I have called attention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-sections 23 and 47 of Patent Act repealed.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have two
amendments which I propose to move to that clause.


Mr. BUREAU:: We had a Bill under consideration before to consolidate the Patent Act. I understand that that Bill was necessary to revise the fees and give to certain persons who during the war could not comply with the law the privilege of doing so now. Are those the only changes?


George Green Foster: The Consolidation Bill was withdrawn, and I have four amendments which I intend to move in this Bill which touch four different points covered in the Consolidation Bill. The first amendment is with reference to the fee to be charged for the patent. I move to amend section 1 by striking out the word "and" after the word "twenty-three" in the first line and substituting the following:
With the exception of the first two lines of sub-section 1 thereof, and section 47 of the .Patent Act, chapter 69 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, are repealed.


Jacques Bureau: It is rather confusing to follow the amendment because we have not the Patent Act before us and do not know what the first two lines are.


George Green Foster: I will explain them. In subsection 2 I move that there be inserted the following:
For each and every patent mentioned in any notice given to the Commissioner by the inventor, after the issue of a foreign patent, of his intention to apply for a patent, in Canada for such patent, $2.
The object of all this, in getting rid of sections 23 and 47, with the exception of the amendment I have moved in regard to section 23, is to make a change in the fee. At present the fee is $60, paid in three several payments of $20 each at intervals of twelve years. It is proposed to make it $35, payment to he made on application for the patent. That is to prevent litigation and trouble that have ensued, owing to lapses in the making of the second and third payments, in the last ten years before the war. We had to cure these troubles by special legislation in this

House, some 50 or 60 patents having lapsed, through negligence to pay the fee. The Private Bills Committee, to whom they had to go for adjudication and examination, have several times protested against that kind of legislation, and it has been protested against in the House. It is proposed to get rid of all that by putting on a fee of $35. I may say the fee in the United States is $40, and it is made in one payment. It is supposed that the payment of $35 in cash on the first application will really bring in a larger revenue than is now realized on the system of deferred payments, making them any size, because the payment will be made surely, and in the other case it is only made after twelve years, or six years, and in a gr'eat many cases it is not gone on with, and we miss these subsequent pay-mentsi. The other fees are practically the same.


Mr. JACOBS:: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."


George Green Foster: It is worth
in this case pretty nearly two in the bush.


Jacques Bureau: As the law stands, the
applicant has to deposit $20 on his application.


George Green Foster: On application he deposits $15, and $20 on the granting of the patent.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it proposed to make
any changes with regard to patents held by alien enemies during the war'?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The action taken during the war consisted simply of making provision to allow the parties to apply to make use of the patents. There was no action in the direction of confiscation-no appropriation of the property in the patent under the provisions of the Act. Permits were granted to persons in Canada to use the article, the patent for which belongs to an alien enemy-to use the article notwithstanding the existence of the patent.


Samuel William Jacobs: What became of the fees received by the department from these patents while they were working under these licenses?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Licenses were granted subject to payment of royalties which were collected from the license fees and handed over to the custodian of alien enemy property.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On Section 3-return of fees:
Jacques Bureau: Section 3 says:
Paragraphs (a) and (b) and subsection 2 ot section 51 of the Patent Act shall apply only to application for patents tiled before the coming into force of this Act.
The same difficulty arises there. We have these paragraphs suggested by the Senate, and we do not know what paragraphs (a) and (b) are.	*


George Green Foster: The section
under the present Act is 51-
No person shall be exempt from the payment of any fee or charge payable in respect of any services performed for such person under this Act, and no fee, when paid, shall be returned to the person who paid it except, (a) when the invention is not susceptible of being patented; (b) when the petition for patent is withdrawn.
And the amendment provides that that shall only apply to applications for patents filed before the coming into for'ce of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 4-no patent void by failure to make or import between August 1, 1914, and January 10, 1922.
Jacques Bureau: What is the purpose
of this clause?


George Green Foster: This is for
the purpose of removing the uncertainty as to the meaning of section 82 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. The De-' partment of Justice has given the opinion that the protection applies only to patents in force on August 1,	1914. This
provides that it shall apply to patents granted thereafter during the period of the war. There is greater reason, it is felt, that it should apply to these, or equally as good reasons, as that it should apply to those that were in force on first day of August, 1914, when war broke out. That is to carry out and make it clear, and to remove the uncertainty which arose from the opinion of the Department of Justice that protection applied only to patents which were granted after that time.


Jacques Bureau: That is not my question. That is during the period of the war. It says here, "between the said date"-that is the first day of August, 1914-"and the 10th day of January, 1922." That covers a great deal more time than the period of the war-to January of next year. I am asking the reason why this particular date is set,-if it is designed to protect the interests in danger during the period of the war on account of people being unable to perform all the conditions required by law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The treaty provision
was that no patent could lapse by reason of failure to comply with the requirements of manufacture for the period of two years after the war, or for a period of two years after the coming into force of the treaty. The treaty, although signed in June, 1919, became effective January 10, 1920, and therefore it should be two years after that date.


Mr. MEWBURN:: It seems to me section 4 takes away the right of the public in Canada, and I think there should be 'a saving clause inserted, if the minister would consent, to cover the equities of those who have prepared to manufacture. I think there should be some provision to protect not only those who have commenced manufacture, but those who have spent large sums of money in preparing to manufacture. I know one firm who spent $6,900 in engineering and preparatory work in equipment to manufacture under lapsed patents, and I think those people should be protected.


George Green Foster: I have an
amendment to cover that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 5-time extended for paying fees.	,
George Green Foster: I have an
amendment to propose to this section which reads:
Fees which have become payable under the Patent Act since the first day of August, 1914, may, at any time until the expiration of a period of one year from the -coming into force of this Act, be paid with the same effect as if paid within the times prescribed by the Patent Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 6-time extended for exercise of rights for 'filing applications.
George Green Foster: I have an
amendment to propose to this section which reads:
Provided that such extension shall in no way affect the right of any person, who, before the passage of this Act, was bona fide in possession of any rights in patents or applications for patent conflicting with rights in patents granted or validated by reason of such extension, to exercise such rights himself personally or by such agents, or licensees, as derived their rights from him, before the passage of this Act, and such persons shall not be amenable to any action for infringement of any patent granted or validated by reason of such extension.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the
amendment to state that one can continue manufacturing?



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

George Green Foster: "Provided that such extension shall in no way affect the right of any person who before the passage of this Act was bona fide in possession of any rights in patents-"


Samuel Francis Glass: Is that going to protect the people, for instance, to whom I referred? They have been working for five years along similar lines, and had so far developed their process that arrangements had been made for them to come to Ottawa and demonstrate it in a commercial way. There is no doubt about its practicability, but the question is, can it be made a commercial success. They have not made application for a patent. They are simply research chemists and have reached certain results as a consequence of their work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I grasp rightly the suggestion of the hon. member, he thinks that provision should be made to protect people who never have made application for a patent? I do not want to misunderstand him.


Samuel Francis Glass: No, they have confined
themselves to purely research work so far.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just what is it that we can protect? They have not done anything towards getting a patent. I have a little difficulty in seeing how we would be justified in making a provision that would extend so far as to say that everybody who has been working in the expectation that he will eventually come to the position where he might apply for a patent is to be protected against the fact that we extend this period of time to those who already have made application. I do not see just what prejudice that man is suffering by the passing of this Bill.


Samuel Francis Glass: He would not be allowed to carry on his research work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He can of course continue his research work. The result may be that he will discover something for which somebody has obtained a patent, but I do not quite see that that man engaged in such research work is prejudiced by this legislation or that he has any existing right which we could protect.


Samuel Francis Glass: Article 307 of the treaty provides:
A minimum of one year after the coming into force of the present treaty shall he accorded to the nationals of the High Contracting Parties, without extension fees or other penalty, in order to enable such persons to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, pay any fees, and generally satisfy any obligation prescribed by the laws or regulations of the respective Statesr.Mr. Bureau.]
My understanding of that article is that any person whose patent had lapsed by reason of non-payment of fees for extension or otherwise might revive the patent at any period within one year after the coming into force of the treaty. In the same article provision is made whereby a period of two years is given after the passing of the treaty to allow any person to carry on the manufacture of a patent which he may have had at that time. If that fulfils our obligations, even if one industry is going to be adversely affected, what is the object of this magnanimous extension to Germans, Austrians and others of the time to enable them to revive patents which they are not entitled to under every obligation we have entered into by that treaty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand, the present provision has to do with the extension of delay for the filing of application for a patent. I take it that we were not bound to give the period of six months so far as the treaty was concerned. But the hon. gentleman has just called attention to the Nolan Act which does grant such a delay, and which extends the benefit of that Act to the nationals of other countries only on condition that they reciprocate; and that makes it necessary, if we want to get the protection for our patentees in the United States, that we should give them this six -months after the coming into force of this Act. There will perhaps be a month or two between their position and ours because their Act came into force in March and ours in June.


Samuel Francis Glass: Here is a case of a patentee who registered and obtained his patent in Canada in 1913. That patent was good for six years and expired in 1919. Now, by the treaty of Versailles he had the right, providing he paid the fees, to revive that patent at any time after the passing of that Act, that is January, 1921, and he had a further period within one year from that date in which to commence manufacture. I want to understand why, because the United States has passed certain legislation requiring reciprocal legislation on our part, we want to reach out beyond their requirements and extend facilities of revival to a man like that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: By section 5 we are providing a delay of one year for the payment of fees which have become payable under the Patent Act since the first day of August, 1914. That provision is, I understand, taken bodily from the Nolan

Act, and it is to put ourselves in the position of granting reciprocally to the United States what is granted to us by the Nolan Act.


Samuel Francis Glass: If this legislation is necessary in order to make reciprocal provisions in favour of the United States, let it end there; why extend it to all quarters of the earth, Germany especially?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will come back to this section later.
Section stands.
On section 8-saving rights of persons who have commenced lawfully to make, use or sell invention while patent was void:


George Green Foster: I move that subclause 1 of clause 8 be amended by striking out all the words between the word "to'' on line 26 and the word "shall" on line 28 and substituting therefor the following: "manufacture, use or sell the patented invention to which any patent revived or restored as aforesaid," and by adding at the end of the clause the following words: "or have in good faith incurred substantial expense in preparing so to do." This is to cover the case of those who have taken out patents during the time of the lapse of payments or who are contemplating taking out a patent and using it, and have gone to more or less expense in that connection. They may have their case brought before the commissioner in order that the equities may be taken into account and a decision given accordingly.


Jacques Bureau: Is there the right of appeal from the commissioner's decision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, to the Exchequer Court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-validity of pati/nds protected under orders or regulations during war:
Jacques Bureau: Is it not going rather too far to say that the war shall be deemed to end on the date of the coming into force of this Act?


George Green Foster: This clause is for the purpose of removing doubt as to the effect of the orders for the repeal of the several war measures regulations. It is fair to suppose that they are legal and binding now, but some people have a doubt in that regard, and this enactment is to clear away that doubt.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think that we should provide in the statute that the war
has ended, for any purpose. We do not need the subsection at all, it seems to me; the law will come into force when it receives the assent of the Governor General.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This subsection does not undertake to settle for any other purpose than the effect of these Orders in Council when the war ended. I understand that the reason why this is worded as it is, is that those orders, by their terms, were to continue in force during the war and for a year after the termination of the war. The purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the period begins to run when this Act comes into force, and to ensure that those orders will not continue in force for more than one year after the passing of this Act.


Jacques Bureau: Why for one year from the passing of this Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because the orders
were to continue in effect during the war and for one year thereafter. It must be remembered that the war has not, as a matter of absolute fact, ended. For legal purposes, the expression "the end of the war" has been interpreted as meaning that the end of the war comes when peace has been made with all of the powers with whom we have been at war. I understand that no peace has as yet been finally concluded with Turkey. I would suggest, to avoid this reference to the end of the war and to obtain the purpose that was sought to be obtained, that the following words be substituted for subclause 2:
The said orders shall continue in force for one year from the passing of this act and no longer.


Jacques Bureau: Why from the passing of the Act? That would make the orders continue in force until 1922 instead of 1921 according to the clause as it stands at present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we purely and
simply ratify them as we do by this clause, they continue in force until that indefinite time when we make a Treaty of Peace with Turkey and for a year after that indefinite date. What we are seeking to do is to limit the period of their being in operation to one year from now.


George Green Foster: I move to
amend clause 9 by striking out subclause (2) thereof and replacing same by the following:
(2) The orders referred to in this section
shall continue In force and -effect for one year

from the date of the passing of this Act and no longer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the committee reverted to consideration of section 5-time extended for paying fees.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think we had an opportunity of giving a satisfactory answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Glass) as regards his objection. The objection of the hon. gentleman, as I understand it, is that, by this clause, on the payment of fees, we give a longer delay than was required under the treaty. I understand he recognizes that we ought to do that as regards the United States, because of their legislation. In fact, with regard to them, we are not trying to comply with the treaty, to which they are not parties; we are trying merely to meet their legislation so as to have the benefit of
4 p.m. their legislation. That I believe to be clearly understood. The other difficulty that is put forward is that this Clause, being general in its terms, we are giving to all the parties to the treaty an extension of one year from the passing of this Act whereas we were only bound to give them an extension of one year from the coming into force of the treaty. The explanation that is given to me by the Commissioner of Patents in that regard, is that though it was true that we were only bound to give them a period of one year during which they could pay those fees, that meant a period of one year during which they could pay and during which, therefore, necessarily we were in a position to accept and receive. No provision having been made under which those fees could be received, though we were bound under the treaty to give them that year, we have not put ourselves in a position where we could accept the fees and enable them to get the benefit of the provision. I might make this suggestion that might be acceptable to the hon. gentleman. If he allows the section to pass as it stands, I will go into it with him and with the deputy minister, and if we do not arrive at a perfect understanding and if it should appear that modification is necessary, I think I could safely say that I would see that such modification was submitted to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, and read the third time and passed.
rSir George Poster.]

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 122, to amend the 'Civil Service Act, 1918, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, clause 1 had been read and was being considered. Mr. Euler had moved to strike out the words "nor in the public interest," in the fourteenth line of page 1 of the Bill. The question is on the amendment.


Mr. ETHIER:: 
Mr. CALDER:: On what day was that evidence given?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: On Wednesday, May 11. This evidence is to be found in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 5. To proceed:
Q. If you were asked-in case you were to be relieved of some of the work-if you were asked what portion of it did you think you could best be relieved of in the interests of the Service, what would you recommend?
We must not forget that these questions were based on the effect of section 38 of the Civil Service Act. The witness answered :
A. I would recommend that portion of the service that is less workable under our procedure. If it is found impracticable to get good results from any class of our work, that is the class I would recommend to exclude. It would not be necessary to exclude by a new Act of Parliament.
Q. Would you include the major portion of the outside service, for example?-A. That is not necessary.
Q. Postmasters, for example?-A. Well now I take it that the grounds on which postmasters are asked to be removed from the jurisdiction of the service are not valid grounds. If it is for any reason Parliament desires to remove the appointment of postmasters from the jurisdiction of the commission except that our machinery has fallen down, that we cannot cope with it, or on account of too long delays that impair the efficiency, if it is on any other grounds than these, take it away and we wont object, but what the commission objects to is this, to have assigned as the reasons for the removal that we cannot cope with the situation.
Q. You dont admit that?-A. No, I don't admit it.
Q. What I was trying to get at is, if it was decided the commission was overloaded, which portion of your work would you give up with the least disadvantage to the public service in your opinion?-A. Well, it would have to be demonstrated to the commission what particular classes it is found impossible to work under our procedure, and if we can be shown evidence to that effect we will voluntarily go and ask the Government to exempt that class from the provisions of the Act under section 38.
A direct question was asked the witness on page 121:
Q. Having regard to the preservation of the principles upon which the present Civil Service Act is based, namely, the elimination of political patronage, do you think, Dr. Roche, that the exclusion of postmasters, labourers, professional, scientific and technical officers from the jurisdiction of the commission would largely nullify the object of the Civil Service Bill?-

A. I would say if that clause passes in its present form it would mean driving- a coach and four through the Civil Service Act.
Q. It would hiring back the old conditions? -A. To a large portion of the service.
In other words, it would re-introduce the principle of political patronage which the Civil Service Act was intended to abolish. The chairman of the commission goes on to say:
It would be very materially abused and enlarged, and I am afraid it would be a constant source of irritation between the deputy heads and the commission by reason of this man and that man claiming to be a technical man.
Q. So this Bill will act as a repeal of the Civil Service Act to all intents and purposes? -A. I would say its abuse would result in that.
A question was asked of the witness as to how many classes of the Civil Service had already been exempted fr'om the operation of section 38, and he made the following answer:
I cannot recollect all the classes, but the whole of the Department of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment were exempted in so far as their temporary appointments were concerned because it was a temporary department, and we recommended owing to some of the difficulties we were having in temporary appointments away from Ottawa to the Governor in Council to exempt this department for the space of two years. Now the Governor in Council cut that date down for one year, made it one year. That expired this spring, and we recommended an extension for another year, and I believe they extended it for another year. Another department was the Soldiers' Settlement Board; for a similar reason it was cut down to one year, and extended another year this spring. There have been isolated positions where open competition was impracticable. Any class of positions that we saw it was demonstrated to us by the department or departments were impractical of being filled under the competitive system we have recommended exemption of those positions, and they have been exempted under the section of the Act.
So that there was no necessity at all for withdrawing section 38 of the Civil Service Act from the powers of the Civil Service Commission.


James Alexander Calder: Would the hon. gentleman maintain, in the case of the Department of Soldier Settlement and the Department of Soldiers* Civil Re-establishment, that it was "impracticable" for the Civil Service Commission to appoint stenographer's, clerks, accountants, and other members of their staff at Ottawa?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: According to the evidence of the chairman, and the Order in Council, which authorized the exemption in regard to these two departments, it seems that the commission found it impracticable.


James Alexander Calder: It was not.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Then why did the Government accept their report and grant the exemption?
Mr'. CALDER:	The only authority under the law which the commission could recommend an exemption was on the ground of impracticability. We all realize that in the case of these two departments, the commission could not deal with them, where staffs were being built up rapidly, but it was not on the ground of impracticability. As a matter of fact, both the commission and the Governor in Council broke the law in that respect-to meet a practical situation.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: We ar'e not responsible
if the Government broke the law.


James Alexander Calder: We are trying to put
them in a position where the law would not be broken.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The facts are there; they were expected, and the chairman of the commission clearly states that where it was demonstrated that any positions could not be filled practically under the competitive system, they could recommend the exemption of them under the Act. And when they deem fit, under that section of the Act, to exempt or except from their jurisdiction such and such classes of civil service positions, they used that provision and were ready to use it, and they say it was not incompatible and not outside their capacity to deal with the labourers, the postmasters or the professional men in regard to appointment, or increases of salary or other things. I may as well.answer the questions I put, and it will be the beginning of my remarks. What was the purpose of the original Bill? We understand very well that, with reference to manual labourers, postmasters in small towns or offices, and perhaps technical officers, it is quite difficult for the commission, especially in the case of manual labourers, to appoint men who have been on the farm, working in the bush, with the engineers on the surveys and so on, but this has been cleared up by the evidence which I will read in a few minutes. I will give my personal opinion. When I first saw that Bill exempting from the Civil Service authority those three classes of civil servants, I believed that the object in view was in relation to the coming election. In taking such action we are putting aside the principle of the original Civil Service Act of 1908, and we are going back to political patronage and those manual labourers, postmasters, or professional officers, being taken out of the jurisdiction of the Civil

Service Commission, would have fallen again under the political patronage of the party in power. This is being done this session. The next election, coming next year or next fall, there will be political patronage in the hands of the Government which has prepared that Bill, according to my view only for the purpose of taking that political patronage in relation to these classes away from control of the Civil Service Act. Everybody knows that in the past on the eve of elections moneys are voted for public works all over the country. The government votes money for buildings here and wharves there, and so forth, and, having the power to appoint those manual labourers, to appoint postmasters, then on the eve of an election they would not have to go to the Civil Service Commission to appoint their men, and probably the candidate of the Government would have the political patronage. That was the intention of the Bill at first, but it was not passed, and the whole section was dropped by the Civil Service Commission after the evidence of Dr. Roche and others. I will quote the evidence of the director of the Experimental Farm, Mr. Archibald, the evidence of Dr. Coulter, deputy minister of the Post Office Department, the evidence of Mr. Johnston, deputy minister of Naval and Fisheries Department in a few minutes. Mr. Archibald, of the Department of Agriculture, stated very clearly in his evidence, in regard to the manual labourers of the farm: We need not go to the commission, we have the power to appoint temporarily for a month or so, a temporary employee, and after that month we refer that employee to the Civil Service Commission, and they issue a certificate authorizing us to employ that man permanently. He declares positively he had no trouble in the administration of the Agricultural Department concerning the experimental farms. He had no trouble since the law has been passed, and the service is as good as it was before. So that there was no harm in the exercising of discretion of the Civil Service Commission under section 38 in that special department. And it was the same in the others. Dr. Roche was asked:
Q. To what extent can you carry that matter of exemption?-A. Wherever under any provision of the Act it is shown to be impracticable to have appointments made in open' competition, we have the power to recommend to the Governor in Council the exemption from that particular clause of the Civil Service Act.
Q. Could you, for example, carry it into effect with regard to the entire staff of the department, if you desired?-A. Yes. Well, of course, the Act provides now for the exemption of railway employees, and also for appointments on ships.
Q. But you have additional powers beyond that?-A. Yes, we have under that same section 38.
Q. Is there anything at all in the service, excluded from your control, with regard to exemptions?-A. We have just two of those departments, and a number of different positions which it was found impracticable to fill.
This word " impracticable " or " practicable " seems to have been mixed up with the word " possible " by the hon. minister in his remarks. I do not know if he did it intentionally but he was playing on words. I think he knows the difference between " practicable " and " possible." The hon. minister quoted from the evidence: Mr. Foran in giving evidence mentioned, for example, the appointment of a stenographer in Vancouver. Mr. Foran was asked:
In connection with the foreign appointment I presume after this all came into force the commission felt it had to carry out the law?
And Mr. Foran answered, " Absolutely." Then the minister went on to say:
What did this mean? It meant simply that when we passed the law two years ago, if a trade commissioner in Melbourne wanted a stenographer in his office, he had to apply to the Civil Service Commission in Canada, and the Civil Service Commission in Canada had to go through all the rigmarole in order to appoint a stenographer away off in 'Melbourne.
And he speaks about clerical appointments in South America, Australia, South Africa. He says it is impossible. He says, " Well, yes, it may not be possible to put in force. It might be impracticable to put in force that section 38 in regard to those appointments out of Ottawa, but it is not impossible. It is possible, but it being declared impracticable they fall under section 38, which gives jurisdiction to the Civil Service Commission to declare it impracticable, and also gives the permission to the department to appoint that agent in South Africa or England, or that clerical man in Vancouver, without having the authority of the commission. That is clearly put before the House by the evidence which has been given.


James Alexander Calder: Taking the case of our chief astronomer in Canada, there is only one man in the entire service that holds that position; would the hon. gentleman say that it is either " impracticable " or " impossible " for the Civil Service Commission to make that appointment? I claim that it may not be in the public interest that the Civil Service Commission

should undertake that appointment, but it is both practicable and possible that they might make the appointment. Thera is the distinction I tried to draw. Take the illustration we had before the committee, where the Department of Public Health now is looking for a research man to carry on medical research work. There will be only one man appointed. I claim that it is in the public interest that the department itself should make that appointment, and that it is neither impracticable or impossible for them to make that appointment.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: That would Jge true of every appointment.


James Alexander Calder: I think there are several positions in the Civil Service which they should not fill, which I do not think it in the public interest that they should fill.
"""" Mr. ETHIER: In regard to that class of exemption, one of the chief reasons given by the minister was the delays which on account of section 38 occurred in the appointment of civil servants. Here is a question put by Mr. Mackie:
Take, for instance, a mining rush up into a portion of the country under the jurisdiction of the Dominion fire rangers; it is found that a fire warden is immediately necessary in that district for safe-guarding from fires. If the department had to make application through the Civil Service Commission for a fire warden, and two or three months elapsed before the appointment was made, what is liable to happen in that country as the result of the delay?
That is a very reasonable question. This is the answer made by Dr. Roche:
-A. Evidently you are not acquainted with the provisions of the present Act. The department can put on a man to-day and keep him there for thirty days without our permission at all.
That is the law.
It is only after the employment has lasted for thirty days that we are asked to furnish a certificate. As a matter of fact, we can extend that time. In emergency appointments away from Ottawa-
And here is the point that concerns appointments in Australia, and other distant parts. What does Dr. Roche say:
In emergency appointments away from Ottawa the Civil Service Act provides that the department shall have the right to put on a man immediately, so that they do not have to wait.
So the reason given that delay in appointment caused inefficiency in the public service falls by this declaration and by the Act. I wish to quote another answer by Dr. Roche, in regard to the supposed facts alluded to by Mr. Mackie:

By Hon. Mr. Calder:
Q. What provision is there in the present law regarding- that?-A. Section 38 provides-and I am speaking in effect now-that where it is impracticable to apply the provisions of the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Commission shall recommend to the Governor in Council the exemption of a particular class. I use that as an illustration to show the Commission is not grasping unnecessary work. Goodness knows, if they took away the whole outside service it would be a relief to us, but it is the principle of the thing we think would be unfortunate, but under that section of the Act the Commission found it would be better from the standpoint of the public service, rather than have constant irritation and friction going on between the department and the Commission, that the temporary appointments in connection with the Soldiers' Settlement Board should be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act for two years. We recommended that until they could get down to their permanent establishment. The reason we did that was because the offices out West were taking on men and making promises of salaries that were beyond the salaries provided in the Civil Service Act, and we did not wish to be responsible for this.
The trouble did not come on account of the Act, but it came on account of the lack of co-operation between the Civil Service Commission and the deputy heads of those two departments.
They would take on men without knowledge of their qualifications at all, so that we recommended to the Governor in Council the exemption of these employees, and we did the same with the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
Those are two illustrations where the Civil Service Commission came to the conclusion that on account of such appointments being made under those circumstances it was impracticable to apply the law, and they r'ecommended the exemption of those two departments also. I continue: '
If it is found that there is any other class where it would be better for the service to be dealt with in this way, where it is impracticable or practically impossible to apply the Act, we would only be too pleased to recommend the exemption of that class under that section of the Act, and it does not require an amendment to the Act at all.
Am I not right in stating that this Bill is altogether useless and unnecessary when the chairman of the Civil Service Commission has given such evidence? The re-' port should have been based on his evidence, but it is not. Dr. Roche continues:
You may say, why have you not done that in connection with the postmaster?
That is a just reflection on the Bill'.
Well, because we have not discovered that any fault was found by the department, or that our system is not practical and working out to advantage. If it had been otherwise we would have asked for the exemption of the postmaster. It is only necessary to state that out of some thirty-eight hundred postmasters

appointed by the Civil Service Commission since February, 1913, there have not been complaints, directly or indirectly, made to the Civil Service Commission in more than one per cent of the cases. Can you find a system that can be devised by the mind of man where there is so little complaint? There are no doubt some complaints made that do not reach the Civil Service Commission, but they are of a political nature-that is the people here have not been educated up to the viewpoint that it is right and proper for any opponent of the Government to get any position, and therefore there has been in a locality some complaint, about a man being appointed because he was a supporter of the Government, but you cannot help that in connection with appointments under the merit system so that X say that is one ot the best illustrations to show the Act has not been operating to the detriment of the service. The Deputy Postmaster General has never complained that he is getting an inferior class of men, because we are utilizing his own officers, so that we can recommend the exemption of any class under the existing Act without amending it.
After this evidence alone it seems to me

and I believe it will be the view of other members-there was no reason for the original Bill, and it was not necessary to bring back the Bill in its amended form, for it still contains the idea which was behind the first Bill-a return to patronage. I think I have proved that this Bill was unnecessary, and that the purpose of it was to go back to political patronage, and that it was useless on account of not adequately covering the whole ground.
Now, as to delays-it covers that also- the delays were explained by some of the deputy heads of departments who came before the committee.
Take for example, the evidence of Mr. A. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I quote the following from the report of the evidence:
By Hon. Mr. Calder:
Q. I have heard it stated time and again that as a result of the action of Parliament in handing over to the Civil Service Commission the classification of the service and the fixing of schedules that there has been a struggle spread throughout the entire service grasping for higher positions and higher salaries because the whole mass of them do not get just what they want. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction?-A. That is my opinion. I had hoped to avoid saying it, but that at all events is my judgment.
By Mr. Griesbach:
Q. What about the discipline in the department?

A. So far as I am concerned, I have not a single complaint to make in the matter of discipline. I don't think the discipline in our department at all events has suffered in the slightest. I don't think so.
By Mr. Euler:
Q. Don't you think the unrest you speak of throughout the department among all classes is the result of the re-classification and that that will not be permanent?-A. It may not be permanent, but X have no expectation it is going to be permanently settled.
By Hon. Mr. Calder:
Q. Is the struggle still going on for higher classification on the part of the civil servants? -A. Yes, it is in our department.
Q. For higher salaries? Are they still appealing for higher salaries?-A. Yes, there are quite a number at the present time, I think.
Q. I suppose the time will come when that will all end?-A. Yes, but we will all be dead then.
It appears, therefore, from the evidence adduced before the committee in respect to one department-and it reflects the condition which prevails in all departments of the service-that any inefficiency which may exist is the result not of the Civil Service Act of 1918 but of the classification which was imposed on the commission -the classification made by Griffenhagen and Associates and Arthur Young and Company. In fact, the reorganization of the Post Office and Customs Departments is now actually proceeding; it is being done by Wolff, one of the associates of Griffenhagen. We were told at the beginning of the session that the services of these people were to be dispensed with on March 31, of this year; that the public service was to get rid of them, hut it appears that they are still working. I hope they will not do in the Post Office Department what they did in the Printing Bureau in destroying most important documents. The trouble, I say, is due not to the overloading of the commission with work but to the classification. It was stated before the committee that these so-called experts were asked by the commission to make this classification. I hold in my hand a copy of the Order in Council with regard to the appointment of these so-called experts. It is dated May 31, 1920, and reads as follows:
"The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 28th May, 1929, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, submitting as follows:
The contract made with Arthur Young anld Company by the Civil Service Commission is about to expire and the work therein contracted for has been very nearly complete. This work included the production of a system of classification of the Civil Service and the reorganization of the Department of Public Printing and1 Stationery.
I hope that the report of Judge Snider will show how that reorganization was carried on in the Printing Bureau.
Arthur Young and Company have transferred to Griffenhagen and Associates, Limited, that branch of their work which specially has to do with the reorganization of municipal and governmental civil service and the organization of business corporations in respect to staff organization and plan of work of the Arthur Young Company upon the same plans and with the same efficiency as the original company and is

prepared to continue the reorganization/ of the public Departments of the Government along the tines pursued In the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. The Committee referred to has no hesitation in commending in the strongest possible way the work of Arthur Young and Company in connection with the reorganization of the Department of Public Printing.
Further on it says:
They are of opinion-
Referring to the committee of five.

that the services of Griffenhagen and Associates, Limited, should be retained.


Mr. CURRIE:: The hon. member knows very well that the committee to which this Bill was referred did not take into consideration anything at all in connection with Griffenhagen or the firm of Young and Company. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman will confine himself to the evidence which he has been reading- evidence, by the way, with which we are all familiar, but to which the hon. gentleman has been giving his attention most of the afternoon.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The hon. gentleman himself took up most of last night, and in reading his statement the minister occupied an hour.	,


John Allister Currie: I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the question whether the hon. member has the right to discuss Griffen-hagen and Associates and their work under this clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind hon. members that we are now in committee on a Bill the principle of which was adopted by the House, the whole matter having been subsequently referred to a special committee for consideration. The discussion, therefore, should be relevant to the clause which is before the committee. Clause 1, which is now under consideration, is in effect the report of the committee and therefore what took place before the committee, may, I think, be quite properly reviewed here. But I am of the opinion that the employment of the firm of Griffenhagen and Company to reorganize one or more departments is not a matter which can properly be discussed at this stage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I remark, Mr. Chairman, that when the Bill was in the committee stage the other day the Minister of Immigration delivered a long address which could not be replied to because he spoke until six o'clock. In that address he referred to the general features of this new Bill, so I think we should have the right to refer to those matters.


James Alexander Calder: My address occupied
about twenty minutes, and I did not cover anything that was not included in the report of the committee.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. My point is that any delays in the matter of appointments or any inefficiency in the public service is due not to the Civil Service Act as it stands but to the extraordinary manner in which the reclassification of the service was made, and under which the Civil Service Commission is bound to act. Now, the director of the Experimental Farm stated that twenty-four members of his staff, technical officers of the most efficient type, resigned their positions on account of the classification which was made, and that that branch of the service could not secure men to take their places within a reasonable time, owing to the fact that the salaries under the classification were not sufficiently high. If the public was deprived of the services of those efficient officials, that was due, not to section 38 of the Civil Service Act, but to the classification which the Civil Service Commission is bound to follow and exercise. So much for the delay. There is in the West an experimental farm-I do not remember the name of the place- for which the Department of Agriculture could not get a qualified director, after having given notice three or four times as required by the regulations of the Civil Service Commission, on account of this ridiculous classification which has been put into force by this Government. All the clauses in the original Bill have been dropped, and the Government now comes with the same section 38, which exists in the Civil Service Act, except that after the word "practicable" in that section, they insert the words "nor in the public interest." If the commission decide that it is impracticable and not in the public interest to apply the Act, then a particular class will be excluded. Why insert the words "nor in the public interest" when it is already proven, as I think I have shown, that the commission do not want the Act to be amended; that they could go on efficiently administering the public service with the Act as it stands. Why insert the words "nor in the public interest"? I contend that this is a question of principle. Has this Parliament the right to delegate to a third party, to an independent court, its power to decide what matter or course in the Dominion is of public interest? It is the right of Parliament to decide whether it is in the public interest or not to

pass a clause or Bill which is before it. This committee has not the right to delegate that power, and it is unfair, unjust and illegal to delegate our power to a third party like the Civil Service Commission and to say to them: "You will decide if it is in the public interest to exempt such a class." At first they deprived the Civil Service Commission of the word "practicable", but they leave that word and they give more power to them; they say: "You can decide if it is in the public interest." My hon. friend says that this must be submitted for approval to the Governor in Council. That is very good, but it is proven that the commission, on nearly every occasion, acted according to the recommendation of the head of the department or the minister. The head of the department will go to the commission and say: "We have decided that it is in the public interest to exempt such a class."


