FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Finance Minister) presented further Supplementary Estimates required for the public service for the year ending March 31, 1921, which were referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. SPINNEY presented the third and final report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.
Mr. BUREAU:: Have any amendments been made to the Bill by the committee?


Mr. SPINNEY:: Yes, there are some amendments to the Bill.


Mr. FIELDING:: I presume that the Bill will be reprinted as amended.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Yes.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: I beg leave, subject to the approval of the House, to introduce a Bill, and I ask the House to waive the requirement of previous notice. The purpose of the Bill is to ratify and confirm certain proceedings in connection with plebiscites that have taken place under part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act. As the House is doubtless aware, there is pending presently before the Supreme Court an action in which the proceedings in the province of Alberta are attacked. Numerous constitutional grounds are invoked, and of course with those this Bill is not concerned. But I understand, that it is further claimed that there was an irregularity in the original proclamation ordering the plebiscite, the alleged irregularity consisting in the fact that that proclamation did not state a specific day on which the prohibition would come into effect if the vote of the people was favourable to it. The proclamation stated that the prohibition would come into effect, in the event of the vote being favourable, on a day to be fixed by a subsequent Order in Council. Our law officers were then, and still are, of opinion that the proclamation in its present form is sufficient; but in view of the obvious, I think I may say, prejudice to the general public interests if the case should be de-



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
termined upon this mere question of regularity, and determined in a sense adverse to the validity of the election, it seems to us wise that that minor question should be removed subject to such conditions, of course, as will do no injustice to the parties ' in the case whatever be the event of the judgment. The Bill contains two clauses. The first clause deals with this particular question of the proclamation, and the second clause is one of general application analogous to a clause already existing in the general Elections Act, substantially providing that no mere defect of form shall invalidate any order given under the Canada Temperance Act pursuant to a plebiscite, unless it appears that the result of the vote has been, by reason of the irregularity complained of, materially altered. This last clause, as I say, is analogous although not in identical words, to a similar clause, proceeding upon the same principle contained in the general Elections Act, and I think it is a clause which will commend itself to the judgment of the members of this House. Taking this particular instance, should it happen that the result of the present proceedings should be a judgment setting aside all that has been done upon the ground of what is claimed to be an irregularity, the country would find itself in this position, that it would be necessary to begin all over again; incur the entire expense of the plebiscite, and furthermore with the prospect-more than the prospect, I think one might say the certainty-that we would have, in connection with the constitutional question involved, the now pending action, which has now reached the Supreme Court, to be gone all over again. All this would entail considerable expense to the parties, and more especially to the country, and would attain no substantial advantage or benefit for any one. It is not, from what we can ascertain, probable that a judgment will be rendered before Parliament prorogues, and if a judgment comes after prorogation, and resting upon this alleged irregularity, there would be no opportunity to take any action for a long period of months, and there would certainly be no opportunity then, by any action that would be taken, to obtain a judgment upon the constitutional questions in the present case. We would then find ourselves with an interregnum of indecision. We might possibly ratify the plebiscite at that time, but it would still be subject to attack upon the . constitutional grounds that are invoked. From every point of view it seems to be 
desirable that the matter should be dealt with upon these important constitutional points, and that we should run no risk of its going off upon a mere question of formality, and of a judgment being rendered which, if it rests solely upon that question of formality, will leave all the parties interested, and the country, in the position I have indicated, and subject both to very heavy costs.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Unless the right hon gentleman gets the unanimous consent ol the House he cannot proceed. Is it the pleasure of the House that the right hon. gentleman should have unanimous consent to introduce this Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: I ask the privilege of
putting a question. Is it the intention of the right hon. gentleman to legislate people out of court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We propose not to legislate them out of court, but the effect of our legislation would be to determine that particular question.


William Stevens Fielding: Instead of the court
determining it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The court would decide what is regular under the existing law, the effect of the Bill would be to modify the law so as to obviate the necessity of deciding that question. So far as the particular parties in the case are concerned, their one interest in its being done now or later is in regard to the costs they have incurred, and the Bill specially provides that the court shall determine, whatever may be its ultimate decision, as to the question of costs.


Jacques Bureau: Does that apply to
pending cases?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not say so in
express words.


Jacques Bureau: It is not unanimous.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) objects. Therefore the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) not getting unanimous consent, his further proceeding would be out of order.


William Stevens Fielding: Give notice. I do not
object now, but I will later on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had reason to believe that it would not be objected to.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) Bill No. 212 (from the Senate) to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) Bill No. 213 (from the Senate) to amend the North West Territories Act, was read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved that Bill No. 216 (from the Senate) respecting the Lake of the Woods and other waters be read the first time.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: When this
measure was before the House on a previous occasion the right hon. Prime Minister mentioned that it was in connection with concurrent legislation on the part of the Ontario Government. I understand that that legislation has not been proceeded with. Under the circumstances, is it the intention cf the Government to proceed with this Bill'


Arthur Meighen: The previous Bill,
already passed, was intended to be concurrent with legislation by the province of Ontario which did not go through, so our former Bill is valueless. The present measure is designed to hold the situation in the meantime, until, if it should come to pass, the Ontario Legislature enacts the concurrent legislation contemplated.


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

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

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a large number of ex-Civil Servants receive pensions on a scale altogether incommensurate with the present higrh cost of living?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to increase these pensions?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: 1.	It has never been the policy of this country to supply all ex-civil servants with pensions sufficient to keep them; indeed, many have no pensions at all. The cost of living is rapidly declining.
2.	The Government has no proposals to this end.


CANADIAN NATIONAL) RAILWAYS-TRAIN SERVICE
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1,	Has the Management o,f the Canadian National Railways received an application from the Campbellton Boand of Trade asking for improved local train service eastward to Bathurst, New Brunswick, and westward up the Mata-pedia Valley?
2.	If so, what action, if any, will be taken?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Request will be carefully considered.


JOSEPH MARCIL-PENSION
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Referring to question answered on April 29th by the Honourable Minister of Finance regarding pension paid to Joseph Marcil, is the amount allowed permanently fixed, or is the case still under consideration?
2.	Has the Patriotic Fund investigated the case of L. T. Marcil, .the father of the above-mentioned soldier?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	The amount is not permanently fixed. The award of pension in this case will be determined by the Board of Pension Commissioners when Mr. Marcil is discharged from treatment which he is now receiving under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
2.	The Patriotic Fund was raised by private subscriptions, and consequently is a private fund administered by a board who are in no way responsible to Parliament or to the Dominion Government. The honorary secretary of the fund considers it would not be advisable to disclose its dealings with those to whom assistance has been given.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- SHUNTING ENGINES
Jacques Bureau: How many shunting engine hours have been absorbed at Saskatoon during the month of April, 1921, by the Canadian Northern Railway?
2. How many shunting engine hours have been absorbed at Saskatoon during the month of April, 1921, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1 and 2. Total engine switching hours of Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific Railways at Saskatoon during the month of April were 2,358 hours and 15 minutes. This includes the time occupied assisting passenger trains into and out of Saskatoon and in making transfers between Canadian National and Grand Trunk Pacific, which will be eliminated when new facilities are provided. Figures

for Grand Trunk Pacific could not very well be separated from Canadian Northern as staffs have been amalgamated into one operating unit.


HAMILTON-BRANTFORD HIGHWAY
Mr. WILSON (Wentworth) :: 1.	What was the estimated cost of that completed portion of the Hamilton-Brantford highway, lying between Paradise road and Binkley's Comers?
2.	What is the width of this road?
3.	Was it let by public tender, and If so, what tenders were received?
4.	Did the lowest tenderer get the contract?
5.	What wages per day were paid for teams, labourers, trucks, truck drivers and road inspectors on that completed protion of the Hamilton-Brantford highway?
6.	Has there been any reduction made in these wages from those paid last year?
7.	What was the price paid for stone?
8.	Does the Government allow the use of prison-cracked stone on roads which they have approved ?
9.	What system of inspection has the Dominion Department of Public Highways respecting these roads?
10.	How does the Dominion Department of Public Highways verify the expenditures of the Department of Public Works of Ontario on highways?
11.	What is the mileage of provincial highways in the county of Wentworth and the estimated cost of same?
12.	What is the estimated cost, contract price, length, width and kind of road on the provincial highway, which starts at the residence of the Minister of Public Works of Ontario, to the top of the mountain at or near the town of Dundas.
13.	What amount of money has been spent on that portion of the Hamilton-Brantford highway between the T. H. & B. railway tracks and the village of Ancaster?
14.	What is the route of the Dundas street highway through the county of Wentworth?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 
INLAND REVENUE COLLECTOR-ST. HYACINTHE
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	On what grounds has Doctor A. F. Cartier been dismissed as Dominion Revenue Collector at St. Hyacinthe?
2.	What is the name and the age of the person who was appointed in his stead?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1. The retirement of Mr. A. P. Cartier was due to the amalgamation of the Depart-

ment of Inland Revenue with the Department of Customs.
As a result of this reorganization the services of a considerable number of employees of the Inland Revenue Department were rendered unnecessary and their retirement has been authorized accordingly in the public interest.
2. No person has been appointed in his stead.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	What departments of the Government have placed orders for leather boots during the past six months?
2.	Were tenders called for the manufacture of these boots on the army last?
3.	If not, why has a new last been adopted?
4.	Who was the expert who advised adoption of the new last for boots for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
5.	Has the Financial Comptroller of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received any protests in this matter, and, If so, on what grounds?


JUDGE SNIDER'S REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve-Gasipe) :: Mr. Speaker, on various occasions some of my colleagues and myself have asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) when we may expect the Judge Snider report. That report is about due, and I hope my right hon. friend will see that it be laid on the Table without our having to press further for it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand from the Acting
Secretary of State (Sir Henry Drayton), to whom it would come, that the final report has not as yet been received.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, when I brought up this matter the other day I mentioned that the report we were asking for was an interim report made some time ago which council has already approved. When may we expect to have that interim report laid on the Table?


Arthur Meighen: I stated that having regard to the circumstances I did not think it would be fair, pending the consideration of matters that were involved in that interim report, to place it on the Table before the final report was made. I do not think that it would be fair to those affected by
it, because I understand that the subsequent consideration touches subjects referred to in the interim report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the right hon. gentleman fix a date when we may expect to have that report?


Arthur Meighen: I would very much
like to have the report before the session ends. I will see if I cannot get in touch with Judge Snider or, if not, with Col. Biggar. I will do everything in my power to have the report hurried along.


INCOME TAX ACT CONSOLIDATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is in his seat I should like to ask him if it is his intention this session to proceed with the Bill which has been on the Order Paper since February 19 entituled " An Act to consolidate the Income Tax Act"? I asked the same question about two weeks ago, but the minister was not in his seat at the time.


Hon.   S@: It is hoped, Mr. Speaker, that some progress may be made in connection with the Bill. There is one clause of real importance which will not be at all contentious, but I think we may as well drop any contentious clauses at the present time.
I am anxious to reduce some of the penalties which are to be found in the Act.



TARIFF AND THE YOUNG EMERGENCY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, with your
leave and with the leave of the House, I should like to put this question to the Minister of Finance. It is rumoured that in view of the Young Emergency Bill he may introduce new tariff resolutions before the end of the session. I should like to know if the report is true.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: The report as yet has not reached me, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly have no proposals to make to the House at present.



OLEOMARGARINE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 205, to amend the Oleomargarine Act,, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
Hon, W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :	Mr. Speaker, I have no desire
to delay the House for many minutes, but I really think this Bill should not pass its final stage without a brief comment upon the extraordinary position which the Government have taken in relation to it. The question whether oleomargarine is a legitimate article of trade and commerce was long ago answered by all the world, with one exception, and that exception was the Dominion of Canada. While the rest of the world has decided that oleomargarine, whatever its merit may be as a foodstuff, is a legitimate article of trade and commerce, Canada has declined hitherto to reach that conclusion. The Government, however, have not declined; the Government have come to the conclusion that Canada should not isolate herself from the rest of the world, from the rest of civilization. The Government, from their own testimony, have come to the conclusion that oleomargarine is a legitimate article of trade and commerce. It is not a new question; the Government have had it before them for some years, and after years of discussion they decided that the ban should be removed and the article allowed to be traded in the same as any other. But, while the Government tell us that is their conclusion, unhappily they have not the courage to stand by it. Unfortunately, while the House was ready to support them, while many on this side were ready to support them, the Government suddenly lost all faith in their own Bill. Now, for those hon. members representing farming communities who thought that in the interests of their farmers they should oppose this Bill, one can have profound respect. As for those members who opposed the Bill very warmly and then voted for it, I do not care to make any comment. But the attitude of the Government in the matter is a most extraordinary one. They tell us they have reached the conclusion that there is no further ground for putting a ban on oleomargarine, yet they are going to pass a Bill which will permit the importation, manufacture and sale of this product for one year only and bring about another fight in another year. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) said last night that he was satisfied with the Bill as originally introduced. Well, if the Government held that view why did they change it? As to hon. gentlemen on that side who opposed the Bill, the Government should have known better than to take them seriously. The Government should have known very well that when it IMr. Tolmie.]
came to a division those hon. members would stand loyally by them. But at the first sign of opposition the Government suddenly threw up their hands-it is the old story of Davy Crockett and the coon: "Don't shoot; I'll come down". When the House was ready to support the Bill, when everything pointed to a settlement of this long-standing question, hon. gentlemen pursued this extraordinary course. It was an exhibition of indecision, of weakness and of folly which will not inure to the credit of the Canadian Government.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 138, to amend the Criminal Code-Right Hon. Mr. Doherty-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN :: When the House was last in committee upon this Bill clause 1 had been allowed to stand and clause 2 had been dropped, clauses 3 and 4 had been adopted and we wTere considering clause 5.


Mr. JACOBS:: I understand that clause
5 incorporates in the Bill the legislation which was introduced by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). Am I correct in that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The wording is not
identical, but I think the same purpose is sought to be attained. I understand, however, that the hon. member for North Simcoe desired to move an amendment. I do not understand it to be of material consequence, but as he is not in his seat at the moment, and as I should like to afford him an opportunity at all events of putting his proposed amendment before the committee, perhaps we might let this clause stand and go on with the others in the meantime.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I do not think that clause 5 as it stands is nearly as definite as was the Bill introduced by the hon. member for North Simcoe. Last year this House passed an amendment to the Criminal Code which was not very well understood by members of the House who were then present. It was understood that the amendment would make it illegal for a foreigner or alien to have firearms in his possession. Unfortunately this amendment did not so apply; it makes it illegal for any person, any Canadian, to have in his possession a gun, rifle, cannon or anything of that kind, without a permit.

In the majority of cases this permit is to be issued by officers who are stipendiary magistrates, police magistrates, or chiefs of police. As the law stands at present the permits are valid only within the jurisdiction of the officer who issues them. That means that if a man starts out on a hunting trip, say, from Ottawa and has to go through various counties in the province of Quebec, he may be arrested for having arms illegally in his possession the moment he leaves Ottawa, and at any time thereafter unless he gets a permit from each district through which he passes having jurisdiction in such matters. I do not think that was the intention of Parliament at all, and I would say that we should simply repeal clause (aa), the provision I complain of, and put nothing in its place.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: I would
like to endorse what the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) has said. The amendment of last year has created a great deal of annoyance and hardship and I would like to see the provision removed before the end of this session.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There will be discussion upon this section, so I suggest again that the clause stand and we may go on with those sections which do not give rise to discussion.
Section stands.
On section 6-illicit connection with Indian women:


Samuel William Jacobs: In what respect is a change being made?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is to make it an offence for any white man to have illicit connection with an Indian woman.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was that not tie law before?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Illicit connection between a man and a woman is not a crime save in certain particular cases-as regards girls of certain ages and so forth. This is to make fornication of a white man with an Indian woman an offence. It is proposed in response to the strong urge af Indian agents and persons responsible for conditions upon reserves. It is represented that the consequences of illicit connection between the squaw and the white man which, I regret to say, is reported as being exceedingly prevalent, are most disastrous upon the reserves and to the tribes. As I have said it is represented to us that
there ought to be special legislation that would enable efforts to be made to mitigate or, it is hoped, entirely to suppress this regrettable practice.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does this apply to cases of Indians living on reserves, or otherwise? Or to both?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the clause stands, it applies to any Indian woman. It is not specially limited to a woman on a reserve, and if it is a good disposition, even though the abuse be more evident upon the reserve, I think there is no need to limit the disposition to the particular places where we see the evidence of the evil consequences.


Samuel William Jacobs: It applies without "reserve."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it apply to halL breeds?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not before me the Indian Act which, I understand, contains a clause defining the status of a halfbreed. It would depend upon the definition whether a half-breed is to be treated as an Indian or not. In certain cases he is treated as an Indian. It would apply to whoever, under the law, is an Indian and to nobody else.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Last year we passed an Act for the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians. When the Indian acquires a certain standard of living or civilization, the law provides now that he may be enfranchised against his will. When this process is adopted with regard to Indians, will this clause apply to Indian women after they have been enfranchised under the law passed last year?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, and I am quite prepared to amend the provision by making it read: "with any unenfranchised Indian female."


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should the change be made? Does enfranchisement increase their mentality, or make them more virtuous, or otherwise?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but it puts them on the footing of the every-day, ordinary citizen. We must treat them as Indians or as non-Indians, and if by enfranchisement we make them non-Indians for all other purposes, I hardly think we should continue to treat them as Indians for this one particular purpose.



*__________________________


Samuel William Jacobs: The question would then become one of-When is an Indian not an Indian?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: When he is enfranchised.


Jacques Bureau: This clause is objectionable in another way. I think it provides an inducement for blackmail. As the clause stands, there is nothing to prevent any Indian female laying a charge against a white man and having her buck Indian coming behind her for the few dollars and holding up the white man. I think the clause will- do more harm than good. We do not want to give the buck Indian an opportunity, by such legislation, to take money out of white people's pockets.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose that is a possible evil. It is a thing that may occur with regard to crime of any nature. You may have combinations to charge people falsely with offences. If you are dealing with the case1 of an innocent man, I should think it would be difficult to establish a case. If you are dealing with the case of a guilty man, even though the purpose of those who are prosecuting is to get money, the fact remains that he is guilty of an offence of a nature which, it would appear if representations made are correct, there is a special necessity for endeavouring to suppress.


Mr. PARDEE:: What are the representations for this legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The representations
are that there is a practical disregard on the part of white men of any obligation to respect these Indian women, and on the other hand the Indian women are, perhaps, not as alive as women of other races in the country to the importance of maintaining their chastity, and so forth. What is pointed out, I understand, is not so much the consequences to the individual Indian woman, as the consequences to the tribe as a whole of the prevalence of this apparently recognized practice or malpractice. .


Jacques Bureau: I do not think the evil that this legislation is intended to check is going to be equal to the dangers to which this clause is open. As a rule. Indian women, particularly out in the West, have their bucks to look after them, and they are pretty jealous of and able to look after their women. We are going to legislate for human beings; we are going to 
pass a law that is going to expose the white man to be the victim of an Indian woman. The better method would be to have legislation on the reserve and to see that the Indians are properly looked after by the people in charge of the reserve Let them educate the bucks to look after their own women. That would be more humanitarian than to entice them to learn new tricks to hold up the white man and blackmail him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Blackmail is a white
man's offence. I do not think it can be found to any extent amongst others than white people, so that there is not much danger of that.


Jacques Bureau: We do not want any legislation that will engender that evil amongst the Indians.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Having regard to what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) as regards the Indians, I am bound to say that I deprecate this proposed legislation. More harm than good will result from it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in any sense absolutely tied up to this legislation. I was endeavouring to meet the views of those who seemed to be in the best position to judge.


Jacques Bureau: Who are they?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The officers of the Indian Department in charge of the reserves. It seems to me that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is arguing against this Bill from totally different premises. In the first place he suggests the buck Indian coming behind his squaw, joining with her to prosecute the white man in order to get some money out of him. In the next place he says that the buck Indian is so jealous of his wife that there is no need to afford her any other protection. The hon. member must have two buck Indians in mind, a different buck Indian for each speech. However, if the sense of this committee is that there should be a further examination of this provision, I shall not insist on pressing it through at the present time. On the other hand, for myself I feel disposed, from representations made to me, to think that this is good legislation, and I would not like to drop it unless I felt that the sense of the committee generally was against it
Section dropped.

On section 7-falsely registering at hotels, etc., as man and -wife:


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is not this the clause that was dropped by the Senate last year?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: It was dropped by the
Senate for three successive years. The department seems to overlook the fact that the Senate is not in agreement with the Commons on this question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our experience has
been that the Senate has not been in agreement with the Commons on certain questions, but that they have had respect for the perseverance of the Commons, and have come to agree on being given repeated opportunities of seeing the error of their ways. I think that this House, having already more than once committed itself to the desirability of this provision, would be only acting consistently in passing it again. We have had experience of rejection by the Senate of certain provisions at one or more sessions and of the Senate finally, perhaps because of our importunity, yielding and passing the legislation.


Samuel William Jacobs: By the process of attrition, I suppose-wearing them out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Contrition.