John Allister Currie: I do not think the hon.
gentleman is fair to the minister. He knows very well that there was no evidence to show that a minister recommended any appointment to the commission.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I think mention was
made of a gentleman who was appointed at Dorchester penitentiary, who is a brother of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister had something to do with that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me tell the hon.
member that the Prime Minister had absolutely nothing to do with it and that the Minister of Justice had absolutely nothing to do with it; that it was done on the principle of promotion by the Civil Service Commission.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member knows
that very well.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: At all events his name
was mentioned in the evidence and the name of the Prime Minister! was also mentioned. It is mentioned that this appointment was made, and it happens that the gentleman appointed was the brother of the Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The appointment was
made in the most ordinary course.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman
give the evidence on that point?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The hon. member can
read the evidence when he is on his feet. I am not surprised at the objection of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie).


Mr. ARGUE:: The hon. member is
making a statement which he says he is taking from the evidence. I want him to put the evidence on Hansard.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The evidence is annexed
to the report. The hon. member can read it.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member is in
a very invidious position if he cannot produce the evidence.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: This is the evidence:
By Hon. Mr. Oalder:
Q. In the first place recommended by the previous warden, recommended by you and by the deputy?-A. Yes, I don't remember whether the deputy minister recommended him or not.
I am not positive about that, but I know the minister did.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Who is giving that evidence?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: General Hughes, superintendent of penitentiaries in . Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: General Hughes must have misunderstood.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: At all events, that man was sworn and he said this:
I am not positive about that, but I know the minister did-
Recommend it.
By Hon. Mr. Calder:
Q. But at any rate it was not made on the straight recommendation-
"Straight"-playing on words.
-of the 'Minister of Justice, I think, his recommendation alone?-A. I think the commission acted on his recommendation.
That settles the question.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows very well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: Let us go easy on this thing. The witness says that he thinks the Minister of Justice made the recommendation. Let us ask the Minister of Justice who made the recommendation.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: You can ask-


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows very well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I may suggest to the
hon. member for Simcoe-


John Allister Currie: When the noise subsides-


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a wellknown rule of procedure that two hon.

gentlemen cannot occupy the floor at the same time.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I will suggest to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that, if he wants further information, he should ask for the laying on the table of the House of all correspondence with regard to that appointment, and he will get the information. As I was saying before, the only change made in the Act is the insertion of the words "nor in the public interest." I contend that these words should not be inserted, because
5 p.m. they mean the delegation of the powers of Parliament to a third party which is not responsible to Parliament. The ,hon. member for East Simcoe says: "But this is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council." I answer him by saying that the Governor in Council will, as heads of departments have always done, suggest this to the Civil Service Commission: "You will do such and such a thing, because the present condition is not in the public interest." They leave out the word "practicable". If this section is not amended every branch of the service could be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission and be brought under political patronage, simply by the Government declaring that sue a a step was "in the public interest". I think that this Parliament should not be deprived of the right of declaring whether or not it is in the public interest.
I do not agree altogether with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration in his remarks the other day, but I do agree with what he said at the end of his speech, which seems to directly contradict the principle of the Bill which he has presented to the House. What did he say?
Personally, I am inclined to the view, although I doubt if the commission themselves
are, from discussions I have had with them,_
not before the committee, but more or less offhand after our meetings-that we should put the exemptions that are made in the statute; but probably it would be better for a year or two to elapse before that is done. Let us first work the thing out a little further.
I quite agree that it would be advisable, for the protection of the commission, and of Parliament, and of the public, that these exemptions should be reported upon to Parliament, setting forth the reasons why the exemptions were made in particular cases.
I agree with that, and I think my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) would be satisfied if that were done, or if these words " nor in the public interest " were struck out. Let the commission prepare a list of the classes which it seems impracticable for them to administer and [The Chairman.]
let those classes be approved by this Parliament and put in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, I regret to have occupied so much of the time of the committee, but I considered that it was my duty to make these remarks. I have done so solely from the point of view of the public interest, and from no other motive. I trust that the amendment of my hon. friend from North Waterloo will be accepted. I have no objection at all to seconding it.


Mr. BEST:: I want to say a very few words on this question. It seems strange to me that the tan. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ethier), who was a member of the special comimiit-tee that considered this Bill, should find fault wnith the Bill that is now before the House in the way he has. I also have some fault to find with it, but the fault I find is that it does not go far enough. When I heard the hon. gentleman not more than five minutes ago speak of this Parliament delegating powers to two or three men who are not responsible to the people, and not responsible to Parliament, I thought he was telling pretty near the truth. What has this Parliament done? It has delegated to two or three men in Ottawa all the powers of a federation that is the strongest in the Dominion of Canada to-day. We have a federation here for which the people of this Dominion pay $67,000,000, and the amount is increasing every year. These are people who tell us what we are going to do, and where we get off at. I went to an office in the West Block a few days ago with two other hon. members, and we were discussing the expenditure of money on highways. I said that it had reached"such a stage that the people were beginning to find fault with the extravagance, and no wionder. What was the answer I got from that civil servant? The answer was " To hell with the public." That is what he told me. They tell you to-day, and they tell the people of this country, where we get off at. The Parliament of Canada has no say over them at all.
. CALDWELL: Which cabinet minister was it that made that remark?
. Mr- BEST: I did not say it was a Cabinet Minister. I said it was a civil servant that made that statement. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) was a member of the special committee that considered this Bill, and he has told us of the witnesses that appeared before that committee. It is strange that the only witnesses called before that committee were

deputy ministers and civil servants. There in the committee room was the Chairman and the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission sitting listening to all the evidence that was given by men who were under that commission. There were men who told me "We dare not give evidence. If we told the truth, our heads might go off." Is it not strange that the only ones who gave evidence were the parties interested, and that the Chairman and the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission should he right there watching them and listening to every word they said? I do not think there ever was a committee appointed by this House where such a ridiculous thing occurred, and where witnesses gave evidence before those who controlled them. If they did not tell what was expected of them, off would go their heads, if the commission wished.


Mr. EULER:: Does not the hon. gentleman realize that the witnesses gave their evidence under oath?


John Best: I certainly realize that, but I know that many would try to save their 'bread and butter even if tkey had to stretch the truth. I do not think there should be a law compelling men to give evidence under the eyes of the men who have control over them. It is not right. There is not a court in Canada where that would be done.
Probably patronage was abused in the past, but I do not think that the people of Canada ever expected that this delegating of power to the Civil Service Commission would go as far as it has. I am informed that there is no other country in the world where such great power is given to the Civil Service Commission. I do not see how we in Canada can boast of our democracy, if we are going to hand over the business of Parliament to two or three men, and have no say in it whatever ourselves. I heard an hon. member a few weeks ago say that the civil servants in one province, I think it was in New Brunswick, were all collected in one county, and that they should be scattered around, but of course he had no say, and the Government had no say, as to how those civil servants should be distributed-the Civil Service Commission appoints them just where it sees fit. And strange to say their salaries are increasing all the time. We are paying out $67,000,000 on the Civil Service now and the people's representatives have no say as to what shall be paid. The commission regulates that matter for us, and if things go much further, they will very soon be regulating everything else. Hon. gentlemen opposite have often told me that they believe the present system of running the Civil Service had worked great injury in many cases. I believe it is not in the interest of the public that two or three men should have power to run this country for us. I am opposed to commissions. I have stated on several occasions in this House that the Government has appointed too many commissions. Nor do I believe in Orders in Council; I am opposed to them, although sometimes, of course, they are necessary. I believe in the people's representatives ruling, but when the Civil Service Act was passed, there was more taken out of their hands than all the other measures that have been introduced since Confederation have withdrawn from the control of members of Parliament.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member criticises very severely the fact that the witnesses gave their evidence in the presence of the Civil Service Commissioners who, he states, are their superiors or masters. Does the hon. gentleman know that the witnesses consisted almost entirely of deputy ministers, who are not appointed by the Civil Service Commission at all? I do not think that after any civil servant is appointed he can be dismissed by the commission.


John Best: Were not many of the witnesses the heads of different branches'?


William Daum Euler: Not many; most of them were deputy ministers; but even if they were, the commission has no power to discharge them.


John Best: The commission decides who are to be the heads of different departments.


William Daum Euler: It has no power to dismiss civil servants.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The deputies are appointed by the Governor in Council.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: As a member of the special committee, I want to say a few words on the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill, in the first place, because of the addition to section 38 of the Act of the words "in the public interest," I believe that a very broad interpretation can be placed on those words, and I fear that if they were put into the law that interpretation would be placed on them. Now, in my opinion there was really no justifi-

cation for the Government's introducing this legislation at all, and I believe it was introduced at the direct request of certain members supporting the Government who want the patronage. The evidence given before the committee proved, to my mind at any rate, that at this time there is no need whatever for the change asked for in this Bill. The member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) stated that there had been a huge increase in the cost of the Civil Service. I want to tell him that, shortly after the election of 1911, some 1,000 or 1,100 persons left the Civil Service of Canada, and their places were taken by as large a number as 2,000 or more. That was dona before the Civil Service Act of 1918 came into force, and under a Government of which the hon. member was a supporter. I do not think, therefore, that his criticism should be directed at the Civil Service Commission. I think that every one recognizes that patronage, as we had it in Canada prior to the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1918, was a real evil, and the Union Government, in its manifesto to the electors in the fall of 1917, declared that they would abolish it. In the session of 1918, the Civil Service Act was introduced and enacted. That Act placed upon tha commission a very heavy duty, and in addition to the regular work which the Act involved, the reclassification of the whole service threw upon them many extra duties. I think that this reclassification was well done, and the appeals under it have been fairly disposed of. In view of the onerous duties which were cast upon them, it is not surprising that there should be room for some criticism of the commission, but in my opinion, if given time, the commission will prove to Parliament and to the people of the country that they can evolve a really efficient service which will mean a great saving to the country.
I would bring to the attention of the House some of the things that transpired under the old patronage system. At page 332, of the evidence given before the committee, Hon. Dr. Roche was asked this question:
Do you know of many cases where postmasters, or other Government officials, without sufficient cause, have been removed on account of the Government going out of power?
His answer was:
Scores and scores.
Hon. Dr. Roche had experience both as a member of Parliament and as a minister of the Crown, and therefore his evidence comes with all the more weight Now, if we wanted a specific illustration of how 
patronage prevailed in this country, I could read to the committee an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of January 4, 1912, shortly after the election of September, 1911. The article in question is an editorial under the caption "Major Currie's Firing Squad." The article states:
Yesterday we made some references to Major Currie, M.P., and the bountiful favours which he said the Borden Government would proceed to confer on Collingrwood.
Collingwood, I may say, is in the riding of North Simcoe, which the hon. member represents.
We quoted an interview in which he deplored the evils of the patronage system, saying it has been the curse of the country. "Surely,'' he exclaimed, "something should be done to mitigate this evil!"
At that very time the major appears to have been mitigating the evil in his own way. We are informed by correspondents that Mr. D. G. Bell, postmaster of Stayner, in (Mr. Currie's constituency, received notice on Friday last of his dismissal from that position and the appointment of a successor to take office on Monday morning.
No previous notice had been given, no charges made, no investigation held. The Liberal postmaster was dismissed from office on three days' notice, and a Conservative successor appointed. Mr. Bell's standing in the community is shown in the fact that on the day his dismissal went into effect he was elected mayor of (Stayner by a large majority over his opponent, a leading lawyer in the town.
But the case, as it has been given to us by indignant correspondents, is more flagrant than this bare statement makes it appear. When the Liberals came into office in 1896 the postmastership of Stayner was held by an appointee of the Conservative Government and for fourteen years of the Laurier Administration the widow of the postmaster was left in undisturbed possession until in September, a year ago, she wished to retire. The postmastership was offered to Mr. D. G. Bell, on condition that he purchase the building from her and continue the office in the same premises. He bought the building and became postmaster on October 1, 1910. iNow he is dismissed on three days' notice, the office is taken to other quarters, and the building is left on his hands.
Mr. Bell is a Liberal, but claims that he took no part in the recent elections beyond casting his own ballot. It is reported from Stayner that two other postmasters in the district, who had received their appointment while the Liberal Government was in office, have received the same peremptory dismissal. "And this," says one of the correspondents "in a constituency where three, if not four, of the principal post offices are filled now and were filled through the whole term of the Laurier Government by appointees of the Conservatives when last in office." The spoils system, he says, was unknown. Now it has been introduced in its most ruthless form.
"Party patronage," says Major Currie, M.P.,
"has been the curse of the country. Just think,
this system has given over eighty-five per cent

of the Government jobs to the Grits, eighty per cent of them heelers. Surely something should be done to mitigate this evil." Then he smiles and gets busy. He calls for a list of the spoils of war and proceeds to apportion them among his captains. He seems to have a military man's idea as to how to treat a conquered country. Where there is not a vacancy a firing squad can soon make one.
I submit to you that if the hon. member for North Simcoe could do such work as an ordinary major, what will he do now that he is a full-fledged colonel?


John Allister Currie: I will give the hon. gentleman his answer if he will kindly take his seat.


John Frederick Johnston: You will have a
chance.


John Allister Currie: I do not think you are
entitled to ask me a question without allowing me to answer?


John Frederick Johnston: I have not asked a
question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has
asked a question.


Georges Henri Boivin: With regard to the
practice in the House of putting questions to members on the other side, without giving them an opportunity to .reply, strictly speaking, under the rules the member has the right to do so. The hon. gentleman who is not in possession of the floor must wait his opportunity.


John Frederick Johnston: I did not ask the hon. member a direct question, or I would have been only too pleased to have given him the floor. In connection with this matter, it was pointed out by other officials before that committee that patronage was practised to a great extent in this country prior to 1918, and I believe that with the inclusion or insertion of these words in section 38 (b) of Bill 122, there is the chance that we will revert to that condition; and for that reason I am absolutely opposed to it, and hope the committee and the House will not accept this Bill. This matter is well sized up in an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal, Monday, May 23, entitled "The Commission and the Evidence." The article reads:
Opponents of Civil Service reform and critics of its administration by the Civil Service Commission were pleased when it was decided to bring on an inquiry into the operations of the commission by a committee of the House of Commons. Members of the Commons desiring a return to patronage believed they would condemn the commission and the merit system in
this inquiry. They would, they felt, have little difficulty in showing up the evils of the present system under cross-examination of witnesses before a committee of themselves.
What, as a matter of fact, did the inquiry in this committee of the House of Commons bring out? Why, just the opposite of those expectations.
The test of the present system was the experience under it and the opinions regarding it of those who are affected by it in the operation of the public service. There could be no better test. Nothing could have been a better guide to the committee than what might be termed the expert evidence of those especially qualified to testify as to the functioning of the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission-deputy ministers, heads of branches, representatives of Civil Service organizations. And this expert evidence, contrary to previously mentioned expectations, was almost unanimously favorable to the present system and to the commission. The burden of the testimony was that, except in some minor respects, the merit system as administered by the Civil Service Commission had improved the service and been to the advantage of the public interest.
In view of the very heavy task it has had and! the amount of criticism to which it has been subjected, lit is gratifying that the Civil Service Commission should receive such a splendid testimonial, such a fine "character", from the inquiry. And it is well that this result of the inquiry should be impressed on the public, because of the importance of the successful administration of the Civil Service.
That editorial sizes up my view as to the evidence adduced before that committee, and I cannot see any reason why we should interfere with this matter at this time. There are certain things in connection with the service that if given time I believe the Commission will work out and give a real service to this country.


John Allister Currie: It is not my intention to discuss this Bill at any great length, but I rise to answer the statement the hon. gentleman has read from the Toronto Star. He might have looked in Hansard at that period and he would have found an answer to that very statement. The facts are that Mr. Bell, of Stayner, took the public platform against me. He was warned absolutely that if he did he would lose his position, and he lost his position. And what are the facts? Under the law he had a perfect right to call for an investigation as to whether he should he thrown out of this position or not. He had not the courage to make application for this investigation, because he knew very well he was absolutely guilty. I never took anybody out of a public office. Under the old law if a civil servant took the public platform, or engaged in canvassing against a member of Parliament, he knew he forfeited his head. To-day the same thing is in effect.


John Frederick Johnston: He did not take the platform.


John Allister Currie: 1 saw him on my opponent's platform. My word is as good as his. He never even challenged the statement, and never asked the department to investigate the facts, as to whether he should be dismissed or not. If he thought he was not guilty he could easily have asked for an investigation. He knew very well there were hundreds of witnesses who would have told the truth about it, and he was guilty of this thing. He took his chances and he had to take his medicine, he and two others, and there was not one of them ever applied to the postal deparr-ment for investigation. If a civil servant to-day under the Act has the audacity to go out on the platform against an hon. gentleman in this House, I would be the first to say that man should lose his position. That absolutely justifies what I did. The Star is playing politics, as we all very well know. It was the most partisan journal all through the fight, and sent out a wagon load of its literature into my riding. Every farmer got two or three copies, but they voted for me just the same because they did not believe what the Star said. With reference to the Bill, I to some extent agree with the hon. gentleman who seconded that motion. I thought and I believed that the Bill should have been brought down, but I was confronted, and we were confronted before that committee all the way through, with the statement that the Civil Service Commission were unable to meet the situation through press of business. The question was summarized towards the close of the evidence by Mr. Calder who asked Dr. Roche at the close what he thought should be done. It will be found on page 365, and Dr. Roche stated there that he thought the proper thing to do, instead of adopting the Bill that we had there, was to make an amendment to clause 38, just as we have done. We have taken the advice of the commission, and it is up to the commission. This is what they wanted. They did not want to have a Bill with a long list in it. They wanted this amendment, and we granted them this amendment, doing exactly what they wished. For that reason, I do not see that there is any justification for anybody to rush out with a speech of an hour and a half defending the commission. I am quite willing to give them a fair chance, and that they should have another year, to see if they can get a classified list and to see what shall be done. I am quite willing 
to say that there shall be an amendment, if it should come to that, added to the Bill, requiring the Civil Service Commission to report every year. I would go much further than the committee has done, because I believe we are building up a great big bureaucracy, which is the antithesis of autocracy. We have taken away from the people in the constituencies any right to say who shall be appointed, who shall' govern, and who shall act. We are taking everything in the way of administration away from them altogether. And we shall find the same condition will obtain in this country in a year or so as obtains in Great Britain, that nobody can become a member of this House unless he is able to spend $4,000 or $5,000 in his riding to maintain an organization. That is not democracy to my mind, and if anybody in this House searches his heart he will realize it is not. Under the old law the members of the committee in the various polling subdivisions were not clamorous for the various offices, but they thought they had something to do with governing the country, and they liked to feel that they would be consulted occasionally as to appointments. You have taken away all interest in parliamentary work from them with these bureaucratic methods, which are the absolute antithesis of democracy.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member
think that if this amendment passes it is a step towards the old conditions which he would like?


John Allister Currie: I do not for one minutej but I am fair enough. I charged that commission with various things, and in the evidence everything was proven. I charged that people were not appointed by examination, that they were chosen, and that others came to write on examinations when the jobs were already filled. That was proven. And it was also proven that the commission could not cover the appointments of postmasters and other small appointments. Mr. Foran, who is a very clear-headed man, on the matter of these appointments said that it would require an expensive organization all over the country if the work was going to be done thoroughly. The hon. gentleman himself said that he would rather have the original than this Bill. But I do not want to be considered as desirous of going out and saying that this commission was acting wrongly; they were not.


William Daum Euler: I did not say I approved
of that Bill, though.


John Allister Currie: They thrust upon this
commission work which the commission was incapable of doing, and the evidence of Dr. Roche and Mr. Foran is to that effect. They were asked why they could not take this list and classify various positions, and they replied that they were busy with other classifications, and, besides, that if they did it they would be violating the law, and they required that the gate he widened, as was stated several times throughout the evidence. I am trying to deal fairly with this commission; I want them to get a chance. I do not think they can succeed. I am frank to say that another year will show this House and the country that it is impossible for the commission to carry on the work the way they are doing it now, but I am quite willing to give them the chance. I will guarantee that so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, if the fates of war should decide in their favour at the next election, the commission will not last twenty-four hours, from what I am told by members on the other side. They are practical politicians. I understand them very well, and they should be frank with the House. When Dr. Roche came down he gave rebuttal evidence before the committee against every witness we had heard, but when he finally came to a conclusion-the hon. gentleman has read his evidence at the beginning-and was asked to give his views as to what he thought should be done, he was frank enough to acknowledge that after hearing all the evidence he would suggest that these words he added to the Bill. This is the suggestion of the chairman of the commission. The evidence is before all the members and they can find out. We are doing exactly what the commission require, and for that reason I think the House should be united in its action.
A good suggestion was made by an hon. member on the other side, that the commission should report annually to this House. I think they should report annually in a full and comprehensive manner, not only on this but on everything they have done, so that every year we can discuss their report and find out whether they are properly discharging their duties or not. But we have placed this commission above this House-that is the idea of the commissioners themselves-and I say no commission and no individual in this or any other British country is above the House of
Commons. That was demonstrated two hundred years ago. Now, let the commission have their way this year. If the result is not satisfactory to me, I am going to bring the matter up again next year, and I am going to try to take the Outside Service out of the hands of the commission entirely.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks made this afternoon, and I wish to say briefly that I am opposed to this Bill in toto and shall vote against it. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says there is no power in the country above the House of Commons. That is true. In England also, there is no power above Parliament, yet there he would not find one single member who would belittle himself by looking after patronage. It is admitted that they have in Great Britain, after seventy-five years' experience, the most efficient Civil Service in the world. In the United States they have copied the British system. And Canada ought to strive to imitate what the Mother Country has done in this regard. Therefore I say in reply to my hon. friend's remark as to the paramount power of the House of Commons, there are things which this Parliament must do and will do, but there are otper things that it can well refrain from doing, and that above all should be the distribution of political patronage.


John Allister Currie: The evidence of the commissioners themselves is to the effect that we have gone further in one year than Great Britain or the United States did in fifty years, and that the bulk of appointments in those countries are not under their Civil Service commissions at all. Those are facts which were given under oath. Has the hon. gentleman read that evidence?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have read the evidence from day to day and have followed very closely what took place in the committee.


John Allister Currie: Surely the hon. gentleman saw that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: But I know under what circumstances the commissioners appeared before that committee. We know there is an attempt to discredit that commission in order to reach once more the goal which some people have in mind, namely, a return to patronage. Well, I am opposed to political patronage. If ever chance wills it that members on this side of the House shall pass over to the other side, I want the Liberal party, just as I want the Con-



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
servative party, to look after the real business of the country and leave to an independent body the management of the Civil Service. My hon. friend says that we have undertaken to do in one year what it took several years to do in the Old Country. There is some truth in that. A wave of reform-and, I should say, of folly-* has been sweeping over the country during the last few years. We have adopted woman suffrage, and we may regret it some day. Prohibition has been adopted in many of the provinces, and many already regret it. We have done many other things on the crest of that wave of folly, excitement and passion which has been passing over the country. Indeed, there is much force in the old saying that "too much of a good thing is good for nothing." There is also an evil which since the war discredits the name of the nation-the divorce evil. We have the record during the present session of one divorce a minute dealt with by the committee of the Senate. Sir, it has made of Ottawa the Reno of the northern part of the American continent-that is not a very enviable fame. Yes, my hon. friend is right: we have undertaken too much. But if any drastic reform could be regarded as proper it was the establishment of the Civil Service Commission. I speak very frankly on this matter: at first I was personally opposed to the stand taken by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) when two years ago he introduced that measure, but since the functioning of the commission and the placing of the whole Service under its control I have found it a great relief to members of Parliament. I am willing to accept the challenge of my hon. friend from North Simcoe; I suggest that the Act be allowed to remain as it is for another year, and when that year shall have elapsed my hon. friend will be one of the first to say that the machinery of the Civil Service Commission has come to run smoothly.
John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman at one time had charge of a department, and I never heard a word against the administration of patronage during his regime. Does he remember the case of the Toronto post office? There was an attempt to have the minister set aside an old civil servant there because he happened to be opposed to the minister in politics, and he refused to do it. He proceeded in a manner which resulted in benefit to the service; he appointed a Tory there against the views of the Liberals of West Ontario. I would far

rather leave the administration of patronage to an hon. gentleman such as the hon. member for Maisonneuve than to such an organization as the Civil Service Commission. There never was as much trouble in connection with the Toronto post office during his regime, when it was a matter of dealing largely with Tories, as there is at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that my hair turned grey during that regime-I was between the devil and the deep sea all the time. If my hon. friend has any regard for a reasonably long tenure of life on my part he will let the Civil Service Commission continue to operate- because I am quite confident that within a few months we Liberals will be called upon to manage the affairs of the country. First, then, I say:	Do not tamper with
this Act. The operations of the Civil Service Commission involve the payment of a very large sum of money-some $67,000,000 a year. In the case of the banking institutions of the country we do not revise the laws and regulations except every ten years. In the case of the tariff we make no revision until after a certain time has elapsed; it is too important a matter to be tampered with every year. I would do the same with the Civil Service Commission. I am opposed to this Bill because that commission is composed of men as independent as the judges who administer our laws. The merit system which has been introduced into this country, and which found no stronger and more eloquent advocate than the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) who is now leading the House, should be given a chance. It is a new departure in Canada. Let us live up to the promises, aye the sacred pledges made by gentlemen on both sides of the House when through the leg-islation_in this respect adopted two years ago we declared this country virtuous. I believe in the merit system. This Bill is opposed, by the commission, by the independent press of Canada, and generally by public opinion. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) stated, when he introduced the Bill the other day, that the commission had had an enormous task to perform. That is true, and it is because of the very extent of the task that there may have been some disappointments in the administration of the Act. The reclassification in itself was a tremendous task, and although some mistakes were made we must give the commission credit for having accomplished it. It is evident that if

they had not had the task of reclassifying the whole service we would not hear to-day the complaints that are made against them. It is natural that in connection with the reclassifying of thousands of civil servants all over Canada there should be some complaints. We have great problems to deal with, and having regard to the present financial commitments of our country why should we subject members of the House to the temptations which go with the exercise of political patronage? The saner portion of public opinion is not in favour of any such revision of the Act as is contemplated. We should give it a chance to be administered during a certain number of years. Sir, I know what a part politics plays in the matter of patronage. We are fresh from an election in the county of Yamaska. I took part in that election, and I will tell the House what is the honest truth. I myself saw, and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) saw, electors in the possession of telegrams signed by party heelers inviting them to go to the nearest town and get a job in the dredging works of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not say that the Minister of Marine was responsible for it; I am quite sure that he will not foot the bill when it is presented to him. But I know that in one instance Mr. Lacouture, who is agent of the department at Sorel, received instructions-not officially from the department, but from another gentleman, my hon. friend's colleague the Postmaster General, who was in the county-to give jobs on the dredging plant to fifteen men from Pierreville, one of the chief localities in that county. I do not say that it is a crime. Both parties in days gone by probably did the same thing at election time.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: I know nothing whatever about the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not charge the hon. gentleman.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The dredging is being carried on in the usual way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and I dare say, when bills are presented to my hon. friend, he will not accept them, because I do not believe he ever gave such instructions. But my hon. friend can take my word that they were given. I have seen people who received the telegrams, who -also have copies of the telephonic messages ordering Mr. Lacouture to take electors for a week preceding polling day on the dredging plant. Is there any hon. member on this 2841
side or on that side who wishes to revert to that devilish system of political patronage, especially during election time? Let us get free from that system and give the commission an opportunity to exercise its full authority under the protection of Parliament. Let that commission administer the Act free from all influences. I was not a political friend of Dr. Roche nor of Mr. Jameson when they sat in this House. They were, however, both personal friends, but as a Liberal, dyed-in-the-wool,
I have the utmost confidence in the honour of Dr. Roche and Mr. Jameson; I fully trust their integrity, and Parliament should support them and Mr. LaRochelle as well.


James Alexander Calder: Might I have the attention of the House for only a minute or two? We shall not be able to finish with the Bill until after eight o'clock. There is just one point that I desire to make at the present time, and that is that my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has not dealt with the main question contained in this Bill, that is, whether or not there should be any exemptions under the law. The question is whether or not the Civil Service Commission should have entire jurisdiction over all persons appointed in any branch of the service in any part of Canada. There is no use in our spending hours discussing the question of political patronage; that is not the question. I thoroughly agree, and I dare say that every member of the House agrees, as regards the question of promotions being made on merit and so on. But the main question is whether or not we should require the Civil Service Commission to deal with all questions of appointment in every branch of the Civil Service throughout the whole of Canada. Let us see what the commission itself said as regards that point at the very end of the evidence and not at the beginning.
This will take only a minute or two, because I propose at this time to make only two quotations. Mr. Foran and Dr. Roche came as two of the chief witnesses of the commission. This is what was said by Mr. Foran on May 16 when the inquiry was practically completed. As reported on page 360 of the evidence, he was asked [DOT] this question:
Would you say. In the light of all the evidence that we have had-you have heard most of it and I dare say you have read what you have not heard-that it would he advisable for the Civil Service Commission itself to take into consideration the whole situation in that regard-

We were talking of the question of exemptions.
-and come to a conclusion as to the classes of employees that might very well in the public interest be taken from the operation of the Civil Service Act?
His reply is this:
X am in a position to say this: That the commission have from time to time considered the advisability of preparing their exemption list, because in every Civil Service jurisdiction in the world there are exemption lists. We have never had time to devote to that work, which is important, and the necessity of it is impressed upon us from time to time by appointments which have come before us to which we did not consider it was practical to apply the Civil Service Act, and if it had not been as I pointed out this morning, that we had this reclassification problem on our hands, I have no doubt the exemptions lists would have been in existence some time ago.


William Daum Euler: Does that not show that
he felt that he had power to grant exemption under the Act as it stood?


James Alexander Calder: We threshed out with
the commission the importance of effect or value of the word "practical," and no person is better acquainted with the evidence than my hon. friend is.


William Daum Euler: His mere statement that
they were considering drawing up lists shows that they thought they had the power to do that under the Act of 1918.


James Alexander Calder: That may be. I will
not discuss that phase of the matter just now.


William Daum Euler: That is the vital part of
it.


James Alexander Calder: This is another ques->
tion which was asked Mr. Foran:
To put the case a little more concretely- and I am not going to ask you to reach a decision-take the case of those light-houses at isolated places where there can be no real competition, don't you think the commission should consider whether people of that class should be exempted?-A. Dr. Roche can tell you that he practically decided, as far as such appointments are concerned, that they should be exempt, because it is impossible for us to handle them in any efficient way. It is a case where you have got to look up the men. You cannot have any competition for positions of that kind. The point which the commission is very anxious to make clear is this: we have had this work imposed upon us. We have adopted the most practical and business-like methods, the most inexpensive methods of dealing with these appointments.
Only one other quotation and I am through. This was a series of questions asked by the member for Edmonton West, of Dr. Roche:
Mr. Griesbach:	You have sat at all the
meetings of the committee and have heard all
['Mr. Ca.lder.]
the evidence. Has your mind moved along the road to the point where you think that in the public interest some of these classes of employees might in the public interest be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act?
Not because it was practicable

the hon. member asks if, in the public interest, they should be removed from the operation of the Act. Dr. Roche's answer was "Yes."
Mr. Griesbach: Your mind has moved along that line?
Hon. Mr. Roche: In fact, I do not know that I could not go a little further and say that so drastic a measure at one step, such as taken in taking in the whole service was too big an undertaking, and in view of my desire to have and maintain the best Civil Service Act in the world, I would not like to have any retrograde step unless an assurance is forthcoming that it is absolutely necessary. I know that we have a Civil Service Act that is more advanced than that in the United States, in England, or in any other country; but I am anxious to see the commission given time to work it out, and we will have more time in future to pay attention to the provisions of the Act when we get this huge undertaking of classification out of our way, as we will have it cleared up before next session.
My main point is this-and it goes right to the crux of the whole Bill;-it is not a question of appointing a wharfinger, or a labourer in some lumber camp or survey party, or a clerk at Ottawa or a lighthouse-keeper on the sea-coast; the whole question is, taking the entire Civil Service throughout Canada, whether it is advisable, in the public interest, to provide that the Civil Service Commission should not exempt all the Cases which we have required. Dr. Roche, as well as Mr. Foran, the secretary, state, not only in the quotations that I have given, but in others that they deem it is in the public interest that they should have that power. Where does the power rest? It is not with the Government. The Civil Service Commission must decide what classes shall be exempt, and they must have clear reasons for those exemptions. If we add to the Bill a clause that they shall report to Parliament every exemption they make and if, further, they have to state the reasons for the exemptions they make, I think Parliament and the people are well protected. After hearing all the evidence, and knowing the manner in which the Civil Service has been operated during the last two years, I maintain it is in the interest of the public and of the Civil Service that there should be certain exemptions.
"As I said the other day, no one is more opposed to patronage than I am, but I want to see the public business of this country run properly, and I claim there are certain powers that have 'been handed over to that commission that are operating in the other

direction, and the public service is suffering as a consequence.	\* -
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.
DIVORCE-ALPHONSE LeMOYNE de MARTIGNY
On the Order: House again in committee on Bill No. 120, for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny.-Mr. Ross.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. King, that this Order be discharged from the Order Paper.
Motion agreed to and Order discharged.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.-Mr. Spinney.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose, clause 1 of the Bill was under consideration, with the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Euler. Mr. Euler had moved to amend the clause by striking out from line 14, on page 1 of the Bill, the words "nor in the public interest."


James Alexander Calder: We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on this Bill, and when it was before the House the other day a suggestion was made to the effect that an amendment should be made providing that an annual report should be submitted to Parliament by the Civil Service Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who made that suggestion?


James Alexander Calder: It was made by the
leader of the Opposition. The suggestion was that an annual report should be made to Parliament by the Civil Service Commission, setting forth all exemptions made under this proposed section, and also the reasons for such exemptions. The report, it was stated, should contain the regulations passed by the commission and approved by the Governor in Council, for dealing with any positions that were exempted, in whole or in part, from the operation of the law. That matter has since been considered, and I understand that the minister in charge of the Bill is prepared to move that amendment. Probably, under the circumstances, the member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) might be willing
to let his amendment go for the time being. Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the whole situation another year from now. In any event we have had a very full discussion, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by discussing the matter at further length. After all, it turns largely on one point, and that is as to whether or not the Civil Service Commission should be given power to exempt certain classes from the operation of the law on the ground of public interest. When you boil it down, that is the main contention between the parties who have spoken to the Bill, and it seems to me that we might let the law, as proposed, operate for at least one year, and Parliament will then have an opportunity, knowing exactly from the report of the commission what action is taken, to consider the whole question at the next session. Personally, I am strongly inclined to the view, from the attitude of the commission itself, that they will exercise that power with very great discretion, because the commission, I feel confident, is very anxious that what is ordinarily known as political patronage should not again enter into the administration of the public service. There is no one more anxious than they are to see that the principle embodied in the law of 1918 is carried out, and during this year, and until Parliament meets again, the matter might very well be left to the commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At 6 o'clock I understood the Minister of Immigration and vice-chairman of the select committee (Mr. Calder) to say that the whole question at issue, in relation to the report of the committee on this Bill was whether the Civil Service Commission were to make all appointments to the public service, or whether some services were to ibe excluded from the operation of the Act. In a sense, that is true, because I think we all agree that, in some circumstances at least, it might be deemed advisable to withdraw certain sections of the public service from the Civil Service Act; but I do not think that is the issue in the section now before the committee for decision. The Bill contains the words "In the public interest," and the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has moved that they be struck out. I agree with that amendment. I think that the section as it stands in the Act of 1918, without these words, is sufficient to accomplish the purposes which we all agree upon, namely, that if it is in the public interest, or in the interest of a section of


the public service, to withdraw certain classes from the operation of the Act, the power is now amply set forth in the Act, and there is no need of making any further amendment.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. member answer the question which I asked an hon. gentleman very squarely, and which he did not answer? In the case of astronomers and medical research men, would my hon. friend maintain that it was practicable for the Civil Service Commission to make those appointments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the insertion of these words, "in the public interest," was first suggested, I must say I was impressed with the proposal, although I do not like and never did like the use of the words "in the public interest" in any statute for the reason that it is almost impossible to give a definition to the phr'ase, and it is never wise to use these words if they can in any way be avoided, particularly in a statute. But I was satisfied that the words should not be in the statute when the minister spoke this afternoon and made the statement-a very direct statement-which he has just put to me in the form of a question. I say it is practicable for the commission to appoint a person to the astronomical service, or the Health Department for the purpose of carrying on research work, and I think it is in the public interest that the commission should make appointments of that kind.


James Alexander Calder: There is where we differ.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, and that goes to show that the words "in the public interest" are capable of such varied interpretation that it is dangerous to employ them in a statute or even in ordinary speech.	,.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: What
qualifications have the Civil Service Commission to select eminent scientists capable of conducting research work?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Of all appointments to be made to the public service by the Civil Service Commission, none could be more easily made than the appointment of persons to the astronomical service or of scientific men to the Health Department.


Peter McGibbon: That is not answering my question.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be an easy matter and the Civil Service Com-

mission are as competent to do it as is the minister, the deputy minister, or anybody else in the world. What are the facts concerning these particular appointments? In the first place, the qualifications of such men are well known; they can be found only in a person who has pursued scientific studies, and adopted a scientific career as his life's work. Furthermore, in such appointments, the Civil Service Commission always like to confer with the heads of departments, and these appointments are infinitely more easily made than the appointments of stenographers or clerks, because it is difficult to ascertain the qualifications of such persons; they must be taken very largely as a matter of experiment. But the university career, the practical career of a scientific man is an open book to his friends, to the world, and certainly it would be to the commission.


James Alexander Calder: I do not know whether or not the hon. gentleman has read the evidence, but my judgment as to the weight of the evidence that came before us is that in the case of these very special appointments, the men whom you wish to get will never submit themselves to competition. That is the way the evidence struck me.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Take the
case of appointments to the astronomical service; every man in Canada who has any qualification will apply.


James Alexander Calder: You will not get the
right man.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government service is the only one they can look forward to. Nobody in Canada employs an astronomer, and there would not be more than two or three persons in Canada who would make application for such a position.


James Alexander Calder: In so far as these very special technical, scientific appointments are concerned, the weight of evidence, is that you will never get the men you really want for those positions to submit themselves to competition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not read the
evidence very carefully. I know an argument of that kind was submitted by Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, but I must say I was not impressed with it.


James Alexander Calder: Practically all of them said that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not care what the evidence is.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Because the salary is
not high enough.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It depends on the
person in control how the witnesses are examined. Perhaps the views of the commission were not clearly directed to this particular point. If I had been on that committee, and examining any member of the commission, I fancy I could have got from him the opinion that the insertion of the words "in the public interest" in section 38, of the Act, was an unfortunate amendment to propose.


Peter McGibbon: Did the
hon. gentleman ever know of a scientific appointment where applications were made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, yes.


Peter McGibbon: It is not the custom in America or Europe.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The vice-chairman of this committee undertook to establish by two unfortunate illustrations-


James Alexander Calder: Very fortunate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: [DOT]-very unfortunate from his standpoint, a defence for the proposed change suggested by the committee, and which is now one of the clauses of the Bill. To say that an appointment of a scientific officer to the Health Department could not be made by the Civil Service Commission is a proposition I do not affirm at all, and I do not understand why he made that suggestion.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman is
not quoting me properly. It is not the case of an ordinary appointment to the Health Department. I stated that they were proposing to start certain research work in the Health Department. There will be one man appointed, who must be specially qualified for undertaking the research work, and I conceive that they will have the very greatest trouble in securing the services of that man. But instead of that, my hon. friend suggests that the Civil Service Commission should advertise and get applications from here, there and everywhere, and that somebody should sit down and decide as to which applicant should be appointed- I claim the Health Department itself which knows exactly the type of man required, the character and training and everything of that kind, is in a -better position to appoint that man than any Civil Service Commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All my hon. friend
says would be applicable to the appointment of any person to any position in the public service.


James Alexander Calder: A stenographer, for
example.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I say again that the Civil Service Commission could make just as good an appointment to the Scientific Branch of -the Health Department as could the head of that department, and I say, in any event, that the Civil Service Commission would confer with the deputy minister in making the selection. But under the Civil Service Act you are applying a principle in regard to appointments to the Civil Service, and you cannot go on picking out one position here and one position there and putting it without the Act, or taking it from within the Act. If it is in the public interest that appointments to the Astronomical Branch be taken from under the Civil Service Act, some minister is going to suggest that the same thing be done in his department. You would have the same suggestion in another department, and perhaps still in another department, and in the end you would find the invasions against the Act so numerous that it would be virtually destroyed. I say, the insertion of the words "in the public interest" 'in this section is an unfortunate selection of words. They are not workable terms. They are terms that always should be eschewed, especially in reference to their insertion in a statute or in any document, and even when they are employed in spoken language before a popular assembly, they are not regarded as very definite, and they are open to many interpretations. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the word "impracticable" there means something. It was intended to meet the case which the committee was considering. There is another word, "inexpedient," which perhaps is preferable to the word "impracticable," because that word recognizes the policy or the principle that in certain cases or instances, it is not desirable for one reason or another to adhere to the principle, but to depart from it. I do not know that I can add anything further, Mr. Speaker, other than to 'say that I quite agree with the amendment suggested.


William Daum Euler: I desire to clear up one or two little misconceptions that I thought might arise in the minds of the members of the committee from the remarks made by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder). He spent some time this afternoon in proving from the evidence that it

is advisable that certain other classes, or certain other employees, should be withdrawn from the operation of the Civil Service Commission in the public interest, and apparently left it at that, to show that what they suggest in their amendment will meet the case and that it is the only way to meet it. I want to point out that those of us who dissent from the view of the majority of the members of that committee do not necessarily find fault with ~That attitude at all. we are willing to admit that there are other employees in the Civil Service who might very well and profitably be withdrawn from the control of the Civil Service Commission^ but we differ as to the method by which that should be done. The amendment would give the power to the commission itself to make these exemptions just as they please, so long as they felt they were in the public interest-a very wide term, which I contend will give the commission power to exempt any part of the Civil Service from the operation of the commission, and so nullify the will of Parliament as expressed in the Act of 1918. I would like to refer to another remark made by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best). He referred to the evidence that was given, stated that the witnesses were examined under the eye of the Civil Service Commission, being themselves civil servants, and intimated that they would be in some fear as to their treatment if they gave evidence that did not meet with the approval of the Civil Service Commission. I pointed out to him then that the main witnesses who were examined were themselves deputy ministers and not appointed ' by the commission.


John Best: You will admit that they were not all deputy ministers?


William Daum Euler: There were eight deputy ministers and only four of the witnesses were ordinary civil servants. Those deputy ministers are not appointed by the commission, but by the Governor in Council or by the minister. Therefore, there could be no possible fear in their minds as to the treatment that might happen to them if they gave evidence contrary to what perhaps the chairman of the commission might desire.


John Best: If it is a good thing for the Civil Service Commission to hire men and women at $2, $3 or $4 a day, why not give them power to appoint the deputy ministers? If it is a good thing in one case, surely it would be in the other.


William Daum Euler: That is not the law. As I understand, deputy ministers are not appointed by the Civil Service Commission. But this was directly contrary to the assumption of the hon. member for Dufferin. As a matter of fact, the deputy ministers who were examined by the committee are directly under the control of the Government, and the majority of them gave evidence that, I think, was directly contrary to the views perhaps of the one minister, their direct superior, who sat there as vice chairman. Therefore I say it is something in favour of the present Civil Service Act that the great majority of those deputy ministers, despite the fact that over them sat the chairman and vice chairman of that committee, gave evidence which did not bear out the advisa>bility of what we have tonight in the amendment to the Bill. So far as the chairman of the Civil Service Commission is concerned, if the evidence is searched carefully it will be found that he prefers to leave the Bill as it is, for some time at least. There is no possible doubt about that.


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon):: What
ground has the hon. gentleman for saying that the evidence given by those deputy ministers was at variance with the opinions held by the vice chairman of the committee?


William Daum Euler: This is the ground: Nearly all the deputy ministers, who were heard, with the exception of the first two or three, were in favour of leaving the Civil Service Act as it is in respect to appointments, so that there would be no likelihood of political patronage being exercised again. I say that the amendment which is proposed does make it possible to reintroduce political patronage. That is my reason for saying what I did.


Alfred Thompson: But as a
matter of fact the deputy ministers are not appointed by the Civil Service Commission at all.


William Daum Euler: That is what I say.


Alfred Thompson: And the
commissioners of the Civil Service Commission are appointed by Parliament, and can only be dismissed by a majority vote of Parliament, as I understand it. So the deputy ministers and the commissioners are on an equal footing; the deputy ministers do not owe their position to the commission, and the commissioners do not owe their positions to anybody except Parliament itself.


William Daum Euler: That bears out what I said.
I was trying to make the point that the deputy ministers, who were the majority of the witnesses, could not possibly have any fear of the commissioners because they were not under their control.


Alfred Thompson: I misunderstood my hon. friend.


William Daum Euler: Just one word in regard to the chairman himself. In the early part of his evidence I think he expressed the view that the Act should be left as it is, for a year at least, by which time the classification trouble would he got rid of and the commission would have an opportunity of getting everything in proper order. I do not mean to be unduly critical, but I think it is the fact-and hon. members on the opposite side will agree with me-that leading questions were put constantly throughout that evidence, and that in many cases it was almost impossible for Dr. Roche and some of the witnesses, unless they showed very considerable force of character, to escape giving the answers that they were intended to give.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Undue influence?


William Daum Euler: They were leading questions. I think my hon. friend will know what that means. The few instances that have been given by the Minister of Immigration with regard, we will say, to scientific men and others, do not touch the question at issue to my mind. I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that an astronomer possibly could be selected to better advantage by the head of the department. My point is that the inclusion of the words "or in the public interest" will open the door so wide that the commission will have it in its power to effect a complete change of policy from what was contemplated in the original Civil Service Act. That power ought to be reserved to Parliament.	_
I understand that the Minister of Immigration proposes another amendment to the effect that during the recess the deputy ministers and the Civil Service Commission may get together to decide as to what other employees should properly be exempted from the operations of the commission, and report to Parliament. Now, I quite agree with that suggestion-I made it myself-but there is this difference between us: The minister would give the commission power to make those exemptions, in other words, to have an accomplished fact and to report to Parliament. My contention was that they in their wisdom should come to a decision so far as was thought advisable in regard to what changes should be made, but that they should not have the final say, but should come with their recommendations to Parliament, and that then Parliament would deal with those recommendations on their merits. There is the difference. In the one case you transfer the power to the commission, and in the other you retain the power in the hands of Parliament.
I stated the other day, and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has dwelt upon it I think with very great effect, that under the Act as it stands to-day with the word "impracticable" the commission has all the powers that should fairly be given to it, if you want to make certain that they will remain within the Act as was intended when it was originally passed.
I just wanted to clear up the point, that this is not a question whether we are in favour of exemptions or not; it is a question entirely as to method. For that reason I do not agree with the amendment that I understand the minister is going to propose, because it does not touch the real, vital principle of the Bill as it is presented. He would ask Parliament merely to pass upon what has already been done; 1 would say that Parliament should retain the doing of it for itself. There is no manner of doubt injny mind, and I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members opposite, that while it may not be the intention just now of those members or of the commission to reintroduce the exercise of patronage, it at once becomes possible if that phrase is included in clause 38. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) who complains constantly that the commission has already too much power, and then is going to vote in favour of an amendment that will give them infinitely greater power. But I do think the committee should realize absolutely, as I think most of them do, that if the amendment carries, whether or not patronage comes in, it will be made possible within the law.


Mr. FRIPP:: If the hon. gentleman will allow me a question, .is he under the impression that the commission at the present time appoints labourers and mechanics required by any department?


William Daum Euler: I know-


Alfred Ernest Fripp: You know that they do, or that they do not, appoint them?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure whether they do or not.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that the commission do not appoint them.
Mr.' EULER: Very well, what is the argument the hon. gentleman desires to make?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The argument is, that instead of the commission appointing these men, they are appointed by the officers of the department, and those officers are exercising patronage. They simply send in a list of their appointments, and the commission approve of them without any investigation whatever. That is the point I should like to make.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member not know that under the Act as it stands, with the word "practicable" in clause 88, it is quite within the power of the commission to exempt those labourers? In fact, if they do not exempt them they may be remiss in their duty. In some cases, especially on the experimental farms, an ordinary, common-sense working arrangement was carried out which gave very satisfactory results.
Amendment (Mr. Euler) negatived.


Mr. SPINNEY:: I move to amend clause 1 by adding to section 38b as subsection 2 thereof the following words:
(2)	An annual report shall be made to Parliament within thirty days from the commencement of each session, by the Civil Service Commission, setting forth the positions excluded under this section in whole or in part from the operation of the Act and the reasons therefor, together with the regulations prescribed and approved for dealing with such positions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Mr. CRONYN:: I beg to move that the following be added to the Bill as clause 1A thereof:
1A. Section thirty-nine of the said Act, as amended by the said chapter 10, is repealed, and the following section is enacted in lieu thereof:-
39. (1) Immediately after each examination a list of the successful competitors in the case of a competitive examination, and of successful candidates in order of merit in other examinations, shall be made out and published in the Canada Gazette.
(2) The Cavil Service Commission shall prepare and maintain a special list of persons in receipt of pensions by reason of their services in the war, nineteen hundred and fourteen to nineteen hundred and eighteen, who
(i)	have from causes attributable to such service lost capacity for physical exertion to an extent which makes them unfit efficiently to pursue the avocations whioh they were pursuing before the war,
(ii)	have not been successfully re-established in some other avocation, and

(iii)	desire to be placed on such list.
The commission shall obtain as full particulars of each person on such list, including particulars of his age, education, physical and mental condition, resources and responsibilities, as it is possible to obtain from all available records.
In all examinations fosr entrance .into the Civil Service the persons named on such list who are found to possess the necessary qualifications shall be placed in the order of merit on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates.
(3)	In all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service all persons other than those mentioned in subsection two of this section who have been on>
active service overseas on the military forces or who have served on the high seas in a sea-going ship of war in the naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of His Majesty during the war, nineteen hundred and fourteen to nineteen hundred and eighteen, who have left such service with an honourable record or who have been honourably discharged, or when any persons who have served as aforesaid have died owing to such service the widows of such persons, and who in either case obtain sufficient marks to pass such examinations, shall, irrespective of the marks they have .obtained, be placed in the order of merit on the list of successful candidates next after any candidates who are on the special list mentioned in subsection two of this 'section and above all other candidates.
(4)	The provisions of any statute or regulation prescribing the age limit and physical requirements with respect to any appointment in the Civil Service shall not apply to any persons with the military or naval service mentioned in subsection two or three of this section.


Mr. POWER:: I do not wish to object
to this provision, but I wish to point out that under section 4 of the Act it is provided that the regulations prescribing the age limit and physical requirements with respect to any appointment to the Civil Service "shall not apply to any persons in the military or naval service mentioned in subsections 2 or 3 of this section." For the present I do not think this matters very much, but in ten, fifteen or twenty years, when our returned soldiers have become somewhat older, if this provision stands our service will be clogged up with returned soldiers who are past the age limit for appointment and whose qualifications may not be as high as the qualifications of the ordinary civilian. A returned soldier fifty or sixty years of age, provided he is able to pass the entrance test, will be placed in the order of merit higher up than the ordinary young man who wishes to enter the Civil Service. If we intend to form old soldiers' homes it would be better for its to provide the money for that purpose than to place these men in the Civil Service. It will be bad for the country and bad for the soldiers themselves to have them understand that as soon as they get old

enough they will be placed in the Civil Service for life provided they can pass the examination. I presume the fact that they do not need to have the physical requirements to be appointed means that, even if they have passed the age limit and no longer have the physical requirements, if they are in the service, they cannot be put out. I presume that would be a natural corollary, so that we should be in this position, that is twenty-five or thirty-five years from now the Civil Service will be chuck-full of old soldiers who will not be in a position to work, or to give the country the service which it has a right to expect.


Hume Cronyn: The proposed amendment as regards subsections 1 and 4 simply re-enacts! what is already on the statute book, without the change of a letter or a syllable, so that the objection raised by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) deals solely with a provision in the law which was passed by this Parliament some three years ago. It is not one of the questions which we considered this year, and is simply re-enacted from the statutes of 1918. The only change made in subsection 3 is one which extends the right of preference beyond members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force to those who served on the high seas in a sea-going ship of war in the naval forces of His Majesty. That amendment was made on the representation and suggestion of certain of those men who, on applying for this preference to the Civil Service Commission, were advised that, on the wording of the Act as it stood, that preference could not be extended to them. On their petition and on representations of the Department of Naval Service, the committee decided that that amendment should be made. The chief and real amendment is found in subsection 2, where there has been made a still further preference in aid of disabled men. Disabled men now not merely have the preference extended to all returned men, but they are put in a separate class by themselves. If they have the qualifications and can pass the necessary examination, their names go to the head of the list in advance even of their comrades who are sound and fit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Without
having passed an examination of any kind?


Hume Cronyn: No, they have to pass the examination just as the fit men do, and they must have the necessary qualifications.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: As regards this amendment, I would say that I am not against
protecting the returned soldiers in the country. The country and Parliament should make provision for them, and I think their services have been well recognized by this Parliament. But if we go on filling positions in the Civil Service of Canada in this manner, within two years we shall find that we shall have a military Civil Service. I think we should limit the preference which is given to returned soldiers on many occasions when they are not qualified, because to give them the preference in that case would have a tendency to make the Civil Service inefficient, as it is in some instances. I object to the amendment.


William Cameron Edwards: As regards the point just referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier), it has been made abundantly clear that returned soldiers must pass the Civil Service examinations just the same as those who are not returned soldiers. Having proven their qualification by passing the Civil Service examination, why should they not be put in the Civil Service, and what is it against the Civil Service if every man in the Civil Service is a returned soldier who has proved himself to be qualified? I cannot understand the viewpoint of those who object and say: "We will reach a time when possibly all our civil servants will be men who have served overseas." Supposing we do, is there anything wrong in that? Is there any danger to the country in that? They have to pass a test examination. Having done so, they should have the preference. We should not play fast and loose in this matter. If we are going to give this preference, we should do so.
I wish to direct this question more particularly to the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn). Reference was made to those who served in the military or naval forces. I may not have caught all that was read, but I did not catch that men who served in the air forces were included. Am I right in supposing that they were not included, and if not, why should they nos be included along with those who served in the military and naval forces?


Hume Cronyn: The Act makes it clear that they have been included. It says:
All persons who have been on active service overseas.
I do not think there is any question about their being included.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is included in the words:

Who have served on the high seas in a seagoing ship of war in the naval forces of His Majesty.
During the war a large number of ships were employed by this country in Canadian waters, performing, I have no doubt, very valuable service. In many instances these ships were employed within harbours doing necessary and important work. If we include that class of men, we should consider whether a preference should be given to them over any other person or class of persons in Canada. Did my hon. friends have any officer of the Naval Department before them to assist them in determining the meaning of these words and what persons would come within the definition?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Probably my hon. friend (Mr. Cronyn) would allow me to reply briefly for him. Until this change was made to which the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) refers, sailors who served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the war were not placed on a parity with soldiers who served overseas. This is to put the Canadian sailor on an equal footing with the soldier. It alludes only to Canadian officers and men who served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the war.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is perhaps dangerous to express an opinion upon a matter so delicate as this without having on opportunity of considering the matter, which opportuity I have not had. I am inclined to doubt very much the wisdom of extending a preference of this nature to all persons who served with His Majesty's Navy during the war. I, of course, have not in mind Canadians who were serving on any of His Majesty's ships, who were liable to be, or who were engaged in action, or who were employed in dangerous or hazardous work. But I doubt very much the wisdom of placing in this position persons who were in His Majesty's service and who were doing, say, harbour work, during the war. It may be that the persons I instance do not come within the terms of this clause, but I want to be sure about the matter, and I am rather disposed to feel that they would come within it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think the Act
makes it abundantly clear; it refers only to those sailors who have served on the high seas. Any of the men in the Naval Service who were simply on shore, for instance in the dockyard at Halifax, would not be included in this at all,

but I am sure that my hon. friend will agree with me that the Canadians who served in the navy on the high seas are perfectly entitled to what this Bill intends to give them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What ships would come within the definition of those that served on the high seas?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I could not give my hon. friend the names of all the ships at the moment, but there would be the "Rainbow," for instance, the "Niobe," and the mine sweepers and trawlers that were operating on the Atlantic coast.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The committee, I suppose, gave consideration to this, but I doubt very much if this question has been given the full consideration it deserves. While I do not intend to oppose the amendment, I have very grave doubts myself. I am very sorry indeed that this amendment has been moved to the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. TRAHAN:: I move to amend the Bill by adding thereto the following:
Section 33A of the said Act as enacted by chapter forty-one of the statutes of 1920, is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
(11)	Epiphany Day.
(12)	Ascension Day.
(13)	All Saints Day.
(14)	Conception Day.
In accepting this amendment the House will only be endorsing the pledges which were given to it by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), and by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) regarding Catholic religious obligatory holidays. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that the question came up for the first time last year on an amendment made by the Senate. The House did not concur in the amendment made by the Senate, and we did not press a motion to the effect I have now made because the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. member for King's, assured the House that Catholic civil servants would not be disturbed in their privileges as to obligatory religious holidays. Later on, in November last, it transpired that an order was issued in all the departments here at Ottawa and in other cities, that Catholic civil employees had to work on the religious obligatory holidays. At the beginning of the present session, we asked the Government to carry out the pledge which was given to the House by the former Prime Minister, and during the month of

May the present Prime Minister in answer to a question that I asked on the Orders of the Day stated that in the future the religious obligatory holidays would be observed in the Civil Service.


John Allister Currie: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that notice of this motion should have been given. I do not find any notice of it in the Votes and Proceedings.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. member to cite the rule under which notice is required for an amendment to a public or government Bill. There is a rule which requires notice of an amendment to be moved in Committee of the Whole to a private Bill, but I know of no such rule in the case of a public Bill.


John Allister Currie: It has always been customary to give notice. The hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) gave notice of his amendments in the Votes and Proceedings, and I think the hon. member for Nicolet should have done the same. Whether there is a rule or not it has always been the practice in this Parliament to give notice.


Arthur Trahan: The right hon. the Prime Minister, in answer to a question which I put on the Orders of the Day, stated that in the future Catholic civil employees would enjoy the privilege of not working on obligatory religious holidays. I understand that after that, in order to put all the civil employees on an equal footing, an Order in Council was passed declaring that Ascension Day was to be considered as a legal holiday throughout the Civil Service. The amendment which I propose is only for the purpose of legalizing the pledges which were given on that occasion by the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember when this question came up last year on an^ amend-TTiont made by the Senate to the Civil Service Act, the little exchange of argument that (took place between my right hon. friend the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and myself, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall quote what was said on that occasion, June 26 of last year.


Mr. CLARK (North Bruce) :: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I submit that in view of the fact that this amendment involves an increase in expenditure, it is not competent for a private member to move it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I shall take the point of order submitted by the hon. member under consideration, but my first impression would be to declare the amendment to be in order. It will be remembered that this section fixing the statutory holidays was introduced last year by the Senate, and not by this House. That would confirm my opinion that it cannot be considered as a matter of involving a charge upon the public treasury.


Arthur Meighen: Did not the Senate decrease the number of holidays, and therefore diminish the charge on the treasury?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think that the
number of holidays mentioned in the Civil Service Act at the present time is larger than the number of holidays mentioned in the Interpretation Act. I may, however, be in error on that point. The fact that the country would not get service for the salary paid on the holidays is a very remote circumstance to be considered in connection with the regularity of the motion.
I shall give a definite ruling later but meanwhile, the hon. member may proceed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was referring to the little exchange which took place between the right hon. member for King's and myself during the discussion on the amendment made by the Senate to the Civil Service Act last year. I said (Hansard p. 4261):	,
Why should we not accept the precedent which has been created, which has been observed and which has never been challenged- Sir Robert Borden: Nobody Is challenging it. Mr. Lemieux: No, but if we agree to the amendment of the Senate we depart from the custom which has been established. We do away with a time-honoured usage, and we may not always have a Prime Minister who is so broadminded as is the right hon. gentleman. He says that no exception will be taken to the observance of these holidays

The holidays proposed in ,the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet.
Well and good, but still under the amendment of rthe Senate in which we are asked to concur, these holidays will be done away with.	.
Sir Robert Borden: No.
Mr. Lemieux: That is as I understand it. Sir Robert Borden: I should like to make it plain to the hon. gentleman. If there was no statutory provision on the subject, matters would go on in this country exactly as they have done for the past fifty years. It would continue to depend upon custom and convention to which ray hon. friend has alluded. Now the Senate have given the force of law to a portion of that custom and convention.
Mr. Lemieux: I take it that under the amendment of the Senate it is for the future decided that certain religious holidays which have existed by custom since Confederation are abolished.

Sir Robert Borden: I thought I had informed my hon. friend that the acceptance of the Senate amendment is not intended to disturb the custom and convention that has existed for something like fifty years.
Mr. Lemieux: I am quite ready to accept my right hon. friend's -word. X shall never doubt it, ibut at all events I understood that the amendment of the Senate did what I have stated.
Resting on that assurance, given by the right hon. gentleman, the amendment of the Senate was concurred in by the House of Commons; but my right hon. friend resigned, and the usual religious holidays on the occasions mentioned in the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Nicoiet (Mr. Trahan), namely Epiphany Day, All Saints' Day, Conception Day, and Ascension Day, were not all observed. I may freely say that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) this year, on the occasion of Ascension Day, had an Order in Council passed to maintain the custom of the past in connection with that festivity; and while I do not suggest that my right hon. friend was a party to it-far be it from me to say that-the Order in Council took effect only in the city of Ottawa. The Outside Service did not benefit by it, and consequently, as regards the other festivities, such as All Saints' Day and Conception Day, the usuage and custom was not followed. I know from letters received from some of the civil servants that there was some objection taken to the decision of the various heads of departments. All that my hon. friend asks by the amendment is to re-establish the custom and time-honoured usage that has obtained since Confederation under Macdonald, under Tupper, under Thompson, under Abbot, under Laurier, under Mackenzie Bowell, under Alexander Mackenzie, and under Borden. I want my right hon. friend the present Prime Minister also to follow the precedent which all his great predecessors have observed.


Arthur Meighen: I think that when I give the circumstances that have surrounded the treatment of this question since the discussion which has been quoted by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Nicoiet will agree that there was no justification for introducing this amendment at this time. The discussion referred to undoubtedly took place. It appears that, last session,the Senate placed a clause in the Bill providing that there should be certain holidays, and no others, and these particular holidays inserted by the Senate did not include the four days embraced in this

amendment. When the Bill came before Parliament objection was taken to it in that form, particularly on the part of the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland).


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member for Nicoiet too.


Arthur Meighen: I did not recall his
objecting to it. The Prime Minister at the time, the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), argued that these days had not hitherto been statutory holidays, but that, by virtue of custom and convention, observance had been given to them within certain limits, and he gave his assurance that whatever observance had been given them in the past, would be given in the future. The question came up last fall, while I was absent in the West, orders were given that they should be observed as in the past and these orders were interpreted as extending the privilege of attending religious observances on these days. I am not certain that they were uniformly interpreted in all departments, but, at all events, they were interpreted that way in some. Consequently-I do not know what day it was, but it was a day last October or November-


Rodolphe Lemieux: All Saints' Day.


Arthur Meighen: - they were instructed to be observed in the same way as in the past. Some complaints arose, I think, chiefly because the interpretation given was not uniform by the various deputy ministers, and, when the House opened, a question was found on the Order Paper, placed there by the member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). On looking carefully into the matter, it seemed to me that the words of my predecessor (Sir Robert Borden) might possibly have been understood to mean that, whatever might have been the extent of observance accorded these days in the past, they were to be holidays in the future, that is to say, whole holidays, because, as a matter of fact, they had not been observed as such, even in Ottawa, in previous years. Certainly they had not been observed as such in all the departments, although, I think, they were in some. Owing to the words of the Prime Minister being susceptible of the interpretation I have stated, making the holidays wider than previously, extending the custom, and making them whole holidays in the city of Ottawa, the question

of the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres was answered by assurance that, pending any revision of the law, the full and wide interpretation would be given to the promise that the Prime Minister had made. It has so been given ever since. Now, what I want to emphasize will illustrate how inappropriate it is for the hon. member to plunge the House into this discussion at this time. When instructions went out to the effect of the assurance given by myself in answer to the member for Chambly-Vercheres, protests came from various departments that it meant a degree of observance that had never obtained in the past, and that was utterly unnecessary; and it was represented that it meant a cessation of public service that could not very well be allowed. Notwithstanding these protests, however, we went ahead and gave the entire holiday. The custom outside Ottawa has never been affected. The custom in Ottawa, instead of being restricted, has been amplified, and amplified against the protests of the deputy ministers. I think I have said enough to show that the Government has approached this subject in no narrow spirit, and the words of the member for Maisonneuve generously accord that to us. Consequently, there certainly was no need of introducing this question now. I may add that it is the purpose of the Government to have this subject thoroughly reviewed. I do not pretend to be a judge of these matters at all, hut I am informed that there are many church holidays now observed which, according to the laws of either faith, are not required so to be observed or wholly observed. Possibly there may be some; I have not heard of any that should be observed that are not. However, it is the intention of the Government to review the entire subject with a view to bringing about this result; that no employee shall be required in any way to break the tenets of his faith by working at a time when those tenets call upon him for religious observance. At the same time you have this result: that there shall not be unnecessary waste by holidays not called for by the religious tenets of people's faith. We hope to bring that about in an amicable, friendly, and generous way, but meantime, while the law stands as it is, the assurance given to the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) having been observed in the past, will be observed in the future.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am sorry that we
have come to the point that we must plead
for what seems to me to be elementary. Surely at the time of Confederation nobody would have thought of refusing a request so elementary as that which is made by my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Trahan).


Arthur Meighen: What is there now that is not as wide or wider than anything given either by law or by custom at the time of Confederation?