Samuel William Jacobs: I opposed this measure when it came up three years ago; I opposed it when it came up two years ago; I opposed it last year, and I have not seen anything to change my views since. The question of blackmail would often arise in such a case, if it does not in the case of the Indian woman. The clause before the committee reads:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars or six months' imprisonment, who at any hotel, boarding or lodging house, whether by registering in any book kept in such hotel, boarding or lodging house, or otherwise, represents or pretends that a woman or man is his wife or husband, as the case may be, knowing the same to be untrue, and the onus of proof of the absence of knowledge shall be upon the person accused. I
I would direct the attention of the committee to this curious clause. It is no offence for a man and a woman to cohabit. They can live together for thirty years in open adultery to the scandal of the whole community, and that is not an offence under our law, nor is it made an offence under this clause; 'but as soon as they register
at an hotel they are liable to a fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment. Is not that absurd? Make the act of cohabitation an offence and I might be willing to support it, but to make that act of registration an offence seems to me to be absurd on the face of it. The people may be perfectly respectable citizens and commit no offence so long as they cohabit in their house, but as soon as they register at an hotel, a crime is committed. I should like to know what is the crime of registration? If the law will condone living together in open concubinage and adultery, why will it not overlook the offence of registration? Suppose this lady and gentleman want to paper their house and have to move out in the meantime to a boarding house or a hotel. Under this clause they are liable to six months' imprisonment for moving out of their house. The legislation is absurd, and the whole tenor of it is in the direction of bringing our law into ridicule and contempt. I understand that it is being promoted and fostered by some hysterical woman's society, who think they can make people virtuous by act of Parliament. I am opposed to this clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman suggests that we should pass a law making cohabitation or adultery an offence, that is one question. My hon. friend did not quite commit himself as to whether he would support such legislation. The evil that is sought to be struck at here is the utilization of places of public resort, like hotels, boarding or lodging houses, for the purpose of committing the sin of adultery. It is represented that this is applicable on the large lines to a class of cases quite different from that which the hon. member suggests ; that is to say, it affords opportunity for what I might call casual cohabitation-


Samuel William Jacobs: Accidental.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Accidental cohabitation of people who have no permanent liaison of any kind between them. It is a public scandal when it becomes a matter of general knowledge that a certain hotel in a community is a place where any couple can go and register as man and wife, and have all the liberties thereto pertaining. It does seem to me that that is an evil distinct from-I do not say a greater evil than-the sin of adultery itself. This provision has been urged, I might say, by people who are neither women, nor, so far as it is possible for me to judge, hysterical, and whose work is practically constantly

connected with the endeavour to suppress offences against morality. They look upon the immunity which at present exists in this case as being very detrimental to the general morals of the community in which this practice prevails.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is not this legislation
just about on the same line as the Mann Act which was passed in the United States some years ago? Perhaps the right hon. gentleman knows that that Act has been a most fruitful source of blackmail, to such an extent that it has been condemned even in the States where it was originally in force. In the face of that experience, I do not see why we in this House should endeavour to pass legislation which has failed hopelessly in the United States. There is no question that this legislation will lead to the results far worse than the supposed crime that it is intended to stop. The right hon. gentleman has said that this House has assented to this clause once or twice before. The last time this Bill went through the House was at the end of the session, when nobody paid any particular attention to it. So far as I am concerned, I distinctly object to this class of legislation. I think it leads to offences which are far worse than the evil intended to be cured, and for that reason I stoutly oppose this clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is another clause in respect of which I am quite in the hands of the committee. I have heard no expression of opinion favourable to the clause, and I desire to call attention to that on the part of hon. gentlemen who have sat silent. If there be any view favourable to the clause, I think it ought to express itself. I do not want personally, alone, to stand for insisting on a provision of this kind, if the committee generally are against it.


Mr. GORDON:: There are very many reasons, I think, why this clause should be passed, particularly in view of the many travellers who come to our summer resorts in Ontario, and I suppose in the other provinces, in the summer. Couples travelling in this way from the United States and from the cities of Canada will put up at hotels, and they become practically a nuisance to the people who are spending the summer in the community with their children. It is not the class of people that should go to these summer resorts or, for that matter, to any of the hotels, and it seems to me that unless something is done

to prevent a recurrence of this, matters will become worse. The summer season is prolific in that sort of thing, and, while I do not suppose that summer resorts are subjected to this trouble to any greater extent than any other class of hotel, yet I think that this practice is increasing, and something along the line proposed should be adopted in order to stop it.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I support the minister in this matter, and I shall vote for the law he proposes because I think it is necessary. I have considerable experience of what passes in Montreal, having been Crown Prosecutor for sixteen years now. I have consulted the magistrates and they are all of the opinion that this law is absolutely necessary. As the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) says, it is too bad to see people living in immorality, and I will add that we should do everything we can to curtail the practice. We should try, if ve can, to keep the hotels and boarding houses, as far as possible, free of this sort of thing. In the light of my experience gained in Montreal, I can do nothing bui vote for this law


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: In a great
many of these matters, it is very essential that governments and legislative bodies should draw a clear distinction between crime and sin. I come from-a country where law is administered, as I think it is throughout the British Empire, with the utmost care and rigour; but law is for the repression of < rime, especially crime committed against other people. It is not the function of government to cure sin; preachers and gospels have been labouring with sinners ever since the fall of man, and that is their function. I repeat, it is not the funct;cn of governments to cure sin. There are only three possible things we can do with the sinner, whatever the sin. You could hang him or her, but that would be a very drastic cure for most sins, and I am afraid we should find it difficult to procure executioners. And you could confine all sinners; but there, again, you would be met with the difficulty of finding gaol space and gaolers. If you do not hang them, and you do not confine them, then it follows that the sinners must live somewhere; and where governments have made tremendous blunders, blunders leading to enormous evil difficult to calculate, is that they have tried too much to make regulations as to where these peopL should live. I think the point raised by my hon. friend from George Etienne Car-

' tier was well taken, namely, that the real crime that is being raised in this Act is the "crime" of registration. In effect it is said: Adultery is all right, but you mus: not associate it with spring cleaning,- and that is the whole thing with the minister. The minister admits that he cannot do anything wi'h adultery; but if adultery be associated with spring cleaning, necessitating the removal of people for the time being to somewhere else than where they were before, then they immediately become proteges and clinical clients of my right hon. friend. I hope the minister will not extend his operations too far in this handling of sinners from the legal point of view. If he did. he could begin in comparatively near proximity to himself, and find some eligible subjects for his paternal solicitude. I horn stly think that this paternalistic legislation has gone a little bit too far, and this law might very well wait fo-a while.
Section negatived on division
On section 8-driving a motor vehie'e while intoxicated made an offence.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the meaning of the term "intoxicated" in this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the courts have frequent occasion to determine when a man is intoxicated or drunk, and I do not fancy there is any more difficulty in deciding when the driver of an automobile is intoxicated than there is in establishing the drunkenness of any person not so engaged. If my hon. friend thinks the word "drunk' would be more clear, I shall insert it. I have a recollection of a policeman who was charged with being drunk on duty, and who pleaded that he might have been personally intoxicated, but that he was not officially drank. I do not know whether my hon. friend would make any such distinction.


Samuel William Jacobs: There are different de grees of drunkenness. There are cases where a man may be slightly intoxicated, but not to a sufficient extent to interfere with his driving a motor vehicle, while in other cases, he might be so affected as not to be able to handle the wheel at all. We should mention the degree of intoxication from which he is suffering before making It an offence.


Mr. BELAND:: Twenty glasses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does not the hon. member think that if a man came before the court and the evidence was that, although
he had something to drink, he was not so intoxicated as to affect his control over a motor vehicle, the court would hold, under those circumstances, that he was not intoxicated or drunk?


Samuel William Jacobs: My experience with
*[DOT]courts leads me to think that we should not leave too much to the discretion of the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not leave too
much, but I think we ought to leave a little.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, a little.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are leaving very
little in this instance. There are similar provisions imposing penalties, I think in some of the provinces.


George Gordon: In Ontario.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would point out the
great gravity there is in a man driving a motor vehicle while in such a state as not to be able to control himself, to say nothing of the vehicle, and thus exposing the lives of the population. The dangers to which we are all exposed do not come so much from our own carelessness as from the carelessness of others, and this is true in the case of accidents in connection with motor vehicles. In- connection with the Ticket of Leave Act, and other legislation of that kind, I have been startled at the frequency of offences in which people are killed or seriously maimed because of carelessness in the driving of motor cars, and under those circumstances it is, in my judgment, a very serious offence for a man, in any degree of intoxication that affects his perfect carefulness, undertaking to run a motor car. I do not think that the proposed penalty is too great.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9,-Age that consent of child no defence in indecent assault raised from 14 to 16.
Jacques Bureau: What is the purpose of
raising the age limit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is simply to assimilate the case of indecent assault with the case of illicit connection. The law previously fixed at 14 the age limit at which it was an offence to have connection with a girl. It has been raised with the' consent of the Senate to 16. Now with regard to cases of indecent assault, where the consent is no defence, when the law stood that the completion of the act of illicit connection, regardless of consent, was a crime only with regard to girls under fourteen, then it was logical and consistent that the



S912 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
age limit with regard to cases of indecent assault in which consent would not be a defence should be fourteen. But having raised the age with regard to the grave offence referred to it would only be consistent to make the same alteration with regard to indecent assault.	„
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Whipping added to punishments for rape.
Charles Joseph Doherty: As the law stands at
the present time we have the anomalous situation that you may whip a man for attempting to commit rape, but you may not whip him if he succeeds.


Samuel William Jacobs: Except that he is imprisoned for life.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He may be imprisoned
for life, but he may not be whipped, whereas for the mere attempt he may be whipped.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	There is one thing I
would like to say about the punishment of whipping before this section is passed. The courts, both here and in the Old Country, hear appeals in the most serious criminal offences. A man is found guilty by judge and jury of murder, nevertheless he has the right of appeal and he has a chance of escaping; but whenever a whipping is applied there is no good talking about an appeal, and there may not be a chance of getting a stay of proceedings. I am opposed to whipping at all on that ground. I am strongly with the Minister of Justice as to any reasonable punishment, but I take that objection to whipping. If the whipping is once applied there is no remedy for it, there is nothing you can do about it. I am told by those who have seen flogging or whipping that it is a most beastly thing, and on principle I must register my protest against it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There will always be
applications to remit that penalty. We have numerous applications to remit the whipping even when there is no request to remit the imprisonment. These applications are always very carefully considered and there is, of course, that remedy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Provision respecting carnally knowing girl between 14 and 16.
Jacques Bureau: How will the section
read now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In 1920 this House
raised the age.


Jacques Bureau: You have at present the provision that the girl must previously be of chaste character and now you are striking that out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Will you explain the
reason for striking it out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the same reasons
that we did not put it in when we passed the law. The section as it was passed by this House was that:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for live years who carnally knows any girl under the age of 16 and above the age of 14 not being his wife, and whether he believes her to be above the age of 16 or not.
The Senate modified that provision by inserting a requirement that the girl should have been of previous chaste character. Now that is a requirement that has existed in connection with other offences of! a similar nature and which has given rise to a very great deal of difficulty in the application of the law. It has involved, necessarily involved, in every case of this kind an investigation into the chastity of the girl who has been the victim. Whatever you may say, when you are dealing with girls under sixteen, the man who takes the responsibility of having illicit connection with a girl under that age, might, I think, very well be subjected to some measure of punishment without an investigation of the entire past life of the girl concerned.


Samuel William Jacobs: What if the man is
fifteen or sixteen years of age or less?


George Gordon: Yes, young boys.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well if he is fifteen
or sixteen years of age he has not done a very virtuous thing has he?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am ready to admit that, nor has she.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And the court will
consider all these circumstances in the measuring out of the punishment. We have got to make a general law, and the one question that we are concerned with now is, whether the existence of the offence should turn upon the previous chastity of the girl. As I have said, in the application of the law a situation is created where a girl, who has been wronged in this way, must submit, if she consents to a prosecution, to being brought before the court and humiliated by all sorts of endeavours to find out whether or not she has, at any previous occasion or time,

misbehaved herself, all for the purpose of trying to procure the escape from punishment of a person -who admittedly has been guilty of a sin. I would not like to arouse the indignation of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), but after all if the law should not suppress sin-and I quite agree we might have, as in our charitable operations perhaps, to begin at home if we are going to absolutely suppress sin-I do not think the law should feel called upon to surround it with protection. And if the man indulges in the sin of illicit connection with a young girl, should the legislature feel particularly called upon to protect him from the possible consequence resulting from the fact of the youth of the girl concerned and protect him by really subjecting that girl to an imposition before a public court?
I must say that, supposing the result of that imposition was to establish that at some previous time or on some previous occasion she had forgotten herself, I do not see that it would be a very serious mitigation of the offence of the man.


Jacques Bureau: I see the justness of the remarks made by the minister. On the other hand he knows, as I do, that there are girls who, at the age of sixteen, are fully developed and look much older than they really are. Supposing a man goes into a house of ill-fame or a house of assignation and meets one of these girls and has illicit connection with her- commits a sin to use the words of my hon. friend-it would not be fair that such a man should be brought before the court and accused of carnally knowing a girl under the age of sixteen, when the girl was not of chaste character previously but was known to be a prostitute. It is not fair, under such circumstances that that man should be held up before the law and found guilty of a crime.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite sure that even if a woman be a prostitute there is not such a public interest in preventing young girls being polluted under the age of sixteen as to justify making it an offence for any man who contributes towards the making of young girls prostitutes who are below that age. That is the case with the man which the hon. member places before us.


Jacques Bureau: No, he finds her there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, if he and men like him did not go to houses of prostitution, or if they drew the line at girls under
sixteen, there would not be the encouragement to those girls to resort to that unfortunate profession, if I may so call it.


Jacques Bureau: How is he going to
know if she looks like a girl of twenty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it is fair for him to take his responsibility. He can satisfy himself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-minimum sentence for stealing automobile:
Mr. McMASTER:: What is the section that shall not apply?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that section 1035 would leave to the magistrate the discretion of imposing a fine. The other modification in the law affected by this section is to wipe out the maximum penalty. There was a maximum penalty of two years' and a minimum of one year's imprisonment. There did not seem to be any very good reason why a man stealing an automobile should get a lighter punishment than he was liable to get for the theft of some other article.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why such active sympathy for the owners of automobiles?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: We declare the sentence for stealing an automobile shall not be less than one year's imprisonment. There does not seem to be any money penalty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This amendment is not introduced because of sympathy for automobile owners, but we have had brought home to us in the strongest possible way that the stealing of automobiles is exceedingly prevalent, and there is therefore greater cause for energetic measures to suppress crime that is prevalent than perhaps may be necessary in the case of offences that are of rare occurrence.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose the committee will see that I am not the owner of an automobile.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Neither am I.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not make the offence similar for those who steal a horse and buggy? We know cases of young men who steal an automobile for a joy ride, and the automobile is either brought back or left by the roadside. A magistrate may decide that as a case of ordinary theft and the young men will be sent down for one year without the option of a fine. The

latter portion of the section says that the sentence shall not be suspended without the concurrence of the Attorney General. Why should we interfere with the judge in the discharge of his duty to take into consideration the circumstances in each particular case? Surely we ought to have confidence in our judiciary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the law as it
stands the judge has indefinite discretion to suspend. There are numerous other cases where he is not empowered to suspend sentence without the assent of the Attorney General. With regard to the question of the hon. member, why not make the penalty similar for the theft of a horse and buggy? -I have no reason to give except that I have already indicated, that there appears to be a special necessity to impress upon a large class of people who look upon the automobile as fair game the seriousness of what they are doing. I think it is generally recognized that one of the things you must consider in determining the degree of severity of punishment is the greater or less necessity for repression of the crime as evidenced by the greater or less prevalence of that crime.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should not the judge be given discretion in districts where the offence is not prevalent? If, for instance, in Toronto or Montreal, automobile stealing is prevalent, then the judge recognizing that fact sees that a heavy penalty is imposed. But take, for instance, the district of Three Rivers, where no such thing as theft is known-and some person falls from grace, a stranger to that district, the same sentence ought not to be meted out to the offender as would be the case in a district where the offence has become prevalent. I urge upon the committee that the courts should be given discretion to deal with these cases as in the past.


Peter McGibbon: I think we all ought to be in sympathy with the object which this Bill hopes to attain, but personally I do not think it is wise to enact legislation which is going to facilitate the branding of people as jail-birds. It is a serious thing for a man to be put in jail- more serious probably than many of us realize; and when you make the crime of stealing an automobile such that there is no option but for the accused to serve a term in jail, I think the sentence is altogether out of proportion to the crime. If he is there for only a week, he and his children are branded for the rest of their natural 
lives as jail-birds. I endorse the sentiment of the last speaker (Mr. Jacobs) that some discretion surely ought to be left to the judge in these cases.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka are quite in point, taken in connection with the fact that a great number of these automobile thefts are committed innocently. I do not think we should limit the discretion of a judge to consider favourable circumstances in the case of a boy who goes out for a joy-ride with somebody else's automobile. That is theft undoubtedly, and under this amendment he cannot escape with less than a year's imprisonment. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider the section.


Mr. CURRIE :: I have not a great deal of sympathy with the boy who takes an automobile and drives off with it! We have had those cases in Toronto. For the first year the magistrates treated them merely as joy-rides and let the boys off; from that the boys graduated to stealing cars, and finally they graduated into these bandits who are driving about the country shooting and robbing people. There have been half a dozen of these serious cases lately, and if you look up the records of the youths involved, some of whom have been sentenced to be hanged, you will find they were up before the magistrates in the first place on the charge of stealing automobiles for joyrides. At first the magistrates and judges were all inclined to think that taking a man's automobile from in front of his house or store was like borrowing his garden rake or hose, but when somebody suggested that while the car was borrowed the borrower * was using up the gasoline, and therefore stealing it, a conviction was obtained for the theft of the gasoline. Hardly a night passes in Toronto without there being four or five cars stolen. Cars are taken off by men who use them in connection with their operations in burglarizing banks and robbing the tills in the stores of merchants in small towns. The only way to stop a wave of crime of that kind is by drastic legislation. A nice little joy-ride is very often the first step toward a criminal career. A young fellow may take a car out, drive around in it for a while and then leave it where he got it; the owner comes out and wonders what is the matter with it. Then the next time a young fellow takes a car he gets drunk, perhaps, and smashes it. And all this time the law is saying to this fellow: Oh, you are all

right, we will not touch you. The gang of thugs that have been terrorizing Ontario is made up of boys some of whom are hardly out of their teens; and these fellows have been stealing automobiles for five or six years. A law of this kind will teach these people that they must leave motor cars alone, and you will find that much of this crime will cease.


David Arthur Lafortune: It seems to me that the penalties provided by this clause are not too severe. If it is established that the accused is guilty, sentence may be suspended as provided by the Act. The new section says that sentence shall not be suspended without the concurrence of the Attorney General or his agent or of the counsel acting for the Crown in the prosecution of the offender. That means, however, that if the judge has the consent of the Attorney General or his agent he may suspend sentence. The case will be carefully examined, and if it is evident that the sentence should be suspended, the accused can be given fair play. It will be ascertained whether or not the automobile was taken as a joke; everything in favour of the man will be examined into. As the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has contended, the proposed amendment is not too severe. There are too many cases of stealing automobiles, and we must try to put a stop to it. I am in favour of this law; it is only just.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may point out to
the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) that if he got just such a case as he supposes then we would have section 285B to deal with. If it was established that the act was a mere boyish freak, the judge would have absolute discretion to go as low as he liked in the way of punishment.


Levi Thomson: As a
matter of fact it is theft though, according to the definition of theft in the Code, is it not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We must read the
definition of theft, but we must read also the section dealing with special cases. I think it is generally recognized that a disposition dealing with a special case makes an exception to a general disposition. Section 285B says:
Everyone who takes or causes to be taken from a garage, stable, stand or other building or place, any automobile or motor car with intent to operate or drive or use or cause or permit the same to be operated or driven or used without the consent of the owner shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $500 and costs or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months or to both fine and imprisonment.
I do not think, therefore, that there is any danger that the really harmless boy will get harshly treated under this law.
I may point out that just the other day we were passing on a murder case in connection with which the first operation was the perfectly harmless thing that the hon. gentleman speaks of-the borrowing of somebody else's automobile for the purpose.
I simply mention this more recent case; we have had several such instances. The borrowed automobile is becoming one of the tools of trade of the burglar and the holdup artist. I hope hon. gentlemen will not allow themselves to be carried away with the sympathetic appeal of the odd case of a boy who may perhaps by mistake be convicted of stealing but who always has the opportunity of appealing to a very lenient and clement Solicitor General and Minister of Justice. I hope hon. gentlemen will not do that and forget the importance of impressing on the criminal population the seriousness of the offence of really stealing an automobile.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are the offenders any more liable to be caught under the penalty provided in this Bill than under the present penalty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think they are more liable to be caught. But the whole theory of the criminal law is that it deters people from committing offences by providing penalties and punishments.


John Archibald Campbell: It is the certainty of the punishment rather than the extent of it which deters.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The certainty is of
great importance, and we strive as far as possible to get it. But if you have certainty of punishment and the punishment itself is inadequate, you do not get very much effect. There is no disposition that we can put in this statute that will make it certain that the criminal will get caught; that we have to leave to the vigilance of those who are charged with the enforcement of law.


Levi Thomson: If I were satisfied that the minister's interpretation of the law was correct, I would not object to the clause as it stands. I have a distinct recollection of prosecuting in a somewhat similar case under a section placed some time ago in the Criminal Code; perhaps the minister will remember it. I can-

not quote it exactly at the moment, but it refers to the keeping of stray animals. I raised the contention in that case that it was theft. The judge before whom I was acting, and who, I think, was one of the brightest judges we have ever had in Canada, expressed himself as absolutely clear that it was theft and that the man could be prosecuted for theft, notwithstanding that in this other section it is dealt with in another way. This is a repetition of what I have suggested. This judge may be wrong and the minister may be right; but I have grave doubt whether my right hon. friend is right, and, therefore, I do not like the clause as it stands. I believe, that strictly according to law, that boy could be prosecuted under this section, and he must be sentenced for one year unless th6 Crown prosecutor or the Attorney General agrees. I suppose it is likely that where a case is such as I have mentioned, the Crown prosecutor or the Attorney General would agree.


David Arthur Lafortune: Not agree, but
recommend.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Concurrence.


Levi Thomson: As long as there is concurrence, that is all that is required.


David Arthur Lafortune: Once a man is
found guilty, the judge has no right to suspend sentence, but he has a right to consult with the Crown prosecutor or agent of the Crown, and then if the case is a fair one, the Crown prosecutor or agent of the Crown will recommend suspension of the sentence. The law is perfectly correct.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member (Mr. Thomson) is assimilating the crime of stealing an automobile with that of stealing a horse and buggy. There is all the difference in the world between the two. There are regular organizations of automobile thieves. They have places where they can take a car, run it into a garage, take the number off the engine, stamp on another number and get the car away to the United States. I had a case of a stolen car, and that car was found six months afterwards in a garage in New York where demonstrations were being made for technical schools. Automobile stealing is an organized trade, the same as that of counterfeiting. Insurance companies which insure automobiles against theft will tell you that it is the best organized system of robbery there is on the con-
[Mr. Thomson.
tinent. It is spreading all the time. Another thing which my hon. friend forgets is that a man who steals an automobile is not going to loaf around the street corners; he goes full speed with it, and he may kill any one on the road. Therefore, by trying to stop this automobile stealing business, you are protecting human life. I am not in favour of too drastic measures, but this is an evil that is spreading. In the city of Three Rivers, I must say that automobile theft has come to be a fashion, not that the people of that city steal automobiles, but we have visits from people from Montreal. There have been automobiles stolen in Three Rivers, a distance of 96 miles from Montreal, and on a telephone message being sent to Montreal, two hours afterwards the automobile was traced in that city. That shows the danger to which men, women, children, horses and so on are exposed on the road between Three Rivers and Montreal. This is an evil that ought to be stamped out. If judges are too kind-hearted, we might bring in the Attorney General or his representatives, of whom we have two worthy ones in this House, and we have had an expression of views from one who, for a number of years, has been a representative of the Attorney General in Montreal. We can trust such officials as they are to see that justice is meted out and that no injustice is done. May I add for the information of the hon. gentleman, that in the Criminal Code there is a provision that for stealing a cow a man is liable to go to penitentiary for fourteen years?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not to exceed fourteen years. [DOT]


Jacques Bureau: I know that, and he cannot run away with a steer so fast as to endanger the life of people along the road very much.


Mr. STEWART (Hamilton West):: Coming from a city of the size of Hamilton in which automobile stealing is prevalent, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say a word or two in regard to this legislation. We have a provision now by which those who steal automobiles may be hauled up and fined, and sent to jail if they do not pay the fine. There is five times as much stealing of automobiles as there was a year ago, and this crime is increasing very rapidly. I have an automobile which I keep in a good barn at the back of my house. I have had the panels pulled out of the door twice while I have been in bed

and the police have chased the thieves away. It is pretty nearly impossible to keep a $5,000 or $6,000 automobile without scalawags trying to break in one's doors to get it away. It is absolutely necessary that something should be done to stop these people from doing that sort of thing. We are neglecting our duty if we do not change the law, and I think that if the law provided that automobile thieves could be lashed, we would put more terror into them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This is a very bad
clause. I have no objection to the penalty being increased if the law is not severe enough; but to pass a statute which says that a judge, no matter what the circumstances may be, shall not have within himself the right to suspend sentence or to give a sentence of less than a year, seems to me a serious reflection upon the judiciary of the country.


Jacques Bureau: A judge in certain cases must sentence a man to be hanged.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In cases of stealing
from the post office or the mails, a judge has to give not less than three years.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Probably the same
argument which I make here would apply to that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is not a solitary case.	,


Andrew Ross McMaster: That would not affect my argument, which is that you will not deter people from crime by providing heavy penalties. When there was, on the statute books of the Old Country and probably of this country, the death penalty for half a dozen or a dozen crimes, there was more crime than there is now. When a man could be hanged for sheep-stealing, sheep-stealing was more common than it is to-day. It is not the severity of the penalty; it is the certainty of the penalty that is required. This is a move in the wrong direction. Let people who steal automobiles be punished as severely as the judge with whom the application of the law is left deems best, but do not tie the judge's hands in a case which may easily come up where a light sentence should be imposed. Let me give a specific instance, an imaginary case, a hypothetical case.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Keep to the old word "imaginary."


Andrew Ross McMaster: All right, I will imagine this case. A young man, the only
support of a widowed mother, steals a car. He just wants a joy-ride. He is caught. He repents. He is really sorry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: People repent sometimes and are really sorry. A judge, convinced that the young man is really sorry, might think it wise to impose a penalty much lighter than a year's imprisonment, but under this provision his hands are tied unless he gets the consent of the Crown prosecutor. I believe this clause is a mistake and that it will not have the desired effect.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for
Brome (Mr. McMaster) touched the very point when he said' that what is required in the law is the certainty of the penalty. That is what we are providing here. I have in my mind at the moment, magistrates who for months and years would not fine because they would never get into an automobile themselves; they looked upon them as gewgaws, something outrageous, that people should not have-they themselves would rather walk to the court. If an automobile got smashed up, that was all right; it was something that was not necessary in the first place, according to these magistrates. Now we must prevent the idiosyncrasies of the judges from interfering with the penalty in this way. We must have a fixed penalty, and that is what the law is providing. I think the law is a good one, and the hon. member who has just sat down has given us the very reason why we should pass the section.


Mr. BUTTS:: I have always been very much opposed to this idea of leaving it in the power of the judge to pass a sentence with his right hand, and to suspend that sentence with his left. I know of a case right down in my own part of the country, in the constituency of my hon. friend across the harbour, the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), where a young man was walking abroad in the streets of North Sydney with four suspended sentences upon his shoulders at the one time. One sentence was for stealing an automobile, another was for shooting his own brother through the lungs so severely that four doctors were required to save him. In spite of the four sentences that were on his shoulders at the one time, he was walking abroad just the same as any law-abiding citizen.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What were the other two sentences?


Robert Hamilton Butts: Perhaps I had better not mention them, but if my hon. friend wants to know, the third sentence was for an attempt to commit rape. In spite of his four sentences, politics kept this young man walking the street.


Joseph Archambault: Shame!


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-persons under 21 and guilty of theft liable to be spanked:
Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to have
from the minister his definition of the word " spanked " before we go any further.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend ought to remember what happened to him in his youth.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is so long ago that I have forgotten.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry my hon.
friend's memory is so short. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce or myself might be excused if we had forgotten, but not a young man like my hon. friend. The hon. member will find the information he wants on page 10. It is as follows:
(1)	Whenever spanking may he awarded for any offence the court may sentence the offender to he once, twice or thrice spanked within the limits of the prison, under the supervision of the medical officer of the prison, or if there be no such officer, or if the medical officer he for any reason unable to be present, then, under the supervision of a surgeon or physician to be named by the Minister of Justice in the case of prisons under the control of the Dominion, and in the case of other prisons by the attorney general of the province in which such prison is situated.
(2)	The number of the strokes shall be specified in the sentence; 1 the offender shall be spanked upon the bare buttocks; and the instrument to be used shall be a leather strap [DOT]not longer than eighteen inches or wider than two and one-half inches or narrower than one inch or thicker than one-quarter of an inch.
(3)	No female shall be spanked.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now that women have
the vote, I do not see why they should be deprived of this privilege.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the bon. member
chooses to move an amendment we shall be pleased to consider it.


George Green Foster: I would like my hon. friend to cut that 'ection out and keep it in his vest pocket.


Jacques Bureau: I had understood that spanking was slapping with the open hand,

but I find by the dictionary that to spank is:
to strut, to stalk; comp. Sc. Spang, to leap.


Mr. EDWARDS:: That is French.
Mr. BUREAU (reading!:
to move with a quick lively step:
That is not French. It may he Irish: to slap .or smack, as with the open hand.
The latter is what I understood spanking to mean, but it seems that we are going to go back to the Middle Ages and use leather straps of a certain width and length on the bare buttocks. That is something that I thought pertained only to animals, so I took the trouble to look it up in the dictionary, and I find this:
Buttock, the rump, or the protuberant part of an animal behind.
I did not know that by legislation we were seeking to consecrate the protuberant part of an animal behind to human beings. But, leaving aside the dictionary definition, Mr. Chairman, I think it is ridiculous legislation to provide that a hoy of twenty, who is pretty well grown, and very often well developed, should be put across a man's knees and spanked. I do not think we ought to put such legislation upon our statute books. It is taking us back to the Middle Ages. We might just as well erect stocks in our public squares and have people fastened down to them to be insulted by every passer-by. I think it is ridiculous legislation. I am in favour of whipping for rape. I think that is the greatest crime; I think it is much worse than murder for a man to take hold of an innocent girl and assault her; I am in favour of whipping for that offence, hut not for theft. In England in the old days they used to hang a man for stealing a sheep. We do not want to go back to those days, but here we are starting to spank boys of nineteen and twenty years of age for theft. I say that we might just as well go hack to the instruments of tortue in the olden days. I am opposed to this section. I do not say that it was inspired by hysterical persons, as my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has suggested, but it is certainly hysterical legislation.


Samuel William Jacobs: If we pass legislation
dealing with the rump, we shall be under the imputation, it seems to me, of being a Rump Parliament. This is what we might call the Joker in the entire Bill as presented by the minister. I think it is beneath

the dignity of Parliament to declare that people up to twenty-one years of age shall be spanked. We have had in this Parliament men twenty-one years of age, and under this section they would be liable to be taken out and spanked.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps they deserved it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have not had the long parliamentary experience that my hon. friend has had. The definition of "spank" in the dictionary I have before me is this:
To strike with the open hand, as to spank a small hoy.
That is practically what it is. We have all of us had spanking in our early days-some of us not as often as we should have had perhaps, on the principle that if you spare the rod you spoil the child-but I cannot understand how a rule of this kind, inserted in our criminal law, is going to help the situation. If a boy is guilty of stealing, he ought to be dealt with as a thief. The younger boy under sixteen is sent to the reformatory under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. We have a system in our law whereby children under a certain age may not be tried in public, but in private by a Juvenile Delinquents Court judge, and they are thus removed from the bad influences of police or general criminal courts where older offenders are tried. It is the tendency of newer legislation to bring these children up by kindly methods, and to make them see the error of their ways, treating them generally in such a way that their outlook upon the world will be of an honest and kindly nature. But to take a boy to prison, and give some person other than his father or mother the right to punish him by applying the rod in a prison yard, seems to me, as my hon. friend from three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says, to be going back to the old days. We should change our views in the matter of penalties to be imposed upon criminals, particularly young boys, and I for one am not in favour of this legislation. I should be inclined to ask the committee to strike it out.


David Arthur Lafortune: I would suggest
that the punishment be made applicable to the second, instead of the first, offence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I say, in response to hon. gentlemen who talk about going back to ancient days-


Samuel William Jacobs: The Middle Ages.
248i


Jacques Bureau: They may be flogging returned soldiers at that rate, for some unfortunate offence, if the age is fixed at 21. The thing is brutal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had expected that if there was a fault to be found with this legislation, it would be as respects the novelty of the punishment for the offence. Punishment that involves nothing in the nature of keen physical suffering people have found very amusing, and a subject to be facetious about, and that is the great value of it. If you take the budding embryonic Jesse James, who is out to be a hero among his fellow youngsters, and send him to a reformatory or a gaol, to associate with criminals, and he comes back and tells his tale, he is a hero-


Joseph Archambault: Ti-Noir Desjardins, for instance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us keep to the particular case-but if he comes back with the glorious story to tell, that he got a spanking, then he is not a hero among his companions; and I think that the real value of this punishment is that it takes the dignity out of the profession of crime. I have an estimate of the application, more or less legal, of the results of this sort of punishment in quite a number of cases, under the order of a judge who has dealt very largely with that class of criminals, and he has certified in the strongest terms that it is most effective.


Jacques Bureau: Where is this spanking in force?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Ontario; it has
been done, as I said, more or less legally.


George Gordon: Illegally.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, more or less
illegally, then; perhaps more illegally than legally. But what we are concerned with is its effect in dealing with juvenile delinquents. I do think it is a matter of first importance to make them realize, in their earlier years, that there is no glory to be got out of crime, and I think that the real value of this legislation is that it does put these children-and after all they are only children-in the position of being ridiculous in the eyes of their companions.


Samuel William Jacobs: It brutalizes them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Brutalizes them? Why, I may say that in my school days boys were strapped, and I hope, at least, that we were not brutalized thereby.


George Gordon: There was good reason for it then.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, we are assuming, in the present case, that the punishment will be applied only when there is good reason. I do myself, in all earnestness, think that this would be a very useful adjunct to present methods of correction. It involves nothing that could brutalize any one, and afi.er all, it is a means of correction that has been applied from time immemorial to all the children of succeeding generations.


Ernest Lapointe: By the State, or State officials?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not necessarily by the State, or State officials, but it has been applied in the educational systems of different countries for long periods of years.


Ernest Lapointe: It has been abandoned by most countries.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Personally, I think it
is a question whether it was an improvement to give it up. At all events, however that may be, a punishment of this kind, which inflicts no real physical suffering of any gravity, but does bring the child to realize that he is being treated like a foolish child, and not like an heroic defier of the laws of society, would be a really great advantage, and in addition I have the testimony of the results of its application, coming from a judge for whose opinion I have great respect. I submit the clause to the consideration of thq committee. For myself personally I believe it to be a good clause, and one that sooner or later, when this committee has got more accustomed to the proposal and has thought it over a little more quietly, will come to be the law of the country, to its great advantage. I am not disposed to insist upon it if the committee thinks that it comes too suddenly and is not prepared just yet to pass it; nor shall I insist on maintaining the age fixed at 21. If it would make it more acceptable, I would fix the age at 18, at which children may be treated under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister knows very
well that we are adopting now, in the treatment of juvenile delinquents, a method of kindly treatment. He knows that we try to make them realize that they are of some use in this world even though they may have fallen, and that there is an opportunity for them to rise. Contrast that with this system of half-flogging, taking a young boy into the prison yard and having the sentence inflicted by the

gaoler or some person under his instructions. It is a most brutal suggestion, and I am surprised that a kindly-hearted man like the Minister of Justice should promote legislation of this kind in this House.


George Gordon: For the last fifteen or
sixteen years I have had a good many cases to defend in the Juvenile Courts. As the minister has said, there have been cases of this kind of treatment imposed upon young prisoners in the province of Ontario, usually, I think, with the consent of the father, the consent being obtained by the magistrate insisting that it be given. There is a precedent for this, as the minister has suggested. I think that probably this follows the old system of whipping at the cart's tail; and there was another method adopted at the same time for the same class of offence, that of standing the prisoner in the pillory, and putting a split stick on his tongue until sunset. And this is just about in the same class as that legislation. Now, I submit that it is a dangerous thing-particularly with a first offender-that a young boy, perhaps a timid, frail, nervous youngster, should be slugged by some big burly policeman with his belt and buckle, and everything that is attached to it, while the rest of the policemen stand around and view the exhibition. I think it is something we should not do. It does not seem to be fair and just, in view of the public feeling that has been aroused and has culminated in a sentiment as a result of which boys are now treated in a different way. Even if formerly a ball and chain was attached to their ankles, nowadays they are given the benefit, if it is at all possible, in the case of first offenders, of a suspended sentence; then afterwards if it is shown that the efforts to save them have been fruitless a more rigorous treatment is carried out. I for one, after some fifteen or sixteen years of criminal practice, such as you would have in an Ontario city, must say that I think this legislation is being asked for chiefly by the Chief Constables Association of Canada. We have heard it advocated, and I am altogether opposed to it. I think public opinion is opposed to such treatment, particularly in the case of a first offender. It appears to me that we are descending to a point that cannot be justified in view of what the people think at the present time. The effort should be made to make the young boy better, instead of humiliating him and making him feel discouraged, and that he has nothing to live for. Because he will feel that way after

an ordeal such as this, which is half-brother to the cat-o'-nine-tails system.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would have no objection to limit the clause to second offences and reduce the age to eighteen. Nevertheless I do not at all share the view that there is anything inhuman, or anything cruel, or anything brutalising in this punishment. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman who has just sat down that he has given a very unfair description of what is proposed to be done. The section specially provides to make impossible such conduct on the part of the "brutal constable" with his "belt and buckle," and all the rest, surrounded by other brutal policemen.


Samuel William Jacobs: The constable will wield
the strap.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will wield the strap but he will do it under the supervision of qualified physicians named precisely 'for the purpose. Every protection will be taken to see there is no brutality. I am quite willing to admit that there is argument to be made against this proposition, but it is beyond me to realize how arguments can be based upon the suggestion of brutality. That, I think, is carrying the thing very much too far. There is room for difference of opinion, that I am prepared to concede. However, I am not disposed to insist on passing this legislation at the present time, because it is a new proposal; but I have confidence that when people will have given a little reflection to it,-and eliminated from their minds the effect of the pictures we have had to-day of a condition of affairs that will never exist under the law if it is passed-it will have a better reception. Under the circumstances I beg to withdraw the clause, and that also involves the withdrawal of clause 28.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, clauses 13 and 28 withdrawn.
On section 14-marks used on public stores.
Mr. McKENZIE:: What is the affect of that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are in the
section a number of marks indicating the property of the Militia Department or other departments. The marks "P. W.", for example, indicate the property of the Public Works Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should the marks cn public property be a matter that must be dealt with in the Criminal Code?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is for the purpose of enabling them to be identified. The legal affect of the section in question has not been modified in the slightest degree. There is only one additional kind of mark. The provision is that the marks specified in this section in that behalf may be applied in, or on, any public works to denote His Majesty's property in such stores. There is a provision as to unlawfully applying these marks, a provision making it an offence to obliterate marks from public stores, and a provision making the unlawful possession, sale, and so forth, of public stores bearing these marks an offence. The effect of this is merely to give to the stores of the Public Works Department the same protection that the law already extends to Government property in connection with other departments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-three card monte, etc., forbidden.
Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that this legislation is the result of a judgment handed down by a judge of our Court of Appeal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. It reproduces the provisions of a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafor-tune) and deals with what is a growing evil to-day in the city of Montreal. As the result of a judgment of the courts, that under the law three card monte was not per se a gambling game, all the experts in three card monte have swarmed into Montreal and they are really pillaging the unsuspecting citizens of that town at a rate that is something appalling. I do hope -in order that I may be able to return home in safety with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and my hon. friend from Georges Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) - that the House will pass this section.


Mr. CANNON:: What would be included in the term "any similar game"? And who would decide?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The court will have to decide.


Lucien Cannon: The provision against playing three card monte or inducing other people to play is all right, but adding the words "or any similar game," is, I think, rather dangerous and leaves it to the interpretation of any judge whatsoever. He would have to be a card expert, otherwise his decision would not be of much value.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the principle of three card monte consists in a sleight-of-hand trick which may be operated just as well with other things as with cards. I may say that I was under the necessity of calling upon a very distinguished member of this House to give me an illustration-


Samuel William Jacobs: May we have his name, please?


Charles Joseph Doherty: in order that I
might be inspired with a proper horror of the game. As I understand, what is sought to be struck at is not only this particular game with cards, but any game on a similar principle which involves betting upon a guess which a man makes as to the result of some sleight-of-hand trick. I would not think that the court would find it very difficult to determine what under those circumstances was meant by a "similar game." It is absolutely impossible of achievement to try in advance to define all the possible ways by which that kind of swindle can be carried on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why does not the minister make the game criminal wherever it is played?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The supposition is, of course, absolutely impossible to entertain, but suppose my hon. friend and his neighbour and myself chose to sit down in the quiet of his home and fool away our time in guessing at each other's endeavours to place the cards here and there, I do not see what evil would come to the public. What we are trying to repress is the evil of playing this game in public places and so inducing others to participate. I may say that the provision was drafted by my hon. and learned friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) who has had a long experience in the criminal courts and has had an opportunity of familiarising himself with this trouble in the city of Montreal. If we can make1 provision against the public carrying on this game we will have struck at an evil that calls for repression. We have no evidence that there is any need of interfering with private amusements.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-penalty of whipping for robbery and assault with intent to rob:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have had this particular provision urged on me from numerous quarters because the crime of robbery with violence is increasing with alarming rapid-

ity, and not infrequently it results in the death of the person sought to be robbed. It has been impressed upon me by authorities in different parts of the country that we should endeavour by every means to repress that particular form of crime. It has been pointed out, although I have not been able to verify the figures, that in the adjoining states where a similar law has been consistently applied good results have become apparent.