Ernest Lapointe: I will show my hon. friend. In the Civil Service Act no holiday was mentioned in a special way. What was observed was what the Interpretation Act states must be considered as a holiday, and those days mentioned in the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet, are in that clause of the Interpretation Act. It was better to leave the Civil Service Act as it was than to introduce this amendment which was introduced in the Senate, for the purpose-and it was so stated in the Senate, and it can be seen in the Hansard- of refusing those holidays mentioned in the motion of my hon. friend from Nicolet. Now, Mr. Chairman, those days, under the laws of the Catholic religion are obligation days, which means that those who are of the Catholic faith must observe those days as they must observe Sunday. They cannot work on those days. It is a duty to conscience, and they must observe those days as holidays. Why should any gentleman in Canada object to that? Who is injured by that? Why should we be bound to plead for this? A few years ago an Act was passed by this Parliament prohibiting many things being done on Sunday, the Lord's Day, because people who believed that those things must not be done en Sunday petitioned this Parliament. There was a large number of the population of this country who thought that this law was too strict, and that many things had been forbidden which should he tolerated by law, but because it was contrary to the religious feelings of a large portion of the people of the country, that law was passed and accepted by everybody. Why refuse-not this concession-to sanction by law what has been done since Confederation? Why refuse to recognize that those employees of the Government should not be obliged to work on the four days mentioned in the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet? It is all right to say that they shall be granted a holiday, but that is not very certain, and they cannot reiy on that. At the last minute before one of these holidays, last fall, an Order in Council was passed, but, as my hon. friend from

Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) says, it only applied to Ottawa, and I received protests from many electors of the city of Quebec stating that they had been required to work on that day. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I feel bound to vote for the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I would like to make it quite clear to the hon. gentleman that I gave no pledge last year, except that the past custom which wals not based on any statutory enactment, (would not be interfered with in practice in the future. That was the only pledge I gave. I did not give any pledge whatever as to future legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a pledge, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Laird Borden: I gave a
pledge that the custom would be observed, a custom that has been carried out for more than fifty years without any enactment. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) asks why he is obliged to come here and plead for this. His party were in power for fifteen years, and they allowed the matter to stand as a custom and usage, as it had stood for many years previously. Why did he not plead then?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was then no
amendment of the Act by the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I pointed out
last year that although the custom in respect to certain days had been converted by the Senate into a statutory enactment, it was not intended that the custom fn respect of the other days should be interfered with. I made that perfectly clear, and thS Prime Minister has pointed out that not only has the pledge which I then made, been fulfilled, but in one respect where there was 'some doubt as to the scope and meaning of the language used, the benefit of the doubt has been given bo the officials of the Government, and they have enjoyed their privileges unimpaired, perhaps even greater privileges in this respect, than they previously enjoyed; so that I do not think my hon. friend from Quebec East adopts a fair tone when he represents these officers as being obliged to come here and vainly plead for something which has not been granted. It is granted now, as it had been granted for many years.


Arthur Trahan: Why not grant it now?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand my hon. friend's argument. The hon. member for Quebec East says

that they are required to come here and plead for their rights. They are not required so to plead. The usages and practice which have prevailed since Confederation are being observed now as they have been in the past. There is absolutely no occasion for reproach or suggestion of unfairness. The only difference is that in respect to certain days, usage has been converted into law, and in respect of other days usage is carried out exactly as it has been carried out in the past.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have been interrupted for the last half hour. I thought the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman from London (Mr. Cronyn) was before the committee, and I want to direct the attention of the committee to the last clause in that amendment. That clause reads:
The provisions of any statute or regulation-


Georges Henri Boivin: I fear that the committee will get all tangled up if it attempts to discuss more than one clause or amendment at the same time. That to which the hon. member is now referring was carried some time ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When?


Georges Henri Boivin: Ten minutes or more.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It could
not have been carried by the committee, for the moment I sat down my hon. friend at the other end rose and commenced speaking on another subject. The motion I am sure was not put and declared carried by you, Sir.


Georges Henri Boivin: The question was certainly put by the Chairman and the reply given was surely audible far beyond the limits of this chamber.	,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I must accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I think in this instance you did not have an opportunity to declare the section carried. I had barely taken my seat when the hon. gentleman at the other end of the chamber was on his feet discussing his subject.


Mr. STEVENS:: The vote was called. -


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for London.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was no such motion voted on; it was on the amendments proposed by the Minister of Immigration.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I have been following this discussion as closely as possible and I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Halifax.


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chair cannot
reverse its decision. That may be done by the House but I am sure if a vote of the committee were taken on the subject the great majority would support the Chair. The clause was put to the committee and was carried before the hon. member for Nicolet rose to submit his amendment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not disputing your statement, Mr. Chairman, that the motion was put and carried, but I think we at this end of the chamber should insist that both the Chairman and the members who address the Chair speak loud enough so that we can hear. I think we are entitled to that much consideration at least; if not, we had better go home.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to persist in the position I took, but I heard some hon. gentleman across the way say a moment ago that the motion was put and members voted upon it. I am prepared to accept your statement, Sir, that you declared the section carried, but I am not prepared to accept the statement of any hon. gentleman that the motion was put to the committee and carried by a vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sure the committee desires to do justice to every hon. member and it is not often that the Chairman is told that he cannot be heard. If I were allowed to make a suggestion it would be that when we have disposed of the amendment now under consideration, we return, by unanimous consent, to the clause which has been adopted, for the purpose of allowing the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) to conclude his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have always felt
that the manner in which the legislation with regard to these four days came to be enacted was very unfortunate. As has been said, those days were struck out by an amendment in the Senate to a bill that went from this House without having reference to the subject matter of that Bill. I mention that because I desire to say that the method now sought to be adopted to provide a remedy is just as unsatisfactory as was that employed to bring
about the condition. We are in this position, that whatever may be the legal interpretation of that disposition, we have the pledge of the Prime Minister that what happened before that legislation will continue to happen, and we have that verified by the fact that it has happened, with the exception of the days in regard to which the misunderstanding arose.


Arthur Trahan: May I ask the right
hon. gentleman a question? Why should not that pledge be embodied in the law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was about to point
out the reason why. We have that pledge, and we have it accompanied by the further pledge that the whole subject of putting our legislation with regard to these holidays in better shape will be dealt with.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my right hon.
friend allow me a question? As Minister of Justice and the legal head of the Government, does he claim that the Senate has the right concerning the Civil Service Act to set aside section 32, subparagraph 11 of the Statutes of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the
Senate has the right to amend any statute of Canada if it obtains the concurrence of this House. However, I should like to confine myself to just what is germane to this particular matter. I am asked why the condition referred to should not be remedied in this way. My answer is perfectly simple. Those whom the hon. member for Quebec East spoke as pleading for have the absolute assurance that they will have just what they are asking for, accompanied by the further declaration that this entire subject will be taken up with a view to putting our legislation in a more satisfactory condition. Now, I appeal to hon. gentlemen, is it not desirable that a question of this kind, which is susceptible perhaps of arousing feeling in some measure, perhaps justified, should be dealt with in the manner least likely to give rise to any such feeling? And is it not more to the interest of those who desire to have the fullest liberty-and I am among their number-to observe their religious 'holidays, that the subject should be so dealt with so long as in the meantime they have that full privilege? I appeal most earnestly to the hon. gentleman who has made this motion and whose sentiment in regard to these days I have no doubt is identical with my own, to withdraw the motion and afford the opportunity of action being taken such as I have suggested, and so bring about an adjustment that will leave behind it no hard feelings.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

William Cameron Edwards: Last session, when the Bill amending the Civil Service Act came to this House from the Senate, I took a position somewhat different from that taken by the majority of members on this side. The effect of the amendment then adopted by the Senate was to place Roman Catholic civil servants in such a position that if they obeyed the law of the land they violated their conscientious convictions and if they followed their conscientious convictions they disregarded the law of the land. It seemed to me that that was an illogical position for the Senate and for this House to take. I hold that view now just as strongly as I held it last session. The hon. gentleman who has introduced this amendment should, in my view, accept the assurance which has been given him by the Government and withdraw the amendment. I say that for this reason: in the first place, it is the expectation that the House will finish its business to-morrow, and if we adopt this amendment and send it to the Senate we can hardly expect the Senate in a few minutes or a few hours to reverse the decision which they arrived at last year. Notwithstanding the amendment that was made last year, the holidays have been given to those of the Roman Catholic faith in the Civil Service; a most generous interpretation of the law has been given. The Government hfis assured the hon. member that it is their intention that this whole matter will 'be taken up later-and for myself I think it should have been taken up long ago. It is the evident intention, then, of the Government to settle this matter once for all upon the best judgment that can be brought to bear upon it, and upon an unbiased consideration of all the facts. Now, I do not think that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not warranted in taking the position that he takes here this evening. But I can see the reason why he does so; he wants to be in a position to go to certain people in his province and present the case that they are being unjustly and unfairly treated. That is the position; he would be disappointed if he did not have an opportunity to carry that tale to the people. If the hon. gentleman wanted to be consistent; if he was as much concerned in this matter as he would like the House to believe he is, he should have taken advantage of opportunities available earlier in the session to' have the matter fully discussed and to have our opinion passed on to the Senate with full opportunity for them to discuss [Mr. Doherty. 1
it. But he did not avail himself of that opportunity at any time in the session, and now, within twenty-four hours or thereabouts of the end of the session, he avails himself of what he evidently looks upon as a golden opportunity to raise a religious cry amongst his people in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Cameron Edwards: That is exactly the
position taken toy the toon, member for Quebec East. In my judgment, that is exactly his purpose in taking the course he is taking to-day.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) requested me -to second the amendment; therefore I would like to make a few remarks with regard to it and also with regard to the suggestion just made by the toon, member for Fronte-nac (Mr. Edwards). This amendment is in no way introduced to raise religious feeling in the province of Quebec. I am sure that if my hon. friend from Frontenac had as intimate a knowledge of the hon. member for Nicolet as I have he would not think for a moment that the hon. member would do anything of the kind.


William Cameron Edwards: Now, do not misunderstand what I 'Said. I did not charge the hon. member who introduced the amendment with having any such intention; I made my charge specifically against the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr Lapointe).


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Quebec East did not even know that this, amendment was to be presented. He entered the chamber while the amendment was being discussed.


Lucien Cannon: So far as I am concerned I do not second the amendment with the idea of raising any religious outcry in this committee and in the last hours of the session. The amendment asked for is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, why should the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the former Prime Minister get up and pledge themselves to give us what we are asking for? These gentlemen consider that our demands are perfectly reasonable; it would be impossible for any sensible man in the House to claim the contrary. If then, what we are asking for is right, why not enact it? If we were asking for something extraordinary, something exceptional, something exorbitant, opposition on the part of hon. gentlemen

on the other side might be easily explained. But what we are asking by this amendment is simply to incorporate in the Civil Service Act the exact words to be found in another part of our statutes, which provide that certain days shall be regarded as holidays in Canada. The very days mentioned in the amendment of my hon. friend are to be found in section 32 of the Act containing this provision. In one statute, therefore, these days are considered as holidays, but in another, the special Act respecting the Civil Service-through an amendment put in by the Senate-certain of these days are not recognized as holidays. Is that situation logical? Is it reasonable? Is it a situation that should exist in a country which boasts of some broadmindedness? I am sure that if hon. gentlemen opposite would consider this amendment in the light in which it ought to be considered, there would be no opposition to it; every man on the other side, no matter what his religious creed, would be pleased to acknowledge the rights of the Catholics in this country. It is unfair that Canada should ask her civil employees to put aside the religious obligation of not working on certain days; that she should place them in the position of either being bad members of their church or being disobedient servants of the state. Simply to put the matter clearly before the committee should suffice, in my opinion, to bring about a unanimous decision to support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Nicolet. We are asking only for simple justice, and we ought to get it.


Mr. MANION:: I know that my hon.
friends on the other side will not accuse me of taking a narrow view upon a question of this kind. The Prime Minister has stated that this matter will be given thorough consideration and dealt with at the next session of Parliament. We are in the dying hours, we hope, of this session, and in view of the fact that, as I believe, no serious complaint has been made with regard to the carrying out of the spirit of the amendment in the past, I appeal to my hon. friend from Nicolet and my hon. friend from Dorchester-two hon. gentlemen for whom I have personally a very sincere respect-to withdraw this amendment, not only upon these grounds, but upon the ground of harmony and good feeling throughout this country. The hon. member for Dorchester spoke of hon. members on this side being broadminded. One of the things which struck me when
285i	[DOT]
I came to this House a few years ago was the fact that the very largest proportion,
I might almost say at least 95 per cent of hon. gentlemen with whom I am associated on this side of the House, have always shown to me and, to my knowledge, not only in my presence but elsewhere, the most broad-minded spirits in dealing with religious and national questions. I say that to-night without any fear of contradiction from anybody who has associated with hon. gentlemen on this side. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to show the same tolerant spirit which they sometimes ask for, and to withdrawn this question and allow it to be settled, as suggested by the Prime Minister, at the next session of Parliament.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before submitting
the question to the committee, I must rule upon the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Clark). My impression at the time was that the point was not well taken and that this could not be considered as an amendment creating a direct charge upon the public treasury. The question was one where I felt that I should not rely upon my own judgment and I therefore withheld my decision and sent a memorandum to the Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Francis H. Gisborne. It consisted of a copy of the amendment with the following words:
Could this in your opinion be considered as a money clause?
This is his reply:
Certainly not. It is not a charge on the treasury even though it may diminish the work done by the Civil Service.


William Stevens Fielding: I came in late in the
discussion and heard only the end of it. I realize, therefore, that I am not as well equipped as I should be for coming to a decision. I would rather avoid voting on the question if I could, but that cannot be. I believe, under our system of Government, long established customs amount to law- and even if there were no statutes in the matter, if it has been our custom in all these years to recognize certain holidays in our country, with its differences of opinions and creeds, I should like that custom to be continued. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) moved his amendment before I came in. I did not hear his amendment nor his early remarks. But I heard him ask the question: "If these are proper holidays, why not say so on the statute book?" I have an answer at once. If we are going to discuss and settle by statute the question of holidays, they must be considered from the

standpoint, not of one church, but of all churches. The hon. member has asked that there be placed on the statute book certain holidays which are days of obligation in his church. He is entirely right from the point of view of his church. But if you are putting them into the statute you must consider the views of other denominations. Other churches in Canada may desire to have observance of particular days. For that reason I would rather not vote to-day to put any specific days in. I would hope my hon. friend would be able to accept the assurance of the Prime Minister that, in the first place, the custom of the past will be continued for this year, and that at some early date the whole matter will be considered with a desire to put the matter in a form that will be acceptable to all classes and creeds. From that point of view, I would much prefer if my hon. friend were able to withdraw the amendment. If I have to vote upon it, I shall have to vote against it, although I would do so with great regret.


Michael Clark: May I be permitted, in a sentence, to fortify the very moderate appeal of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) ? It would be a matter of poignant regret to me to see any division in this House based upon religious views, or that might be suspected to be a division based upon such views. As for my personal regret, that is a small matter; but I hold, further, that such a division is to be avoided by every well wisher of. this country if it can be avoided by any reasonable means. I would appeal to my friends, if I may call them so, the mover and the seconder of this amendment, to weigh well what fell from the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River. Might I add my personal confession to his appeal, that this question has been sprung so suddenly that, sitting at this end of the chamber, I cannot give an intelligent vote on it at this moment? I have the greatest objection to running away from any vote. I think our friends on both sides of the House will do me the credit of saying that, as .a rule, I have the courage of my convictions. There is tremendous force, in the mind of one who has been brought up as a British Liberal, in what has been pointed out by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that if you begin to give statutory recognition to sects, it is impossible to resist the claim that more than one sect has directed. As a matter of fact,

one of the fights of British Liberalism, as I learned it-and I am not putting this forward as an argument so much as a request for light on this question-was to relieve the State as soon as possible of even the most distant connection with any given church in the State. I should like to put that to my hon. friends, and if we are to vote on this amendment, I should like to have enlightenment upon how, as Liberals, they reconcile themselves with the history of Liberalism, not only in Britain, but in this country. There was a time when the Anglican church was an established institution in Canada, but it was dug up. I should like to have an explanation which would disabuse my mind of what I am sure will be recognized as legitimate fears upon this point.
But I rose merely to reinforce, if I could, in a single word, the very moderate and tolerant appeal that was made in the speech of my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River. Why not accept the -assurance of the Prime Minister and give time, if such be thought necessary, to get together the best minds on both sides of this House and discuss this matter calmly and quietly, and let the Government deal with it when they have something like a mature opinion upon the subject? I appeal to my hon. friends to relieve some of their friends and some friends who sympathise with their position, from a difficult position and not to throw an apple of religious dissension into the last hours of this session which may spread to a very great extent in this country. I make that appeal on the grounds of broad Liberalism of thought, and I trust they will give earnest heed to the words which I have ventured to utter.
Amendment (Mr. Trahan) negatived.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before declaring the title carried, a question was raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). I think, by unanimous consent, he might be allowed to say a word.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry there is any difference of opinion as to what occurred in the committee some time ago in respect to the amendments which were recommended by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Committee. I wish to point out to the committee that in the statute as it at present stands the preferred position accorded to returned men, or returned naval men, is qualified by this condition, that as respects age and physical capacity to carry on the work the fitness of the candidate must toe certified to by

the Civil Service Commission. Section 4 of the amendment reads as follows:
The provisions of any statute or regulation prescribing the age limit and physical requirements with respect to any appointment in the Civil Service shall not apply to any persons with the military or naval service mentioned in subsection two or three of this section.
The effect of this amendment would appear to he that all persons placed in the preferred list (are entitled to appointment regardless of their age or physical capacity to perform the work required. That is my reading of the amendment as it now stands, and I think it 10 p.m. would be a very unfortunate thing if my understanding of the amending section is correct. I quite agree with hon. gentlemen who desire to do everything we can for the returned men, and I quite concur in giving them the preference in appointment to the public service in accordance with the statute as it now stands, but I do submit for the judgment of the committee that we must always have in mind the welfare of the public' service, and that nobody must get into the service without some qualification as to age, physical competency, and that sort of thing. I think it _would be very unfortunate if this .section was passed as it stands. It looks to me, Mr. Chairman, as if the resolution proposed the other night were being enacted just as it was presented to the House. Now a resolution is one thing, but amending sections to a statute are another thing. I have always understood that the law officers of the House or the minister responsible for any Bill passing through the House had to have a statute drafted, not necessarily in the exact terms of the resolution; in fact, there should be more care shown in the drafting of the statute. I do not know whether anybody has heard me. The House does not seem as if it were in a condition for doing business at the present time, and two hon. gentlemen are standing before the Chairman at the moment; just why, I do not know.


John Allister Currie: That point was placed before the committee by the gentleman who introduced the amendment, and the committee was quite seized of the facts. The House having unanimously adopted the resolution, I do not think it is necessary for us to go back to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With all
respect to my hon. friend, I do not think he understands the suggestion which I have placed before the committee.


Hume Cronyn: I think we might let the amendment go through as it stands this year. If there is anything wrong, it could very readily be put right later. I just want to take this opportunity to say that in speaking in reply to some remarks of my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) I made the statement that subsection 4 made no alteration in the law as it existed before this year. I find that it does. My hon. friend from Halifax has pointed out that it does make a difference in that it omits these qualifying words "as to age and physical condition" which he had just mentioned. I think perhaps another year it might be well to look into that. In the meanwhile no harm can be done because the great majority of returned men have not yet reached the age where they would be affected.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would
like to make another suggestion. It is not fair to present a resolution to the House or to the committee as a Bill. It may sometimes happen that a resolution on which a Bill is founded is in such form and phraseology that it can be embodied word for word in the Bill, but I do say that no minister should have presented the amending clauses to the House in the form in which they have been presented. I would suggest that some member of the Government take the amending clauses which were reported from the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Committee, follow them to the Senate, and there attempt to amend them if, on consideration, the Government are of opinion that they should be amended.


James Alexander Calder: In reply to my hon.
friend, I think it would be well if three or four of us got together and carefully considered the matter, with a view to following out his suggestion.


Mr. NESBITT:: I have much pleasure in endorsing that suggestion.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



ADDRESS TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this House that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in the Address to His Excellency the Governor General on the occasion of the approaching termination of His Excellency's official connection with

this country, by filling up the blank with the words "Senate and."

House again in Committee of Supply.
Scientific institutions-International boundaries: expenses connected with the survey and demarcation of international boundaries^ including1 $1,000 to J. J. McArthur, as International Boundary Commissioner, $37,820.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this for the completion of the Alaska boundary?


Arthur Meighen: The Alaska boundary comes in. The International Boundary Commission will be closed up, and if there is another Estimate after this year, it will be only a small one for maintenance of the boundary marks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest .Territories explorations, $70,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this $70,000 necessary?


Arthur Meighen: It will be well to have this amount in case it may be the part of wisdom to take action. I do not anticipate that we shall spend that sum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion lands and parks, $5,142,070.
Rodolphe Lemieux: This amount, I suppose, is spent mostly on parks near Banff, and in connection with the herd of buffalo which Canada possesses. Perhaps the minister might explain the item.


William Stevens Fielding: I move that the vote be considered item by item.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Protection of timber in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the N.W.T., and the Railway belt in B.C., tree culture in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and inspection and management of forest reserves, $1,000,000.
Jacques Bureau: Would it be possible to take $5,000 from this appropriation and give it to the Canadian Forestry Association, which is carrying on such excellent work? I understand that the Minister of the Interior (Sir James Lougheed), and, if I remember rightly, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), have been written to in this connection, and I think that an amount of $5,000 could be taken out of this vote for the protection of timber in Manitoba.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 
Jacques Bureau: Then I suggest that you take $1,000 from this and add it to that $4,000, because the Forestry Association needs at least $5,000 with which to carry on its operations.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suggest that the $1,000 grant to the Alpine Club ibe turned over to the forestry Association. , The Alpine Club consists of wealthy people who seem to be using this Government for the purpose of assisting them.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister in charge. We gave them $7,000 last year, and there is an estimate for $4,000 this year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Last year I urged upon the Minister of the Interior to add to the grant of $4,000 to the Canadian Forestry Association, $4,000 or $5,000 more, and I also suggested, as my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) has suggested, that we cut out the $1,000 which we granted the Alpine Club.
. I am sure that if the minister were aware of the good work done by the Canadian Forestry Association to preserve our forests he would take more interest in it and be willing to grant a larger sum. The Forestry Association has a car which goes from one end of Canada to the other demonstrating the best means of fire protection and tree culture. They also have moving pictures and they go among the settlers, the colons as we call them in Quebec, teaching them the best means of setting fires in order to clear the land. By means of lectures, they impress upon the people the extreme importance of preserving to our country one of its greatest natural resources, namely, the forests. If there is one object which ought to be aided by the Government, it is the work of the Canadian Forestry Association. This association has been in existence for some time, and through its efforts the provincial governments and others hqve been aroused to the great importance of forest conservation. When the Forestry Association was first instituted, I doubt whether any of the provinces had taken steps to conserve this natural heritage. Now, owing to the efforts of this association, and some of the zealous members of it in particular, we have, in nearly all of the provinces, laws which eventually will make for the adequate protection and preservation of our forests for future generations. I wish to impress once more upon the minister the fact that the Alpine Club gets a grant of $1,000 which is not justifiable. What good that club does the country, I do not know.

Last year I was told by the present Prime Minister that it brought a lot of tourists. That may be true; but so do the Canadian Pacific Railway and all the other railways and shipping lines. We might just as well give $1,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or to any of the steamship companies, as to the Alpine Club, in so far as bringing strangers to the country is concerned. The lumber business certainly brings capital into the country to help to develop it, and if we could help the Forestry Association in their efforts to preserve the resources we have, we should be better off than by bringing in a few tourists to spend a few dollars in the country.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I support the position taken by the last two speakers. I know something about the work of the Forestry Association, and it is a very great advantage to Canada at the present time. There are few things undertaken by any department of Government more important just now than the preservation of our forests. This is a matter to which we must pay careful attention. Considerable stir has been created by certain people regarding the export of pulp wood from the country. The way things are at present, however, it would be better to export pulpwood and all other kinds of wood as fast as possible, because more wood is lost every year by fire than by exportation. The big task which the Government has before it is the preservation of our forests, and the Canadian Forestry Association is doing a very important work in this respect. I emphatically endorse the proposition made by the last few speakers. Does this vote include any amount for aerial service? Is it the intention of the minister to establish an aerial patrol, if so, is anything being done in that respect, and if something is being done, to what extent is it being done? In other countries-I will not say specially in the United States, although I know something about it there-aerial services are established which are of very great moment in this connection. Far more work can be done by one aeroplane than by hundreds of men patrolling in other ways, and I would like to have some information from the minister in this respect.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In reply I beg to say that this item does include a certain amount for aerial patrol and this will be used for that purpose. In British Columbia the aerial patrol has been found very useful indeed in connection with forests. Regarding the Canadian Forestry Association, I very fully appreciate the very excellent work that it is doing. I think the appropriation of four thousand dollars is a modest one, indeed, and I will have great pleasure in bringing to the attention of the minister in charge of this department the remarks of the hon. gentlemen with reference to increasing this grant very materially. With regard to the Alpine Club,
I think they are accomplishing a great deal of good. I come from a province where we cater to the tourist trade, and we have tens of thousands of visitors to that part of the country. They leave a lot of money there every year, and we are beginning to think that the work of inducing tourists to come to British Columbia and enjoy themselves is, becoming quite an industry.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The recent liquor legislation will assist.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It will help materially.


John Archibald Campbell: Is any provision being made for aerial patrol in the three Prairie Provinces? I only heard British Columbia mentioned.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It applies to all the provinces. I merely referred to British Columbia, as having had some experience of the aerial work being done by the Provincial Government, but this appropriation refers to the use of aeroplanes in all the provinces.


Mr. DENIS:: I notice the protection of timber is limited to Manitoba and the western provinces. How is it that it does not extend also to Ontario, Quebec and the eastern provinces?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This protection applies
only to Dominion lands, where the Government owns timber lands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Reclamation of Dominion Lands by Drainage (including revote of $149,000), $300,000.
Mr. CAHILL:: Where is this money being spent?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian National Parks, $800,000.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell the committee how many employees there are at Banff in connection with the Canadian National Park.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does that include labour?


Joseph Archambault: Yes, and the office staff.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have not the details of Banff alone in 1911, but the whole staff in 1914 was 109, and in 1921, 186.


Joseph Archambault: The reason I am asking is that I have received a letter which says:
"Take the office staff at Banff, they have a large building, they are simply falling over each other; some of them might be sitting on the ground. It is one of the jokes here that some of the staff have to be on the street all the time to make room in the office."
There seems to be a complaint that there are too many employees. This letter also states that some of the members of the office staff are named on the paylist as labourers. Will the minister kindly tell the committee how many labourers there are employed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The nature of the work up there includes a great deal of road work for which labourers are hired. Sometimes as many as eighty or a hundred men may be employed on these roads, and these vary from time to time according to the supply of labour and the amount of work being carried on.


Joseph Archambault: I understand
they are building a golf course up -there.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is a golf course in process of construction.


Joseph Archambault: That probably accounts for the great number of labourers.	_


Simon Fraser Tolmie: A good many of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
Administration of the North-west Game Act and the Migratory Bird Act, $60,000.
William Stevens Fielding: Might I remind my hon. friend of a matter I mentioned early in the session? There is some discontent with regard to the operation of the Migratory Birds Act in the tower provinces, it being complained that the dates chosen, not by the statute but by regulation, for forbidding the shooting of birds are not those which are best suited to the condition of the country. I do not wish to do more than call my hon. friend's attention to it, so -that he may see that proper inquiry i-s made, and if suitable dates can be fixed, I am quite sure the department will try to meet the views of the people.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be very glad to inquire into the matter.
fMr. Tolmi&.l


John Ewen Sinclair: How is that sixty thousand -spent?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The items are as follows:
Salaries	$12,230
Maintenance of sanctuaries... 5,600
Traveling expenses	 17,500
Publicity	f	 6,000
Legal expenses		2,500
Honorary officers' expenses ..	..	500
Contingencies	 1,500
North-west Game Act, Wolf Bounty.	s'oOO
Wood Buffalo patrol	 4,420
Reindeer Herd, Lobster	Bay,
salaries and expenses	 5,750


John Ewen Sinclair: Where are the sanctuaries?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The sanctuaries are
located in different parts of the western provinces, some in Saskatchewan, and some in Alberta..


John Ewen Sinclair: Are these bird sanctuaries?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: Are there any in Eastern Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand there are some in the Maritime Provinces, but these are carried on in co-operation with the Provincial Governments in the eastern provinces wherever they exist.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: Can
the minister tell us where they are?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I regret I cannot give that definite information now, but I will be very glad to secure it for the hon. member.


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps the minister can tell us how mucii is expended in the Maritime Provinces?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot give those details just now, but I will be very glad to get them.


John Ewen Sinclair: I wish to
endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in regard to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and its enforcement in Eastern Canada. A great many of our people feel that their shooting rights in the spring have been interfered with by the enforcement of the regulations necessary under the treaty.
I would commend the idea voiced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to the minister and ask him to convey the same to the Minister of the Interior, in order that when the time comes for renewing that treaty consideration may be

given to the arguments put forth by those in Eastern Canada who have enjoyed the right of shooting in the spring of the year migratory birds, chiefly geese and brant; Some of the older sportsmen and fishermen are of the opinion that sufficient consideration was not given by those who negotiated the treaty to the fact that the birds which migrate north in the spring and stay in the bays and inlets along the shore of the Atlantic coast are not the laying birds. The chief reason given for preventing the shooting of those birds at that time of the year was to preserve the breeding birds. It is stated by those men that the latter birds go north direct to the breeding grounds and that it is very rare for a bird to breed before four years old. I have no opinion to submit myself, but if the claim of these men is well founded it is worthy of consideration and should be borne in mind before the treaty is renewed.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it
would be necessary to amend the treaty. In the cases which came under my own observation I felt they could be dealt with by amending the regulations. Of course, the principle of the treaty is that there shall be protection of the birds, but it leaves the selection of the time of prohibition very largely to the governments. Therefore I hope that the desired effect can be accomplished, not by changing the treaty but by better determining the form of the regulations.


John Ewen Sinclair: The information I had was that the treaty made the close season on the North American continent from early in March until September, and that the other portion of the year was all that was left to the regulations. If I am correctly informed, my hon. friend will see that it does not leave to the regulations an opportunity to give an open season in the spring of the year. I may be wrong in ibhait. If so, the hon. minister will please correct me.


John Howard Sinclair: I have a suggestion which the Minister of Agriculture might pass on to the Minister of the Interior. There are suitable islands on the coast of the Maritime Provinces which might be reserved as bird sanctuaries. That policy has been adopted in the Gulf of Mexico by the state of Florida. Certain islands are reserved, people are prohibited from landing there, and in the course of time the birds get to know that they are safe. The policy is working out very
well. I have some doubt whether this $60,000 is being well administered; $17,000 for travelling expenses looks pretty large and makes one wonder what the man was doing in travelling about so much. I think it would be well for the minister to have the department look into this question as there is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the coast about the regulations, and there does not seem to have been any improvement since this administration commenced.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will be very glad indeed to bring that suggestion to the attention of the Minister of the, Interior. In connection with this item we have two caretakers at $300; twenty caretakers at $125; caretakers' expenses and materials, sign posts, etc., $2,500: making an expenditure of $17,500. Naturally in an extensive area like that western country there is bound to be a great deal of money spent in travelling from one place to another in enforcing the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Costs of litigation and legal expenses, $10,-
000.
Mr. PEDLOW:: I should like to know
the reason for such a large amount being expended. Last year the appropriation was half that amount. This seems an enormous amount of money for legal expenses.


Samuel William Jacobs: I might tell the hon.
member for South Renfrew that $10,000 is not a very large sum for legal expenses.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The item is estimated
to be necessary to meet legal expenses in matters relating to disputed cases in connection with Dominion lands, timber, grazing, and mining lands in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, mining lands in the Yukon territory or other legal expenses for the fiscal year 1921-1922. The expenditure during the past six years has been as follows:
1914-	15	$10,711	651915-	16	
7,933	961916-	17	
11,006	321917-	18	
6,645	111918- 19	3,591 501919-	20	
5,624	361920-	21 (estimated)	
10,000	00
So that this figure is a very fair estimate of what might be expected.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the minister anticipate any extra heavy expenses during the current year from lawsuits which would warrant the increase?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We do not expect anything very extraordinary. This is the
[DOT]1498

usual Estimate regarded as being necessary to cover these contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed Grain Advances-Amount required to meet uncollected portion of advances of seed grain made in the western provinces by *he chartered hanks to holders ot unpatented Dominion lands under the guarantee of the Dominion Government, also including commissions, fees to sec.-treasurers of municipalities and officers of the Provincial Departments of Agriculture and clerical assistance, etc, $500,000.
John Howard Sinclair: What is the gross amount that has been defaulted in connection with seed grain advances?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is $1,750,000 outstanding out of more than $10,000,000 which has been expended in seed grain advances since 1876. In all these cases the department has a lien on the land. The farmer purchases his own grain and the banker supplies him with the money; then the Government stands behind the banker with the land as security.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide relief by way of necessary supplies of food, clothing, fuel, etc., also fodder for animals, to needy settlers of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan by co-operation and agreement with the Provincial Governments or otherwise, and under regulations to be made by the Governor in Council (Re-vote of part of unexpended balance of 1919-20), $325,000.
Frank S. Cahill: Is this by way of loan?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is in the form of loan
to the settler through the Provincial Governments.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much of the amount appropriated last year for this same purpose was expended during the year?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 

Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-grant to Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau, $12,166.67.