Samuel William Jacobs: While I do not wish to
oppose this clause, I must express my disapproval of extending this severe punishment any further. I understand that under the law garroting is punishable by whipping, and I suppose robbery with violence may be considered a similar offence. I would point out to the minister that in the case of section 13, which was dropped, we were proposing to sentence young thieves to be whipped, and now under this section when they become older thieves they are to be flogged. Both sections seem to be steps in the same direction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The youngsters were only to be spanked; these thieves are to be whipped.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-fraudulently burning any chattel over $25 in value:
Samuel William Jacobs: What has occasioned the insertion of this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is at the request
of the Attorney General of Ontario, who points out that the crime of arson can only be committed with regard to the burning of something in the nature of real property. There does not seem to be any good reason why it should not be susceptible of being committed by the burning of chattels or movable things. I think the cases that specially brought it to his attention were the burning of automobiles.


Samuel William Jacobs: Burning the mortgage
of a church when the debt is paid off, for instance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18

penalty for injuring, etc., oil well extended to gas wells:
Charles Joseph Doherty: This is simply applying to-gas wells the section which already applies to oil wells.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-docking animals forbidden:
Samuel William Jacobs: That is a most unusual
clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: These three sections,
19, 20 and 21, all have to do with cruelty to animals. They are introduced at the suggestion and very earnest request of the various societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. They have been submitted to the careful consideration of the professional men in the Department of Agriculture and meet with their approval. It may further be said that their effect is in some measure to bring our provisions with regard to cruelty to animals up to date, if I may use the expression. At all events, these amendments put us on a level with the progress that has been made in recent years in Great Britain and in most of the other Dominions in regard to such legislation. I think any one examining our present provisions will find that they hardly come up to what in the judgment of the present day would constitute cruelty to animals. While I have spoken of these clauses as urged upon us by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I may say that they do not by any means grant all that was asked. We have tried to avoid extremes and to content ourselves with putting our legislation on a footing of equality with the legislation prevailing in the countries to which I have referred.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am surprised to learn that legislation of this kind has originated in Great Britain. I know it is a habit in England to have the tails of horses docked. I can understand that the provision may have been suggested by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but I would point out that sometimes societies of that kind are not to be relied upon; they often allow their hearts to run away with their heads. Is the minister in a position, to say when this law was introduced in Great Britain?


Mr. CLARKE (Wellington) :: Would this provision interfere with the docking of lambs' tails, an operation which is carried on in the spring on pretty nearly every farm in the country?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I find that the animals to which the present provision of the Act applies are "any dog, bird, beast or other animal, not being cattle", etc. In the definition of "cattle" I find that the term includes "any horse, mule, ass, swine, sheep or goat," and so on. Apparently "cattle" does include "horse;" therefore, as cattle are excluded from this section, it would not apply to horses.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then horses may be
docked under this new legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no prohibition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-metal tokens used as money forbidden.
Samuel William Jacobs: What is the meaning of this provision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the purpose is this: the existing sections had the effect of prohibiting the issuing of coins having a money value or redeemable in money. This is to extend it to the issuance of coins redeemable in goods.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has any abuse existed which makes it necessary to have new legislation on this matter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The legislation is asked for by the Finance Department. I fancy they must have found necessity for it in connection with their dealing with the question of coinage generally.


Mr. MORPHY:: It seems to me that part of this clause is rather confusing and hard to understand. It says:
Provided, however, that such intent shall not be necessary to constitute such offence in case such coin or token is made or issued with the intention (the disproof whereof shall lie on the accused) of entitling the holder thereof-
Meaning, I assume, the person who is disposing of the false token.
-to receive therefor, to the extent of the value denoted thereon, goods or merchandise from the person so charged as aforesaid.
Well, suppose that the person parted with a false token denominated in value $5 and got half that value in goods, the crime would still be there but it is not provided for. If I understand the clause aright, before a crime could be committed, one would need to have the exact value of the goods represented by the token. I should like the minister to say whether or not the section would not be abortive without some further amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not be quite
disposed to agree with the hon. gentleman's interpretation. If a coin, or certificate, or any document entitles me to obtain "to the extent of", that puts a limit to what I can possibly obtain, but within that limit I may obtain by it anything less. As regards the words:
Of entitling the holder thereof to receive therefor, to the extent of the value-
The question is not what he actually gets ultimately; the question is whether

this is a coin which entitles "the holder thereof to receive therefor, to the extent of the value denoted thereon, goods or merchandise." It will not be affected by the question whether he gets goods or merchandise to the whole amount. If the coin itself entitles him to get goods to the extent of $5, then the issuing of it is an offence without regard to whether he succeeds or not in getting that amount.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-reading deposition on preliminary inquiry.
Samuel William Jacobs: What change is made by
the proposed new section 684? It seems to be our law at present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The new portion of the first subsection consists of the words:
If the evidence has not been taken in shorthand-
Section 684, as at present, applies the same rule without distinction whether evidence has been taken in shorthand or not. This amendment makes the rule applicable only when evidence has not been taken in shorthand. This is to obviate the inconvenience, when evidence is taken in shorthand, of reading over from the shorthand notes all that has been said. It is to be remembered that we are dealing with a case of evidence taken in the presence of the accused.


Samuel William Jacobs: When evidence is taken in shorthand before the courts in Montreal the case is enlarged for two, three or four days until the evidence is written out. Then the prisoner is asked to plead.


Lucien Cannon: Where a preliminary
investigation is taken, either by a judge himself or by some one else in longhand, the depositions can be signed and the judge can give his decision immediately. When the depositions are taken in shorthand, they have to be transcribed and signed, according to the law, before the judge decides whether there is ground or not for trial, whereas, now, according to this amendment, the decision can be given immediately before the notes are transcribed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the reading over which is in contemplation is the reading over which would take place when a man is called upon to say whether he has anything to say.


Lucien Cannon: The evidence is not read over when it is taken in shorthand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of this will be to dispense with the necessity of reading

over the evidence where it has been taken in shorthand.


Samuel William Jacobs: The second part of the
section does not seem to change in any way whatever the old rule with regard to the words to be addressed to the prisoner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only reason for
the second subsection being inserted, as I understand the matter, is that it has come to be the practice, when you amend a section, to repeal the whole section and to substitute the amending section. There is some trifling alteration, I am informed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the change
in the first subsection? It looks like the old law to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have inserted in
the subsection the words "when the evidence has not been taken in shorthand." Under the existing provision, whether evidence was taken in shorthand or longhand, it is required that before the prisoner is called upon to plead, the evidence shall be read over to him. There is a purpose in that reading over where the evidence is taken, not in shorthand, but in longhand, because I understand then the prisoner is called upon to sign the deposition.


Samuel William Jacobs: He is asked "having
heard the evidence", and he has not heard the evidence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has sat in court
and has heard the evidence.


Samuel William Jacobs: When he has sat there, yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When evidence is taken in shorthand, it is quite impossible that he should be asked to sign the shorthand * notes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The law provides now that he need not sign if the evidence is taken in shorthand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, what is the
purpose of reading it all over to him? He has sat there and listened to it all. This is simply, as I understand it, to obviate the necessity of going through an operation that produces no useful results.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the law now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law now is, that whether the evidence be taken in shorthand or longhand, it must be read over, unless with the consent of the accused.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In my experience, I have never met with any difficulty at all. We always got along splendidly. The notes

were taken down in shorthand, and there seemed to be no trouble about the matter. Perhaps we took too much tor granted in not requiring the reading over of the evidence when taken in shorthand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Unfortunately, the
law as it stands requires that. Perhaps it is observed in some places and, perhaps, in others people, seeing the futility of the law, do not try to observe it. 1 confess I am not familiar with the proceedings In the particular situation that is in question. My learned friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) who has, I think, considerable experience in the carrying on of criminal cases, and my learned friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) who also occupies the same position, might be able to put more clearly before the committee just what happens. What I understand to be the purpose of this modification was to produce this result: whereas at present, whether taken in shorthand or in longhand the evidence has to be read over if you want to comply with the letter of the law-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it not to avoid the trouble of a motion being made because the evidence had not been read over?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because the shorthand notes were not read over to the prisoner.


Samuel William Jacobs: This only applies to depositions taken in longhand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision is that the magistrate without regard as to how the evidence is taken down, shall ask the * prisoner whether he wishes the depositions to be read, and unless the accused dispenses therewith, he shall read or cause them to be read again. Where the evidence has been taken in shorthand, the magistrate now has to do that. The effect of this amendment will be to reduce the application of the section to cases where the evidence has been taken in longhand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-prosecution for officers stealing fares to be tried summarily only with consent of accused.
Samuel William Jacobs: What officers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Conductors, and so forth, stealing fares.


Samuel William Jacobs: "Officials" is what is
meant?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Officials is probably the word that was intended. We had last year a special provision made for dealing
with this offence of stealing fares, which formerly used to be dealt with under the statute which deals with receiving secret commissions. It was found that applying that law gave rise to great difficulty, and it was thought better to deal specifically with the offence of stealing fares. In dealing with it, a provision was made under which there might be a summary proceeding, but no provision was made as to who was to have the option as to whether the case should be summarily proceeded with. The purpose of this section is to give the option to the accused, which seems to be right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-conviction of keeper prima facie evidence of premises being a disorderly house.
Samuel William Jacobs: I am against this new rule being inserted in our legislation. I thought the old British rule was that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty. Here we are providing that it is only necessary to say that on one previous occasion the party was guilty, to give prima facie evidence that he is guilty a second time. That is a wide departure from the rule in criminal law, except in some special and particular cases. I should like to know why this new rule is sought to be introduced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think the hon. gentleman has exactly seized the purpose of the clause. The effect of the clause is that where a party who is keeping a particular house is convicted of being the keeper of a disorderly house, that house will prima facie be presumed to be a disorderly house. We want to avoid this somewhat anomalous condition, where prosecutions are directed against one person for keeping a disorderly house, and against another person for being an inmate of that disorderly house. Surely when it has once been established on the conviction of the keeper that she is the keeper of a disorderly house, it does not seem an unfair thing that you should not have to begin all over again, when you start to prosecute a frequenter of that house, to prove that it is a disorderly house. There might be some exception if you were making it conclusive proof, but we are only making it prima facie evidence, leaving it to the frequenter to disprove, if he can, that it is a disorderly house.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is contrary to the principle of our criminal law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our criminal law
creates a good many exceptions from the principle, and this seems to be a very rational one.


George Gordon: The minister knows, I suppose, that frequently these houses are found to be such by the magistrate on character evidence alone, without any specific act ever being proven. That makes it very dangerous for persons who may be ignorant of the character of the house-for boarders or lodgers, for instance. Of course, it is a different matter with persons who are not there innocently. Convictions have been made right along -I think this is one of the cases where there is no election-on the evidence of a policeman, or perhaps two policemen, as to the reputation of the house. Upon that evidence the magistrate will impose a penalty, and give the house that reputation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This section does not affect the question of whether a person may or may not be innocently in a disorderly house. I do not understand that it would affect any right that now exists in a person found in a disorderly house to establish his ignorance or anything else which may justify him. This is limited exclusively to the question whether that is a disorderly house, and the effect of the enactment is to say that when it is once decided that that house is a disorderly house, then, when you have occasion to prove that with regard to some other individual than the one in whose case that question was decided, you will start with the prima facie idea that what was decided against the keeper of the house was well decided, and you will not have to begin all over again to prove in the case of a frequenter or inmate that it was a disorderly house. I would say that this was a very objectionable provision if it were to the effect that the conviction shall be conclusive evidence that it is a disorderly house, but it is only prima facie evidence. It is only a question of throwing the burden of proof on the party found in the house that has just been decided to be a disorderly house. The frequenter may rebut that, if he can. The cases in which this question arises are very numerous. A woman is arrested for keeping a disorderly house, and half a dozen girls and men are also arrested for being inmates of a disorderly house, the house being one and the same house. What happens is that you proceed to try the 
keeper, and it is absolutely essential to the conviction of the keeper that it should be decided that that is a disorderly house.


David Arthur Lafortune: It is open to the accused to prove the contrary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. All that this does is. to dispense with the prosecutor who has got a judgment that it is a disorderly house from beginning all over again to prove that it is a disorderly house when the case of an inmate or frequenter comes before him, and it leaves it perfectly open to the accused to disprove that it is a disorderly house, or to establish his ignorance, lack of knowledge, or anything else. That is all the effect it has.


Samuel William Jacobs: But we are dealing with the disorderly house itself. My objection is that this reverses all the principles of our law, and I do not see why we should go out of our way in this particular case to do any such thing as that. We ought to consider these rules of law as sacred. They have stood the test of hundreds of years, and we should make no change now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This section says that when it has been proved that the house is a disorderly house, it will not be necessary to begin all over again and establish the fact once more. What universal principles that is overriding I must confess I am at a loss to know.


Samuel William Jacobs: It shifts the burden of proof to the other side.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the Court has then and there decided that there is sufficient evidence that the house is a disorderly house, it is provided here that the Court will not have to begin over again, hear all the same evidence, and decide once more that the house is disorderly. But We say to any second person who is to be tried that if there is anything which he can put forward to rebutt that evidence upon which the Court has just found that it was a disorderly house, he can bring it forward and it will be heard. It Is only a question of saving a useless repetition.


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes these seemingly "useless repetitions" are very valuable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And sometimes a too rigid adherence to general principles involves hardship.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: The objection I see to the section is this. A frequenter may be tried at one time, the person charged with

keeping a disorderly house having been tried the week before. The person charged as a frequenter may have had no knowledge whatever of the previous prosecution, And when he or she is brought up a week later to answer the charge of being a frequenter of the house, without any knowledge whatever of the former proceedings, there is thrown upon that person the burden of proving that the place in which he or she had been was not a disorderly house. The offences and the persons charged being different, there is a possibility that the hearings may be entirely separate, and a man charged with being a frequenter might have no knowledge whatever of what had taken place in connection with the prosecution for the keeping of the disorderly house.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is force in what the hon. gentleman points out. I do not think it turns so much on the point of different dates of trial, as on the question of the time at which the offence is charged as having been committed. I move to amend the section by adding at the end thereof the words:
As against any person charged with being or having been an inmate or frequenter of such house.
That is the case that is sought to be got at.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think that this provision should be enacted, be-
5 p.m. cause you might have separate trials.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The trials may be separate, but the amendment applies to offences that are all committed at the same time. I do not refer to the time of trial but to the time at which it is charged the offence was committed.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I do not agree with the amendment, because a person charged with keeping a disorderly house may have been convicted so often that he or she is ready to plead guilty and pay the fine. Such a person might not be keeping a disorderly house at all, but possibly might want to have some other person convicted of being an inmate of a disorderly house and so would plead guilty to the offence, and the person charged with being a frequenter is not entitled to take any part in the proceedings against the person charged with keeping the disorderly house. He is not a party to the prosecution; he cannot open his mouth, or direct the course of the trial; and the evidence upon which the fact of
keeping the disorderly house is established may be flimsy in the extreme. But the person charged with keeping the disorderly house will plead guilty, and then the alleged frequenter is bound by the evidence in those proceedings; whereas, if he were a party to the prosecution, he might be able to set up facts which would entirely disprove, at the time of the prosecution for keeping the house, that it was a disorderly house at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would agree with
the hon. member, if we were holding the party who is charged as an inmate as being absolutely bound by the finding of the court. But we are not proposing to do that. We are leaving it absolutely open to him to submit every proof that he might have given had he been a party to the first trial. We are closing no door upon him at all. We are merely saying that we will not require the prosecution to bring again all the evidence upon which the court at that previous trial established that the house was a disorderly one. I think that any one who has had occasion to know anything about prosecutions for offences in connection with disorderly houses realizes that it is one class of offence that is surrounded with the greatest possible difficulty of proving the facts. I have not had much to do with that class of case, but I have had occasion to be present in court, when everything made it absolutely obvious that the house was a disorderly one, you had only to look at the people to know what kind of house they came out of, and yet there was great splitting of hairs before the court about the evidence as to whether the house was a disorderly house or not. And this is, not infrequently, in cases where a week before these same women and the same inmates, with regard to the same house, had been before the court, when all the evidence had been gone through and the court had then been satisfied that the house was a disorderly one. All that is sought now is to establish a prima facie presumption that will throw the burden of proof upon the people implicated. I hope that the amendment, worded in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), will be accepted, for I do not think it is objectionable.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Doherty moves to amend section 26 by adding at the end thereof the following words:
As against any persbn charged with being or having been at the same time an inmate or frequenter of the said disorderly house.



S928 COMMONS

Samuel William Jacobs: Who asked for this 'legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It came from the
people who have charge of prosecuting cases of this kind in the city of Montreal.


Lucien Cannon: The Minister of Justice told me he intended to have that amendment applied only in cases where several people were arrested at the one time, and then if the proceedings at the first trial were against the proprietor and he was convicted of being the owner of a disorderly house, that conviction could he used against the other prisoners as being prima _ facie evidence that the House was a disorderly house. I may be mistaken but from my reading of the amendment it does not mean that. It means that the conviction could be used against any person charged with being an inmate of that house two months or six months afterwards.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that, subject to the criticism of my hon. friend the new wording I have drawn will make clear what we are all agreed we want to get. That is if we add to the clause the words:
as against any person charged with heing or having been at the same time-*
Now I think that can only refer back to the same time at which the keeper was found to be the keeper-

an inmate or frequenter of the said disorderly house.
I think what we want to get at is this. It is found that this woman was on July 15, the keeper of a disorderly house because she kept that disorderly house. If it be proved that John Jones on July 15 was in that house you do not need to prove again that it was a disorderly house. I think the words I have drawn mean that. If it can be made any more clear I shall be glad to accept any suggestion that will produce that result.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Although I hate to take up the time of the House, I ask a moment to suggest that it is a dangerous principle to introduce into the criminal law to take for granted that any trial, or any decision, at which the prisoner was not necessarily present, or to which the prisoner was not necessarily a party to, should be a basis for his conviction in a subsequent trial. I think the whole proceedings of his trial from the bottom up should take place in his presence. In this case we are taking for granted that some trial at which he was not present at all, and of which he did not necessarily have
[The Chairman. 1
any knowledge, shall be the basis for his conviction. I am entirely opposed to any system of criminal law, under which the whole business as to the man's criminality shall not be tried and threshed out once and for all in the presence of the prisoner.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is there any very great
reason why this section should be put in? I thoroughly agree with what the hon member for North Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Dorchestei (Mr. Cannon) have said. It appears tc me to be a most unfair phase of criminal law, if I may use the expression, that you should make a man liable for something he never had a chance to prove himself innocent of. Innumerable instances would arise where the whole thing may be proved to have been planned against some one for some particular purpose. The proceedings under which that man is found guilty of the offence may be conducted in his absence and the throwing upon him of the onus of proving his innocence is wrong in law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I point out it
is not said that the man is "prima facie" guilty. All that is said is that this house is a disorderly house. It still remains to be proved that he was there, and that he was there at the time at which the convicted person was found to be the keeper of such disorderly house. Frankly it does seem to me that the absolutely strict adherence to principle with regard to offences of this kind, creates an almost absolute impossibility of getting a conviction, notwithstanding the fact that it is a matter of public notoriety that these establishments exist and that people do frequent them. I confess I have difficulty in seeing that there is any such awful burden thrown on the man, without, as the hon. gentleman says, a chance of his disproving it. It is absolutely open to him to disprove it if he can. The only fact involved is the presumption that that house is a disorderly house-everything else to be proved.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Those are two definite and distinct offences. One person is tried for keeping a disorderly house. Very good. All the evidence necessary for proof of that offence will be produced before the court, and the person's guilt or innocence found as the evidence may show. That is one thing. Now you start with another man for being a frequenter of a disorderly house, a separate and distinct offence. In that case it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove that the house was a disorderly house in the first instance, and that, knowing it to be a disorderly house, this man

frequented it. Those are the two main points in his case. We must not suppose for one moment that the evidence is not ascertainable again. It is much better that there should be some burden of proof thrown upon the Crown and that they should be obliged to produce those witnesses who in the first instance were able to prove that this was a disorderly house. The case may be tried before another judge who has no knowledge of the first trial, yet under this law it would only be necessary for the prosecutor to produce a statement that some time ago-


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, at the very moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not care how long ago; that some time ago this woman was found guilty of keeping a disorderly house. Therefore we start with the premise that the accused frequented this disorderly house with knowledge that it was a house of ill-fame. For centuries it has been the principle that the onus is upon the Crown to prove that a man is guilty. Do not let us get away from that principle.


David Arthur Lafortune: When a man is brought before the court to answer the charge that he frequented a house of ill-fame the proof is made by five or maybe ten witnesses, in the presence of all the parties interested, and the court then pronounces that it is a house of prostitution. I am satisfied that this amendment is good, for it is not necessary to repeat the proof already given, and it seems to me that justice is done when the same judge in the same court has already received that proof. To recommence that proof would be a loss of time and a waste of money, and absolutely useless.


Lucien Cannon: If the amendment as proposed by the Minister of Justice meets the case explained by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier there is no doubt it is absolutely correct and every hon. member will support it. But unfortunately I do not understand the amendment in that way, and I do not think the amendment to the amendment introduced by the Minister of Justice would meet that case. As it reads now the amendment is open to very serious criticism. As hon. members have already stated, we lay down the principle that an accused person may be presumed to be guilty, although under the general law, such a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the minister draws his amendment to meet the case explained by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier
I shall have no objection whatsoever, although as I say, the amendment is open to very serious criticism.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment now reads:
As against any person charged with being or having been at the same time an inmate or frequenter of the same disorderly house.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Being there is one
thing and being tried is another.


Charles Joseph Doherty: While I do not share the apprehension of hon. gentlemen, and while it does seem to me that the amendment in its present form nine times out of ten would be applied in cases which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier foresees, I have no objection to add the following:
Where the persons so charged are tried or to be tried by -the same court-
I cannot say at the "same time," because one person has to be tried after another, and it may take more than a day to try them all. But if we state there that they are to be tried "by the same court" I think ;we have done sufficient. After all, it is the affair of these inmates and frequenters, whether they chose to stay in court while the keeper of the disorderly house is being tried, and I do not think they are exposed to any very great danger.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Justice will see at once that if you say "the same court" it does not necessarily follow that it would be the same judge, because the personnel of the court changes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the circumstances I abandon hope of meeting the requirements of hon. gentlemen. I am satisfied that in amending the clause as I suggest I am going as far as a man can go. From the outset I concede that this involves an exception from the general principle. But our Criminal Code is full of exceptions from that general principle, and why this committee should be so excited with regard to this particular kind of offence and the class of people who get convicted of it, I am at a loss to understand. ,For instance, there exists an exception to the general principle that will make me liable to be convicted of stealing because stolen goods are found in my possession until I make proof to the contrary. I am exposed to that, and nobody gets excited. But that we should attach this importance to seeing that no presumption is created against a person charged with this class of offence, one of the most difficult to establish by direct and positive



proof-well, it seems to me regrettable that this Parliament should be so careful about this particular class of offender. I have tried to go as far as I possibly can to meet the suggestions and requirements. But, if the same court, even if it be not the same judge, has found with regard to the same house on the same day that that house was a disreputable house, I conceive that on the abstract theories and principles that is not res adjudicata against the inmate. If it was, we would not need a provision of the law to cover it. But there are cases where the absolute insistence on abstract principles have worked the most absolute injustice and the greatest failures of justice and have afforded no protection of people deserving of protection. I do feel that the words I have suggested are ample tc cover any possible grievance, but if they do not meet the views of those whose views I am trying to meet, personally I would not think they were necessary at all.


David Arthur Lafortune: If the accused in a case of this kind says that the crime was not committed; if he has other evidence to adduce or can make further proof, he is not prevented from doing so. It is a simple presumption, and if he wants to go into other proof he has a right to do it.


George Green Foster: Now could we not have a vote? We have spent hours on this thing and we have had all possible explanations. Can we have it decided now, and go on?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the closure applied? If so, I will have to sit down, but if not, then we have the right to discuss the matter. I do not understand why the Minister of Justice should take these amendments under his wing and hug them to his heart as if they were his own offspring and then get mightily offended if anybody says anything against them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not offended. If the hon. gentleman is under that impression he is greatly mistaken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have been a great many years in the House of Commons with the Minister of Justice, sitting opposite him most of the time, and I can tell by this time when he is just a little hot under the collar, if he will permit me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sometimes you tell it when it is not so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that this is one of the cases where the right hon. gentleman is quite ready to browbeat us out

of the House, if possible. Now, I have not the slightest sympathy with the subject matter that we are discussing. I would say to any Minister of Justice that if he wants to keep out of trouble, if he wants to avoid wasting time in this way, he will stand behind the grand old principles of the criminal law of England, one of which is that every subject is regarded as innocent until proved guilty, and it is up to the party who lays the charge against him to establish his case. That is an easy position for the Minister of Justice to take, and if he takes it nobody will find fault, but we have been tampering and tinkering and meddling with that principle in this House ever since I came here. We have been getting bolder all the time, and now this grand old principle is disappearing altogether. A man happens to be innocently in a house where he is taking a glass of whisky or a glass of beer, perhaps playing a game of billiards. After he leaves, the people who live there are found to be guilty of keeping a disorderly house, and six months afterwards that conviction may be put up against that man as prima facie evidence of his being a frequenter of that house. He may know nothing about it; he may have forgotten that he ever was there, but it is brought to his memory and that is prima facie evidence of his being guilty of frequenting a house of ill-fame. I say that in accordance with the principles of justice and fair play, in such a circumstance the whole case should have to be proved to the hilt. That is the principle I am fighting for; that is the principle I would always stand for. Why does any minister of Justice wish to tamper or interfere with the liberty of the subject? If we must be forced to swallow these things by a vote, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has suggested, or by closure, all right, but as long as we have the liberty of speech we shall take advantage of every opportunity to submit our views to cool-headed men who will pass judgment upon them as they would upon evidence.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suggest that the clause be dropped.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think there should be a limit to the time within which such prosecution should be brought. I rather agree with the hon. member for North Cape Breton that under the provision as it stands a prosecution might be brought any length of time afterwards and one charged with an offence under the section placed in a very unfair position.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am under the impression that there is a time limit for bringing prosecutions in regard to all offences of this nature.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I should think it should be shortened in this case. If the time limit is thirty days for ordinary cases it should be made five in this.
Amendment (Mr. Doherty) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 29-offender under suspended sentence may be placed on probation:


Mr. MO  WAT@: This is a new provision, and I think something should be said in regard to it. Ic introduces the principle of probation in addition to that of suspended sentence. As the law stands now, the magistrate or judge may give a sus'-pended sentence, but the delinquent goes back to his old surroundings, and the attention of the public should be drawn to the change. Probation has been said by a writer to be "The greatest forward step in a generation in the rational and humane treatment of delinquents." I may point out that the advantages of probation extend not only to keeping the man away from his old associates but to giving him material help. In United States cities where this system has been tried, these are some of the advantages which they get from a probation system:
Finding new living quarters for the family.
Sending children to the country.
Securing homes. .
Arranging for loans.
Teaching mothers how to care for their children.
Securing credit from landlords.
Improving housing and living conditions.
Securing legal advice.
Taking probationers to places of amusement and libraries.
Finding better boarding places; guaranteeing payment of board.
Securing salary increases.
Placing girls in trade schools for special training.
Having board of health improve sanitary condition.
Giving personal instruction to probationers preparing for examinations.
All these advantages have been found to come from adopting this system. Another statement which I might cite from the same author is as follows:
Probation is the outgrowth of a more humane spirit, of a better understanding of what society owes to those who 'go wrong. It is a realization that the debt is not all on one side, an appreciation of the fact that it is better to reclaim a man than it is to make a physical and moral wreck of him.
In New York this result has been found from the system of probation:
As to the results of probation, our records show that 75 per cent of all those placed on probation make good. Many lives that might have been marred have been remade by probation. Many youthful offenders who might have become confirmed criminals have been saved. Many homes have been rescued from destruction. Many women have been lifted from the depths of despair and millions of dollars have been saved to them and their little ones and the community which might have been wasted through prison sentences, loss of jobs and the consequent neglect that flows from incarceration of the family's bread winner.
That is the idea that pervades the principle of probation. By convicting a man or a woman, especially in the younger years, you may place them on the downward career towards crime. By sending them to a kindly but authoritative probation officer, if he brings into operation these ameliorating facts which I have spoken of, these people may be saved for society and society may be saved the expense of treating them continually as criminals. The idea has been studied by a judge who has now become an experienced and capable judge, being the senior judge in York County, Ontario, which has a very large criminal business. He has visited several different cities of the United States with a view of finding out how this can best be brought about and what are the advantages of the courts of probation in that country. Judge Coatsworth has, in a pamphlet presented to the Ontario Government, made a report on that and he comes out strongly in favour of probation. Another book on the Inferior Criminal Courts Act of the city of New York, which I have been sent by promoters of this idea and which is very large and which I will not quote from, shows how the system works there. This movement is supported by these societies of men and women who take up work voluntarily in the large cities especially, work which we ought to do, but which we do not do and which we leave to them. The list which I have here does not contain names of those of a class which I was sorry to hear described by an hon. gentleman here to-day as "hysterical women." These are essentially business men and women and they do an immense amount to help society in all kinds of community work. If the hon. gentleman who used that expression would realize that the use of such a term might deter any woman or man from continuing in this work simply because they are so described in Parliament, he would be the last person to use the term again. For the purpose of showing what a large number of persons are interested in this work and to draw the

attention of the public to the question of probation, I read a few of the fifty or sixty names in order to show that this system has the approval of them all:
Council for Service of the Church of England i.n Canada; Associated Catholic Charities ; St. Vincent de Paul Children's Aid; Catholic Big Sisters; Catholic Big Brothers; Toronto, Catholic Women's League; Knights of Columbus, Toronto Council; Women's Auxiliary Church of England; National Council of Women.
Then there are the different societies of the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church.
Toronto Boys' Work Board; Canadian Boys' Work Board; 'Salvation Army; Big Sister Association; The Great War Veterans' Association of Canada; the Big Brother Movement, Incorporated; Federation for Community Service ; Women's Patriotic League; National Boys' Work Committee, T.M.C.A.
In view of the fact that these represent a class which, I say, are doing a most important work in citizenship in Canada, I hope the attention of the country generally will be drawn to this provision of probation which, I am glad to see, has the approval of the committee. I am sure the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) will bear me out in saying that this system of probation has been found to work well. As he knows what occurs in another city, I am sure* he would approve of this provision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 31 stands.
On section 32-commencement of Act:
David Arthur Lafortune: I think it is of
great importance that this Act should come into force at once.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is usual in amendments to the Criminal Code to allow a certain period before they come into force, in order that the magistrates may become aware of the changes in the law, and have the statutes at their disposal, and so forth, and in order that people may have some chance not to get convicted before they have an opportunity of finding out what changes have been made in the law. There is however a pressing necessity that the amendment with regard to three-card monte come into effect at once, and I therefore move to withdraw section 32. The Bill will then come into force on the day it is sanctioned.
Section withdrawn.
On section 33-forms:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is any material
change made in the forms?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The change consists
practically in this, that we are doing away with the necessity of repeating several times in the same instrument the name of the accused, for instance, the place he resides, and the place of trial. I may say that we are making this provision for simplified forms at the request of magistrates in Ontario who have pressed it upon us for a long time. The proposed changes have been carefully gone over, and I am assured by the Parliamentary Counsel that I am quite correct in saying that there is no substantial change. The changes are what I have mentioned, dispensing with unnecessary repetitions, and reducing the number of blanks that have to be filled up, with the name of the accused, the place of the offence, and matters of that kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my memory serves
me, there is a provision in the Act that the forms provided in part 25 or forms to like effect shall be sufficient. Does that same provision apply to the new forms?


Charles Joseph Doherty: These forms are purely permissive, in any event.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 1-definition of "feebleminded":
Charles Joseph Doherty: We had some discussion of this last evening. This is really an addition of a class of persons to the class of insane or idiot or imbecile persons provided for in section 219, and I am afraid that I would have to concede that the sentiment of the committee, so far as it was then expressed, was rather adverse to the acceptance of this clause. To be quite frank, I would have felt doubtful whether by the committee as then composed the clause would have been adopted. I do not know just what the frame of mind of hon. gentlemen who are now present is. Personally, I am disposed to believe that the provision is a desirable one, but it is a disposition of a class that I would not feel called to insist upon if the sense of the committee were adverse to it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that the minister is dropping this clause?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Has the hon. member any views of the question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is the first time I have seen it; it is Certainly a very difficult question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am prepared to concede this, that it involves the introduction into our law of something that is quite

new. I quite realize the desire to give the proposition consideration before arriving at a conclusion, though from the representations that have been made to me, and from what study I have been able to give the matter myself, I am disposed to believe that this would be a useful disposition of law. I must say, however, that I was not encouraged last evening by the views expressed by gentlemen whose opinions I respect-of course, I respect the opinions of all members of the committee, but some gentlemen who expressed their views last night had the particular qualification of being members of the profession to which the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. McKenzie) and myself belong, and which perhaps entitled their views in a matter of this kind to greater weight than those of men who have not that advantage. Perhaps, under the circumstances, it might be well to give this section further consideration, and in view of what I have already said, I therefore move for leave to withdraw this clause.
Section 1 withdrawn.	i
On section 5-prohibition respecting carrying concealed weapons extended to pistols, etc.:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to amend subclause 1 of clause 5 by striking out at the end thereof the words "ammunition that can be used in any pistol or revolver."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to further
amend section 5 by striking out subsection 2 in its entirety.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to amend section 5 by striking out from subsection 4 in lines 22, 23, and 24, the following words:
Or ammunition for any weapon named or included in such proclamation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Joseph Archambault: I move in
amendment to add as clause 11a of the Bill, the following:
lla. Section three hundred and twenty of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following words:
"provided he also publishes at the same time-
"(a) any facts, extenuating circumstances or argument which the person likely to be injured by such defamatory matter has set up before such court or at such enquiry; or
"(to) if no such facts, extenuating circumstances or argument have been made known or
made at the time of such publication, then a statement giving such person's explanation or version of the matter."
Section 320 states that newspapers may publish evidence taken in court even though that evidence may be defamatory. Sometimes a complainant files his complaint in court, and the evidence which is given in court is very defamatory to the defendant or the accused. It is published in the newspapers, and some people who read the report form a premature opinion of the case. When, later on, the evidence of the accused is given in court, and is published in the newspapers, it frequently happens that those who have read the complainant's evidence do not read the testimony brought forward by the other side, and they retain the opinion previously formed, which is very damaging to the accused. I know of cases where evidence of the complainant has been published, but the evidence of the defence has not been given to the public. I am aware of a case which occurred about three or four years ago where a man was brought before the court and acquitted, but a certain unscrupulous newspaper, to injure him, published the evidence of the complainant alone. My idea is to provide that the evidence of the complainant shall not be published without the publication, at the same time, of the evidence of the defence; and where the defence is not made at the same time as the complainant's case Is before the court, the newspapers shall not publish the evidence of the complainant without the consent of the other party. This is only fair to those who are brought before the courts, where there is a serious complaint laid against them, and I think it should be made an offence for a newspaper to publish only the evidence of one side, the evidence of the complainant.


John Allister Currie: What does the hon. member think of newspapers that publish the contents of writs? Certain newspapers make it a habit to hold up people to blackmail by publishing the contents of writs. Some one issues a writ against you charging you with owing money, and so forth, and sends the writ to the newspapers to have it published. I think that something should be done to put a stop to this. For $2.50 I can go and get a writ and charge my hon. friend with owing me $10,000, and have that writ published in the newspapers, and there is no recourse. There should be a stop to that sort of thing; it is a favourite method of blackmail.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

Joseph Archambault: There is much in what the hon. gentleman says, and I have no objection to supporting an amendment to that effect.


William Stevens Fielding: There is another kind of injustice. A great wrong is done in the case of election petitions. A petition is filed in which a man is accused of nearly all the crimes in the calendar, and it is published by a hostile newspaper. In nine cases out of ten, the charge is not sustained; it is not brought forward. In the meantime, however, the public is informed that the man is everything but a thief, and I do not know what remedy he has. This is a grave injustice, and many a member of Parliament has suffered therefrom.


John Allister Currie: I have personal experience of that. When I ran my first election, there were fourteen writs against me, and not one of them was proceeded with. Nevertheless, the contents of those writs were published, the object being to keep the voters from voting for me. Not one of them had the slightest foundation in fact, and they were never brought forward; yet they were published.


George Green Foster: They never
hurt a hair of your head.


John Allister Currie: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing with the proceedings of courts, which are essentially public. It is considered, and rightly so, that one of the great guarantees of pure administration of justice is that the proceedings of the courts should all go on in the eyes of the public. Of course, every one cannot be present in court to hear and see.
But everybody would have a right to be there and to hear and to see, and it follows that any man has a right to tell his neighbours when he goes out from the court what it was he heard in court. In the same way the man who has a sheet of paper and a bottle of ink can sit down and write a letter or tell anybody what he saw or heard in the court; and the man who has a printing press and a newspaper has just the same right to tell the people that he can reach. Now, we cannot deprive the people of that right without curtailing the publicity of our court proceedings.
As regards what has been said about election petitions there is no doubt there is a frightful abuse, but the abuse is not in the fact that the newspapers make public the petition-the abuse consists in
tMr. Currie.]
the fact that it is open to people to make reckless charges in an election petition, as it is in fact, and I do not know how it is going to be prevented. At the present time the law requires that there should be an affidavit with the petition, in which the petitioner swears to his sincerity and so forth. Still I believe it is a matter of public knowledge that you can go and buy in a law printer's office a printed form of an election petition which contains, of course, an allegation that a man has violated every section of the statute. That is the election petition. Now it is very difficult to say, if a man may make that election petition and make it a proceeding of the court, that the newspaper would not be entitled to publish it. I am not making that observation without seeing the difficulty of dealing with the subject. Though there may be a real grievance result from it we have got to bear in fnind what I said at the outset, that the publicity of the court proceeding is something that has always been considered to be, perhaps not absolutely essential, but a very valuable feature in connection with our system of the administration of justice.
Now with regard to the particular amendment that is suggested, I would be disposed to think that the present section might well be amended by having ' a proviso to require that the report with which the defamatory matter was concerned should be complete-


John Allister Currie: Not ex-parte.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Should be complete
and should tell everything.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Both sides should be set forth.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -but that does not entirely meet the case. Because: Take a prolonged trial. The prosecutor makes his case first, and he may take a week. Now it is a serious matter to suggest that you will prevent newspapers day by day publishing what went on in the court. Of course in the prosecutor's case will be set forth everything that can be said against the accused, and that will go to the public day by day unless you intervene to prevent it, and the paper cannot in advance report the defence that is going to be made. Even so, it will be of very little advantage after all for the newspaper to accompany the report of what actually did take place in court with the statement that the defendant said he was going to prove something else later on. It is not easy-


Joseph Archambault: If, at the same time that the evidence for the prosecution is published there is a statement by the accused regarding his case, it would certainly mitigate the damages that the publisher would incur. That is the reason why I have put the second proviso in my amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be some truth in that, but if what I started out by saying be true, and I think it is-the court is a public place, and every man has the right to go and hear and see what goes on there, and a right to communicate that to all his neighbours by whatever means of communication he may have at his disposal-if that be true, then it does not seem to me to be quite clear that we have a right to impose upon that man the obligation of inserting something that the accused party chooses to come and say to him. What the ordinary man reads and looks for is a report of what happens in the court. I do not know that he wants interjected into it-here, there and everywhere,-what the defendant says, that he is going to prove this is not true, and after all that is substantially all the defendant can say. I would be prepared if we could do so to frame a proviso that would require that the report made should be a complete report of what transpired.


Joseph Archambault: That would be only an ex-parte report just the same, it would be only the evidence of the complainant.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As long as it is impossible to simultaneously take the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of the defendant, I am afraid the defendant will have to suffer the consequences of the fact that the complainant's evidence is given first. The defendant will get his innings when he comes to give his evidence and he will publish it. But it does not really seem to me to be practicable to require that every time a newspaper publishes the day's proceedings in court it must be compelled to publish another statement in which the defendant says that when it comes to his turn he is going to prove all sorts of things. After all, has not the public got some sort of judgment? Does it not know this is the plaintiff's case and that the defendant is going to get his chance? I know that people do not always read all the report, and unfortunately the public is very apt to believe sensational accusations and never look at the defence. I would suggest that we allow the Bill to 'be passed
as it stands. I will consult with the hon. gentleman in the meantime and if we can possibly agree upon the amendment before the Bill goes to its third reading I will allow the measure to be sent back to committee and put the amendment in.