Frank S. Cahill: This item was under consideration earlier in the session and the minister promised to give some information regarding it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 
Frank S. Cahill: I wish merely to protest against the continuation of this bureau as an outgrowth of the Imperial War Cabinet. The people of Canada have not passed on any Imperial Cabinet, and until they do, we are getting ahead of ourselves when we undertake to organize bureaux under the authority of an Imperial Cabinet, whether war or otherwise. During the war the Imperial Cabinet, no doubt, had some grounds for its existence and authority, but it certainly had no authority from the Canadian people to organize a bureau under an imperial understanding. This vote should be cancelled at the earliest possible opportunity or, at least, the name should be changed. If it be found necessary to co-operate with the other countries of the Empire, that might be advisable, but certainly we in Canada do not wish to be bound by any Imperial Cabinet at this time. The quicker the minister and the Government cancel these arrangements, the better it will be for the Canadian people.


William Stevens Fielding: There is or was in
London an institute known as the Imperial Institute to which Canada contributed a large sum. I do not see any reference to it in this appropriation. Is it possible that this appropriation takes the place of the appropriation for the Imperial Institute, or are they separate organizations?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: They are separate.


William Stevens Fielding: We still have the Imperial Institute?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: And give a grant to it?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Yes. Might I support what the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) has said, and bring forward reason why this expenditure would seem inadvisable? This seems to be a case of
duplication. We have our Department of Mines, our Geological Survey, which have been manned in the past by men of great ability, and amongst whose personnel at the present time are found a number of men of great ability. I am afraid that this is a duplication. We have no money to spend on duplications, and on that ground it would be well to drop the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to, on division.
Mines and Geological Survey-Amount required for balance of development expenses, and capital costs of a demonstration plant, established 'by the Lignite Utilization Board of Canada, in connection with the carbonizing and briquetting of lignite coal. This grant is made upon condition that the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan each agree to supply an additional $70.000.-Governor General's Warrant, October 11, 1920, $140,000.
Item agreed to.
Amount required by the Lignite Utilization Board of Canada for working capital and other expenses in connection with carbonizing and briquetting of lignite coal, $140,000.
Mr.   McM ASTER@: What is the explanation of this item which is for the same amount as the previous one?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The other $140,000 was for last year. This $140,000 is to_carry on the work in connection with this lignite plant until such time as they are able to turn out their product. The machinery is now, or will be very shortly, in working condition, and this capital is required until they reach a point where they begin to market their product.


Frank S. Cahill: Where is the plant?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Bienfait, Saskatchewan.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much has the Government spent up to date on this proposition?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: $599,674 up to April_1,
of this year. They are turning this lignite out now in the form of briquettes at a cost of $15 per ton, whereas anthracite is selling at about $23 per toil. .


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is that the price
at the mine or delivered?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Delivered at Winnipeg.
Our experts tell us that for certain purposes it is almost equivalent to anthracite coal.	,


John Howard Sinclair: Does
the minister mean to say that a ton of briquettes is equivalent in heat producing power to a ton of anthracite coal?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is what I am informed as a result of experiment.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How many tons of lignite, as it comes from the mine, are required to make a ton of briquettes?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Two.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This coal is mined at
Estevan at about 75 cents per ton. That means a tremendous additional cost to turn it into fuel.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The hon. rqgmbers's estimate is low.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I had information from the manager of the mine at Estevan, that the coal used there by the Estevan Coal and Tile Company cost this particular company just 75 cents for mining and loading on the cars. That was in 1919.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Quite a process is involved. The raw lignite is first ground down very fine; the water is driven off; then a binder is used, and it is put into little moulds to put it into the shape in which it is marketed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This matter of lignite was up before the Fuel Committee, and professors in charge of this work appeared and gave evidence. They also produced samples of the briquettes. They rather gave us to understand that they were past the experimental stage, that is, that they had proven that this fuel could be produced at a reasonable rate, and that the question now was one of producing sufficient to be a factor in the fuel market of the world. They have proven that this kind of fuel can be produced; they have abundance of material. Is it not now, or will it not be henceforth, a commercial venture? It is hardly fair for us to be voting money for the support of any coal mine in one part of the country if we do not do that in another. This is merely money paid for the purpose of developing a coal mine in that part of the country, once the experimental stage is past. I have no objection at all to the Government spending money for the purpose of experimenting and finding out what can be produced, but onee we have reached the stage where the commercial possibilities of this material are proven I am not so clear that we should continue contributing money for further development.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The work has passed' the experimental stage, and this money is required as a working capital until we reach the * point where the machinery is properly adjusted and in working order for turning out the product commercially.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: By what authority do we furnish working capital beyond the experimental stage to any competing coal company, because, after all, it is a competing coal company.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This working capital is required to get the machinery into proper working condition. It would be useless to carry on experiments and then cease at the point where if you spent a few dollars more, you could put the thing on a commercial basis.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister does not seem to get my point. This Parliament is not in the habit of furnishing working capital to any concern. We have given subsidies and bounties, but I am not aware of any case where we have furnished working capital to any company. My hon, friend raised so much money over that dry dock of his that he wants to be generous with the whole world, and he is giving working capital to anybody. Whosoever will may come and get working capital from the minister. He must not be so generous. There must be, at all events, a little tinge of business in his expenditure of public money.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This is not a private
concern, but a Government-owned project. This $140,000 is to be turned over to this Government-owned project to enable it to carry on until such time as the output itself will meet the situation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The thing is getting worse all the time. We discover now that we own a lignite coal mine in the West, and that we are working it. That fact was never fully disclosed before. I am not going to say anything about it, but it is well to know that we have such a valuable^ property. I wonder how much per ton it has cost to produce these briquettes.
I have seen them, and they look very nice, but I hear they are somewhat of a gold brick.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Government does not own any mine out there. Coal is very scarce in that part of the country, and the plant has been established out there in consequence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish my hon. friend would tell that to my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan). It would confine his head in a basket.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This plant was installed there for the purpose of demonstrating that lignite could be properly utilized as a fuel in that part of the country. I have-

pointed out that it can be delivered in Winnipeg for $15 per ton, as against anthracite coal from Pennsylvania at $23 per ton. The experts of the department advise us that in many respects this lignite is equal to anthracite in heat-producing qualities.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What quantity has been manufactured to date, and what profit has the department made on the transaction?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The plant is just completed. When it is in full swing it will turn out 100 tons per day.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There has been none
manufactured up to date?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Not in a commercial way.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
the minister think that this will be the last time he will have to ask Parliament for assistance to this industry?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We sincerely hope so.


William Stevens Fielding: I understood that my hon. friend said that the experimental work was carried on jointly by the Dominion and the provinces. Am I right?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


William Stevens Fielding: Are they supplying
part of the working capital, or are we going to supply the entire amount?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We supply one-half, and the two provinces one-quarter each of the cost.	*


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the profit be divided in the same proportion?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-New Brunswick, $23,784.
Mr. LEGER:: When this item was last before the committee, I had asked some questions of the minister, and the item stood for his reply. One of my questions was with reference to Mr. John Sheridan, Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district of the province of New Brunswick. This gentleman was a candidate in the provincial election last year, and it looks to me as if he at that time held the position of Indian Superintendent.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Since the item was up before, the hon. member has placed some questions on the Order Paper, which were replied to on April 27. I will give the questions and the answers:
Mr. Leger:
1.	Did John Sheridan, who was a candidate in the last provincial election held in the province of New Brunswick on the ninth day of October, 1920, tender his resignation as Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district of said province before the date of said election?
2.	If so, what was the date of his resignation?
3.	Was his resignation accepted by the Government ?
Hon. Mr. Tolmie:
1.	Yes.
2.	September 27, 1920.
3.	No action was taken by the department.
I understand that this man was on part time, and that he tendered his resignation, but at pointed out, no action was taken and he is still in the employ of the department.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I have asked this question on many occasions, and I hope that the minister's information is correct. Prior to Mr. Sheridan's appointment as Indian Superintendent, he was a member of the provincial legislature, from which he had to resign as a result of certain investigations. Then this Government picked him up and gave him this position. Last year he was nominated as a candidate in the provincial election, and he was badly defeated. According to the answer which the minister has just read, at that very time he held the position of Indian Superintendent. A certain time after the election I learned that this gentleman was still in his position. I wrote to the Minister of the Interior (Sir James Lougheed) the following letter:
Richibucto, N.B., October 25, 1920. The Honourable Minister of Interior,
Ottawa.	.
Dear Sir,-Would you be good enough to let me know who was appointed to fill the position of Indian Commissioner for the North Shore District, N.B., which position was made vacant by the resignation of Mr. John Sheridan, who was a candidate for the county of Kent in the provincial election which was held on the 9th October instant, or who is acting as such commissioner since the resignation of Mr. Sheridan?
An early reply would oblige me very much.
Sincerely yours,
A. T. Leger.
I received the following reply:
Ottawa, Ont., October 30, 1920.
Dear Sir,-Answering your letter of the 25th instant, I beg to say that no vacancy has been created in the Northeastern Superintendcncy, Department of Indian Affairs. Mr. John Sheridan is still discharging the duties of Superintendent.
Yours sincerely,
James A. Lougheed.
This answer was not satisfactory, and when I came to the House I put a motion

on the Order Paper, and on Friday, April 8, 1921, a return was tabled. The order had been dated March 14, and called for copies of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents relative to the resignation of Mr. John Sheridan, Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district in the province of New Brunswick, and also for copies of all correspondence, etc., relative to his appointment to the said position. I did not find the return any more satisfactory than the answer I had received from the minister in the first instance, and in reply to (a question I placed on the Order Paper, I received the information from the Minister of Agriculture that the resignation had been submitted on September 27, 1920, and that no action had been taken by the department. The information which I now get was denied the people of the country when it was first asked for, and I do not think the Government can justify permitting a public servant, who meddles in politics, to retain a position as that of Indian Superintendent. This is altogether indefensible, and I thought it was my duty to hring this matter before the House in order that this thing might not be repeated under similar circumstances.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) is too young a man to be guilty of the offence alleged by the member for Kent (Mr. Leger), and if the present Minister of the Interior were in the House at this moment, I should have no hesitation in declaring that he is the guilty one. A government official hands in his resignation to the department and it is accepted: then he goes and puts in his nomination papers, stands for election and is defeated, and, after his defeat, he receives word from the department that his nomination papers were faulty and that his resignation has not been accepted after all. Of course, after all his trouble and his hard fight for the good of his own party, he is allowed to retain his position. That is the present situation, and I say that it is highly improper for the department to treat the public in that fashion. The Minister of the Interior is to be censured for what has occurred in this matter, and I am sure that if the Minister of Agriculture had been in his place he would have acted differently.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Did Mr. Sheridan draw pay during the time of the campaign?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Sheridan was a parttime man; he did not derive the whole

source of his income from the moneys he received from the Government, which amounted to $960 a year. He was docked one month's pay. He has been in the employ of the department for some years, and his resignation was not accepted.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I saw by the report of the Auditor General that he gets a regular salary, but of course I take the Minister's word that he is only a part-time servant. From last year's report of the Auditor General I extracted the following:
John Sheridan, Indian Commissioner, salary, $800; traveling expenses, $255.35; rent, $50; 12$ cords of wood, $80.75 ; postage, $21.40; printing, $4.75; small items, $5.54: Total $1,217.70.
I was under the impression that this man was receiving a regular salary; at any rate, he used to. As regards the items mentioned in this statement, he lives in his own house, and the twelve and a half cords of wood would be used in his own home. The postage, I suppose, is all right, but the other expenses are extras.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: A good deal of that wood would be used in his office. This report would not cover the period of that election, which was held last fall. The report covering that period would not be out yet.


Auguste Théophile Léger: An hon. gentleman has
asked me whether Mr. Sheridan was a Conservative or a Liberal. He certainly ran for the Conservative party.


Mr. ROBB:: About the same time that Mr. Sheridan was a candidate in New Brunswick, the general manager of the National Transcontinental railways gave a ruling that any official of the railways going into politics must at once resign his position. The question brought up by my hon. friend from Kent introduces this idea I suppose the same regulations would apply to all departments of government as to the National railways. What is there to prevent any official from going into politics if he wishes, tendering his resignation, and the minister holding it up until after the election? If the man is successful, the resignation is accepted; otherwise, he goes back to his position. The minister might make a statement as to how far the ruling of Mr. Hanna conflicts with the policy of the Government.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to call
attention to a circumstance that happened in my riding last year on what is called the Maliceete Indian reserve, Victoria County, New Brunswick.


Pius Michaud: The Tobique Reserve.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes. I had a letter
from the chief of the reserve in March, stating that certain parties were cutting green lumber on the Indian reserve. I went to the Indian Department here and inquired about it, and they advised me by letter that they had taken it up with the Indian agent at Perth, which was very close to the Indian reserve, and the agent reported there was nothing being cut but dead timber. I believe that is all that was allowed to toe cut on any reserve. I replied to the chief's letter giving the information I had received, and I got an answer from the Indians stating that a large quantity of green timber was being cut on the reserve, and that the timber was getting scarce. The chief said he hoped I would see about it. I went back to the department and on further investigation I found that there had been six hundred green logs and quite a large quantity of green pulpwood cut on this Indian reserve. I would like to urge upon the minister that the Indian agent, who gets a very good salary for looking after these matters, should be requested to see that the Indians' rights are protected on this reserve, and that outside parties are not allowed to go in and cut the green timber which should toe held for the Indians. This is the second time this reserve has been pillaged, if I might use the word in that way, and I would urge the Department of Indian Affairs to see that their Indian agent looks after the interests of the Indians. I believe they get a fairly good salary for doing this. The agent lives at Perth, not three or four miles from this point, and should be able to investigate a charge of this kind, before the timber is all cut, hauled away and disposed of. I would like to know what action was taken with regard to the cutting of the green timber on the Tobique reserve.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be glad to bring
the matter to the attention of the department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I brought it to the
attention of the deputy minister, and I never received any information as to whether the parties (were punished for cutting the timber, or what was done.
Mr, ROBB:	There appears to be a
conflict of ideas between Mr. Hanna and the Government. What is the hon. gentleman's idea of the matter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not know that Mr. Hanna's decision with regard to the employee's taking part in politics has any effect on the Department of Indian Affairs.
I should imagine, anyway, from what has been reported here, that it did not have much effect. I do not know whether the decision of one department would have any effect on another department. I do not know that there is very much to say about it.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Is it the intention to
allow such a thing to be done, and to allow the man to remain in office during the campaign? I would like to have the assurance from the Government that they will not allow such a thing as that, because when the man sent in his resignation, he knew perfectly well what he was doing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
from Kent (Mr. Leger) intimated that Mr. Sheridan left the legislature for some reason that has not been explained. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could explain why this man left the legislature and joined the Indian tribe.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I do not intend going into details. Certainly, if I am asked to give further information with reference to the matter of his resignation, I will do that. During that time he was a member of the provincial legislature, there was a certain bridge in course of construction near his place, and it seems that through the commissioner or the foreman of the work, a certain cheque was issued from the Government, which was handed over to Mr. Sheridan, and the amount was used for his personal benefit. A charge was made, a Royal Commission was named by the Government, of which he was a supporter, and through this commission he was adjudged guilty of the charge, and had to resign his seat in the House. Then, as I said before the Government here picked him up and gave him the position of commissioner.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He resigned his seat in the provincial House.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Yes, but it seems to me a very extraordinary thing that this Government, as my hon. friend says, would pick up a man with a record like this and put him in a responsible position. The Government no doubt must have been aware of the record of this man. I do not know anything about it, but it appeals to me as a very vicious practice to take a man and put him in a responsible pos>
tion when that man had a record behind him that made it necessary for him to resign from the legislature. You can see the consequence of a policy or a practice of this kind, and you must realize the kind of public service you will have if that practice continues. If it was necessary for him to resign from the provincial legislature, surely he was not a proper party to be given the responsibility of looking after the wards of this country.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
the minister say why the Government did not accept his resignation?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am unable to give that information.


John Howard Sinclair: It looks very suspicious that the resignation should not have been accepted. It looks to me as if it would have been a good chance to get rid of him, but it was not accepted by the Government, and the inference is that there is something underhand about it. It is unusual for a man to send in his resignation, and for it to lie over, without acceptance and without being dealt with in any way, and it requires some explanation. If the Government were in collusion with this man, intending to take his resignation on faith, so that it might serve him in that if he won his election, no objection would be taken to the fact that he was a Dominion official, and if he lost his election he would go on occupying the office. It is a severe reflection on the Government.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have no information on that point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must say that th;.~: looks like a very shady transaction. I am sure that if we had pure, capable, honest civil servants, it would not happen, and the Civil Service must not be made a receptacle for crooks of that kind. Tf this member of the legislature of New Brunswick had been tried by a government opposing him we might suppose that politics entered into it and that he did not get justice; but the case was so obnoxious that the premier of the government of which the member was a supporter appointed a Royal Commission. That commission, if anything, should have been prejudiced in his favour, but they found him guilty of embezzlement, and of course there was nothing left but to expel him from the legislature. Yet notwithstanding his unsavoury reputation that man is picked up by the Dominion Government and put in a responsible position as ward over

the Indians in New Brunswick, who of all people should have a capable and straightforward man dealing with them
I am sorry that ithe responsible head of the department is not here, and it is but another example of -the necessity of having the heads of departments who are spending money members of this House. As I have -said, this man was given a position of responsibility. But not content with that he comes to his masters and he says, "I want to run an election. Under the laws of New Brunswick before my nomination is regular I must resign. I will go through the camouflage of sending you a paper, but you must not use it." I would say, as a lawyer, if anything hinged on the resignation, that he was still an officer until his resignation was accepted. The department said, "Go to it, boy. Send in your resignation. Nothing will be done and it will be heads you win, tails we lose. Whatever happens you will be all right." That is the kind of government and the kind of departmental administration that we are up against.
A motion, was made in this House for the correspondence relating to this matter. If that man's resignation was filed in the department it should have been brought down with those papers, but it looks as if there was no such document, because only two letters were brought down. If he sent in his resignation surely there should be a letter accompanying it, and there should be the acknowledgment of the department. Both letters are public documents and should have been brought down. The only conclusion we can reach is that .the whole thing was a frame-up to help out this man. I am sorry if I must reach the conclusion, but it seems to me that the minister of that department is responsible for any irregularities in connection with this case.
I do think this protest should be put on record as a warning to the Government to avoid further pitfalls, but I fear they are hopeless; indeed, the more holes they plunge into the better satisfied they appear to be.


Auguste Théophile Léger: From the answer of the Minister of Agriculture it is apparent that the papers which I asked for were withheld from me and from the country. The Minister of the Interior could just as easily have given the answer which I have now received, and that was the reason for my pressing the matter to-night. I am thankful to the minister, and I ask him now whether the Government is going to retain this man in office?


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend from Kent, N.B., is entitled to a reply, for on the statement the minister made to-night the Government must still hold the resignation referred to. What do they propose to do?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Answer.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will bring this to the attention of the regular minister who is at the head of this department, and who was there when this transaction occurred, and I shall be very glad to discuss it with him in detail.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: And get an answer next session.


Mr. COPP:: That does not mean anything to us, Mr. Chairman. Every member I am sure has sympathy with my hon. friend in taking over the passage of items far payment of the man referred to who, as Indian commissioner, is in charge of the Indians of New Brunswick. What my hon. friend from Kent has said is absolutely correct. We have to-day in the department administering the affairs of a class of people, who of all people should have in charge of their affairs a man of integrity and business ability, Mr. Sheridan, a man whom, as my hon. friend has said, was tried by a royal commission appointed by the Government of New Brunswick of which he was a supporter, and that commission, if it were at all possible, would no doubt have brought in a report favourable to that gentleman. Afterwards he resigned his seat in Parliament, being enforced to do so by the adverse report of that commission. It is almost incredible that this Government, without inquiring into the capability or reputation of that gentleman, appointed him, obviously upon the recommendation of some person in the county of Kent, to a very! responsible position. There are many men in that county, men of integrity and capability, who would be glad to fill that position, and there was absolutely no excuse for the Government employing a man who had been found guilty of transactions described in detail by my hon. friend from Kent. If that man was unfit to occupy a seat in the Legislature of New Brunswick, I Submit to, my hon. friend' the minister that he is not fit to occupy the very important position to which he has been appointed by this Government. The Government allowed this gentleman to resign his position in order that he might contest a seat in the New Brunswick Legislature. His resignation was held in abeyance and when the election was over and he was found to be defeated by a large majority he was reappointed to his position. For no other purpose than to carry on the political schemes of my hon. friends opposite, a man has been kept in office whose reputation has been found by a Royal Commission to be unsavoury. In the light of these facts how can the people of New Brunswick have confidence in or respect for the office-holders of this Government? I say to my hon. friend that this is a scandal in the political life of New Brunswick. The position is not a lucrative one, but the procedure in this case shows the depths to which my hon. friends will descend in order to carry on political intrigues which they think may be of advantage to them. I have no personal feeling against the gentleman in question, but it does seem as if the Government finds it impossible to get a man of reputation to fill this position and that they are using the office for purely political purposes. It does no credit to the Government, to the minister in charge of the department, or to the political party in New Brunswick who are responsible for forcing the minister's hand in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Prince Edward Island-repairs to roads, $200; relief to destitute Indians, further amount required, $300, $500.
John Ewen Sinclair: Was this amount all spent in 1920?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Mr. LANCTOT:: How is that money
distributed amongst the Indians and what is the name of the officer through whom the payments are made?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: During the spring of 1920 a request for urgent repairs to the roads on the Lennox Island Reserve was brought to the attention of the department and upon investigation it was found that three main roads were in need of immediate repair. These roads were very low and waterlogged, the concrete culverts having become cracked with frost, which interfered with the children going to school. This item is to make the necessary repairs. No appropriation for repairs to roads in Prince Edward Island was provided in the main Estimates. With regard to the $300, the appropriation of $1,375 for relief to destitute Indians in Prince Edward Island is insufficient to meet the necessary and inevitable expenditure. The present appropriation is an increase of only $250 over the appropriation of 1914. In the



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
year 1919-20 it was found impossible to pay all accounts from the appropriation made and some of them had to he paid out of the 1920-21 appropriation, thereby lessening it to the extent of $300. The net expenditure up to February 28, 1921, was $1,645. The agent is Rev. J. A. MacDonald.
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-for purchase of seed grain- Governor General's Warrant, December 22, 1920, $1,500,000.
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is this an additional amount for seed grain? I would like some explanation of this vote.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This is a scheme which is carried on by the Department of Agriculture every year. It was inaugurated during the war at a time when greater production was so necessary. We have a seed branch made up of experts who purchase this grain. This grain, which is high grade, is thoroughly cleaned, and then sold to settlers under certain conditions. We get all the money back with a decent profit every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For health of animals-further amount required-Governor General's warrant, January 18, 1921, $100,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: This work is carried on in connection with the accredited herd system, a system introduced within the last few years for cleaning up our purebred herds from tuberculosis. This system has been adopted in the United States, and as we are large sellers of pure-bred cattle to that country, it was necessary for us to clean up our herds in the same way so that we could continue enjoying that market to the south of the line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister inform the commission now sitting in England as regards the health of our animals?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be glad to do so.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does that explanation cover the three items amounting to $300,000 in the Supplementary Estimates?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes. When we introduced the accredited herd system in Canada, we did not anticipate that it would be as popular as it developed. There were so many demands on all sides to have herds tested for tuberculosis and cleaned up under government supervision, that it was necessary for us to get sufficient money through Governor General's warrants to meet the demands for compensation. We
IMr. Tolmde.]
have at the present time about 625 herds under this system, and we expect that before the end of this year the number will easily reach 1,000. We expect in a short time, after we reach the peak in this kind of work, that we shall begin to diminish the amount of compensation from time to time. The amount is still on the increase on account of the number of herds.


John Ewen Sinclair: Do the
owners of the herds contribute anything towards this test?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, except that they
enter their herds under certain conditions and place them in the hands of the Government entirely. They have to carry out certain instructions for inspection, destruction of the reactors and as regards the tuberculin test. They lose a considerable amount of money, of course, on account of animals being destroyed, because we do not pay the full value of the destroyed animal. Tuberculosis is a disease that has interested people during the war. It is prevalent to a certain extent in all countries where livestock are maintained, particularly cattle and hogs. We have often had the demand made to us to inaugurate some scheme whereby We should clean up tuberculosis in herds throughout the whole country. That would be impracticable, because in the first place the scheme is too big a one, and in the second place no such scheme could be successful without a huge expenditure of money and a thorough education of the people. By cleaning up the pure-bred herds first, we are getting in the first place herds free from tuberculosis which will naturally increase districts free from tuberculosis later on. That has been the experience in British Columbia in connection with the scheme inaugurated by the Provincial' Government for the eradication of tuberculosis to ensure a pure milk supply. While some persons, in the early stages of this work, were very reluctant to have their herds cleaned up on account of the loss, now in certain districts it is almost impossible to find any breeder, who thinks anything' of himself, who has not had his herd cleaned up and maintained in as healthy a condition as possible.


John Ewen Sinclair: As these
items of expenditure in the Main and Supplementary Estimates amount in all to about $1,000,000, could the minister give the committee an idea of the proportion expended and proposed to be expended

during this year towards remunerating owners of herds for cattle destroyed and the proportion for carrying out the administrative part of the work?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Roughly speaking, about
$400,000 for compensation and about $200,000 for carrying out the work this year.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is almost an impossibility for a Federal Government to eradicate tuberculosis and pay for diseased animals destroyed throughout the country. The minister would be well advised to follow very strict rules in regard to losses for which compensation is given. Many complaints are prevalent in different quarters throughout the country that some of our-I will not say breeders-but breeders and dealers combined, are taking advantage of the regulations under this appropriation to get remuneration for animals that they have not had very long in their herds and for which they do not deserve to get compensation. The committee is entitled to an explanation from the minister as to the regulations that are in force under the Health cf Animals Branch to prevent breeders or dealers in cattle from buying cattle and putting them into their herds, having them examined and getting more for them in compensation than they could get for them in the open market. This, in some cases that have been brought to the attention of members of this House, seems to be a weakness in the administration of this expenditure. This may not be correct; I am citing it for the benefit of the minister and his department; but if there is any foundation for it, it is certainly something that should be stopped. No person in this country would object to taking every means necessary to prevent tuberculosis from existing in Canadian herds and much more from spreading to herds that are free from the disease. But it is an expensive proposition to do away with that disease by paying people who have diseased animals even a two-thirds valuation for an animal which, in many cases, is worth a great deal more than that. Is allowance made for the valuation of the carcass when compensation is given? We know that animals, if they pass inspection at the abattoir, are permitted to be used for human food. Is that taken into consideration when compensation is given? It is much better for us to pay strict attention to assisting our people in every way in testing their herds and letting them know when cattle are diseased. When
286i
that is done, I do not think any man in this country would maintain diseased cattle in his herd, especially in dairy herds, because every person understands the danger to the human family arising from the use of beef, and more especially milk, the product of infected animals. I make those suggestions to the minister in order that the department may be assisted in carrying on its work. It may not be wise to follow too much the principle of giving compensation, and it would be wise to reduce the compensation per animal.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is not much fear
of any man making any money by way of securing compensation for diseased purebred animals when they are valued by our inspectors and only two-thirds of that valuation is paid. We confine this work entirely to pure-bred herds under the accredited herd system except in some cases where they are mixed herds, and where there are grades on the premises. Under those circumstances we test all the cattle to clean up the farm thoroughly and to afford protection to the pure-bred animals on the farm.
We have a marketing system in connection with our Live Stock Branch, and we keep in very close touch with the prices paid for cattle. This Live Stock Branch furnished at very short intervals to the Health of Animals Branch the prices that pure-bred cattle are bringing in various parts of the country, and our inspectors are strictly instructed to follow these prices as closely and as reasonably as possible. I never saw a district yet in my past experience, and I have had a good many years experience, where you would not find men who had lost their herds who would not try to square themselves in the eyes of the public or try to appear a little more clever than their neighbours and claim that they got more money out of the Government than they could dispose of their herd for in the ordinary way at auction. I have often seen that, but after tracing it up you usually find that it was some man who was inclined to be rather a free talker and careless about what he said. I am very glad the hon. member has brought this to my attention, because it gives me an opportunity to clear it up. If there is anything of that kind going on, there is nobody who wants to know about it sooner than I and the responsible officials of the department.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is there not a maximum price fixed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, $250 for a pure-bred animal, and we pay two-thirds of that. When you remember that pure-bred animals are selling all the way from $75 to $100 for a calf, and up to $10,000 or $15,000, according to the value, for a full grown animal, $250 as a maximum does not seem very high. It would be a great hardship, and would ruin many a man who was starting up in the pure-bred business, if his cattle were destroyed without compensation. While this is a very expensive kind of work, I feel that it is very valuable when we think of the great loss there is throughout the world among tubercular cattle and swine.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would point out to my hon. friend that if he will have his herds tested he will find that when the Government officials get through he will not be overpaid. I have had some experience, and I know of others who have a good deal of experience, and I can assure him they did not complain that they were overpaid.


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not think a diseased animal is worth very much.


Donald Sutherland: Some time ago
when the Estimates for the department were before the committee I asked for certain information with regard to the Health of Animals Branch, and partieu-
12 m. larly with regard to the amount that had been paid out in connection with animals that had been slaughtered under the accredited herd system. My objections did not receive much consideration, and I was finally forced to move that the item should be reduced to what it was the previous year, $1,020,000. That was not a very pleasant task for me. If I may be permitted, I would like to remind the committee that I asked on that occasion what amount had been spent in the past year under the accredited herd system, and if my memory serves me we were told that it was something in the neighbourhood of $22,000, or to be exact $21,827.94, and that 212 animals had been slaughtered. When I received the further Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1921, I was surprised to find an item of $300,000 for the Health of Animals Branch, $200,000 of which had been paid out under Governor General's warrant.
I also find that there is an item in the further Supplementary Estimates for 19211922 of $300,000 for the Health of Animals 
Branch, so that altogether we are being asked to vote this year almost $1,000,000 of an increase in connection with this matter, and I do not think it is in the interest of good government to permit an item of that amount to go through without some discussion, particularly in view of the fact that those who are vested with authority in enforcing the law in connection with this matter have not, to my mind at least, acquitted themselves in the past in a manner that would justify us in placing this amount at their disposal without a little better understanding as to what their authority is going to be in the future.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Whom do you mean?


Donald Sutherland: The Veterinary
Director General. Under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and under the accredited herd system, he has authority to have the animals slaughtered where the owners have failed to comply with the Act. Even if a man's stock is on his own premises, and he complies with all the requirements that you could almost possibly imagine, if his cattle should nose through the fence with his neighbour's cattle, the Veterinary Director General can cancel all the work he has done, and the owner is helpless, although he may have sustained a very heavy loss in having his animals destroyed to clean up his herd. Early in the session I had occasion to bring before the House, and it was a very unpleasant task indeed, the case of a resident in my constituency, a man who was born and has lived in that county upwards of seventy years. Nearly all the money he had in the world was invested in a business under license by the Government. The Government inspectors under the authority of the Veterinary Director General came along and destroyed every animal on his premises, rendering a $10,000 investment which he had in building and plant practically useless to him, and they refused absolutely to give any credence to any of the statements this man made or any that were made on his behalf. This individual is practically ruined in his old age, by reason of the action of the men at whose disposal we are asked to place this amount of $1,000,000. Any one who complies with the law of the country has a right to feel that his vested interest in property will be safeguarded by the Government and not be subject to a government official coming and absolutely destroying his property without any recompense. It may be said that he can carry the matter to the courts. Well, he is not in

a position to do so for the reason that he has to first secure a fiat to enable him to sue and it is a question whether any one in his circumstances can afford to enter into a lawsuit with a Government in order to recover damages or compensations. I referred to this matter first on March 15, and the minister brought it up himself on the 17th in a way I do not think he was justified in doing. I do not believe that, previous to my calling his attention to the matter a short time before, that he knew anything of the circumstances of the case, but he had a report from the Veterinary Director General, and that gentleman was not fair with the minister in the report he submitted to him. The result was that I was forced to put upon the Order Paper a motion calling for a copy of all reports, orders, telegrams, certificates of valuations and correspondence in connection with the matter. Shortly afterwards on April 11, this return was brought down, and after looking it over I came to the conclusion that it was not complete. It was quite evident from the information I had in connection with the case that the return was incomplete, and I had again, to bring the matter up in the House. I made the statement that the return which had been brought down was obviously incomplete in that several papers relating to the matter had been withheld and that there appeared to be an intention to evade the order of the House. About a month later a further return was brought down, and three different papers which I had specifically asked for, were tabled. The owner of the animals which had been slaughtered had placed the matter before the department in an honest and straightforward way, and I asked that his case be properly investigated. This was about three or four months after the animals had been slaughtered. The Veterinary Director General immediately wrote to his officers at Toronto Junction, instructing them to make further inquiry Into the matter. Certain information had been submitted to the Veterinary Director General by the owner of the hogs in order that he might receive two-thirds compensation, but the Veterinary Director General, in notifying his officers at Toronto, withheld from them the particular information which might have enabled this man to prove his case. You might say that this was accidental. I grant you it might be so, with all the work which his department has to attend to; but it was somewhat significant that he gave his officer information
in regard to, and asked to have investigated, a case that was not referred to him by the owner of the animals at all; and when this officer went to investigate that matter, having gone to the premises of the owner of the animals now in question, whose son was living on the place, he received from him information similar to that supplied the Veterinary Director General and he then made an inquiry into this particular case, which he was not asked to do by the Veterinary Director General. He furnished information, in connection with this case, which the Veterinary Director General should have instructed him to furnish, and when the return was brought down in the House, that report of the inspector of the department was withheld, and, I believe, purposely withheld. This indicates a dishonest action on the part of the Veterinary Director General, and to substantiate that statement, I may say that two other papers that were also brought down in connection with the matter show that the Veterinary Director General was endeavouring to conceal from this House information which he had at his disposal. I make that statement because of the fact that this man, when he found that the department were not going to pay him the compensation allowed under the Act for the loss he had sustained,-and which would not cover more than one-third of his loss-wrote to a solicitor in Ottawa, through his solicitors in Toronto, and asked to be furnished with a copy of the application which he had made to the Veterinary Director General, for a license to enable him to feed garbage to his hogs, according to the regulation passed by the department in 1915, and also for a copy of the license. He had been carrying on this business for several years before that. Do you suppose that the Veterinary Director General gave him this information? No. He wrote to the deputy minister, asking his advice as to whether he should furnish the information, and he pointed out that these lawyers, in his opinion, were endeavouring to obtain the information with a view to recovering compensation which his department were withholding. Now, why was this paper not filed with the other returns? The day following this application for a copy of the license, the Veterinary Director General wrote to the inspectors at Toronto to have this man's license cancelled, and this paper was also withheld. Why should he take steps to have this man's license cancelled on ascertaining that he was endeavouring to collect the compensation to

which he was entitled? He knew perfectly well that the man had about $10,000 invested in the business, and that his property would be virtually worthless if he did not again secure the license. The license was cancelled and this man was then notified by the Veterinary Director General that in order to continue his business he would have to secure a renewal of the license. All these things taken together illustrate very clearly to my mind that the men who are at the head of this branch of the Department of Agriculture are absolutely incompetent to administer the Act and to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars which we are voting, because they are prejudiced, unfair and dishonest. Not only have they been dishonest with this man with whom they were dealing, but they have been dishonest with this House, in withholding information which should have been tabled. I should not have been forced to take this action in order to get this information. The case rests there. This resident of the county of Oxford, who has lived there nearly all his life, and whose money is invested in that business, is today in this position, that his word is discredited by the department.
The minister stated when the matter was before the House that he .had a lot of experience with these people who had licenses to feed garbage, particularly on the Pacific coast. He referred to the Chinese there, who have all kinds of ramshackle premises, and declared that he was prepared to accept the word of his inspectors in preference to that of the hog owner, as he termed them. I do not know the inspectors personally, I am not acquainted with any of them, but I do think it is somewhat significant that in the case of a man with two hundred and forty-five animals on his premises a garbage inspector should come along and state that cholera exists on his premises, when his son, his manager, and the owner himself, made declarations that they were not aware of any disease existing in their herd at that time. The declaration of the son and foreman was forwarded to the department, and is on file. The garbage inspector notified the Keele street office in Toronto and several other inspectors, among them Dr. Hall, visited the premises on that same afternoon, and they held a postmortem examination on one small pig, reputed to be about thirty or forty pounds in weight. The Veterinary Director General claims this man's son admitted they had lost a number of hogs shortly before this alleged outbreak took

place. The son states most emphatically that he had not lost a hog for a considerable period, or while he had been managing the premises, but that he had lost a few small pigs shortly after weaning during the winter. As he was endeavouring to raise them during the witner, having to feed them on garbage, and the winter of 1919-20 being a very severe one, he very naturally as every farmer does, lost some of the most unthrifty ones of the litter.
We are all anxious this session should end as quickly as possible, and I must say it is with a very great degree of reluctance that I am taking up the time to-night. I have been patient. I have done my best to see that this man obtains justice. All he asks is that if the department will not accept his word, if they will not pay any attention to sworn statements made by himself and those who have intimate knowledge of the matter, then submit the matter to arbitration, and let them decide it, and he is prepared to accept, and to submit to such decision. That being the case, I think it as only reasonable and fair that something of that kind should be done. The man who held-the post-mortem on this one little small pig lias not made a report with regard to the matter; there is no evidence in .the return to show that he ever made a report, but there is a report by the garbage inspector, who was not a veterinarian at all, and he states that Dr. Hall says that he found evidences of cholera in this animal. Another inspector, Richards, in his report also indicates that Dr. Hall found evidences of cholera in the herd. The temperature was taken by Inspector Richards of eight or nine of these animals. On April 20 of last year, when he began to destroy these animals, there was some delay and the proprietor persuaded him to permit him to kill and dress a number of them, because he said he was absolutely certain there was no disease in them. The inspector finally gave him permission to dress what he could in one day, which he did, and they drove out thirty-three of these animals, picked out of ten different pens, not by the inspector, but by the owner's employees. They were separated and slaughtered the next day. They were hung up on the premises, and the intestines were placed beside each animal. The inspector came along and examined every animal, and he did not condemn any one of the thirty-three animals, which were disposed of for food. This is contrary, I know, to the statements made by some of the inspectors, because they claim the bal-

ance of the herd was destroyed, and that these were apparently free froon disease. How can you substantiate a statement of that kind? Inspector Richards states that he took the temperature of a number of these animals, and those animals of which he had taken the temperature, the owner declares, were among those that he slaughtered and dressed, and which were pronounced free from disease by the inspector. The owner is most emphatic in his declaration that he does not believe disease existed in his herd. He has been in the business for a number of years. He has everything at stake. He had all the appliances for cooking the garbage, and the Veterinary Director General claims that unless he could establish that the disease had been introduced from some outside source, he would not be entitled to compensation. It is somewhat significant that he had shown that some of the animals that had been on his premises were owned by R. H. Parker, had died shortly	after, and that this man's
name was withheld by the Veterinary Director General. From that time on, it is not a matter of asking that he should show that the disease was introduced from some other source, but his letter to Inspector Stork of the Keele Street Office, Toronto, states that they are not going to pay the compensation because he was negligent in not notifying the department that disease existed in his herd. These are the grounds on which the compensation has been withheld-because he did not notify the department that disease existed in his herd. How could he notify the department if, as he says himself, there was not to his knowledge, a sick hog on his premises, and they were all taking feed regularly? The inspector states, as his report shows, that three animals had died. The owner states there was not a dead animal on the premises, that none had died for weeks before, and it was then only some small pigs that died shortly after they were weaned.
Now, in order to bring this matter to a close as quickly as possible, I again wish to state that I think it is only fair, in view of all the circumstances, and the impossibility of the minister, with all the other duties which he had devolving upon him, to make a personal inquiry into the matter, that a Board of Arbitrators should be appointed and asked to arbitrate the matter. Let them take sworn evidence-* no hearsay evidence,-as to the whole circumstances connected with it, and in that
way see who is telling the truth, or who is not, or whether the unsupported evidence of the Veterinary Inspector is to have preference over that of an equally good citizen of this country who has bden endeavouring to carry on legitimate business.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Donald Sutherland: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not carried just yet. This is another evidence, I presume, of what we had on March 17, when this matter was up before. When I was told that only two hundred and twelve animals had been slaughtered, and that something like twenty-two thousand had been paid out under the accredited herd system, I said that it seemed almost incredible to me because I knew of one instance where over eighty animals in one herd had been destroyed, and several others in other herds. Now I think the committee are entitled to some explanation from the minister as to why on that occasion when we were passing the Estimates for the present year we should be told that only 212 animals had been slaughtered and that less than $22,000 had been paid out, when at the same time according to these Estimates $200,000 had been paid out since the beginning of January under the Governor General's warrant and another $100,000 is asked for in this vote for the same purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, 1 fail to secure any explanation from the minister. I suppose that is a privilege which he has, and it indicates the arbitrary manner in which he has permitted officials of his department to deal with the public in this matter. Money has been paid out, and I presume that no further explanation is necessary,-it is only left to the House to pass the item. Well, if hon. gentlemen opposite are satisfied with that sort of procedure, I can assure you that I am not, and I think we are entitled to some explanation from the minister.


Alexander William Chisholm: What about your own side?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have been anxiously
waiting for an opportunity to get up-


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: I waited and saf down, some hon. members declared the vote carried. Even then the minister did not get up.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the all-important hog question, we went thoroughly into it, and I have since made further inquiry, and I have no doubt at all from the evidence of the commissioners that the disease existed on those premises and that Mr. Alderson had not complied with the regulations in feeding garbage. If Mr. Alderson wishes to have recourse to the law I think he would have no difficulty in obtaining a fiat. At any rate I would be glad to assist him to the fullest extent.
With reference to tuberculosis, as I have pointed out already before the hon. member for South Oxford came in, this accredited herd system was made necessary on account of the fact that we market a great many of our pure-bred cattle in the United States, and the system having been adopted there it was only natural to expect that a purchaser of purebred cattle for an accredited herd on the United States side would not buy cattle from a herd in which the animals were not all tested and found free from tuberculosis. The work has been very much more popular than we had ever anticipated. A great many dairymen all over the country have applied for this work to be carried on, and about two months ago a representative body of dairymen interviewed the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Customs and myself and put forward a very strong request that we not only provide $300,000 but $500,000 in the Supplementary Estimates to carry on this work. We have provided $300,000, which we expect will be necessary to meet the requirements for the testing of these accredited herds. The compensation is being allotted with great care, but, as I say, the demand from representative men has been so great for this work to be carried on that it is necessary for us to ask for this additional money, and it has the backing of all dairymen in this country so far as I am aware.


Donald Sutherland: Has this amount been already paid out in connection with items 382, 383 and 384?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: $192,652.94 was paid out last year. Some of the present allotment has been paid out, and there are other requisitions in for which cheques have not been issued.


Donald Sutherland: Then the statement which was made on March 17 that last year we paid $21,827.94 for accredited herds-


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That was for the year before.


Donald Sutherland: We were passing the Estimates for the present year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: March 17 is in the
previous year-the year ended on March 31.


Donald Sutherland: But we were passing the Estimates for 1921-22 which began on the first of April.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Last year, on the 17th of last March, was a different year from last year at the present time.


Donald Sutherland: No explanation
was forthcoming when it was pointed out that 212 head did not seem a reasonable number, and no information was supplied the committee on that occasion that another item of $300,000 would be down for the past year, because we were passing the Estimates for 1921-22 on that occasion, the Main Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Additional amount required for Experimental Farms for the establishment of a demonstration station for flax in Western Ontario, $25,000.
Item agreed to.
Additional amount required for the enforcement of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $10,000.
Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman,
before we get away from item 456-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That has been carried.


Donald Sutherland: When this matter was before the House-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele) :: Order. We are now on item 457.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I must appeal from your ruling if we are not permitted to discuss an item when it is before the committee. It is an old established rule in this committee that immediately the Chairman says "carried," if any member gets up to speak on that item I have never yet known him to be refused an opportunity to speak on it and therefore I desire to state that when this matter was first brought before the House in 1916 to investigate the growing of flax in this country I took the stand that flax-growing had not been a success in any country except where there was an abundance of cheap labour, as in Russia, India and the Argentine, but that under the abnormal conditions that prevailed during the war it

might be successful here. Those, conditions have passed .away, and to-day you will find that the flax industry is the most stagnant industry that we have in this country. If we have an experimental farm in western Ontario it may show on the map, but it will benefit very little^ the people of western Ontario, who are entitled to something better than this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-additional amount required for Health of Animals, for extension of accredited herd work and work in connection with bovine tuberculosis, $300,000.
Donald Sutherland: A short time ago we passed an item for $390,000 for this work, and now we have another one here.
I believe-and I state it emphatically- that the documents contained in the return to which I have referred on previous occasions, show absolutely that the Veterinary General is not only incompetent to administer these moneys but absolutely unfair and dishonest in his dealings. I do not like to make a statement of that kind except before the man whom I am accusing. I think you will all give me credit for doing my utmost to have this matter cleared up, but apparently no attempt has been made to explain it satisfactorily. I will therefore move that this item be not passed but that it be struck out-until we get someone who is better qualified to administer the expenditure than the Veterinary Director General.


Michael Steele: Amotion to strike out an item is out of order. If the hon. gentleman wishes to oppose the item he can vote against it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Additional amount required for Seed and Feed Control, to cover extension of this work and provide for the administration of the Fertilizer Act, $20,000.
John Ewen Sinclair: What is the policy of the department in regard to Canada being represented at the World's Poultry Congress to be held at the Hague during the coming summer?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The matter of having Canada represented on the occasion of the important poultry congress to be held at the Hague during September next is under consideration.


Lucien Cannon: I suggest that the minister have in mind the fact that the hon. member for South Oxford seems to be very competent to represent the department.


John Ewen Sinclair: Has any provision been made for the expenditure which would be involved in our sending a representative to that congress?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have the funds available if it is decided to send a representative.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is very important that Canada should be represented at that congress. It is a long time since we have been in such an unfavourable position in the matter of finding a market for our surplus products, especially eggs. Higher barriers have been raised against the sending of our eggs into the United States market. We have always had a surplus in Eastern Canada, and during the last few years, as the development of the West has advanced, that surplus has increased. Last year we shipped to the United States fifteen carloads, largely from British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, the extreme west and the extreme east. We have to look for an outside market this year, and it is important, Sir, that the requests of the produce dealers, the producers, instructors and investigators in the poultry business should be heard; that a representative be sent by this Government to the World's Poultry Congress and that Canada's position in this regard be brought before the European countries. We must try to market more of that product in the United Kingdom. It is not a question of price; it is a question of getting a market for our product, and I hope the minister will remember that and see that we have proper representation.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be very glad to keep the hon. gentleman's suggestion in mind when this matter is taken into consideration.
Department of Agriculture-salaries, $12,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think that we can lightly pass over the fact that a supporter of the Government has alleged in this House that an officer of the Government is incompetent and dishonest. My reference to the matter is not intended to give weight to the suggestion, but if that statement came from this side it would be regarded as scandalous. It should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This matter was pretty thoroughly discussed on a previous occasion and I thought it was hardly necessary to make any clean-cut reply to the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford. But if the other side of the House has

taken this statement seriously, as would seem to be indicated by the remarks of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, then I think it is necessary for me to say a few words about the Veterinary Director General and about the matter referred to by the hon. member for South Oxford. The Veterinary Director General is a gentleman of very high standing in his profession who has occupied his present responsible position for a number of years. In that position he succeeded Dr. Rutherford when that gentleman was appointed to the Railway Commission. The general efficiency of our Health of Animals Branch is one of the things that we are proud of in our Department of Agriculture; it is one of the planks on which we stand when we ask for the removal of the British embargo. The Health of Animals Branch in Canada will, I think, compare very favourably with that of any other country in the world. This has been demonstrated by the fact, as I have pointed out on a previous occasion, that our Health of Animals Branch was able to protect Canada, over a boundary of 4,000 miles in length, from such an infectious disease as the foot and mouth disease which was prevalent in the United States close beside the boundary. The fact that that was done, not only on one occasion, but on several occasions, is a guarantee of the efficiency of that particular branch of the Department of Agriculture; in fact, it is one of the things that we are very proud of. Then there is the fact that this branch was able to take hold of the disease dourine in western Canada. We inaugurated and carried on a system, devised after investigation by one of the officials of that branch, of blood tests so as to be able to diagnose the disease even when no physical signs were shown, and from 1914 to 1921 the compensation was reduced from $48,000 a year in 1914 to $120 in 1919, $70 in 1920, and absolutely nothing so far in 1921, the disease having been cleaned up entirely. I might mention the work the branch did last year in cleaning up and dipping 220,000 head of mangy cattle in southern Alberta and in doing it so efficiently amongst cattle that roamed over an area of 2,600 square miles, where mange had existed for a quarter of a century. After it took hold of the disease and after thorough investigation and cooperation with the live stock men, it cleaned up the disease so that it was able to cancel the quarantine area the first time in 25 years. This is the branch that is so much abused by the hon. member for South 
Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I have known Dr. Torrance, the Veterinary Director General for a long time, and I have absolute faith in his honesty and efficiency in that position. I have, however, gone very carefully into the particular case referred to by the hon. member for South Oxford. I have had a fair amount of experience in this particular work, and if I had thought for one moment that there was any doubt, after going carefully over the documents, I would certainly have carried on an investigation further than I did. I went into the matter very thoroughly with my officers after it was brought up in the House on a former occasion and I am satisfied that this man had hog cholera on his premises; that he did not comply with the regulations, and that under those conditions he is not entitled to compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Post Office salaries and contingencies including $50 to W. Cooch, $1,435,144.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the firm of Griffenhagen is at work making a transformation of the whole department. Indeed, I have seen a report which has been prepared by that firm and, I think, submitted to Council. If I am well informed, Council is acting upon that report. Will the minister be in a position to give some details to the committee regarding the extent of the transformation taking place in the department? Of course, I must once more protest against the absence of the Postmaster General from the House of Commons. A minister in charge of a department which comes so near to the people and which affects practically every home in Canada should have a seat in this House. For the last few years we have been deprived of the privilege of listening to that gentleman in this House. His Estimates always come up at a very late period of the session, and we have not an opportunity of cross-examining the hon. gentleman because he belongs to another chamber. In any further reorganization of the Government, the gentleman assigned to the Post Office Department ought to have a seat in this House. The present situation is not fair to the country, and it is not fair for the minister who is temporarily in charge of the Estimates to give the explanations which are required. Indeed, I have a more serious charge to make and I regret to have to make the charge because the minister is not in this House and cannot defend himself. But I am informed that the minister is practically non-existent in the department and that

the affairs of the Department are administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I shall not insist upon that point.
I come back to the first statement which I made a moment ago, that the firm of Griffenhagen is transforming that department at the present time. Some of the old heads of that department have been put aside and replaced by new men or other officials who have been transferred from Toronto and elsewhere to Ottawa. Earlier in the session I complained that an old and trusted official like Mr. Sidney Smith had been absolutely ignored, and I am informed that other officials of the highest type like Mr. Throop, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Moon to name but a few, have been put aside and replaced by others. As I stated a moment ago, the Post Office Department is an institution which comes near the home of every citizen in Canada, and we are entitled to have there the best servants. No reason is given why those changes are made. I do not know why that particular department is being transformed in that way. I notice also that the Post Office Department which, for many years was conspicuous for its good administration, has sadly fallen from grace. I see at page 8 of the Annual Report that since 1902 a series of surpluses replaced a long series of deficits, and during those years of surpluses, which started in the year 1902 under the late Sir William Mulock, Postmaster-General, we had a very progressive administration of that department. It is true that since 1911 the surpluses have been maintained with the exception of the year 1915, when there was a deficit of $2,914,000, but you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the surpluses which have continued since 1915 have been made up chiefly by the additional war tax of one cent on each stamp.
The expenditure has grown enormously also during the last few years. Whilst in 1911 the net revenue of the department was $9,146,952.47, the expenditure was $7,954,222.79, leaving a surplus of over $1,000,000. Since that year the expenditure has grown enormously. We have a jump from a little over $9,000,000 in 1912 to $10,882,804.57 in 1913; $12,822,058.44 in 1914-I will give only round figures for the following years-1915, $15,961,000; 1916, $16,009,000; 1917, $16,300,000; 1918, $18,046,000; 1919, $19,273,000; until in 1920 we reached the startling figure of $20,774,385.20, as against a net revenue of $24,449,916.97. There is an apparent surplus, but if you leave out of account the
war tax, you find that there is a very heavy deficit. Now we have, I believe, about the same population to-day as we had five years ago. I believe that the next census figures will reveal that the population of this country has not materially increased. How, then, do you account for the enormous increase in the expenditure of that department? I claim, Mr. Chairman, that if you had as the responsible minister of that department a gentleman who would take the duties of his office seriously, there would be a very different statement to present to the House. I say that in those days of very large commitments due to the war, it was the duty of the minister, especially one at the head of a revenue producing department, to economize and retrench, but it seems that the gates have been wide open in that department and that the expenditure has been of a riotous kind. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not an example to follow, and that the minister in charge of that department, in view of the circumstances I have related, does not care for proper business methods; he is never to be seen in his department; he is rarely to be seen in the upper chamber, and I am told that bo does not even attend the meetings of council. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the only thing for him to do is to resign from the Government so that we may have at the head of that large and important department a minister with some sense of responsibility.
I claim that in spite of this apparent surplus, we really have a heavy deficit in the department, if you take into account the war tax which was to be imposed for the duration of the war. That tax, however, has been maintained. If you compare the figures, you must arrive at the conclusion that there is a heavy deficit.
I wish to say further that it is in the interest of the department to abolish this war tax. The experience of the various Postmasters General since fifteen or twenty years ago has been that the cheaper the postage rate, the greater the revenue you will get. It is to the credit of the late Sir William Mulock and the Laurier Government to have inaugurated penny postage within the British Empire. Although at that time there were people who doubted the wisdom of having a uniform postal tariff throughout the Empire, events have justified the reduction in postage within the Empire.
1 a.m. Indeed, the revenues were never so buoyant as during the days

when Canada had that cheap postage. The same principle applies with regard to cables and telegrams; the higher the rates the less revenue you have; the cheaper the rates, the greater your revenue.
As to the revenues of the department, the United States during the war also had a war tax on stamps, but immediately after the armistice their Post Office Department abolished that tax. As a result the revenues of the postal service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, including the revenues from money order and postal savings business, amounted to $437,150,212.32. During the preceding fiscal year the receipts were $436,239,126.20, which, however, included collections of $71,392,000 as a war tax derived from increased postage on first-class mail, the ordinary postal receipts for 1919 having been $364,847,126.20. For comparative purposes, therefore, it may be stated that the postal revenue for 1920 in the United States shows an increase of $72,303,086.13 over the preceding year-war tax excluded -the rate of increase being 19.81 per cent. Those figures, Mr. Chairman, are significant. Compare them with what has taken place in our own Post Office Department, and see the difference.
The net revenue for the year 1920, including the war tax, amounted to $24,449,916.77, and the expenditure $20,774,385.20, increases of $2,847,204.32, and $1,500,831.56 respectively. The surplus of revenue over expenditure for the year was apparently $3,675,531.77. Excluding the war tax calculated at $7,312,534.97, the expenditure exceeded the actual postal revenue by l$3,637,003.20. This is the actual condition of affairs in that department. According to the Blue Books in my hands, and taking into account the postal tax, which has not, and is not going to be abolished, we have an actual deficit of over $3,000,000. Now, in the United States, they have abolished the war tax, and yet they have a large surplus of 19.81 per cent over the last year's operations under the war tax. Mr. Chairman, the administration of the department, I charge, is very lax indeed. Without the knowledge of Parliament, in the absence of the slightest evidence, on two different occasions, at one fell swoop, the railway mail service was given 'double the amount which it had received from the department up to that time. An Order in Council was passed and the amount paid to the railway companies was doubled. This occurred in 1912. The railway companies evidently thought that the department was an easy 
target, and they have come back, and with a vengeance. Another Order in Council was passed referring the matter to the Railway Commission, who materially increased the rate of railway transportation in connection with mail matters. And I am informed that the Government yielded. So that whilst the total amount paid the railways for carrying the mails during the fiscal year 1918 was $3,405,461, by allowing a new schedule of rates an increase was created in favour of the railway companies of nearly $4,000,000,-to be exact, $3,980,132, and that, without Parliament having one bit of evidence to justify that enormous increase. I say, Sir, that this is only preying upon the Dominion exchequer, and it is to the discredit of the Postmaster General that he should have allowed, in these days of heavy financial commitments, the railway companies thus to prey upon his department. There was a protest on the part of one of the higher officials, and it was addressed to the Hon. Mr. Rowell, who was then a minister at large, filling several positions in the Government. That year, owing to the absence of the Postmaster General, he had charge! of that department for a while, and in September, 1919, he was warned of the situation in the following letter:
September 8, 1919.
Hear Sir,-With further reference to your letter of the 4th instant, I beg- to submit the following information on the different points concerning which you ask for information.
1.	The total amount paid Railways for carrying mails during the past Fiscal year was, $3,405,461.
2.	To allow the proposed new schedule of rates would mean an increase of, $3,980,132.
3.	The department has no data on which it is able to give the distribution of mail matter as between letters, newspapers, periodicals and parcel post, or the cost of service and revenue from each of these branches. As you are aware postage on all classes of mail matter, except newspapers mailed from the offices of publication; is paid by the ordinary postage stamps so that there is no means by which the department can separate the revenue derived from any particular class. All kinds of mail matter are handled by the same staff, carried together by the Railways anld the mail couriers and it would be impossible to give even a close estimate of the cost of handling any class separately except perhaps, newspapers, which is dealt with under No. 5.
4.	Is dealt with in the same manner as No. 3.
5.	There does not appear to be any way in which the Post Office can materially increase its revenue unless the Government should decide to increase the postage on newspapers. The present rate of 3c on letters and 2c on postcards could not be raised and it is from these sources that most of the revenue is collected.
I shall not delay the committee by reading the whole of the letter, but this official states:

Dealing with the increases that will follow the adoption of the proposed new rates, I find that the Government Railways including the Canadian Northern would receive about $900,000, the Grand Trunk Railway $625,000 and other railways the balance. It would not be possible to curtail the present mail service to any appreciable extent or to transfer to the Government Railways much of the mail which is now being carried by other roads, as it is [DOT]difficult to withdraw service anywhere after it has been established with its dependent mail Toutes throughout the country. There appears to be no doubt, therefore, that the adoption of the new rates will mean an additional cost of about $3,000,000 to the Government for carrying on the postal service, unless newspaper rates can be raised as suggested.
I may add that an enquiry as to railway mail rates is now being carried on in the United States and it will be interesting to see what conclusions are arrived at by the Interstate Commerce Commission which is conducting the enquiry there. Before deciding to accept the proposed new rates, it might be well to wait for the result of the enquiry in the United States.
Following that, letter, and in spite of the protest from the accountant of the department, the matter was submitted to the Railway Commission, and of course their decision was against the department and in favour of the railways. Now, Mr. Chairman, I was postmaster for over six years, and Sir Allen Aylesworth and Sir William Mu'lock before me, and I know that all three of us resisted the pressure exerted by the various railway companies. After all, the . railway companies must remember that they received subsidies from the Dominion treasury, and they should be somewhat liberal in transporting the mails of this Dominion. But, of course, if the Minister is weak-kneed, if he has no backbone, the railway will get the better of him. I, for one resisted until 1911. My successor in office, the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, a year or two after being sworn in as Postmaster General, yielded, and an increase was given to the railway companies. I do not begrudge that increase. I believed at the time that the railways may have had a fair claim. Yet they were agreeable to accepting the existing rates. As a result, the railway mail subsidy was doubled, but they came a second time, and, in spite of the protests of the accountant of the department, in spite of the freight rates which were granted them by the Railway Commission at the expense of the consumers and shippers of Canada, they were given an additional three million dollars mail subsidy out of the exchequer. Mr. Chairman, I protest against this, this matter should have come before Parliament, and if it had, I am quite sure that, not only on this side
of the House, but on the other side, members would have protested so loudly that the Government would have declined to grant that request of the railway companies. Mr. Chairman, there is no head to the department,.there is no one to protect the department against the exactions of interests. While every taxpayer individually is economizing and retrenching, we should have an example set to us by these departments of the Government.
I said a moment ago that the cheaper rate meant a larger revenue. The people of this country live in about the same condition as do the Americans to the south of us. They have, it is true, a larger population. They have not a larger territory. The people are as educated in Canada as they are in the United States, and, proportionately speaking, we have the same amount of correspondence and postal exchanges, as between province and province, city and city. Well, in the United States they have reverted to the old rate of postage, with the result I pointed out a moment ago. We should revert, for instance, to the one cent drop letter system in existence before the war. When a letter is dropped in a city or in a village, for delivery in that city or village, a rate of one cent is sufficient.


John Allister Currie: Might I ask a question?
Is it not a fact that so far as the history of post offices is concerned, every time the rate of postage has (been reduced, the revenue has increased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, and if I
had time, and if we were not anxious to close to-morrow, as we all are, I would give the history of postal development in England. England has been a leader in the matter of cheap postage. In the first place, the letters were paid as they were delivered by the parties to whom they were addressed. We all know the history of that poor widow who received a letter from her son who was in the army in India, and as she went to the post office she had not the money to pay for the postage. She had to look at the letter behind a candle, to see whether there was anything in it. Her son had told her before leaving "Mother when you put the letter before the candle, if nothing is written all is well; if something is written, pay for the letter, there is some news interesting for you." And it was at that time that the great Englishman, Rowland Hill, made aware of that incident decided that there should be established in England and in the colonies a rate of postage which would allow the poor as well as the rich

to get the news. Now, in Canada, in the beginning, it was the same. I remember Lord Strathcona telling me in Montreal, that at the time he was agent for the Hudson's Bay Company, letters were transported the same way, and people would pay as they received the letter. If they did not pay they would not get delivery of the letter. The reform was established in England on a sound basis. They had first a moderately high rate but finally they adopted the penny system. Penny postage was introduced in Canada by Sir Wm. Mulock and then began the years of surplus in the Post Office Department. Yes, my hon. friend is right, the cheaper the postage the larger the revenue.
I shall not detain the committee, but I hope that my hon. friend is sufficiently acquainted with the affairs of the department to answer these various questions. But there is one in disputable fact and it is that that department, of all departments, should be represented on the floor of the House by a responsible minister. Secondly, it is a department which comes near to the home of every citizen of Canada, and it should be a business department where business methods are followed. Third, in these days of economy and retrenchment, there should be no laxity in the administration of the department, and the big interests should be curbed, as they were in days gone by. Mr. Chairman, I must protest against the fact that, although we have nominally a Postmaster General, yet as a matter of fact, it is well known in this city that the department is under the tutelage of another minister. At the present time a complete revolution is taking place in the Post Office Department. This shows one of two things: either that a rigorous sabotage is taking place, or that the department was so badly administered that it required a complete modification. There is in the department a fear amongst all the employees. They do not know what to-morrow will bring. I have in mind some of the oldest and bravest employees there, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Troop, Mr. North-rup, Mr. Sydney Smith, Mr. Moon, Col. Verret, all old and trusted officials. They have been quietly removed, or they are on the point of being quietly removed. Does that make for the efficiency of the department. I do not think so. Once more I regret that the minister in charge is not here to explain the sabotage which is taking place in his department, which I take pride in saying, Mr. Chairman, was well administered during the years when Sir William 
Mulock, Sir Allen Aylesworth and I were in charge of it. I regret that the Post Office Department, once well administered on sound business principles, has fallen into the state in which it is to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sure that the hon. gentleman and the committee will pardon me if I am as brief as is possible in dealing with the many questions tnat he has touched upon. I have no doubt we all appreciate the jealousy with which the hon. gentleman follows the operations of this department. I have no desire to depreciate in any way the record which he himself made in administration of that department. We are not so small that we are unwilling to recognize that he brought to that administration both ability and
energy. I____regret, however, that his
sources of information with regard to the action of the present Postmaster General should be so inadequate. When he charges that the present minister does not attend to the duties of his office, and that the department is under the tutelage of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I have only to say that nobody would be more astonished to hear the statement than the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself. It is only fair to the Postmaster General to say that the hon. gentleman will only have to inquire of the officers of the department and of people who do business with the department to ascertain that the information he has received as to the attendance of the minister is quite inaccurate.
We 'have had some reference to the fact that this department is being reorganized, and that is claimed to be evidence of gross mismanagement. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the reorganization of that department is only one portion of a plan looking to the amelioration of conditions in all the departments. The Printing Bureau was dealt with, and the Department of Customs is now being dealt with. It is indeed a strange reward for an endeavour to effect improvement-and there is room for improvement everywhere- that that endeavour should be taken as conclusive evidence of the gross negligence which has been imputed to the Postmaster General.
There has been reference to some employees whose services have been dispensed with. That is part of the plan to secure a more economical administration. One gentleman was mentioned. His case is the result of the combination of two branches and the consequent disappearance of the

office of head of one of them. That gentleman was fairly treated, being given his retirement allowance, and the country has the advantage of economy effected by that combination.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understood the right
hon. gentleman to say that reorganization was at present going on in the department. Who is conducting the reorganization?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Griffenhagen and Company have made an examination and employed their expert methods of determining what would be improvements. In consultation with the officers of the department they reach certain conclusions, which Conclusions are from time to time reported first to a subcommittee of the council, and then to the council itself, and are gradually being acted upon. The work is not yet completed. Once an appropriate system is laid down we expect to apply it to the other departments, employing men trained by these outside gentlemen.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Griffenhagen and Company are still working on the job?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are winding up
their operations. I should just like to call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman who has spoken reproaches us for gross extravagance, and also for an endeavour to economize. You cannot reduce expenditure without cutting down, among other things, your staff. Yet almost in the same breath practically in which we are reproached with this alleged gross extravagance and increasing expenditure we are as bitterly reproached because we are endeavouring to reduce that expenditure in the most economical manner possible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is expected that this
reorganization will reduce the expenditure?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is expected.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In the Estimates submitted to the House there is provision made for an increase of 185 in the staff, under the heading of Civil Government, and an increase in the total vote of over $250,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The explanation is very simple. Those 185 officers who last year and the previous year were paid in the Outside Service are now being paid in the Inside Service; so it is no increase at all.
Now, the hon. gentleman has spoken of our surpluses and of what he calls our deficits, and has dwelt upon the increasing expenditure. I could not help wondering whether he supposed that the Post Office
Department could be absolutely exempt from the increase in the cost of everything that contributes to the life not only of the individual, but of any business. This Government has not discovered any miraculous methods by which when the cost of everything goes up the Post Office Department can buy its supplies at the old prices, nor does it pretend to be able to develop, we will say, the rural mail service-which is a very extensive branch and has grown rapidly-without any additional expenditure.
The hon. gentleman contends that we ought to abolish the war tax; that cheaper postage means larger revenue, and he points to the example of Great Britain in the past and to our following it. Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain why Great Britain, whom we should follow in the line of reduction, has doubled her postage rate and continues that doubled rate. Perhaps he would explain why Australia has done the same thing and is continuing it; why New Zealand has done the same thing and is continuing it. Perhaps he would explain, too, if it be so clear that the mere cutting down of the rate would increase the revenue, why it was that the cutting down ,'by the United States, which he instanced-the abolishing of the war tax-produced a net loss of some $17,000,000 in the first year they did it. Now, that was not an absolute loss, but I am told by those who are experts in that line that there is in this post office business what is called a natural increase; that you have every year a regular, normal increase of some 12 per cent. When you say that the United States the year after had a larger income, why, that was merely the natural increase; leaving that out, she dropped some $17,000,000 in the transaction. In the year that she had that natural increase, the natural increase in her case was 18 per cent and in ours it was 14. Just to mention one item to account for the increase in expenditures that is complained of, last year the increase in salaries and wages resulting from the reclassification and the increases in pay amounted to no less than $1,200,000, and in addition to that the employees were given shorter hours which, of course, if the same work is to be done, necessitates the employment of a greater number. I do not suppose that the hon. gentleman himself would say that these increases in salary were not justified.
We have heard a great deal about the increase in what we pay to the railways.