Levi Thomson: The
point raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is more important than this amendment. I think you would easily stop people from issuing the pleadings which the hon. member refers to and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) also. Those things can be stopped, but I do not see how you can stop the publishing of evidence where the case is actually under trial.
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Chairman, during recess I had a conversation with the Minister of Justice and the deputy minister, who both agreed and admitted that the amendment embodied a very good reform, but ata the same time there was some objection to the amendment and they asked me to withdraw it, which I will do. But I should like to remind hon. members that as the law now stands advantage may be taken of it to the detriment of an absolutely innocent person. As I pointed out before six o'clock, an hon. member of this House was charged with a very serious offence about two months ago. The charge was laid by political opponents evidently to injure his reputation. He was brought before the courts in Montreal, and the evidence of the complainant, which was of a damaging nature, was reported by the Canadian press in every paper in Canada. The malice behind the charge was so apparent that the judge who presided at the trial dismissed it without even hearing the defence, and the hon. member was honourably acquitted. The news of the acquittal in the form of a few lines was published in only a few newspapers, and some of the journals which had published the complainant's evidence at length did not even insert the announcement that the hon. member had been acquitted. In fact La Minerve, a paper subsidized, I believe, by this Government, although it published the evidence of the complainant conspicuously, hardly mentioned the acquittal. As the law stands there is no redress, and the press can

publish damaging evidence without also publishing any announcement of the accused being honourably acquitted or stating what his defence is.
This was the reason for my moving the amendment. I hope the Minister of Justice will remember his promise and so amend the law that in future newspapers will be prevented from giving publicity to such damaging evidence against innocent parties. On this understanding 1 beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. MOWAT:: It seems to me we made a slip this afternoon in regard to section 19. We have made it an offence to dock or injure-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
for Parkdale desires to return to the consideration of clause 19. This of course can only he done by unanimous consent. Shall the hon. member have leave to discuss the clause?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Kennel keeping is an important industry in which a large amount of money is invested. By this section we have made it an offence to dock or injure the tails of dogs, which would mean that a kennel which had imported a $5,000 pedigreed dog would be prevented from docking the tails of that dog's progeny. No self-respecting dog of a certain class wishes to have his tail long; he wants to have it cut. An airedale or fox terrier with a long tail would be absolutely out of the prize list in the New York dog show. Therefore I think the minister should reconsider this section; otherwise he will have deputations from every kennel in the country asking why he is putting such a law in force. There is no cruelty in docking a dog's tail. Anybody who has kept dogs knows that it is done two or three weeks after the puppy is born. The puppy may give a little squeal, but the next minute he is licking your hand. I think it would be a great ipity to spoil our pedigree dogs by enacting that their tails should not be docked.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have to admit that
I am not so absolutely well acquainted with the desires of dogs in this respect as the hon. member seems to be. As I said in dealing with the section, the suggestion came to us from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and I assumed they had knowledge of the subject. We submitted the section to the contMr. Arehambault. 1
sideration of the experts in the Department of Agriculture who were accustomed to dealing with animals. Of course, if the provision has the effect that the hon. gentleman suggests, perhaps we might exclude dogs from the application of the amendment. I move, therefore, to amend clause 19 by adding the words "The present amendment shall not apply to dogs".


Mr. MURPHY:: I understood that the
suggestion of the hon. member for Park-dale in giving to the Minister of Justice an interpretation as to the feelings of the dog, had reference only to cutting the dog's tail. The suggestion of the hon. member was I understood, in the way of correcting an omission, or an oversight in the Bill. [DOT] May I suggest that the hon. gentleman has omitted to say anything about the feelings of the dogs with reference to clipping its ears?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our provisions do not
deal specifically with the clipping of ears. However, I will let the hon. member for Parkdale, who tis an expert on the subject, answer the question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How will the section
as amended read?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will read as follows:
Everyone is guilty of an offence . . . who wilfully kills, maims, docks, injures the tall of, wounds, poisons or injures any dog, bird, beast, or other animal, not being cattle, etc.
In the revision of the statute I suppose it would have to be inserted in the original section that the words "docks, injures the tail of" do not apply to dogs, but for the purpose of an amending Act I think it is sufficient to couple the amendment with the declaration that the present amendment does not apply to dogs.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On the title:
Jacques Bureau: Before the title is
carried I would like to move an amendment to clause 605, which provides that in the district of Montreal the Clerk of the Peace or Deputy Clerk of the Peace shall have all the powers of a Justice under Parts XIII and XIV and under sections 629 to 643 inclusive. I should like the clause to read:
In the districts of Montreal and Three Rivera.
That will give the jurisdiction of a justice to the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, the reason being that the district magistrate in Three Rivers has to go to Arthabaska and La Tuque. We are three days or six days

per month without a district magistrate, and there is nobody to replace him. Business is therefore delayed and I may say that I am moving this amendment upon a petition signed by all the members of the Bar of the district of Three Rivers. I have submitted it to the Minister of Justice, and there is no objection on the part of the authorities. I therefore move: to amend the Bill by inserting after clause 22 as clause 22A of the said Bill the following words:
22a. Section six hundred and five of the said Act is amended by substituting for the words "In the District of Montreal" in the first line thereof the following words "In the Districts of Montreal and Three Rivers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Archibald Campbell: I should like to obtain the unanimous consent of the committee to refer for a minute to an item in clause 24. This clause, which refers to fees, was not discussed. I should like to refer to the witness' fee of one dollar per day while attending trial. The minister surely does not think that amount is adequate compensation for a day attending trial.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amount, if I am
not mistaken, is double the amount which was previously allowed.


John Archibald Campbell: It seems to me it is just the same, but I am not sure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may say that the modified fees were made upon suggestions that came to us and that we accepted.


John Archibald Campbell: I have known witnesses to spend from three days to, perhaps, two weeks attending trials, and the minister knows that a dollar will not much more than pay for a meal in many places and not that much in many others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The former tariff
allowed witnesses 75 cents for each day attending trial. The present tariff allows one dollar.


John Archibald Campbell: It is not necessary to point out that that is utterly inadequate. I do not presume it is the intention to pay the full cost to each witness, but the amount is so far short of the actual cost that some change should be made.


Mr DOHERTY:: On the other hand we have 'to consider a little the litigants who have to pay these costs. What change would the hon. gentleman suggest? If we made the fee $1.50, that would be double
the previous fee and witnesses have got along all these years with 75 cents.


John Archibald Campbell: I have heard many complaints on that score. The actual expense witnesses in the country would be put to would be anything from $3 to $5; in the cities, the expense would be greater than that. Two dollars would be the very minimum for each day attending trial.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To meet the hon.
gentleman's suggestion, which probably has some weight behind it, if we may return, as I presume we have returned, to section 24, I would move to amend section 24 by inserting in lieu of "one dollar," the words "two dollars," so as to provide that the fee of the witness shall be $2 per day while attending trial.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that the fees were enlarged both as to travelling and attendance. Formerly, a witness got only ten cents a mile for travelling; now he gets 15 cents, and instead of 75 cents a day he get $1 a day. I rather think the amounts should be left as they are. There is an increase of 25 cents on the day's attendance and 5 cents a mile on travelling. If a man comes any considerable distance, he gets 15 cents a mile. As the minister mentioned, the fees were always made small so as to make it possible for the poor man to go into court and get justice. If the fees are made large, he will not be able to pay them, and he will have to waive his rights in court. I would be disposed to leave the fees as they are.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not any very
strong feeling on the subject; but my attention being called to the matter by the hon. member, (Mr. Campbell) it seems to me that as regards the average man who is called as a witness, his day is worth more than $1.50 to him. I do not think we will do any real injustice if we leave it at $1 or make it $1.50. If the hon. gentleman will consider this matter from the witness' point of view, it is certainly pretty hard for a man who is earning $5 a day to have to sacrifice his day for a dollar in order to be of service to his neighbour, or, if you will, to the administration of justice. In our civil courts, witnesses' taxation fees, when I last knew of them, certainly exceeded one dollar a day. They were a dollar a day when I first began to practise law many years ago, and I must confess that I was surprised to find that they were so small still. On the other hand, we must

consider the tax that is put upon the unfortunate litigant who has to pay these fees.


John Archibald Campbell: It may happen that the time of a witness who has no interest in the case will be more important than that of the litigant. Why should he be compelled to pay $2.50 to $3 a day to help out one of the litigants?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure the Minister of Justice would like to have uniformity in the law as much as possible. I am not familiar with the fees in the other provinces; but in the province from which I come, in a civil suit, the witness gets one dollar a day and ten cents a mile for travel. By this proposed legislation we are going to create the anomaly that if two witnesses are travelling ten miles, one going to a criminal court and the other to a civil court, the one going to a civil court gets $1 a day and ten cents a mile for travel and the other going to a criminal court gets $1.50 a day and fifteen cents a mile for travel. There is bound to be trouble. I would like to have uniformity, at least as far as our province is concerned. If it is left as it is in this schedule, there will be no great trouble, but if the change is made^ the man who goes to the criminal court will be 50 cents per day, and 5 cents per mile, to the good.


John Archibald Campbell: The situation is the other way around in Manitoba.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: And in Ontario too. Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE PRINTING OF SENATE BILLS


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 

CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 199, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 5-imported goods to be marked, stamped, branded or labelled.
Mr. PEDLOW:: I would like the minister to give the committee some further information on his clause. When the resolution was under discussion a few days ago I took the liberty of raising some objections to the provisions of this clause, and I was under the impression that the minister would have some further explanation to make at this stage. I should like to know what conclusions he has arrived at in the meantime.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid I am not in a position to withdraw the clause. We still think it is proper that the marking should be done. I do not know that I can go further than I went before as regards the grounds on which we think it ought to be done, but I certainly undertake that in the regulations that are drawn up we shall try to be reasonable, and my hon friend need have no fears that the marking will have injurious results.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is only fair to this
committee that we should have same idea as to the provisions that will be enacted in regard to this feature of the tariff. I had hoped that the committee would be given a specific list of the merchandise that would be branded by the Customs Department. The range of merchandise that comes through the Customs Department is a very wide one, and the number of items which it will be possible to brand without injury is very limited. It ought to be practicable for the minister or his officials to frame some specific list for the information of importers; otherwise importers will, as heretofore, place their contracts abroad, and will have nothing to guide them along these lines. I appeal to the minister to submit for the consideration of the committee, a specific list of items which they intend to' have branded. The question should not

be left to the discretion of the officials of the department, because they have not the technical knowledge of merchandise that would enable them to come to a proper decision as to the items that can be marked without injury. Furthermore, if the question is left open, there may be two opinions as to the possibility or the desirability of branding certain merchandise. A merchant might place a contract with a British manufacturer and decide that it was neither possible nor desirable to brand the goods, and when they arrived at the Customs Department, the officials might have an entirely different opinion about the matter. Consequently under this resolution, the first step that would be taken would be to penalize the merchant to the extent of 10 per cent additional tariff on the goods imported. Then the shipment would be held up until the point had been threshed out by the Customs Department. I see room for grave difficulty in connection with this provision. As a matter of fact, there is no real advantage to be gained by this proposal. The assigned reason is that it will make it clear to purchasers just what class of goods they are getting, and where they have been manufactured. Well, I submit that the real consideration, after all, in any purchase, is value and service, and 99 per cent of purchasers care not one whit where the goods they buy are made; all they desire to know is that the goods are of a certain quality and are good value for the money they pay. If the goods are reliable, and meet with their approval, that is all that should be expected. To go beyond that and enact this proposed legislation will only create hardship and friction, and, in my opinion, the minister will experience a great deal more trouble in connection with this provision that he was beset with during the past year in the enforcement of the luxury tax. That tax was only a small matter compared to the possible results of this provision, from the point of view of the trouble which the minister and his officials will be faced with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I can say anything more than that no goods will be marked that will be injured. The first thing that will be done will be to get out a proper list of articles to be marked, and to say how they shall be marked. This Act is exactly the same as Acts that have been adopted and have been in force in other countries.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What other countries?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The United
States, for instance.
9 p.m. Mr. PEDLOW:	Have you a
copy of their Act?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I read their
Act the other night.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That Act as you read it the other night did not give a list of the commodities that were branded. I think their Act does.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Our Act just
follows theirs.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does that Act not
enumerate the articles that must be branded? How will the purchaser of merchandise ever know what is required of him by the Customs Department under this resolution? You are really enacting a law with which it is impossible to comply.


Ernest Lapointe: I think there is much force in the contention of my hon. friend from Renfrew. I have received a letter from a firm in Quebec city which imports a certain class of goods, and from that letter I desire to quote the following extract:
We understand that this ruling does not mean that the containers or packages of the items are to be stamped, but each individual item. We have been wondering if this ruling is going to be rigidly enforced with respect to Calendars, Pictures, Calendar Pads, Blotters. Pans, and such other items that we sell you from time to time, for it will mean that such articles, where it is possible, will have to be run through the press "for an extra printing, thereby, of course, adding considerable to the cost of the goods, and in some cases it will be practically impossible to apply the ruling, for instance on Calendar Pads. The putting of such an imprint on Calendar Pads and Pad Covers and other small items would not only be impracticable, but In some cases it would really add an additional cost which would be more than the actual cost of the goods themselves.
I wish to draw to the attention of the minister what is stated in this letter, and I shall be glad if he will give some explanation that will allay the fear of these gentlemen.


Michael Clark: Perhaps the minister will allow us to have a little say on this subject in committee; I make that suggestion in perfect good faith. Possibly the minister in one speech could answer ten interpolations from this side or the other. I am not satisfied personally with the answer which my hon. friend has made to the speech of the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow). All the answer that was vouchsafed my hon. friend

was that this is being done in other countries, and the country particularly mentioned is the United States. Well, that is no justification whatsoever for the expedient toeing adopted toy the Parliament of Canada. We are governing Canada, and the fact that something is done in the United States, or Britain, or Timbuctoo, is no satisfactory reason as to why it should be done here. I should like the minister to tell us, if he borrowed the expedient from the United States, where he borrowed the reasons for its being proposed to toe put into operation here. What is the object of this marking? What is the reason for it? Will additional expense be incurred by some one by the marking, and if so, toy whom? Who will discharge the expense? All additional trouble in this world means additional expense.
If there be trouble and expense in connection with trading, it makes the article traded in more expensive, more costly, and it is to that extent an embarrassment to trading when we want it to toe freer, when we want to do something to stop the rot that is taking place in the trade of Canada. When my hon. friend is answering I should like him to tell us what effect he thinks this marking will have upon the trade of the country. What is the object or the reason for it? Will it incur expense; will it mean employing more government officials; what will be its effect upon trade? Is it not clearly a continuation of bureaucratic practices somewhere which we had to have recourse to of necessity during the war, perhaps, tout which we would be better without now. I had occasion to tell the Government and the House the other day that we do not need a Government to help trade, we do not need a Government to interfere with trade. If people are left alone they will trade, it is natural to them to do so. Now I have put my questions specifically to the minister, and I hope in answering them he will let the United States alone and reply to these specific questions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just
waiting for a moment to see if there were any other questions so that I might be able to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend from Red Deer. Perhaps there are other hon. gentlemen who desire to ask questions.


Mr. DAVIS:: Is there not also an ambiguity about the proviso which reads:
That all goods imported into Canada after the date of the coming into force of this section which do not comply with the foregoing requirements-

and so on. Well, there are two requirements, and one is that goods capable of toeing stamped sfhall toe stamped. But goods which are not capable of being stamped are classed under this proviso. Therefore I think the wording of the proviso should toe made clearer than it now is. Otherwise it would, in my opinion, preclude all goods whether they were stamped or whether they were not stamped, whether they were capable of being stamped Or incapable of being stamped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps I had better answer the last question first. I submit to my hon. friend that the clause is very clear:
That all goods imported into Canada which are capable of being marked, stamped, branded or labelled without injury, shall be marked.
I think that is fairly clear, tout if there is any doubt about it let us .make it absolutely clear. My idea is that if we add any more language to the section we may somewhat becloud what would appear to me to be a pretty clear sentence.
Then my hon. friend from Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) points out the difficulties in regard to the marking of printed matter. Well, the answer to him pretty nearly answers my hon. friend from Red Deer. I should say, in the first instance, that there is no difficulty whatever about branding books, calendars, and so forth, showing where they are made. The name of the printer is usually shown, and I do not know that the additional words are going to be a very great burden. I would not think so. If marking and printing can toe done easily I think it can be done easily toy people in the printing business. I might further point out-and this is a question which I know the hon. gentleman from Red Deer will be much interested in-that the printers, and the printers' unions, who were particularly desirous of having this done, illustrated the fact that they were subject to the competition of printers in other countries who were getting approximately I am not sure of the exact figures-one-tenth of their wages. They said "If we are to be subject to that competition let the Canadian people at least know where they are buying these articles from." Cigar bands, and the like, in connection with which there is a good deal of printing in Canada are subject to competition of that class from abroad; and I will tell my hon. friend from Red Deer that I certainly desire to protect Canadian printers against a standard of living at least ten degrees

below that of the Canadian labour man. That is one of the reasons for this provision.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend does not mean competition from the United States, I am sure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was certainly not referring to labour in the United States; I was not referring at all to the United States. As a matter of fact, the points in connection with which this claim was-rightly or wrongly and I believe lightly-made by Canadian labour were Japan on the one side and the Continent on the other. There is no complaint about the United States in connection with printing. That was one reason why we thought marking should be done. I will tell my hon. friend another reason why we thought it necessary. We thought it would be a good thing to make it just a little more difficult to impose a fraud on the public than it now is-just a little bit. I have an idea, for example, that the public, when they think they are buying an English knife, should get an English knife. I do not know whether that will appeal to my hon. friend from Red Deer or not, but it did appeal to me.
Mr, CLARK: No.	#


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does not appeal to my hon. friend?


Michael Clark: No, because I would like to take care of myself in buying a knife; I do not want my hon. friend to help me at all in making such a purchase.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not
intend to legislate for one minute for people who have the knowledge of cutlery that my hon. friend has. I am thinking of the Canadian public who, perhaps, do not know just exactly the different brands of steel and the different kinds of manufacture quite as well as my hon. friend may. Now those were the two main reasons why this was done and why we are standing on it. I am very glad that my hon. friend points out that we should not consider what is being done in other countries including the United States. Simply because a thing is done in England does not mean that it is a good thing to be done here. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that our fiscal policy must be dictated by the needs and interests of the Canadian nation, rather than by what England finds it pays her to do. The only reason why I referred to the United
States was to illustrate the practical working out of the measure. Over there they do not bring down a Bill with a long list of names, saying exactly what is to be done with every one of the articles named. They simply bring in a declaration that articles which can be marked without injury, shall be marked so as to show the ' country of origin.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I
understand the minister to say that when the article is already marked it will not be necessary to mark it again. That is, if there are words on the book or the article that is imported from the United States, or some other foreign country, into Canada, which indicate where it came from, it will not be necessary to mark it specially. For example, the Government distribute penholders to members, and I happen to have one on my desk which I got from the distribution office. I find that it is marked "Eagle Pencil Company, New York".


Mr. CHISHOLM:: New York?


John Howard Sinclair: New
York. I presume an article of that description which already bears an indication of where it was made will not have to be marked again. I can understand, however, where there will toe great difficulty, and I sympathize with the view taken by my hon. friend from South Renfrew. If the minister is to issue a special list for the use of importers so that they will know what goods are to be marked, he will have to be very careful in its compilation. For some time I (have no doubt great trouble will arise through this regulation. The clause seems to require that the goods themselves ibe marked, not the wrapper or container. But supposing you get a bundle of white silk ribbon, to mark it in many places would damage it and render it practically useless.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You could not mark that at all.


John Howard Sinclair: That may be one of the class of articles that would be exempt. At the same time the importer might not know that, and if it was left to the discretion of the customs officer the latter might raise difficulties with the importer. The penalty is very severe-unnecessarily so for a regulation of this kind which is entirely new in this country. It strikes me that levying a penalty of $1,000 for omitting to place

this mark on goods that may not he worth ten cents is ridiculous. There is no reason why we should frighten people with penalties of this kind, for it is no crime to import goods, and I cannot understand why the minister should want to levy such a heavy fine on a trader who omitted to comply with this regulation.
I also favour the proposal made toy my hon. friend from South Renfrew that in place of advertising the country where the goods are made, as for example on this penholder, it would toe better to say that it was made in Canada. If we are going to put a stamp on imported goods there is no necessity why we should advertise and build up the trade of foreign countries. Such a regulation as this would toe a very fine advertisement for the United States. For example, if I touy a (pair of boots from a merchant in Canada and they fit me, and I want another pair of the same make, if I find on the soles of those boots that they were made in New York or Boston that is the best sort of advertisement the American manufacturer can have. They have realized that in England, where they started this idea some time ago I understand, and they changed their regulations, which now, instead of requiring the country of origin to be marked, directs that all imported goods shall be marked " not made In England." That seems to be a very reasonable regulation. I have not heard the minister say that he would accept it, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we should go to the trouble and expense of advertising foreign countries and helping them to sell their goods.


Mr. NESBITT:: The section reads:
That all goods imported into Canada which are capable of being marked, stamped, branded or labelled, without injury, shall be marked, stamped, branded or labelled, etc.
So this would not apply to silk ribbons or to any other goods that might be injured toy stamping or marking. The section does not provide that goods have to toe branded to indicate the place of manufacture, tout merely to indicate the country of origin. So if goods are made ift Germany they must be branded " made in Germany," and likewise goods made in England or any other ountry would be similarly branded to indicate the country of origin. There is no reason why goods should toe branded to indicate the particular town or city from which they come; but I may tell my hon. friend from
[Mr. Sinclair. 1
Guysborough that very few manufacturers who are not ashamed of their goods do not now mark them not only to indicate the town or city where they are made but the company who manufacture them.