Again I ask, can the Post Office Department, when the rates of everybody else are increased, expect that its rates are not to be increased? Did the .hon. gentleman when he was in charge have some magician's wand by which he kept the Post Office Department immune from the changing conditions in which it in common with the rest of the world lived? We all know that the freight rates have been tremendously increased even to the point of destroying traffic, yet the hon. gentleman is scandalized because the Post Office is subject to these same conditions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But there was an increase a few years ago.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know just
what the number of years would be, but we had two increases in the railway freight rates coming within about two or three years of each other. The hon. gentleman himself is not disposed to find fault with the increase that was made in 1912. I am not in a position to speak of the circumstances under which it was made; it was a number of years ago. I am not familiar with the conditions which existed then nor am I in a position to obtain this evening information in that regard. But as to the last increase that my hon. friend is talking about, what does he suggest that the Government should have done, or that Parliament should have done, for that matter? Would he have expected Parliament-apparently he expected it from the Government-to say:	Everybody else's freight
rates are increased; the wage rate that the railway companies are paying is immensely increased, as is their cost of operation, but the service given to the Post Office is to remain in statu quo. I submit that there was nothing more fair or reasonable than that the Government should have done what it did when it submitted to the arbitrament of the Railway Commission the question of what we ought to pay. The people of Canada as individuals have to be governed by the determination of the Railway Commission as to what they ought to pay for services that the railways render; I ask in the name of common sense why should we, the Government of the country, not be called upon to submit also to the determination of the same body? The hon. gentleman himself admits that there should have been an increase, because what does he say? The Government referred it to the Railway Commission, he says, and "of course" either means that they increased the rates because they ought to be in-'
creased, or-and I am sure the hon. gentleman does not mean to do so-he imputes to the Railway Commission a desire to sit there, though there was not reason or ground for it, and increase the railway rates. I am quite willing to accept the reproach that this Government was prepared to submit the question to the body which under the authority of Parliament has been constituted to decide precisely the same question for the whole Canadian public.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How is it that the Gov-emment has on two occasions recently yielded to the request of the railway companies, whereas during twenty-five or thirty years previously the department had successfully resisted the same request? How is it that these increases go only to the old companies, companies which were subsidized by the Government? New companies that have been subsidized in the last fifteen or twenty years do not receive mail subsidies because under the Railway Act it is provided that as they receive railway subsidies they should transport the mails free.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand my hon. friend's argument, it is that what he calls the new companies were granted subsidies on condition that they carry the mails free. Well, these companies have accepted the subsidy with that condition.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Should not the old companies, which besides receiving railway subsidies were being paid a special mail subsidy, have been satisfied with what they were getting?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The subsidies granted to them had been granted apparently with no accompanying condition that they should carry the mails. I suppose it was considered that the advantage to the public from the construction and carrying on of the roads justified the granting of that subsidy without such a consideration. Past governments recognized that the matter was one of making a bargain for a fair price for the carriage of the mails. The hon. member claimed credit for himself and his predecessors for having resisted during twenty-five years. If there had been no increase for twenty or twenty-five years before 1912, I leave it to the common sense of this House whether that fact itself does not demonstrate that the time had come, if you are going to act fairly at all, when there ought to be an increase. As regards the second increase that is spoken of, I have already pointed out that the Post

Office Department has shared the fate common to the entire people of Canada, and has taken the judgment of the body that decides what all of us ought to pay when we have occasion to ask for carriage by the railways.
As to the protest that was read to us, it pointed out existing conditions and objected to accepting certain terms that were demanded by the railways. Those terms were not accepted; the matter was submitted to the Railway Commission, and it has given its decision. In that protest, I notice it was pointed out that there was a call for an increase in the charges to be made for the carriage of newspapers. That has been acted upon. Last year we had an increase of from one-quarter to three-quarters of a cent per pound and next year the rate is to becomq li cents. I do not know that there is anything further that I need add. I should only like to repeat in closing that because the hon. member's sources of information are inaccurate, I think he is very unfair to the Postmaster General. Whether the Postmaster General should be in this House or not is a question that has been discussed on different occasions. If the minister were in this House, if we were to carry out what is a well established custom, some other minister would be in the other chamber. I do not, however, desire to go into a discussion of that question which, after all, is an abstract one. There is much to be said on one side and on the other.


John Howard Sinclair: The
minister has not explained to my satisfaction the enormous increase in expenditure during the last number of years. In 1910, the total expenditure amounted to $7,900,000; in 1911, it was $9,100,000; in 1912, it amounted to $10,482,000; in 1913, it amounted to $12,000,000. This was all before the war. In 1914, it amounted to $12,956,000. It was advancing at the rate of $2,000,000 in some years and $1,000,000 in others. When we have the evidence of the Civil Service investigators that the Post Office Department is so filled up with unnecessary officers that they propose to save at least $1,000,000 by discharging men who have nothing to do, we can see the reason for a large part of that increase. The management of the Post Office has been most reckless during the present regime, and, in fact, ever since 1911. Taking into consideration the high cost of everything, there can be no excuse why the expenditure of the Post Office should go from $9,000,287
000 to $20,000,000 in those years. Something more than the increase in the cost of living and the increase in the cost of service is necessary to explain such an enormous increase as that. With the war tax, there is an apparent surplus; but if we deduct the war tax as it appears in the Post Office report, there is the enormous deficit of $3,637,000. I find, in comparing the post office accounts of this year with those of some years ago, the increase is largely in salaries, showing that the number of officials appointed in Ottawa and other branches of the service accounts for a large part of the increase.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And likewise increase in the rates of salaries. There you have a very heavy increase.


John Howard Sinclair: But
that would hardly bring the salaries up from something like $3,000,000 to $10,000,000 as they are now. There is not time at present for us to discuss this question in an intelligent .manner. There is so much that has to be dealt with that it is very unsatisfactory that these Estimates should have been brought on at this stage of the session. If one department of the Government ought to have its Estimates brought on at an earlier stage of the session, it is the Post Office Department. Every man in Canada is interested in the Post Office. What I object to is to have to deal with these questions in the dying hours of the session. This is not a new method adopted by the present Administration. The Railway Estimates were treated in the same way. Contentious Estimates are kept off until the close of the session, and we are expected to rush them through without explanations during the dying hours 'of the session. This is very unsatisfactory, and, of course, it results in members not knowing what they are voting the money for?
I want to get some information regarding the reorganization that, I understand, is to take place in the Maritime Provinces. There is a rumour in the newspapers that the inspector's office in Halifax is to be closed and removed to Moncton; the staff at Prince Edward Island are also to be removed, and for all the Maritime Provinces, we are to have the one inspector's head office at Moncton. This should not be done without consultation with the representatives of the Maritime Provinces. I know no good reason why this ought to be done, and I should like to know the views of hon. members from the Maritime Provinces supporting the Government. Do they want to



[Stage Direction]
lose the inspector's office at Halifax where it is a great convenience to members of this House and all other parties who have business with the inspectors?
The office at Moncton would he very inconvenient for the whole province of Nova Scotia. It would be a good centre, I admit, for the three provinces, but we have no business with Moncton and men will not travel one or two hundred miles simply for the purpose of meeting the inspector and discussing with him small questions concerning the management of the postal service in some particular district. On the other hand, we all go to Halifax frequently on business, and we can then kill two birds with one stone-do our business, and discuss any questions we have with the inspector. If the office is removed to Moncton it is going to be very inconvenient for the people of the province of Nova Scotia, and I do not think the change should be made without consulting the maritime members. I do not know what are the views of my hon. friends from Nova Scotia who are supporters of the Government. I would like to know the views of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy), of my hon. friend from Annapolis, (Mr. Davidson), and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. McGregor), who are all interested in this question. Do they think it would be to the advantage of the province of Nova Scotia to have the inspector's office removed from Halifax to Moncton? Moncton is a place where most Nova Scotia people have very little business. We pass through there going to Montreal. It is a very fine city, and if we were going to have one inspection office for all the Maritime Provinces, it would be a very central place, but the inconvenience is going to be very great if the change is made for those people in the province of Nova Scotia who have business with the inspector. I do not know what, if anything, can be gained by the change. Perhaps the minister can tell us what the plan of the Government is. What does he expect to gain by the change? I can assure him it will not be a popular move in the province of Nova Scotia, and that it will create a great deal of inconvenience for the people who want to do business with the post office inspector. I should like some information from the minister on that point.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that while the matter is receiving consideration, no final decision has been arrived at with regard to it. As to the desirability
[Mr. J. H. .Sinclair.1
of the views of the members from that part of the country being taken, I feel quite authorized to assure the hon. gentleman and any other members who may desire to impress their views upon the departmental officers, who, as I have said, are in consultation with the firm that is doing the reorganization, that their views will be quite welcome and will be given every consideration. I know of no other way by which the department can elicit the views of hon. members, and I am quite sure that the doors will be open to them, and that any representations they desire to make will have a respectful hearing and consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister would tell us something about what he 'intends to do we would have a better idea. I have, seen this rumour in the press.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have said, no decision has been arrived at and therefore I am not in a position to tell the hon. gentleman what we intend to do. The matter is being canvassed and considered and discussed. That is all I can say at the present moment.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the change been recommended by the Griffenhagen Company?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that that is the recommendation of the Griffenhagen Company.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I regret that the
Estimates of the Post Office Department have not been brought down to the House until the last hours of the session, as there is so much criticism to be 2 a.m. offered on the administration of the Post Office Department. As has been stated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), it is not surprising to anybody who has any knowledge of the administration of that department, that the expenditure of the Post Office Department has jumped from $9,000,000 to $24,000,000. In view of the patronage which has been introduced into that department of late years, we are not surprised to learn that the salaries have increased over $10,000,000. It is within the knowledge of a great many people, and especially the people of the city of Quebec, that, positions at high salaries have been given in the department to friends of the Government who had even no office in the

city of Quebec, and who in some cases have made no reports to the department. I wish to mention one case, in particular, that of Dr. Michel Fiset, who occupies the position of Parcel Post Supervisor, at a salary of $2,800 a year. He was appointed by Order in Council in 1914. It was stated in reply to a question I put on the Order Paper, some time ago that he has drawn over $19,000 from the Post Office Department. I suppose this is just another instance of friends of the Government drawing big salaries without rendering any service whatever. Mr. Fiset is well known in the city of Quebec. He is a politician, and a great friend of the Government. He was the opponent of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Quebec East, and I suppose he was given this position by the Government as a reward for his services in that respect. As I have said, he has received almost $20,000, and has rendered no service to the department. This is another instance of patronage and waste of money in the department.


John Howard Sinclair: Is he
still in the employ of the department?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: It was stated in reply to a question of mine a couple of months ago that Mr. Michel Fiset was recommended for a pension. Whether he is still in the employ of the department, I do not know; the last news I had was that he was. In the session of 1918 I asked a question of the minister, and if my memory serves me correctly the Prime Minister himself answered me that Mr. Fiset was Parcel Post Supervisor, and even he did not know of what utility that position was.


Joseph Archambault: Where does Mr. Fiset reside?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: In Quebec city.


Joseph Archambault: I thought my
hon. friend said that he was not a citizen of Quebec.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: He is a citizen of Quebec. The citizens of Quebec cannot see what service Dr. Fiset has rendered, but he has drawn some $19,000 odd since 1914. There is much complaint in regard to the administration of the Post Office Department. I know that many communications have been addressed to the Postmaster General, and have received no acknowledgment. Ten or twelve days ago I addressed to the department a petition signed by over 300 of the principal citizens of the
town of Loretteville, asking for the establishment of a post office near the church. There was some difference of opinion as to where the post office should be located, and this petition was signed by over 300 persons, including the mayor, and the principal citizens. I addressed it myself to the department with a letter of recommendation to the Postmaster General, but I regret to say that I have never even received an acknowledgment of it. I am not surprised therefore that the member for Maisonneuve should say that the Postmaster General is indifferent, and neglects his department. This statement is certainly borne out by the fact that people cannot get important communications even so much as acknowledged.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to inquire into the oversight in regard to the letter and see that the matter is attended to. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. gentleman. Dr. Fiset stands on the retired list as from March 31 last, so that even if the case were as lamentable as it is represented,-and I have no information regarding it-the evil will cease.


John Howard Sinclair: Is he getting a pension?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the age of Dr. Fiset, and therefore cannot say whether he is or not. I shall be glad to forward the information to the hon. member to-morrow morning.


Joseph Archambault: The minister
does not need to know Mr. Fiset's age to state whether he gets a pension or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is to be
determined is whether he gets a pension or a lump sum by way of retirement allowance, and that, I am informed, depends upon his age and length of service.


Joseph Archambault: His electoral
service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, length of service.


John Howard Sinclair: I
understand that the mail carriers have made a request to the department for some rearrangement of the method by which they are at present paid. I refer particularly to the rural mail carriers. They have asked for a stated sum per mile. This is chiefly in the province of Ontario, but I understand that the same thing is true in respect of the whole Dominion. I am requested to find out what action is being taken in this matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The rural mail carriers are contractors who are paid what they offer to do the work for. I understand that on their behalf a request has been made that they he made employees. They get the contracts because they make lower tenders than other people, and then they find that they cannot do the work for the amount at whieh they tender and they request that without further ceremony they be made permanent employees of the Government and be given a fixed rate per mile, I think $70. Now, the present view certainly is that this proposition cannot be entertained. In all cases where men have so tendered and got contracts, when it is established that for one reason or another they are unable to make ends meet at the rate they have tendered, the department has shown itself most lenient in discharging them from their obligations, and assuming the responsibility of calling for new tenders. Complaints in this respect have been very much reduced. They naturally were more frequent when the cost of everything was going up, because it was more likely to happen, under such circumstances, that men would miscalculate, at the time they made tenders, as to what the work would actually cost; but now that most things are on the decline, I am informed that complaints by rural mail carriers, that the sums they receive are not sufficient, are considerably few. Now, as indicating the unwisdom, not the impossibility, of acceding to the request that has been made, I might point out that while what is asked for is $70 a mile, the average of tenders coming in now for new contracts is $40 per mile, so that, on its face, the request seems absolutely unreasonable.
-Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :	The
system of tendering has not been very satisfactory. My hon. friend knows that very many people tender at too low rates and are not able to carry out their contracts and of necessity have to come to the department for further advances. That I is the prevailing condition, and I understand that bonuses have to be paid them. But the only question is whether it is a wise policy to do as they have done in the United States. The rural mail carriers should be paid so much a mile-I do 'not say $70-but whatever is right, owing to the conditions and circumstances at the present time. We would have a more satisfactory service if that system were adopted than we have with the present system.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the Post Office Department .find the present system working satisfactorily, and I have just pointed out that the complaint from the contractors has very much diminished. Many of the rural routes involve comparatively short distances, and do not take all of a man's time, or anything of that kind. The departmental opinion, at all events, is that, from the department's point of view, the present system is preferable, and it is quite possible to do justice and act fairly towards the contractor under the present system. The departmental view is that there would be no advantage to be derived from the change, and I am informed that it costs the United States a very considerable sum of money to effect the change-that the bringing about of the change involved a very considerable addition to the cost of doing the work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just a few questions to put to the right hon. gentleman. First, I see an item about the annuities which has reference to the administration of a branch of a department which was transferred to the Post Office, some years ago. I would like to know if the right hon. gentleman can state generally as to whether there has been an increase in the number of annuities provided in accordance with the system which was introduced some years ago by the Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed there has been a slight increase in the business, but that the public do not really seem to take hold of it in any large way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the department promoting the system? I understand the Annuities Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce was transferred to the Post Office in order to make available the various posit offices throughout the Dominion as advertising agencies for that system, which is really a sort of old age pension for the public. I do not know if the department has given the impetus necessary to the success of that system in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that the system has been advertised throughout all the post offices. Posters have been put up, but it is pointed out to me that the conditions have been such that people could find much superior investments for their money, and that the terms on which they could procure annuities from other sources are much more advantageous and that readily accounts for the slowness of the

people in availing themselves of this system.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Another point which is perhaps a little personal: Some years ago I had, as secretary of the department, Col. Hector Verret, and before I left the department he was appointed Assistant Deputy Postmaster General. Col. Verret, besides being a very efficient officer, and doing practically the work of the province of Quebec, because he is so familiar with both languages, has been a long and faithful servant of the public. I am informed-and we are all aware-that he was a gallant officer during the Great War. He was wounded and decorated on the battlefield for his gallant services. In his absence; unfortunately, another gentleman was promoted in his stead as joint Assistant Postmaster General. I shall not give his name. But so many protests were made that that other gentleman was given the administration of a branch of the department, and lately, I am informed, he was obliged to resign on account of irregularities. If I understand, some proceedings were taken against him, but my latest information is that he is still scot-free, and has not been brought to justice. This is not the point I wish to make, however. I suppose the Department of Justice will see that this man is brought before the court, if the facts which have been revealed are true, that he was tampering with the dead letters, and with the various objects which came under his supervision and control. But I wish to say that I am informed that Col. Verret, a gallant soldier, who was wounded and decorated on the battlefield is to be, not dismissed, but degraded in this sense, that it is supposed that Messrs. Griffenhagen and Company have decided that his post should not he filled, and that Col. Verret11 should be placed in some inferior position, possibly with the same salary. When Col. Verret was appointed Assistant Deputy Postmaster General he was filling a long-felt want in that department, and was doing practically the business of the whole of the province of Quebec. There are very few French Canadian officers in the department, and it seems very drastic that he should be put aside, especially after having served so gallantly his country and his King. I hope that in the reorganization of the department, Col. Verret, who is well-known by all members of this House, who is most courteous and efficient, will be maintained in his position. I am informed-in fact I have read that report of Griffenhagen and Co.-
that men who came into the service long after Col. Verret and who received orders from him, are recommended for a higher salary. I say the least that should he done in this case is to give the higher official the higher pay, and above all he should be retained in the position which he deserves to occupy. I have not seen Col. Verret for months and months. I meet him occasionally. He was a fine, faithful servant to the . various ministers who came in succession into that department. I am not pleading on his behalf because of my personal relations with him, but I know he is a good civil servant, and a man who was wounded on the field, who was decorated, who risked his life during the Great War, and who returns home to find that he will be degraded in the department, when he is still full of life and vigour, willing to serve as Deputy Postmaster General. It seems to me that my right hon. friend should impress upon the Postmaster General, and upon the Government that no injustice should be done in this case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have every sympathy with the expressed desire of the hon. gentleman that no injustice should be done to Colonel Verret. The question that has arisen so far, however, is not a personal question at all, but whether there is occasion for the services of an Assistant Deputy Postmaster General. That every consideration should be given to Colonel Verret if it be decided that the particular office is not necessary, I fully concur in, but I think we have got to. consider simply the general proposition, that you cannot very well maintain an office, if it be a useless office, because it happens to be filled by a very competent gentleman and a very deserving soldier.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appeal to my hon.
friends on both sides of the House who have had any business to transact with the department to 'bear me out when I say that Col. Verret is really a most necessary official of the department, for he is approachable at all hours day in and day out, and it seems to me that he should not be degraded. He has won his position by merit, and in spite of Messrs. Griffenhagen and Company he should be maintained in it.


John Allister Currie: I wish to endorse every word that has been spoken in favour of Colonel Verret. I had occasion to have dealings with the Post Office Department before the war and always found him competent and courteous. Throughout the

war 'he was a brother officer of mine, and I cannot speak too highly of him, and I think it would be a matter of very deep regret to any one who knows him to think for one moment that any reorganization could be achieved in the post office whereby he would be degraded and forced out of his position.


Jacques Bureau: Griffenhagen and Com-'pany would do it.


John Allister Currie: They are not Britishers, French or Canadians, and they do not even know who won the war. But there is no doubt that so far as Colonel Verret is concerned nothing should be done that will be injurious to him. I met him in Canada, in England and in France under all conditions, and I can assure the House that words of mine cannot convey one-half of the esteem I have for Mm and of my admiration of his ability. He and another young man by the name of Murray assisted largely in establishing the most efficient postal service that we had in the war zone and in England. Hiis heart is always in the post office, and I feel satisfied that the Government will see to it that he is dealt with properly and that no reorganization will find him deprived of his position. I also want to refer to another gentleman in the Post Office Department whom they are trying to throw out of the service-Mr. Anderson. He also is a most efficient officer and an ideal civil servant. I do not know of any two men in all the departments who are better qualified to fill the positions they occupy than these gentlemen, and I hope the committee of council which has charge of this work will see to it that no outside organization shall come into the department and deprive the country of the services of these capable officials.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I fully endorse what my hon. friend has said of Mr. Anderson. He is a most competent man and known throughout Canada. He does not consider at all the hour of the day or night-he is always ready to give you the information you require. He is full of health and vigour, and certainly I would not accept complacently any degradation in his case either.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am told by the officers of the department that the suggestion of any removal of Mr. Anderson is something they have heard of for the first time. With regard to Colonel Yerret, I shall bear in mind what has been said.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Has the acting Postmaster General any information in regard to the extensive reorganization of the Post Office Department that is now in progress? Another matter I want to refer. I understand no separate accounts are kept in the Post Office Department of its sale of postage stamps and of inland revenue stamps. I protested against that last year. I think separate accounts should be kept so we will know exactly what the actual revenue of the Post Office Department is.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman think that the people of Canada are going to be put to such inconvenience in order that this information may be obtainable that they cannot use a postage stamp on a cheque? That is absurd.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am addressing my remarks to the acting Postmaster General and looking for information from him on these points. If I should want other information that might be obtained from an ex-officer of the militia I shall address my remarks to the member for North Simcoe. Another item I want to refer to is the reduction in postal rates. The United States reduced their rates on letters from three cents to two cents on July 1, 1919. I agree with the statement made by the member 'for Maisonneuve that there would almost certainly be an immediate increase of revenue by a reduction in the rates. That was our experience years ago when Mr. Mulock was Postmaster General and the rates were reduced from three to two cents-the revenue increased immediately. Is it the intention of the Government to consider this matter? I think it is very desirable that these rates should be reduced. If they were able to reduce them in the United States immediately after the war there is no reason why Canada should not do the same. I should like to know also whether the Government are considering a readjustment of the parcel post rates. Any increase in these rates would affect myself adversely, but I submit that they are altogether too low-railway rates have tremendously increased but parcel post rates are the same as they were some years ago. Then, as to purchasing agents, I find that there are in this branch of the service 24 such officials; last year there were 21. We have a purchasing department which is costing the country about $100,000 annually for salaries; one would think, therefore, that there would be no need for an increase in the number of these employees - in the

Post Office Department. I find that there is one postal purchasing agent and store clerk, that there are 6 senior store clerks, 4 store clerks, 6 supply clerks, and 7 junior store clerks. If the purchasing department is functioning as it should, these employees should not be necessary in the Post Office Department-and this applies to all other branches of the service. There is certainly duplication of services here as well as duplication of cost. Another point which I wish to bring to the minister's attention has to do with rural mail service. I will put the case in this way: the department advertises for tenders for a certain mail route, and three or four tenders are received. Now, instead of accepting the lowest tender, here is what happens: the department has a very clever fellow here in the service who goes out to the section concerned, interviews Tom Jones, Joe Brown, John Smith and the rest of them who have tendered, and gets them to bid against each other-and here is where the whole trouble arises. I know instances where through operations of this kind the bid has been reduced down to an amount below that of the lowest tender. If the department would accept the lowest tender, provided all the requirements were complied with and proper bondsmen provided to guarantee the service to be performed, there would be no kick. The minister has stated that the department is magnanimous in these cases; that he will cancel the contract wherever the lowest tender is not accepted, but that he holds the bondsman until such time as another tender is received and is accepted. Well, the same system again prevails; this gentleman goes out and gets the tenderers to bid against each other and in that way they are fooled into accepting contracts at much lower prices than those at which they can really afford to do the work-and more trouble arises. Now, I have submitted a good many matters for the minister's consideration, but he will agree they are sufficiently important to merit attention at this time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the matter of rural mail carriers, the hon. gentleman's reproach really is that the department are trying to get the work done at as reasonable a figure as they can. We are blamed for incurring increased expenditure-the hon. gentleman himself made comments along that line-and then we are blamed for taking any steps to cut down expenditure. I am told that when these endeavours are made to reduce the lowest
tender it is when the official is face to face with a lowest tender which is a great deal more than the work is worth.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is not correct.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the judgment
of the officials employed, and the reproach is that they go to these men and get as good a bargain as they can. Now, if these men are, as the hon. gentleman says, fooled into doing this, it is marvellous what shrewdness they develop when they come later on to make their claim for increased price. I have had opportunity of listening to some of them myself, and to me it is inconceivable that the shrewd man who came to me to get his price built up, who was able to confront me with every sort of reason and for whom I was no match at all, is the same innocent man who when the employee of the department went to see how little he would do it for, was fooled into doing it. Had the hon. member been in the House earlier in the evening, he would have learned that after the rural mail carriers had been making this claim for a rate of $75 a mile, the average tenders that came in were for $40 a mile. Everything is now on the down grade, and I understand that the unrest and complaints in regard to this matter have considerably fallen off and are continuing to do so. With the information that I have, I cannot concur in the hon. member's opinion, and I have only to refer to the fact that Great Britain and the other countries that I have mentioned cannot see the matter in the way that he does. The United States have made the change, and they have lost a very large sum of money in doing it.
The hon. gentleman proposes that parcel post rates should be raised. The question is being considered, but I understand we have perilously nearly reached the point where, if we increase the rates further, they will be as high or higher than those of the express companies and naturally we will not do any business. We must consider how much the traffic will bear. No conclusion has been reached upon the subject.
There is only one purchasing agent, and I do not see where the hon. member found twenty-four agents. There are storekeepers, but a man who keeps store is not a purchasing agent. The staff has been amalgamated into one department under one purchasing agent, who is the head supervisor over all the men in charge of keeping the stores.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is an instance in
the Estimates of a stores clerk getting $2,800 a year. He must surely perform some duties beyond that of an ordinary stores clerk.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The gentleman was
occupying a clerical position of an important character to which was attached this salary of $2,800, when the Civil Service Commission thought it wise to classify him under the name of stores clerk. Notwithstanding the change of name, he was entitled under the law to remain at the same salary.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What are the duties of
a stores clerk and why are there so many of this class of employees?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A stores clerk takes
charge of and issues the different stores confined to his care, and he is responsible for them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: A man had a mail contract for thirty miles for which he received $960 a year. He kept two horses and a wagon, and he was on the road the whole time, not being able to do any other work. He took that under contract, but I have my doubts whether he was not chewed down by your efficient and capable agent who negotiates these deals. While I believe that the lowest tender should be accepted, there should be no chewing down. The department consented to cancel this contract provided that they could get a satisfactory man to take up the work. This man, on my advice, tendered again on the basis of $45 a month, and this is the only tender. This agent came along from Ottawa and he cut the man's price down by $100, notwithstanding the fact that his costs, giving him absolutely a bare living, figured up to not less than $1,500. That is not decent treatment. This man should get $1,500, or $50 a mile.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-Outside Service, $25,028,323.25.
John Ewen Sinclair: Is it the
intention of the Post Office Department to adopt the recommendation made by the Griffenhagen firm as regards the reorganization of the Postal Inspection Branch of the Maritime provinces? I am informed that these experts recommend the closing of the offices at Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John and moving a portion of the staff to Moncton where the inspectorate will be centralized.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Earlier in the morning I answered the same question to the extent that I am in a position to answer it. There has been a recommendation made which is receiving consideration. No decision has as yet been reached.


John Ewen Sinclair: The people of the Maritime provinces do not view with favour this movement, which is not confined to the Post Office Department alone, in centralizing the control of the different departments in one centre in the Maritime provinces. I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy), and the Minister of Customs, and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) will take particular notice of this, because we are all equally interested. We think we get better control of the service if it is managed in each province. In fact, when the provinces came into Confederation it was not intended that we would ever be governed through the centre of any other province. To put it briefly, our people do not wish to be made the tools and minions of the Griffenhagen Company. We object very much to being made an annex or vestibule to any other province, and I trust that the minister will convey that impression to his colleague in the Cabinet who is at the head of the Post Office Department. This same principle was followed a few years ago with the railways, and the situation has never been as good since the management of our Island railway was moved to Moncton, and it is much worse now that the management has been moved to Toronto, We want as much local control as possible over local affairs. It is much easier for us as members of parliament to get satisfaction when we have an inspector in the district who is responsible to Ottawa. We get better satisfaction and much quicker service, especially in a department where there are so many details to be taken care of as in the post office department. I commend that to the consideration of my hon. friend.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister some time ago stated in reply to a question from my hon. friend from Marquette that the staff increase of 185 was accounted for by the transfer of that number from the outside to the inside service. I notice that the vote for the outside service has increased by $916,594.62, salaries and allowances making up $714,000 odd of that increase. If there are 185 less people in the outside service, how does the minister acount for that increase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the increase in the cost of the outside service is the result of statutory salary increases and the increase in salaries as a result of the reclassification.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it a fact that there are 185 less people in the outside service of that department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As there are 10,000
employees in the outside service, it is not surprising that there should be that much of an increase in view of the statutory increases and by reason of the reclassification.


John Frederick Johnston: I submit that it is a tremendous increase. We have 185 fewer people in the outside service this year than last, yet it is costing $714,000 odd more.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have here, and could read to the hon. member, a full list of the people to whom those increases go, and show him that the total amount is made up of the statutory increases and such increases as result from the reclassification.