John Howard Sinclair: They do it for the advertisement.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Absolutely; and it is no hardship on anybody who imports goods to mark on them the country of origin. We need not wonder about the cost. No one can calculate the cost of marking these goods, because the men who-take a pride in their products will mark them, unless they are trying to evade and deceive, and that is what we want to avoid and what we should avoid.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I discussed this proposition at considerable length when the resolution was before the committee, but it seems to me I will be compelled to cover pretty much the same territory again-


Some Hon MEMBERS:: No, no; please.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: -to emphasize the point I endeavoured to emphasize on that occasion. The member for North Oxford seems to think that if imported goods are branded the consumer will be assured of getting the proper quality of merchandise.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He would soon know
from the brand.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, is only one of the features. When the resolution was before us a few days ago he laid particular stress on the fact that it would enable the consumer to understand and to know just exactly where the merchandise was manufactured. There is a good deal in what the hon. member for Guysborough said in that connection, and much more than appears on the surface. If this Bill passes in its present form, it will mean that the trade of Canada will be forced to advertise on their counters the merchandise of foreign countries. That is one of the weakest parts of this section. It will compel our importers to distribute advertising matter for Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Italy, the British Isles, and other countries. I insist that if the minister must have a provision of this kind he should follow the British system and have all imported goods branded, " Not manufactured in Canada". That is the system in force in the British Isles, all their imported goods are branded

" Not manufactured in the British Isles," and I do not think we can make any mistake in following their example. The merchants and manufacturers there took exception to a provision similar to this, and the law was changed accordingly. This is a very unwise proposition to force on the business of this country. In the first place it requires that all goods which are capable of being marked must be marked in a conspicuous place. It still leaves the question of what is a conspicuous place open for debate between the importer, the maun-facturer and the customs officials. Supposing the importer does his level best to comply with the requirements of this Bill, and his shipment of goods arrive in the customs office, each article duly marked in his judgment in compliance with the Act, and the customs officer says. " These are not branded in a conspicuous place. I will hold up this entire shipment and will penalize you to the extent of 10 per cent to start with." Then, the next thing is that the goods will not be allowed to leave the Customs office until they have been branded under the supervision of the customs officials. This may mean a delay of weeks and months in the case of perishable merchandise, and after they are released, even though they have not been injured by branding or stamping, they may be out of date and considerably depreciated in value. I do wish -the minister and his deputy would give real consideration to this view; it is a view that they cannot escape. Take the law that was passed last year in regard to manufacturers collecting the luxury tax. All hon. members know the difficulties that arose in that regard. The minister assured the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) that harness makers, blacksmiths and tailors would not be classified as manufacturers; yet we know what happened. These trades were put to enormous trouble during the year; they were made to pay a license fee and compelled to collect sales tax as manufacturers, although they were not manufacturers and although the minister assured us on the floor of the House that they would not be so considered. An expensive lawsuit has resulted; it was decided against the Government only last week, and the Minister of Finance assures me that the Government have had to pay the costs. Now, here is cause for any number of lawsuits and any amount of trouble.
Why, you cannot get two men in the same line of business who -have the same ideas as to the branding of merchandise. How,
then, can you expect a proper decision when the conflict of opinion is between a government official and an importer? You cannot find in Webster's dictionary any words adequate to describe the character of this provision. It provides that the goods must be marked in a conspicuous place. Well now, that is pretty plain language, and I know from experience the interpretation that the customs officials will give to it. Take the line of the merchandise I mentioned the other day, silk stockings, which we import in large quantities. The only conspicuous place on a silk stocking is the leg; the toe would not be considered by the minister's officials as a conspicuous place. He says that the marking on the toe will be accepted by him, but we know from our experience of last year that the inland revenue officers will have a different opinion in the matter. Moreover, the customs officers themselves will have different opinions in different parts of the country and there will be no end of trouble, no end of turmoil from one end of Canada to the other. It is impossible, I say, to make this Act workable. Then, it is provided that the goods must be marked in detail; every item in the package must be marked. I appeal to the hon. gentleman's common sense; I do submit that this provision will cause an immense amount of trouble and will involve expense which will add to the cost of the merchandise and increase the price to the consumer.
I have already called attention to the penalty clause providing that 10 per cent shall be added to the cost of the merchandise if in the judgment of the customs officer it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act. Mr. Chairman, this Act has not been properly thought out. I do not like to use the word, because I have the highest admiration for the minister, but it seems to me to be a half-baked measure; it has not run the gauntlet of careful criticism and consideration. An Act of this kind, if it is to be enforced, should be worked out by men who are experienced in this line of work and who know what they are talking about; men who can say what lines of merchandise can be branded and what lines cannot be branded without destroying or depreciating their value. The penalty clause read by the minister the other night as being in operation in United States is slightly different from that 'which is adopted here. In fact, the omission of one word makes a big difference. If the provisions contained in the third section of this paragraph are insisted on, it leaves

the matter in such a position that no one importing merchandise can escape the penalty, and it is a very severe one-a thousand dollars or a year's imprisonment or both. The penalty applies to any person who violates any of the provisions relating to the marking, stamping, branding or labelling of any imported goods. That is, if a man fails to have the merchandise marked, or if he fails to have it marked in the place where the customs officer thinks it should be marked; if he fails to do a thousand and one little things which he is liable innocently to omit to do-because he has nothing to guide him' in this Act; there are no definite instructions-then he is liable to this heavy penalty. In the United States Act which was read by the minister a few nights ago the word "fraudulently" was used after the word "shall" in the third line. I think that is only a reasonable provision. If a man innocently violates the Act, he is liable to penalty, though he may not have had the least intent of breaking the law. I really think the House will have gone insane if it endorses this provision. This part of the Act should be deleted entirely, or further consideration given to it before it becomes law.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not propose to delay the committee to any considerable extent in the few observations which I wish to make concerning this Bill. But I do not wish this part of the Bill to pass without registering ,a most emphatic protest. I want to remind the Minister of Finance that last year he passed a luxury tax provision, and he did so in spite of the expert advice given him by the member for South Renfrew. He proceeded along the line of error and finally had to admit the error by taking off the luxury tax in the middle of the Christmas season. Now, I have some respect for the out-and-out protectionist, although he is making a mistake-the man who comes out in manly fashion and says: "I am going to raise the tariff; I think it is a good thing for the country." I can respect his sincerity and his courage, although I may have a very unfavourable opinion of his economic knowledge and judgment. But this sort of protection, this sort of pin-prick protection-not only am I opposed to it economically, but I have little respect for that sort of proceeding. I wish I could shake this Government out of its smug self-satisfaction, because I think that if I did I would be conferring a benefit on the country. The Minister of Marine is spending
[ Mr, PeiHow.l
millions of dollars of the people's money for what? With the ostensible purpose of increasing Canada's trade. This is just a comparison I am making-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member in discussing this clause, is certainly not in order in making a comparison between the conduct of the minister in charge of the present legislation and that of the other ministers of the Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, without making any comparison at all between these gentlemen, I submit to the committee with all confidence that what the Minister of Finance is doing, no doubt unwittingly and perhaps with the best intentions in the world, is tripping up commerce, pushing pins into commerce, interfering with commerce. You will never make Canada prosperous by interfering in this underhand and small way with the trade of the country. It will cost money to do what is here provided, and that cost will have to be met by some one. The only way by which we shall return to economic prosperity in this country is by freeing trade, not by putting shackles upon it and not by tieing it up with small threads in this way. The minister has read Gulliver's Travels. He will remember that when Gulliver came to Lilliput, he was asleep and the Lilliputians tied his brawny arms and strong legs up with little threads, and finally he was unable to move. That is what the minister is doing with commerce- tieing it up with small, mistaken interferences with the right of people to carry on their business in their own way.


Michael Clark: I have listened with very great patience to my hon. friend's reply to a very small portion of the questions that I put to him, and I have heard another very explicit charge against this proposed legislation from the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow). I want to tell the minister-and I hope he will keep quite cool while I try to get my difficulties in this matter solved by him- that so far I am much more impressed with the objections of the hon. member for South Renfrew than I am by the explanations of the minister. I asked the minister very politely, if somewhat emphatically, the reason for this legislation, and the only reason that he gave was that ihe would like to protect the Canadian public in buying their knives. I am very grateful to him that he excluded me from his tender care. I want to assure him that a large number of the Cana-

dian public would be willing to free him from further trouble in their case. The minister and I have diametrically opposite views as regards how people trade. When I go to buy a calf from a neighbour, the matter is one between my neighbour and me, and I do not want the minister to come and help me to buy my calf and my neighbour does not want him to help ihim to sell it.	In the wider
field of international trade a condition of mutual trust is to be found on a larger scale as between the importer and the exporter, then between the importer and the retailer, and finally between the retailer and the customer. Human beings have been so constituted that whether they be exporters, importers, retailers or customers, on the whole they are better doing their own business in the world than being helped by petty little details arranged by the Department of Finance and consented to by the minister pro tern. That is my view of trade on general principles.
I hope I have been explicit and clear enough, and that the minister will understand me.
I addressed a number of other questions which my hon. friend failed to pay any attention to ; in fact, he seemed to be very anxious to get back at me and make it a debating point. That is the easiest thing in the world to do; but that is not worth while if we want to facilitate the business of the House and to get away from here some little time before Christmas. This is not a matter of debate between the minister and myself; it is a matter of his clearing away our doubts about the propriety of this legislation. The hon. member for South Renfrew is, I understand, a merchant; he understands about trade; he is not a lawyer, and I believe he could give the minister points in the matter of trade and then not lose. My hon. friend stakes his commercial reputation on the statement that this is going to give rise to an infinity of trouble in trade. Is that the minister's obiect? Does he believe the hon. member? Le( me ask the minister to give me some guidance in this matter. Who is going to make the examination for the marks on the various articles imported? Where is that going to be done? Perhaps the minister can answer that without leaving his seat.


John Allister Currie: In the customs house.


Michael Clark: Then every parcel has to be opened and every article examined. The Minister of Customs has
an assistant now, but I would rather not deal with the assistant; I want to deal with headquarters. Supposing, however, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is well informed, I think, in his assertion, there is prima facie evidence that the hon. member for South Renfrew understands the matter. He says that there will be a great deal of trouble. I put this to the minister, that if the articles in question are only a gross of pairs of stockings-and that would not be a large import-and every stocking has to be marked on every toe, who is going to look at the toes of the stockings for the marks?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The mark has to be in a conspicuous place.


Michael Clark: I understood the other day that my hon. friend got from the minister the concession that it had not to be in a conspicuous place; that it was to be on the toe. I would like to know if he has found out from prospective wearers if they want the toes of their stockings marked at all. I should like to know if he has endeavoured to find out what effect this is going to have on business. ,1 am going into details to show my hon. friend calmly and reasonably what the situation will be, and I hope he will imitate my tone and temper. I hope he will explain to me who is going to do this marking. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) gets up and utters three sentences of an explanation and then wanders out into the lobby thinking he has settled the whole matter. As a matter of fact, he has not settled anything, but has merely given an opinion.
To return to the question which my hon. friend did not answer, this is all trouble- trouble to the markers in the country from which the goods come, and believe me, English traders want to be paid for their trouble, and their customers will pay them. The importer brings the material in, but he sells it to the retailer. The profit is secure to all the dealers, and the whole thing comes upon the poor consumer at the finish. That is the Government's panacea and has been from the start for improving the trade conditions of Canada. If there is any financial trouble, the recipe of the Government has been: "Give the consumer another clout on the head." That is the recipe of the Government for improving our trade conditions. That is the way in which this will operate. Even if the minister will not protect me in the buying of a knife, if he excludes me from

the benefits of his tender care bestowed upon the general public there will be trouble on the American side and1 on the British side wherever he enacts that these marks shall be made, and the Canadian people will pay for it. If I am wrong in this, the minister has left me wrong, because he did not answer my question when I first asked it. I have, therefore, had to explain to him in more detail what my difficulties are and have had to ask the question twice: Will this be an additional expense, and who will pay it? As regards this marking, is it not going to be a real obstacle in the way of trade? I do not care to use the language of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)-not that there was anything particularly harmful but I want to be careful not to irritate my hon. friend's feelings at this period of the session. I do not want to talk about pin-pricks. I am not trying to pin-prick anybody; I am trying to see whether this is going to increase the trade of Canada and the comfort of the Canadian people or to decrease both, and for the life of me I cannot see but that it will be baneful in its effects. I cannot see the benefit of this legislation; I do not believe the minister is called upon to protect the' whole of the Canadian people in buying all of these articles. I have, however, asked him the question: Will it increase the expense of the trading operation, because nobody contends that the stocking will be better for wearing on account of the mark? The whole tendency would be for it to be worse at that particular point, because there would be the wear caused by putting on the mark, and so with the various other articles. Will not this examination, which my hon. friend from North Simcoe says will be carried out, not lead to the increase of Government officials? Is the whole thing not an unnecessary interference of Government with an operation that would be on the whole better left in the hands of the people themselves, who, after all, when they grow up do not want to be treated as children. If ever I met a people in the world who insist upon their whole manhood and womanhood after they have grown from their 'teens, it is the Canadian people.
I hope I have made my points clear and not taken too much time about it, and I hope that when the minister answers this time he will cover the whole ground, so that I shall not need to say anything more.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will try and
do so. I do not know that I will try to emulate my hon. friend, because if I did

so I am afraid I should have to engage in a little bit of scolding that would be entirely beyond my powers. I have taken notes as accurately as I could of my hon. friend's questions, and the first question to be answered is:	Will this increase the
expense of the operation? There is no doubt about one thing and that is that sometimes the very cheapest of all commodities, cheap sacks, and cheap bags, for instance, are all marked with the name of the maker, often the trade-mark, usually the address, and very often the country. If my hon. friend wants to find something that is cheaper than anything else, let him look at a cheap jack-knife. Even that is marked. If my hon. friend goes down the street to-day and buys a pair of socks-I refer to socks because my hon. friend specializes on stockings-he will find that the cheapest sock he can buy carries its trade-mark.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend propose a mark in addition to that?


John Allister Currie: Keep quiet; let the minister answer.


Michael Clark: My hon.
friend must keep quiet. This is between the minister and me. I would like the hon. member for Simcoe not to waste the time of this committee. The minister and I are trying to get through, and I would like to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the hon. member for Simcoe, without rising in his place, is behaving in a most disorderly manner, interrupting his own minister, and obstructing the business of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I was
saying, on the cheapest sock you can buy, you will find the name clearly stamped. Now I do not think it would cost very much more, the name and trade-mark being already there, to add the name of the country.


Michael Clark: Am I to understand that the minister proposes a mark in addition to that which the maker puts on?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly
propose one thing, and one thing only, and that is that the name of the country of origin shall be shown. I am not interested in trade-marks; I am not interested in names and addresses; I am interested in one thing only and that is that the Canadian public shall know from whom they are buying. It is, of course, a usual thing to have more or less trouble

when a change is made, but I may tell my hon. friend that so far I have received only one letter objecting to what is being done. I may tell him another thing. Either he or the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) stated that we were compelling the advertising of foreign goods in Canada by this marking. Now, so far, the manufacturers, for whom my hon. friend professes fears, have not made the slightest objection to this legislation-not one of them. On the other hand, the importers are making some objection. Now I would like to ask this question: If it be a bad thing for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian production that we should insist on the country of origin being shown-that we should insist, if you like, on the goods of a foreign country being advertised in Canada-why is it that the only people who are complaining of this legislation are the importers whose interest it is to advertise the foreign as against the homemade article?


Michael Clark: Because the importers have the trouble. That would be my answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend has not appreciated my point, but the fault is entirely mine. I was just endeavouring to point out an inconsistency which appears to me to be perfectly apparent. It is alleged that the effect' of this legislation will be to advance the sales of imported goods, because of the forced advertisement which they will get. If that is bad for Canadian production, how is it we have received not one complaint of this legislation so far from the manufacturers in Canada.
Another question was:	where is the
marking to be done? Where is the list going to be drawn up? How is it going to be put in force? The list of goods will be drawn up in Ottawa, it will be printed and circulated; it will be placed in the hands of every single customs official at points of entry.
The marking ought to be done, and will be done, in the country of origin. It is now being done in the country of origin in the case of a great many goods of the better class. It is now being done in the country of origin in so far as importations to countries having similar legislation to this are concerned.
Where is the inspection to take place? The inspection will take place where the goods are examined. All goods coming in
have to be examined by the customs officers now. In connection with the larger question of valuing, and inspecting goods passed for customs, a small amount of extra work will be imposed upon the officials to see whether the article is properly marked. This will be done at the customs ports through which the goods pass. The work will be done by exactly the same man that is already doing it; there will be no increase in the number of customs officials. I think I have answered the list of questions in regard to which my hon. friends desires information. If there are any more questions I shall try to answer them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was very much interested in the speech of the Minister of Finance in connection with this new duty which he is proposing on goods coming into the country. I thought that we could all safely heave a sigh of relief that the minister was about though with his new taxation proposals, but here he comes with another Bill. Is there any telling when the end will be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the same matter that has been before the House already.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is possibly the
same matter, I suppose, on the same principle as the man who was going all over the continent and finding at every hotel at which he stopped a herring cooked in a different ,way. Every time he saw it, he said "You are the same red herring". Well, this may be the same red herring, although it is cooked in a different form. We had some criminal legislation going through this afternoon which reminded me of the story of a little girl who had a favourite pet dog. She heard they were going to cut its tail off and pleaded very hard with the executioner that if it was absolutely necessary to cut off the tail of her dear little dog, she hoped it would be done one piece at a time. She thought that it would be less painful that way. Evidently the Minister of Finance thinks that instead of giving us his objectionable legislation all at once he will save us some inconvenience by giving it to us a little at a time; but I think it would be better to have one fell stroke at once and have done with the whole thing, instead of introducing Acts of this kind from day to day. Now, this proposal says that every article that can be marked must be marked. In this connection, it has occurred to me that my old

Scotch friend would have same difficulty in complying with the law. I refer to the shrewd man who, on one occasion, complained of the dishonesty of the English, as he had a right to do, when he imported one hundred thousand dozens of needles and said: "After I had counted them, I found I was ten short". I wonder what would become of him if he had to examine closely each one of the needles to see that it was stamped. It is not impossible to have a needle stamped, and I would ask my hon. friend if he really would insist on his officials counting every needle that comes into the country to see that it is duly stamped, and, if it is not istamped, whether it is his intention to exact the penalty? I am sure the minister, who is a humane man, is not disposed to be unscrupulous, except in so far as he gives in to his officials, and would see to it that people were not penalized to an enormous extent in connection with goods of this kind. The speech of the member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow), stands unanswered. Why should we give people this extra trouble? Who is complaining about a web of cloth as to whether it comes from the Old Country or any place else, so long as he gets his suit properly made to his satisfaction? If a lady goes into a store in Ottawa to buy a pair of boots and they suit her, she is not going to make a row because there is no stamp on them. If the leather is all right, and the boots are of the right style and meet her approval in every way, she is not going to look around to ascertain whether it has any particular stamp on it or not. The truth is that this is another form of protection. I get a great deal of advertisement and1 praise for being a protectionist. I do not try to escape from that reputation at all in many things that are proper and right, but I think that this is a kind of protection which will make it difficult to get goods into the country. It will profit nobody, but, on the other hand, will greatly inconvenience the officials of the department, the manufacturers, and those who do business. It will not serve any good purpose; if it could I certainly should not be opposed to it, because I want to help those who seem to have put some thought and time into this matter. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Chairman, ruled that we could not compare this Government to anything eke. I readily concur in that ruling, because, if we are to compare one thing to another, the comparison must be to a thing that 
exists or has existed before. Well, there was never anything, in the heavens above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth, like this Government; therefore we cannot compare it to anything at all. So that I absolutely concur in the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair; I think he was quite right. Nevertheless, although the Government cannot be compared to anything that we know of, the Minister of Finance has a very great responsibility, and to a very great extent he deals with the everyday life of the 9,000,000 people in this country, and he should not discharge that responsibility in the indifferent and jaunty manner, if I may use the expression, which characterizes him when dealing with such matters. Possibly it is a mannerism of the minister, and perhaps, after he gets in the privacy of his chamber and1 closes the door and puts himself in the attitude of prayer, if ever he does that, he may have serious moments; but before us he manages splendidly to throw off every appearance of care in regard to the various onerous duties with which he is charged. He says that these goods are to be marked in a conspicuous place. I rather congratulate him on that because he evidently did not pay very much attention to the criminal legislation which was going through the House this afternoon in relation to the punishment of spanking. I think he should know more about spanking than he does. In regard to that question there was a good deal of dictionary research as to where the spanking was to be applied. I shall not go into the details of that matter, but I would ask the minister to look over the Bill as it was attempted to be put through the House. In that case the spanking was not necessarily to be on a conspicuous place. I h<?pe that before the terms of that Bill apply to the Department of Finance the minister will abandon this proposed legislation and leave us where we were. For the last fifty years, the minister must not forget, we have got along splendidly without this legislation. The minister will remember that we now have customs duties, excise duties, sales tax, business tax, income tax, dumping tax, and now this stamping tax. Now .many of these taxes were brought on by reason of the war, and I do not blame my hon. friend for them. But the war is over now, and we should be pointing the trade of this country, the operations of every industry, as much as possible into the open sea and away from the rocks, difficulties and embarrassments of the war.

We should be getting away from these restrictions until we get out of some of our other difficulties. After we get away from the sales tax, the dumping tax, and all the rest of it, after we get free from the embarrassments of the war taxation and are more at liberty, perhaps the minister might find it necessary to put a few more fences around the trade of this country; but for the present does not the minister think we have troubles enough and new conditions enough that he is imposing on the trade of Canada without adding this restriction? I seriously ask the minister if he does not think-having got along without such impediments for the last fifty years, or even since Confederation -that we could do without this one until we are prepared to drop some of the other embarrassments and taxes which surround the trade of Canada at the present time?