John Frederick Johnston: I would not ask the minister to go to that trouble. If 185 people have been transferred from the outside to the inside service, have the places of those 185 people in the outside service been filled by other people?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the 185 were not counted in the inside service, it would simply mean 185 more in the outside service.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who is acting as Postmaster General, to the fact that since over three months the citizens of lies aux Grues in Montmagny county complain that the motor boat service beween Montmagny and lies aux Grues is quite irregular. The mail service is made on land through the town of Montmagny on a distance of one mile and the river is crossed by motor boat. According to his contract, the mail carrier is supposed to supply a boat capable of carrying, in the summer time, at least twenty people. This year the mail carrier was rather late and could not get a proper boat for the service. When the Post Office Inspector came to inspect the service, early this spring, he crossed from Montmagny to lies aux Grues on the mail carrier's motor boat.
In the evening he called on the cure of Pile aux Grues and told him that in order
to get back to Montmagny next morning he would take another boat than the one which the mail carrier used, because he did not wish to risk his life. On many occasions I drew the attention of the Postmaster General to this fact, asking him to see that the mail carrier placed at the service of the citizens of the island a better boat. Each time the answer was: "We shall make an inquiry." When last I heard from the island this inquiry had not taken place. Even lately, although a promise was made to make an inquiry in this case,
I was informed by one of the leading citizens of l'lle aux Grues that the mail service instead of being performed by a motor boat was being done by canoe and consequently the citizens of the island have absolutely no service and even before this last event took place no mail was despatched for one or two days. Under these circumstances I believe it my duty to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the case and ask him to see that the mail carrier fulfils his contract and if he cannot do it, the minister should immediately ask for new tenders, so as to get some one who will give a satisfactory service to the citizens of Pile aux Grues.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.)
I am afraid that the hon. member is not applying to the right department. The officials inform me that the Post Office Department lets out no contract for the transport of passengers by boat. I am told that the Department of Trade and Commerce looks after this. We pay the mail carrier to carry the mail but we do not take into consideration the comforts of the public in this service.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) I want to tell the minister that on two different occasions I personally examined the contract passed between. the Post Office Department and the mail carrier and the former stipulates in that contract that the mail carrier will supply a boat. It is the Post Office Department that has made the contract with the mail carrier and according to this contract a service must be supplied as the one I spoke about a few moments ago.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) If the hon. member will give us the name of the mail carrier we will look into this matter.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) I do not at present remember the name of the mail carrier, but it is very easy for the minister

to ascertain who he is. For the last month I have been writing almost every week to the Post Office Department with regard to this matter. You will find at the department a whole file of letters written by the member for Montmagny. Besides having often written to the department I had a number of interviews with Col. Verret, who told me: "My dear Dechene, I cannot do more than to ask for a report from the Quebec office!" That report, Sir, never turns up. They promised to have an inquiry made, but the inquiry never took place, no one went to the island to do so.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, before this item is passed, I wish to make a few remarks very closely resembling those made by the hon. member for Montmagny. About a month ago I submitted to this House a resolution with the aim of obtaining a better service than is at present in existence between St. Catherines Bay and Tadoussac. At that time I told the House that there was a contract between the Post Office Department and a certain person for the carrying of mail; I believe that the Government was paying him $2,000 or $3,000. I received a letter from the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) informing me that this was the amount being paid and that he could not understand why the service was not a better one. Often the mail failed to arrive on time. Although the contract clearly stated that the mail should be carried by boats such as circumstances required, an ordinary small canoe was used to cross the Saguenay river; according to the contract the mail carrier must make use of a gasoline launch; this was never done and consequently it has often happened that the mail was a few days late. When I brought forward my resolution, I read to the House a letter from a Mr. Pennington, once a member of the Quebec Harbour Commission- that letter was inserted in Hansard. Mr. Pennington wrote to me that he had been to St. Catherines Bay, wishing to get to his lumber mills, but that he was unable to cross owing to the boat being unsafe and that it would have meant taking his life in his own hands, had he crossed in the canoe which the mail carrier used. The case is very similar to the one that my hon. friend from Montmagny spoke of.
I am addressing my remarks to the Acting Postmaster General, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I am sorry to find that this Government makes him responsible for the sins of another minister 
and obliges him to spend night after night in this House. Under those circumstances, if the Government would allow the deputy minister to come to this House instead of bringing in some young officials who perhaps are not as competent as Mr. Coulter in order to discuss these matters, perhaps it would be more satisfactory for ourselves.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as the Deputy Postmaster General is concerned, I will say to the hon. member that unfortunately he is sick. This is liable to happen to everybody and even the best Governments are subjected to the misfortune of seeing some deputy ministers stricken with sickness. With regard to the other question, I may say to my hon. friend that I will make inquiry about it. The officials who are here now exercise their wonder that the department should be called upon to explain the terms of some contracts concerning the transportation of passengers. I am informed that the Department of Trade and Commerce, in some cases, pay subsidies to the owners of such boats, and that it is provided in those contracts that they will carry the mail in consideration of that grant. I don't know if there is any question of a contract of that kind but I will inquire about it and I will give the information desired by the hon. member. It does not matter that the question be within the province of the Post Office Department or the Department of Trade and Commerce, I will acquaint whom it may concern with the result of the inquiry that will he made and then ask that the necessary action be taken.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I take good note of the favourable remarks and good intentions of the Acting Postmaster General, but I must say to the House that when I introduced this resolution some two months ago, the right hon. minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) answered in exactly the same way as the hon. minister has done to-night. He said: This matter is not at all within the province of the Department of Trade and Commerce. When I went and knocked at the door of the hon. minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) and make him acquainted *with the facts, his answer was: This does not concern my department, it concerns the Post Office Department. I would like to know if I will' thus be sent from pillar to post for a long time before I obtain justice. When we ask something very reasonable from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he gives the following answer: I can't do it; go and see the Postmaster Gen-

eral. As soon as we address ourselves to the hon. Postmaster General, he says: Go to the other department. When we apply to the Minister of Marine, his answer is: That matter does not concern me, others will see to it. Under the circumstances, the best thing to do I think is to send all the ministers back home and bring a change of government.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, it is past three o'clock in the morning now, we have been here since eleven o'clock yesterday morning, that is to say practically thirteen hours continually. The last sitting also lasted more than thirteen hours. And why are the members of Parliament compelled to spend whole nights in this chamber? It is the fault of this Government which has spent the greater part of this session discussing European affairs that don't concern us at all, at least much less than our own affairs, the League of Nations, the Court of Arbitration for the League and I don't know what else. To-night, they introduce the Estimates of the Post Office Department which have not yet been discussed. We have as the head of this department a minister who is not a member of this House. We had a lot of inquiries to make but there is nobody here in position to answer them. However, it is absolutely necessary, they say, to close the session to-day. I want to register my protest against that state of things, because it is unreasonable to sit here night and day for weeks and this only in order to meet one purpose: allow the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen) to start for London the 7th instant. Is it not a fact, Mr. Chairman, that during the four or five past years, the hon. member for Kings (Sir Robert Borden), the predecessor in office of the present Prime Minister, spent nearly 90 per cent of the session time abroad since the war? Would not it be fair and reasonable that the Prime Minister, if he wants to leave, should delegate his authority to the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) for example, as that hon. gentleman filled very ably the position of acting Prime Minister under the administration of Sir Robert Borden so that he would be still able to easily take the place of the present Prime Minister for two or three days, that is from now on till the end of the session? Do you believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people will be satisfied to find that hundreds of millions have been voted by the handful of members who are here to-night when the great number of those, who spend their
time shouting " carried," don't know even the item in discussion? I don't want to witness such scenes as those that are staged here to-night without registering my most emphatic protest against it.
Now, I am told, and it is stated in the papers, that the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition have met lately and that it was agreed between them that the session should end to-night. I object to such an arrangement, if it is a fact that it exists. The leader of the Opposition has no right to bind the House any more than the Prime Minister has, and I say that we should mind our own business before mixing in those of Europe. I do not wish to detain you any longer, because it is too late, and I move that we rise and that the Committee report progress.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Chairman, I am paired-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: There is no pairing in committee. Therefore no member has the right to state with whom he is paired.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, before this item is passed, I do not wish to retain very long the attention of the committee, but I wish to protest against the fact that the Government has submitted to the committee, the Post Office Estimates at a very late date. Those Estimates should have been discussed much earlier, and for many reasons. In the first place, the Post Office Department is at the present time directed, or rather seemingly directed by Mr. Blondin. Mr. Blon-din is the French minister of the province of Quebec. He represents himself as the exponent of the feelings of that province. He is wrong in doing this, because that province gives overwhelming majorities against him at every opportunity they have.
The second reason is that there are now important changes in that department, and those changes, in view of their nature, should have received more attention from the committee.
The third reason is that the Estimates are for amounts greater than those of other departments and consequently ^ we should have had more time to consider them.	_
Mr. Chairman, I hope it is the last time that the Government introduces the Estimates of the Post Office Department at such a late date and that at the next session those Estimates will be introduced much earlier in order that a more thorough dis-

cussion may take place. To-night the hon. Minister of Justice represents the Postmaster General for his Estimates. I do not blame him; he is one of the representatives of our province; but unfortunately, on almost every question he puts forward opinions contrary to those of the majority of the people of our province. The minister in the speeches which he made since the discussion of the Estimates began has given pretty long explanations, but they do not give satisfaction to the committee. For all that, they show that the hon. Minister of Justice is anxious to represent his colleague of the Post Office Department with as much fairness and competency as possible.
Upon the whole, I must say this, the Estimates came too late, the Postmaster General is a minister who represents nothing at all and the changes in his department are so important that we should have a more thorough discussion; but, under the circumstances, I will limit myself to the few remarks that I have made to-night to the committee.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Outside Service: Operating: expenses and working capital 

cost of administration, stores, printing, stationery, transportation and travelling; financing training and treatment erf Imperial and Allied Soldiers in Canada and other unforeseen items, $1,500,000.


William Daum Euler: Is it necessary, Mr. Chairman, for us to rush these items through with such haste?


Hon. Mr. REID:: It was understood between the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that the item would be passed this evening, with the exception of Labour, and that to-morrow, if any hon. member wished he could discuss any item in regard to which he desired to have information.


William Daum Euler: Then, any of the items passed to-night will be subject to criticism to-morrow?


John Dowsley Reid: If any hon. member wishes to discuss any item, he can bring it up to-morrow.


William Daum Euler: Well, what is the object of running them through with such rapidity to-night?


John Dowsley Reid: There was an agreement between the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that we should put them through.


William Daum Euler: I am not a party to that.


John Ewen Sinclair: There is a point I desire to bring up in connection with this item. Orders have gone out to close the offices in Charlottetown and Halifax and concentrate in the St. John office, the work in the Maritime Provinces of the Soldier Settlement Board. I want to ask the minister in charge of these Estimates if it is the policy of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to carry that out as I have described it. I might point out to the minister that the carrying out of this plan makes it rather inconvenient for the administration in the province of Prince Edward1 Island. I pointed out to-night to the right hon. gentleman, when the Post Office Estimates were up, that the practice is getting too common of concentrating authority in one centre in the Maritime Provinces. No province in Canada has responded so generously to the plans and efforts of the Soldier Settlement Board as Prince Edward Island, and I think they are at least entitled to have the field work and all work pertaining to that province administered from the office in Charlottetown. I make this request at this time simply to bring it before the Government, and I know that the minister who is in charge of these Estimates will bring the matter to the attention of his colleague, the minister at the head of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department. We are proud of our provincial entity and we do not appreciate the fact that we are joined to a centre in another province and have to report throught St. John or any other port. We wish to be directly connected with Ottawa, as we have been in the past.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand there is a head office of the Soldier Settlement Board, located at St. John, but there will be an official also in Nova Scotia and one in Prince Edward Island for the purpose of giving information, and so forth. This plan is being carried out on the recommendation of the Soldier Settlement Board, and I will send to the hon. member a full report of that so that he will have the information.


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. minister said there would be one man left in charge in Prince Edward Island.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is he known as a field man, or will the field men still remain there as they are now?


John Dowsley Reid: The new arrangement, makes a saving of thirty thousand dollars per annum, and there will be one man left in Prince Edward Island and one in Nova Scotia to keep in touch with the centres.
I cannot say if these will be field men, or what their titles will he, but they will fully understand the situation and give information to all in those provinces.


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not know whether I understand the hon. the minister aright or not. Up to the present time there has been a man in charge on Prince Edward Island. He had an office in Charlottetown where he directed all the work of that province. I understand that office is to ibe taken away. I think he is used in another capacity by the department in other places. Under him there were three field men in direct touch with settlers. Do I understand the three field men are to be reduced in number?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, one in Nova
Scotia and one in Prince Edward Island, on the recommendation of the Soldier Settlement Board.


John Ewen Sinclair: And that
one man is responsible to Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: No, through the head
office at St. John.


John Ewen Sinclair: I want to
repeat what I have already said, that we do not think it is dealing fairly, and it is not maintaining the spirit of Confederation, to be concentrating the Maritime Provinces in that way, and on behalf of Prince Edward Island, I want to protest against being joined down to St. John, or any place else. I have said that already, and I want the hon. minister to convey that to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act (Kevote). $500,000.
William Daum Euler: Is that for all the provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for purchase of 650 copies, of the Parliamentary Guide, $1,950.
Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: How much of that
money was spent last year?


John Dowsley Reid: The same amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives, $68,250.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has any decision been
come to in regard to a new building for the Archives?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not to be built
this year.
Canadian Press Limited, $50,000.


William Daum Euler: Before that item carries,
I would like an explanation in regard to it. Is that a contribution to the funds of the Canadian Press Limited?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the annual
subsidy given the Canadian Press Limited. It is a straight subsidy vote. If I remember rightly there is .an arrangement with them for service right through to the coast.


William Daum Euler: Is it not really a subsidy for the benefit of the western newspapers?


John Dowsley Reid: It is mostly for that purpose.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Why are there two items, to the Canadian Press, one of $50,000 and the other of $8,000?


John Dowsley Reid: The $50,000 is to help the West on that long line between here and Vancouver. The $8,000 used to be given to the Associated Press.


William Daum Euler: What is the principle upon which these subsidies are given? Newspapers are business propositions.


John Dowsley Reid: I know, but the telegraph service to the West was very expensive and an arrangement was made to give them a subsidy of $50,000 to assist the newspapers out there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendment*. Appointments for the purpose may he made without reference to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, $2,000,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: How do you explain the increase of $800,000?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The increased number of employees in connection with the Income Tax Act. We will have to increase the salaries; they have not been reclassified yet.


William Daum Euler: The Business Profits War Tax is now abolished.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the hon. gentleman knows we have to collect from last year's profits yet; we cannot stop at

the end of the last fiscal year. At the end of this fiscal year I hope we can effect a reduction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who selects the officers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are appointed by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contribution towards fighting the typhus epidemic in Europe, (revote), $200,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the Government
persist in spending $200,000 for that purpose?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When this amount was asked for last year by the late president of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) there was really a typhus epidemic in Central Europe.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The item has been put down as a revote. It ought not to be, because the money has been paid.
Item dropped.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might point out to the committee that item 316 is also withdrawn and replaced later by another item, No. 5381.
Chief electoral officer-salaries and contingencies of office, $15,640.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Personally, I have
the fullest confidence in Mr. Biggar, but we have just passed through a by-election in the county of Yamaska, and I noticed that in several polls ballots were missing, and at some places the polling did not begin until eleven o'clock in the morning. I am informed that unless the chief electoral officer exercises a close personal scrutiny as to the manner in which the machinery of the Elections Act is to be put in motion we shall have many troubles at the next general election. My hon. friend from Vaudreuil is here and can testify that in the Yamaska byelection the arrangements made prior to and during the day of polling were certainly very deficient. Undoubtedly the chief electoral officer has a big job ahead of him if he would avoid for the candidates any protests after the next general election.


John Dowsley Reid: We all have the greatest confidence in Mr. Biggar. As far 'as I know him he is a very reliable man. Of course, a great deal depends on the returning officers. However, the horn, member has brought the matter to the attention of the committee; I shall look into it and see what the trouble was in order that it may not occur again.	[DOT]
	.
Demobilization'-Secretary of State, $50,000.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: How does demobilization affect the Department of the Secretary of State?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has to do
with expenses in connection with enemy debts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the beginning of the winter I called at the department accompanied by two gentlemen from Montreal, Mr. Emilien Daoust, of La Compagnie Beauchemin Limite, and Colonel Migneault, who both have claims against the German Government. La Compagnie Beauchemin Limite had some contracts in Belgium at the time of the invasion of that country and books which were printed for them were destroyed by the invaders. Colonel Migneault had an establishment in Brussels and as a result of the occupation his books were destroyed, he lost his business and was subjected to all sorts of indignities. It was after seeing the Prime Min4 a.m. ister that I accompanied him to the department and I was practically told by officials of the department on that occasion that no claims could be expected to be settled in favour of Canadians; that the bulk of the indemnity would go to the Mother Country and to the Allied nations, only a small fraction of the percentage going to Canada and to the other dominions. Can my hon. friend explain why the claims of the Dominions do not go pari passu with the claims put in by the Mother Country? It seems to me that all who took part in the war should be treated alike.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We certainly shall not lose anything by not having asked for it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mulvey is leaving for England on the very mission of pressing our claim; we find that it will be better to have somebody on the spot. With regard to this particular item, it is for a clearing office for Canada established under the provisions of the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Provisional bonus allowance to the Inside and Outside Service of the Civil Service, to be paid to such persons and classes of persons in such amounts and at such times as the Governor in Council shall determine, $9,375,000.
Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: How much was paid
last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that it was about $10,500,000.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: If there is a decrease
of 25 per cent this year, why are we voting $9,000,000?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We take the
decrease of 25 per cent off the total vote of last year and the bonus payments are made under the regulations of the Civil Service Commission. I hope that we shall have the same saving out of the vote this year that we had last year.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: There is a decrease in
the vote, but as the amount of the vote is practically what was paid out last year, how is it that employees are really suffering a decrease of 25 per cent in their bonus payments?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They will.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Not only will they;
many of them have already done so. If there is to be a decrease of 25 per cent it would seem that we ought to be voting $7,000,000 instead of $9,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-emergency relief-Governor General's warrant January 24, 1921, $500,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What was this emergency relief?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This was in connection with unemployment. The unJ employment relief was distributed by the municipalities, the Dominion paying its share.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it all spent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Navy League of Canada towards expenses connected with the exhibition of naval pictures in Canada, $5,000.
Mr. DUFF:: What is this item?


John Dowsley Reid: This is in connection with the exhibition of naval pictures in Ottawa and different parts of Canada.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What pictures were exhibited by the Navy League, and what benefit was received from this exhibition?


John Dowsley Reid: I can hardly tell what the pictures were. Perhaps, to-morrow the question could be asked again.


Lucien Cannon: Is the Navy League controlled by the Government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


John Dowsley Reid: It is an independent patriotic organization.


Lucien Cannon: What guarantee or
security has the Government that the Navy League is patriotic?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To cover unprovided items, 1919-20, as per Auditor General's report, part B, page 3, 191920, $1,250,303.73.
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What is the explanation of this item which is two years old?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It covers
items of expenditure which the Auditor General finds have not been properly covered by votes. It is merely ratification; it involves nothing so far as money is concerned.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It involves a reflection that they should have been covered by votes, and that this was not done owing to an oversight on the part of the Government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This might
have been due to a lack of prescience on the part of the Government in prophesying what money would be required.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I always understood that when an account was presented to the Auditor General, he must see where the money was before he passed it. It is strange that the Auditor General would pass an account and two years afterwards ask for authority to pay it. I am afraid the public has not the safeguard that they think they have in the Auditor General.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Public "Works-contingencies

printing-further amount required, $2,600.
Lucien Cannon: Would the minister explain how much has been spent on printing already in his department?


Mr. McCURDY:: This item is required for printing departmental reports. Heretofore these reports have been printed by Parliament.


Lucien Cannon: I think it extraordinary that the minister should have an item in the Supplementary Estimates for that. This expenditure should have been foreseen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Parliamentary restaurant

further amount required, $10,000.
Mr.   McM ASTER@: Why is the extra $10000 required for the restaurant?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the loss on the restaurant.


Lucien Cannon: I hope there will be a whole lot of improvement in the restaurant next session. It has been altogether unsatisfactory. I do not wish to be overcritical, because this is the first session we have had the organization, but I hope that those who were managing the restaurant this year have taken due note of the defects and short-comings in the management, and that next year we will have a much better service.
Harbours and rivers-Port Arthur and Fort William 

 harbour improvements -[DOT] further amount required, $100,000.


William Duff: What is that for?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This vote is asked for towards the construction of the Fort William breakwater. As hon. members know, it has been under construction for some years. None of these Supplementary votes are being asked for in connection with new works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Quebec-Anse St. Jean-wharf reconstruction, $2,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I gave the Minister of Public Works a list of certain improvements which were necessary in the county I represent, but I have not seen any provision for them.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is a general appropriation for urgent repairs to a limited extent, and any sums necessary for the purpose mentioned by my hon. friend can be taken out of that vote. It is in the Main Estimates.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I have been asking the department for some time now to repair an important wharf in my constituency. This wharf was built by the Government but was destroyed by the flood of 1918. So far no action has been taken in the matter.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As I stated in answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain), there is a general vote for urgent repairs under which this matter can be taken care of. I will look into the matter.
Pembroke-Repairs and wharf replacement,


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is this item for a new wharf at Pembroke or for repairs to an did construction?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The engineers report that it is obvious that the present decayed

structure will not serve the traffic for very long, and the proposed reconstruction should not be postponed. The Wharf is used for the Oiseau, which operates between Pembroke and Des Joachims, a distance of 40 miles, making four return trips weekly during the season between May 1 and November 15. The Oiseau accommodates 5,700 passengers for the season and carries some 600 tons of freight. The wharf also accommodates a ferry boat, three alligators belong to the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, and numerous launches. The $60,000 is required for urgent repairs and reconstruction work, the wharf having almost ceased to be of any use.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is this wharf to be constructed of cement or timber?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is a combination
wharf, partly cement and partly wood.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is the work in progress?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes. Temporary repairs must be made for this summer's traffic and reconstruction will probably be begun this autumn and carried on largely during the winter and into next year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What is the cost of the
repairs being carried on at the present time?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The cost of the present repairs will approximate twelve to fifteen thousand dollars, and a part of the timbers which are being used for these repairs will be used again in the re-construction of the permanent wharf.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to know
if tenders were called for the performance of this work?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, it is being done by the department itself. Tenders were called for the material.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Would the minister
let me have the names of those who tendered for the timbers used in the repair?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, I will send the
information to my hon. friend to-morrow. It is not in the statement furnished me.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Could the hon. gentleman let me know how many firms tendered for the material used in the construction of the wharf?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Ten or twelve.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Was the contract
awarded to the lowest tenderer?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I Have to accept the information given me by the minister, but I am told an Ottawa firm tendered for the material used in the wharf, that their tender was the lowest, but that the contract was awarded two firms in Pembroke, and the quantity of material required was divided between these two firms. Is that correct?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, the firm to which
my hon. friend refers tendered for a different kind of wood altogether. They tendered for hemlock for the flooring of the wharf. The engineers did not think that hemlock was suitable for that purpose, and recommended against it, both before tenders were called for and after. Pine was purchased for the flooring and the contract was awarded to the firms in Pembroke.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: At a higher price than
the tender of the Ottawa firm?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not suppose you
would expect to buy pine at the price you would pay for hemlock.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Did the specification
call for pine? It is strange that they tendered for hemlock if the specification called for pine. '


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, they specified
pine.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: And the Ottawa firm
tendered for hemlock, knowing pine was required?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There are one or two
items in connection with this I would like to know about.


Louis Philippe Demers: Carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Not just yet. It is early still and we are all fresh. I find an item of $7,900 for repairs for reconstruction of wharf at Petawawa. Is there a great deal of traffic at this point?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, a large traffic.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: To what extent? I am
informed it is nothing more than pleasure boats. Is it not near the military camp?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend knows
this place is situated on the Ottawa river four miles from the Petawawa railway station. The memo. I have in regard to it reads as follows:
The traffic on the wharf is most extensive from June to September, during which period the steamboat operating' between Pembroke and lies Joachims calls twice daily. It is used also to a considerable extent by pleasure launches and the tow boats, tugs and alligators engaged in lumbering operations on the Ottawa River. The traffic over the wharf, in addition to passengers, consists chiefly of baggage, camping equipment and provisions for the people who summer in the locality. The vehicular traffic on the wharf has been limited during the last two or three years, in all probability due to its condition.
The description goes on to say the wharf is in an unsafe condition and dangerous for pedestrians. The Militia Department also requests that this wharf be repaired.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The story about freight and traffic in connection with this wharf is an interesting one. No doubt the resort that has been located on Calumet Island is responsible for the large proportion of traffic that passes over the wharf at Pembroke. I am sorry the minister has not made a special note of that particular item. I was informed by the gentleman who built this wharf at Petawawa in the first instance that the entire cost was less than half the amount named in the estimate to-day for reconstruction. That seems hardly reasonable, even though labour and material have increased quite a bit. It was constructed in the first instance by Mr. Moffat of Pembroke for less than half the estimate.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Are you speaking of the Pembroke wharf?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I aim speaking of the Petawawa wharf.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The total cost of the Petawawa wharf, as shown by the Militia Department, to March 31, 1920, was $14,000.18.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How many years does that cover?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Fifteen years.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That does not alter the fact that the information that I have received is correct. The gentleman who had the contract for this construction in the first place made the statement to me yesterday that the price received by him for building the wharf entirely new in the first instance was less than half the amount being charged now.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: What is his name?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Moffat of Pembroke.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I may tell the committee that, of course, repairs have taken



[Stage Direction]
place on the wharf during the fifteen years, to the amount of $2,560.14, but the construction work on the ground amounted to $11,140.04. I am bound, of course, to take the figures that I find in the book of the Department of Public Works. I cannot be expected to take the story that comes from outside in opposition to the figures I find in the department. With regard to the commercial necessity for the work, I have told the committee what the departmental engineers have advised me. My hon. friend from North Renfrew is doubtless familiar with the commercial necessity for the work, and if my hon. friend from South Renfrew desires fuller information with regard to the matter, I am sure my hon. friend from North Renfrew will be glad to give him the information which is not covered by the information I have given.
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have not disputed the commercial necessity of the work, but I am discussing the relative cost of the repairs, and the original cost of construction. The figure quoted by the minister of the cost up to date of this particular wharf at Petawawa has no bearing on the original cost of construction. We are told that the cost of fixing the wharf at Pembroke will be in the neighbourhood of $15,000. That seems an extravagant outlay on a temporary piece of work. In my judgment this $15,000 might have been saved.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Does not my hon.
friend know that the wharf is 1,342 feet long?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I had no intention to question the length, breadth, or thickness of the structure. I am discussing the enormous expense on a temporary structure.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to hon. members that an agreement was arrived at between the two leaders to the effect that contentious items would be held over for discussion until to-morrow.


William Duff: No.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: To-day.


Georges Henri Boivin: I refer to the next sitting of the House. The hon. member for South Renfrew is absolutely in order in discussing this item, and the Chair could take no exception to the course he is pursuing, but under this agreement, if the item is contentious, as it appears to be, it should be held over until to-morrow.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I decline to be
governed by any rules or regulations made by anybody independent of consultation with me. I am here as the representative of South Renfrew, and as such I have a right to discuss matters of general interest or of special interest to my constituents. But if the agreement which has been made between the leaders must hold good, of course I submit to the ruling of the Chair, but I contend that I should be allowed to continue.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not want in any way to deprive the hon. member of his rights. The item will be held over, and to-morrow he will have full opportunity to discuss it unless the hon. member can complete his remarks in a few moments.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think it will be better to finish this discussion now we have gone so far. During last year I made a request of the then Acting Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Reid) for a grant on behalf of the post office of the town of Renfrew. I was told by him that it would be impossible to make any grant on account of the financial state of the country. As a member of the Opposition and taking the stand we do, I approved of his attitude. But I was astonished to find later during the session when the Supplementary Estimates came down an item of $5,000 to build an ornamental tower on the Pembroke post office and instal a new clock. The grant was made in the north riding of Renfrew, whereas no grant could be obtained for absolutely necessary expenditure in the south riding. I find the same condition prevailing to-day. I made application this year to the present Minister of Public Works for a small grant for a wharf at the town of Arnprior to make it available for traffic. Last year I succeeded in having a small amount expended, but it was not sufficient for the purpose required. This year, at the request of the mayor of Arnprior, I repeated my application on behalf of the town for further consideration. The amount required would be between $900 and $1,000. I was informed that this was work which the town itself should perform. But it seems rather strange to-day in the face of these items of $60,000 for repairs and replacement to the wharf at Pembroke and of $7,900 for repairs and reconstruction of the wharf at Petawawa-the latter I am informed is about as much needed where it is placed as the fifth wheel on a wagon-I say it seems rather strange to note the different policy

pursued by the department in respect to other public works, and I want 'hon. members and the people to understand the underlying principle that governs grants of this kind. I need only call attention to the fact that the north riding is represented by my genial friend who is a supporter of the Government, while the south riding is unfortunately represented,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: -so far as I am concerned, by a member of the Opposition. I use the word "unfortunately" advisedly in this connection, because it is an undisputed fact that under existing conditions it is impossible for a member of the Opposition to obtain any consideration whatever for his constituency, no matter how pressing the need may be.


Mr. MACKIE (North Renfrew) :: I think it is due to the minister as well as to myself to reply to my hon. friend's statement. He did me the courtesy to tell me last night that he was going to refer to this. The crux of the whole matter was reached in the last few words of his speech -he is peeved that North Renfrew has some public works that South Renfrew has not. The Pembroke dock was built of lumber seventeen years ago, and well built, by the Laurier Administration. With very little repair work we have succeeded in holding it fit for traffic, but to-day it is a risky proposition to cross it and go out to the landing pier. There is a sign to-day on the dock, placed there by the department, reading as follows: "This dock is dangerous1. Parties using it do so at their own risk." A short time ago another communication was received by the wharfinger instructing him that proceedings were about to be taken to close this wharf. It serves the island of Calumet and the mainland of Pontiac county in Quebec, and the weekly traffic on the ferry alone is 1,400 passefigers. But for that service eight to ten thousand people would be shut off from their market at Pembroke. We have also the liner running daily to Des Joachim; it accommodates yearly over 10,000 passengers. The work which at present is being done to the dock is the refacing of it; every foot of this lumber will be used in the reconstruction that will be carried on this winter. The only cost will be the time of the workmen and the snikes that will be used. It is an interprovincial oneration and as such is of more benefit to the residents of Pontiac than to the merchants of Pembroke.
288i


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will my hon. friend say what kind of business is carried on on Alumette island?


Herbert John Mackie: I suggest that the hon. gentleman study his geography so that he may know the difference between Alumette island and the island called Calumet, 40 or 50 miles further off.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Well, it makes no difference; the question applies just the same.


Herbert John Mackie: Undoubtedly my hon. friend's constituents find Portage du Fort as conveniently situated in respect to Renfrew as Desjardinsville is to Pembroke. The hon. gentleman refers, I may say, to the liquor traffic. The Petawawa wharf was constructed by Mr. Moffatt and it proved to be of faulty design; the large river drives could not pass under it and very extensive alterations had to be made. In the provision for reconstruction this also will be included. The traffic on this wharf is very considerable, but to-day there is a fence across it which prevents the passing of any traffic. A good deal has been said about the post office clock, and I would like to make a brief reference to it while I am on this subject. We had a splendid clock suspended from our post office building, but in 1914 and 1915 it was frequently so heavily laden with recruiting signs that finally it tumbled down. The department offered to replace it at once but I asked them not to replace it until peace was declared. In due course the matter was taken up and I asked the department instead of installing a suspended clock to go about $1,200 or $1,500 further
5 a.m. and give us a tower there. I wish also to make a comparison between the Arnprior wharf and the wharf in North Renfrew. The Arnprior wharf structure cost $35,000, and as the hon. member for South Renfrew knows, not a passenger boat lands at that wharf. In fact, on the lake they have only one ferry and it is miles removed from Arnprior. They have a solitary tow-boat which last year was tied up to the wharf in North Renfrew for six Saturday and Sunday nights during the season. Now, we ask for repairs to that wharf in order to restore the necessary facilities.' There are other matters which I would like to deal with, Mr. Chairman, but the hour is late so I shall not proceed further at this time.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Quebec county-telephone lines-general repairs, $3,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: What repairs are intended to be made here?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: These repair works
are recommended by the superintendent as being necessary to put the sections now operated in thoroughly good condition. He says that the sum of $2,850 will be sufficient to provide a substantial line and that it will be an advantage to have the work done at once.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The line between
Loretteville and St. Gerard needs to be completely renewed, and I hope that the minister will make the necessary provision for this work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like to ask the minister if a demand has been made on behalf of the people of Isle aux Coudres for the extension of the telephone line a distance of about two miles. I have taken this matter up with the minister by correspondence and with the officials of his department and I have not received a favourable answer.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This matter is now under investigation by the officials in charge of the telegraph service, and as soon as I have their report I shall be pleased to forward it to' my hon. friend. I sincerely trust that it will be of such a character that we can extend the line in accordance with his request.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But some amount will have to be provided for in case it is decided to proceed with the work. It should not cost more than $1,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I wish again to impress upon the minister the necessity of seeing that this line from Loretteville to St. Gerard is repaired. This work has been requested for quite a long time but nothing has been done.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Suppose we let this
item pass in any case. We can make more progress with $3,000 than we can with nothing.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: If it is intended to go ahead with the work that I have mentioned will the necessary money be available?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This is a general vote; it can be applied to any partv of the telegraph system.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I wish to mention a matter which was brought to my attention by an officer of the Archives Department, and who gave me to understand that he had seen the Minister of Public Works and that an item of $10,000 would be placed in the

Supplementary Estimates to care for the historic spots known as Fort Cumberland and Fort Moncton near the town of Amherst. I am sure that my hon. friend has a resolution from the town council of Amherst as well as other communications with regard to this matter. As my hon. friend knows, it is desirable that these places shall be preserved and cared for as historic sites. I am sure my hon. friend has visited those places which are going to destruction very rapidly. A small amount should be placed in the Estimates to have the sites, if not completely restored, at least kept in the condition that they are in now. I notice other items in the Estimate for the preservation of historic spots.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I concur most heartily in the suggestion put forward by these different bodies in the neighbourhood of these old forts and embodied in resolutions as referred to by my hon. friend. I had a conversation with the gentleman connected with the Archives Branch, and my suggestion was that the scope of the National Battlefields Commission be enlarged and that the care of those historic sites be placed under that commission. That commission reports to my colleague the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I am taking the question up with him, and while sufficient time has not elapsed for it to receive the consideration which it deserves, I am hopeful that he will see his way clear to provide an extension of the National Battlefields Commission Act, so that that commission can take these sites under their direction.


William Daum Euler: We have passed fifty or a hundi'ed million dollars of Estimates without very much consideration, and I would like to move that the committee rise.


John Dowsley Reid: Only a few more items are left in the Supplementaries.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If it is understood that all contentious items will stand over until the next sitting of the House, I am willing that we go on.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When an item is contentious, why should the minister not immediately move that it stand over? That will be the end of it; otherwise we have been sitting here for almost eighteen hours continuously without any necessity.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what we have been doing right along.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister never moved that an item stand over.


John Dowsley Reid: We have been doing
that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works, chargeable to capital, Marine Department-River St. Lawrence ship channel, maintenance and operating dredging fleet-further amount required, $85,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) kindly lay on the Table, at the opening of the House in the morning, the Order in Council passed by the Government at his instigation cancelling the contract with the Dominion Steel Company for plates?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad to
do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for increases in salaries due to the application of the re-classiflcation of the Civil Service, both Inside and Outside Services, for years 1919-20, 1920-21 and 1921-22, and to provide for the permanent status of employees under Order in Council P.C. 2958 dated December 16, 1920, and the salaries and increases resulting therefrom, and to provide for increases in salaries of employees on return to Civil duty from Military Service, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, the whole to be determined by the Civil Service Commission and approved by the Governor in Council, $1,500,000.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is there any intention on
the part of the Government to increase the pensions of retired civil servants?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The matter
has been considered and there is no present intention of increasing them.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Nearly all the civil
servants .thought that the reclassification was for the purpose of increasing their salaries, but as a matter of fact they are complaining that their salaries have been diminished. I wonder which it is. I do not think this item is justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions concurred in.
On motion of the Hon. Mr. REID, the House adjourned at 5.20 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, June 4, 1921.