Michael Clark: I do not want to delay the minister one moment. If he is determined to go on with this, I should be the last to resort to anything that had even the appearance pf obstruction. But there was one point in his reply to me which filled me with apprehension, and I want to impress it upon him. I want to do it by reminding him that last year I told him that in my humble view certain consequences would result from certain taxes. Well, at the time he did not see it my way, which shows that just for once I saw a little further than he did, because long before his next Budget he gave up the taxes. Now he admits that in regard to these taxes he has already had complaints from importers. I think I understood from my hon. friend that complaints have begun to come in before these marks have gone on, before the law is even in operation. It takes time for these things to make themselves felt and it is for legislators, especially (ministers in the Government of a country, to see fvhat the result of their action is going to be, and not to wait until the trouble ensues:	It
is their duty to prevent trouble-to foresee it if possible. Those importers who are complaining now may just have a little more foresight than the other importers of the country, and if they foresee it, and we fear it, it may be that before this marking has gone very far all the importers will be complaining. After that your goods have to pass from the importers to the retailers, and it may be that the retailers will meet some of these troubles that we fear. All these vexatious interferences with trade must fall somewhere, and they will fall on the people concerned. Now that is my fear. Is it getting any revenue for the country? It will never get a revenue for the country when it is evaded. I cannot see that the good to the consumer is going to compensate for the possible trouble and vexation to importers, retailers and consumers combined. Now I am warning the minister what he may look for in my judgment. It has not got into the retail trade yet, much less has it got to the consumer; but as to the consumer, my honest fear is that it is upon me and men like me that the thing will land. I want to tell the minister that with western prices at the rates so much dwelt upon, with the prices the farmers are getting for their stuff we cannot spend much more. The day will come when, if we want to wear boots and stockings, we will have to cut up some of these cheap sacks the minister is talking about and wrap our feet up in them. But what good will that do the trade of the country? We have to facilitate the communications and dealings of the people with one another. However, I do not want to expatiate upon it. I have explained to the minister my fears, and if he is determined to go on we must take our medicine. It is the aftermath of the war, and the minister is part of that aftermath.


Mr. COPP:: Before the clause passes I would like to inquire from the minister if I understand him right when he said that the goods would be marked with the place of manufacture from which they were shipped by the exporters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The country of origin, wherever they are made.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That means that if a man is importing goods from the United States the marking is done in that country? Now let us examine and see how far we get with that. You give an order to a retailer * and he orders from a firm in the United States, or in Great Britain, or in some other country, and these goods arrive. Let us read the section my hon. friend has placed before the committee:
That all goods imported into Canada which are capable of being marked, stamped, branded, ur labelled without injuiy, shall be marked, stamped, branded or labelled in legible English or French words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. Said marking, stamping, branding, or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
"As nearly indelible." Then he goes on and provides a penalty. I would like to ask my hon. friend to let his mind take him into a court of law and have the lawyers and judges there discussing this question. When a man is brought before the courts for the breaking of the law and expecting a penalty to be imposed, I would like him to imagine the court construing and interpreting the words "said marking, stamping, branding or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit." Then again, after these goods come into the country who is going to suffer the penalty? The manufacturer in the country of origin must mark them and if he does not do so he is liable to a penalty. Now, where are you going to get him to impose that penalty? The condition of affairs is one that is of very little importance to the country. As has already been said, it is a most annoying and vexatious arrangement to importers and dealers, but it means nothing to the revenue of the country. Fancy discussing such legislation in the last week or two of the session. Yesterday afternoon, last night, and this afternoon the House was considering a Bill providing how a man should have his dog's tail cut off. That is one of the weighty policies we have been discussing here for the last two days. Now my hon. friend the Minister of Finance after bringing down his Budget proposals very late in the session-much later than they should have been brought down-comes along with a Bill providing for restraint of trade, for that is practically what it means. It means nothing to the country, it means nothing to the Government, it means nothing but trouble and annoyance to everybody concerned, and directly concerned, in the trade of Canada. When I go into a store to buy a pair of boots I do not look inside the footwear to see who made them. If I go in to buy a pair of socks I do not care whether ihey are made in England or the United States-I want the socks and I get them. Ninety-nine out of every hundred men in the country do exactly the same thing. What difference does it make to me who made my boots, or my socks, or my suspenders, or any other article in connection with my wardrobe? It does not matter to anybody. The trouble is that the Minister of Finance, in making jobs for somebody, has surrounded himself with men who are determined to raise trouble for the people of this country. If we had a few more men of common sense and judgment these matters would be dealt with properly and 
sanely. Instead of that men who have been selected are causing trouble and disturbance among the people. It is because of such legislation as this that the country is in a state of unrest and dissatisfaction, and the people are being annoyed and embarrassed by agents of the Government in every possible way. Every day of the session some little picayune thing is brought up by the Government which means nothing to the advantage of the country, but entails great annoyance and vexation to the people who have to deal with the Government and its officials.
Mr. CALDWELL:: I was rather interested in the statement made by the Minister of Finance that these goods should be marked in the country of origin. But unfortunately the Government of Canada has no way of fining the manufacturer if he fails to mark his goods, and the fine falls upon the importer here. We realize that these goods must be marked before they enter Canada, otherwise the customs officer will not pass them at the port of entry. The importer orders his goods and expects them to be marked, but they arrive here not marked. Whose fault is it? It is not the fault of the importer, but he is fined a thousand dollars or sentenced to a year in jail, or possibly both, for the fault of a man whom the Government of this country have no jurisdiction over. That looks to me like a very great hardship on the importer. Firms in the United States and other countries send their travellers to Canada, and they book traders orders for goods. The importer does not see those goods before they enter this country, he has no way of ascertaining whether they are properly marked, but if they are not properly marked, but if no fault of his own, he is fined or imprisoned. This is a very serious thing and should have the earnest consideration of the minister.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In justice to the representations that have been made to-night in reference to this matter, I do not think that members behind the Minister of Finance should be in such a hurry, crying "carried". I notice the hon. member for North Simcoe acting like a parrot or a phonograph all night-so frequently does he utter the word "carried". If he continues to read the paper he has before him we will get along much better I think.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) is not in his seat just now, but I think he will agree with me,-at least so

far as he is permitted to do so as a Government supporter-that this Bill is bound to cause no end of trouble. He is a manufacturer himself, and possibly is regarded as one of those who have not been objecting to the measure. But getting down to the real issue, I do not see that even our own manufacturers will stand to gain very much by this unnecessary piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, I fancy that 75 per cent of the goods imported at the present time are branded with the country of origin, although that in itself is not always reassuring. The hon. member for Guys-borough said a few moments ago that he had received a penholder from the distribution office branded as being made in the United States. I have in my hand a pencil I received this afternoon from the distribution office marked "British made". But the name of the manufacturer may or may not indicate that he is of British citizenship-E. W-o-l-f-f. That does not indicate an English name to my mind, although the purchaser of this pencil would be buying it with the understanding that it was made by a citizen of Great Britain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the hon.
member will allow me, does he think that a good state of affairs?


Mr. CAHILL:: What is wrong with it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon.
member is saying, Mr. Chairman, that he does not believe that that pencil is British made, that somebody has so branded it for the purpose of selling it as an article of British manufacture. The hon. member suspects that it is a German pencil, and that the branding is being done for the purpose, if he chooses to follow it out, of getting around the British preferential tariff, and therefore is a fraud. We ought to try and stop fraud, but there is no law at present which does enable us to stop it. This law may help us to stop such fraud, and I hope it will.


Michael Clark: I think my
hon. friend may be mistaken. The name "Wolff" is a very common Jewish name, and unless he has absolute knowledge that the maker is not a British subject, it is rather unjust to cast a doubt on his bona tides.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The point I make is
that this branding is no absolute guarantee that the pencil is of British manufacture.


Michael Clark: The quality
of the stuff is there.
250i


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In my judgment the
point is debatable. The fact that an article is branded "British made" does not always indicate that it is so. Therefore as a guarantee it is of no value.


Michael Clark: That is the point.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Then there is the matter of expense; I do not know where this is going to stop. Last night we were discussing the depreciation allowed on foreign currency, and the Bill then under consideration provided for a fifty per cent depreciation. That means that merchandise coming from Central Europe will pay six times the existing tariff, and in addition we must take into account freight and insurance, and also something not mentioned by the minister, the rise in British exchange during the last three or four months, running anywhere from ten to eighteen per cent. The result is that you have absolutely prohibited importations from those countries. Therefore a Bill of this kind is useless, because there will be no importations under the provisions that the minister is attempting to put through this House.
Now, taking up the question of marking goods, the Bill we are considering gives no indication of how goods are to be marked or branded, except that it is to be done in a conspicuous place. Dress goods, silks, laces, embroideries, woollen goods, ginghams, serges, linens-these generally are all sold by the yard. Are these goods to be branded on the end or on the selvage? The Bill gives no information and we are left entirely in the dark. We have been simply asked to pass a blank order for the Customs Department to deal with. I insist that it is not safe legislation for the representatives of the people to pass, and we should not be asked to endorse it. I am not attempting to obstruct this measure. I simply want to see it pass through this House as near perfect as possible, for I do not want Parliament to develop into a manufactory of lawsuits among the business interests of this country, but I am sure that if this measure is enacted it will, as I have already said,be the source of no end of trouble. I suppose the legal fraternity in the House would not object to more lawsuits, but it is as patent as the nose on a man's face that that would be the result of placing this Bill on the statute hook. It is too open and ill-considered, and while the lawyer may be glad to see such legislation passed, I appeal to men of common sense in the House and ask them to

say who in their opinion is to mark these imported goods and where. Where are goods made up in detail to be marked? A thousand and one cases will come up in the customs offices each year. Who is to decide all these details? And what is there in it for the consumer? Absolutely nothing. The consumer is well able to judge whether or not certain merchandise is suitable for purchase. If he were not, I do not see how the Government could deal with the matter. Some one has asked, who will pay the cost? Of course, the buyer will pay it, as he always does. This branding cannot be done for nothing. The minister has referred to certain articles which are already branded, but I would point out that these brands are not indelible; they disappear with the first washing. But the branding required under this Act is to be indelible; it will not be removable; it will lessen the selling qualities of the merchandise. This Bill will be an obstacle to trade, it is harmful, it is pernicious; it is absolutely unnecessary. In short, it is pure humbug and will accomplish no good, but will rather raise no end of trouble from one end of the country to the other. Will the minister tell us just what prompted this legislation and what good he hopes to accomplish by it?


Frank S. Cahill: When I came into the
chamber at eight o'clock one of the Government supporters was asking the Government to amend the Criminal Code so as to permit the cutting off of dogs' tails. We are considering the last clause of this Bill, and I have been hoping during the last two hours that some supporter of the Government would ask that this clause be cut off; I am quite sure that the Government would find it an even less serious loss than would be the loss of a small dog's tail, because the provision is no value to the country, of no value to the Government. It is simply a nuisance, of no practical value to any one. The minister has not attempted to give any reason why this legislation should be adopted. Every member who has spoken on it has pointed out the trouble and inconvenience that will result from it and the restrictions of trade that will be brought about. The minister seems to realize that the people have no confidence in the Government, and the Government apparently have no confidence in the people, because they are afraid to let ordinary grown-up men-anywhere from twenty to seventy years of age-to walk into a store and buy merchandise without the Government first

looking it over and putting a stamp on it to tell the buyer where it is made-as if that could have any bearing on the value of the commodity. It seems to me so foolish, so nonsensical and so silly that I am surprised that the minister's good sense has not already caused him to ask that the clause be dropped and that the Bill be passed with as little harm in it as possible. Surely the minister must know that we have enough restrictive legislation in this country. We have enough fraternalism, enough of treating every one as the ward of the Government. Let us have a little liberty and freedom in the future; let us have lessyof this restriction. In view of the character of this proposed legislation, Mr. Chairman, and in view of the fact that no hon. member to your right will make the motion, I will move that the clause be struck out.


Georges Henri Boivin: A motion that a clause be struck from a Bill has been ruled out of order on many occasions because it is a negative motion. There is a motion now before the Committee that the clause be adopted, and hon. members who desire to have it stricken from the Bill have the opportunity of voting against that motion.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would not like this subject to be passed over without a word or two being said in the nature of a reply to the remarks made by the last speaker. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) said Canada has her burdens to bear and her obligations to meet in the form of the heavy debt which is the outcome of the war. As a Canadian I appreciate the value to the farmer of the great home market that Canada furnishes to the products of the farm. It is said that eighty per cent of the farm products of this country are sold in the home market. It is recognized that the home market is the best market for any country. That home market is afforded by the employees in factories and other consumers-by all who are not producers and who get their livelihood in the industrial establishments of the country. At this time, when all the countries of the world are making efforts to command their own trade as best they can, the occasion is opportune for men in this House who believe in Canadian trade to stand up and resent arguments such as those which have been advanced by the hon. member for Pontiac. While we talk in this House about the natural resources of the country it is worth our while to remember that those natural resources would be of no use if

they were not worked out into finished products, the bulk of them for sale to the home consumer and the surplus to he sent abroad. I often think that when we talk of natural resources we are apt to forget the greatest resource of all, the man power and the woman power of the country. That man power and woman power we find most employed on the farms and in the factories. Is it worth while, through the furnishing of that home market, to increase the stability both of our farming and our industrial activities? It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say they would prefer to have the goods of Austria sent into this country and to be sold in competition with the work of our men and our women in our factories and industrial establishments. But I take a totally opposite view. I take the view as a Canadian that it is the duty of this Parliament to look after the humane power of this country, to see that every man and every woman, every girl and every boy of working age is furnished as far as possible with employment.


William Stevens Fielding: Are these people furnished with work now?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They are furnished with work now to a greater extent than is the case in any other industrial country. It is true that there is some unemployment in Canada, but I ask the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to point to any country in the world where there is not more distress, more destitution, more poverty, more hunger, more trouble-labour trouble particularly-than there is in Canada to-day. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to refer to the conditions now, but I say that now is the time, when there are troubles, for the Government to lay down a sane fiscal and economic policy, a policy which has in view the employment of our workers and which aims to avoid the glutting of our market by the products of foreign countries. We want a policy which will free us from the competition \>f the cheap labour of Austria, Germany and other foreign countries-which, by the way, are very much worse off, through their own fault, of course, than Canada is. But for my part, I say that it is the duty of this Government to take every reasonable precaution, apart from the inconveniences that are talked about. Let us suffer some inconveniences, let us employ a few more men, if that is necessary, to insure that foreign goods shall not be put into this market in competition with the Canadian
product by deceit ana false marking. Let us see what we have to meet. I give the Government and particularly the Minister of Finance credit for standing up for Canadian labour, American workingmen and women throughout the whole country, and for the industrial life of this country.


William Stevens Fielding: Americans?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Canadians, I mean.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They are the best type of American on this continent, so that I am not far wrong.


Mr. EULER:: The hon. member for
South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has given to the Minister of Finance some very good reasons for reconsidering what he has done. I will admit that the remarks of the hon. member for South Renfrew have been possibly a little harsh, but after all, they have not been any more so with regard to the action of the Minister otf Finance than were the hon. member's references to the lawyers in the House. I think he stated that, no doubt, lawyers would be glad of any litigation that might result from the operation of this clause in the legislation. Then he said: "But I make my appeal to men of common sense." That was rather an unkind thing to say of the lawyers. While I understand the minister's object-and I think it is a perfectly laudable and worthy one-in his effort to place this regulation upon the statute book, while I believe that in theory it is absolutely correct that Canadian business should be protected, that the Canadian people should have some means of knowing what they are buying, is he not attracting too much importance to that theory and forgetting that its working out in practice will cause more trouble than the advantages to be gained from this law? I believe that is the case. It is not worth while; we have enough troubles of our own as the matter stands now. It is quite true that the business men of Canada have many troubles in these days, and we should do all we can to relieve them of any unnecessary worries, whereas this law will certainly provide many worries. I do not want to rub in the difficulties that the minister experienced in connection with the luxury tax; but I believe that when he looks back upon the operation of that tax, he will admit that if he had known last year what he knew a little later, he would not have applied the luxury tax, and, I

am afraid he will have the same experience in this case. I hope I am not putting him into such a frame of mind as to cause him to be absolutely antagonistic to what I suggest, namely, that he do not lose sight of the fact that while the theory may be right, the practical operation is not in the public interest. I presume he may dislike to amend this legislation in face of the criticism directed against him, and While the criticism has been somewhat harsh, I believe there is a good deal in what has been said by members on this side. While he may dislike to make a change in the face of criticism, to change one's mind in the light of new knowledge is not an evidence of inability nor is it to his discredit, but is rather a tribute to his intelligence and wisdom than a sign of weakness. I wish the minister would seriously consider whether that clause should not be struck out in the interest of merchants and the public generally.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think hon. gentlemen can say that I am at all backward in taking the advice of the House on everything that I can, or that I am at all slow in accepting amendments. I have been blamed in that I have been too ready to accept amendments from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Andrew Ross McMaster: By whom?


Henry Lumley Drayton: By hon. gentlemen opposite. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember the debate last year when it was said that I was ready to accept amendments. The idea is that I am ready to accept anything which, in my honest judgment, can improve any legislation that I am framing. That is all by the way. My hon. friend (Mr. Euler) is interested in button-workers in Kitchener. Those button-workers were here not very long ago, asking for a very much increased duty. They did not get it. They thought that they should have an opportunity of meeting fair competition, that people buying their buttons' should know where they came from. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he agrees with the button-workers.


William Daum Euler: Do the button-workers ask that each button be stamped with the place of origin?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course not.


William Daum Euler: That is exactly what you will find the law will be in its practical working out. I am in accord with the object that the minister seeks to obtain,

but I believe that it is not worth while, because he will find the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I was going to suggest to the minister that sub-clause 2 of this clause be so amended that it will read that the section comes into force upon proclamation by the Govenor in Council. I have listened to all the discussion upon this clause for the last two or three hours, and I am more convinced than ever that this clause is absolutely without merit. It contains the elements of considerable annoyance to the Canadian people. I doubt very much if the minister would proclaim this clause effective if he gives it a little further reflection, and I believe that will be the judgment of the Canadian people if they have an opportunity of studying the section a little further.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to support the proposal of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), for another reason, namely, that the time is short. October 1 is not very far away; it is only about five months from now, and in many lines of trade orders are given fully six months ahead. Orders are taken in the spring for fall delivery, and it might be necessary to have the law before the manufacturers as quickly as possible when goods are not manufactured in this country. The difficulty would be obviated if the suggestion of my hon. friend from Halifax were accepted.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: One other point which I wish to call to the minister's attention again is in reference to the penalty clause. I understand that this legislation has been drafted pretty much after the form of the Act in force in the United States. I understand too that the minister, in drafting this penalty clause, omitted one word that is included in the American Act. In my judgment that is a very important word in this connection, and I should like the minister to concede at least the inclusion of this particular word. If the Act in the United States has any virtue, and it has been in operation there since 1913, I think it should be adopted in its entirety here. I would suggest to the minister that he insert the word "fraudulently" in the 14th line, on page 6 of the Bill, between the words "shall" and "violate." As the Act stands now, any person who innocently violated its provisions would be liable to the penalty, and the magistrate would have no discretion

in the matter. I would like this concession from the minister.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to endorse the suggestion of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) as to the date the Act shall come into force. The goods now being manufactured were ordered last spring, and they will be shipped about September 1 or October 1. I would suggest that the date of coming into force be postponed from October to January.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I beg to move that the word "fraudulently" be inserted in the 14th line between the words "shall" and "violate."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend
would take any advice from me, I would suggest that he use the word "wilfully," which is in nearly all statutes of this kind. There would then be some protection, but as the Bill now stands the magistrate has no discretion at all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend, and I move accordingly.
Amendment negatived.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 139, to amend the Immigration Act- Hon. J. A. Calder.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, all the clauses of the Bill had been read and adopted. We are now upon the title. Shall the title carry?


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 200, to amend the Inland Revenue Act, was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 204, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915,
was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-excise taxes:
John Howard Sinclair: What changes were made since the resolution was before the House?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We made
some changes in the resolution in committee, but no changes have been made since.


Mr. RINFRET:: There was some trouble last year in deciding how the sales tax should he paid by certain merchants. Tailors import some of their tweeds, and they buy some from the wholesalers. I know of cases where the sales tax was charged to the tailor on the complete sale irrespective of whether the tweeds were imported or were bought from the wholesale merchants'. In the latter case, of course, the tailor ihad already paid to the 'wholesale merchants and was therefore paying twice. Has that been adjusted?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Details of
administration are not with me; they are in the Department of Customs. I am not familiar with the case cited by my hon. friend. I know of the difficulty that occurred in connection with the designation of tailors, as to whether they were manufacturers or not. We shall have no more trouble of that sort, and I may say that the court vindicated my view of the statute in the long run. A tailor is a retailer, not a manufacturer; he does not sell cloth in bulk.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will he be free from all taxes, even on the goods he imports?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a tax on the manufacturer, of 11 per cent when he sells to the wholesaler or jobber, as the case may be, and a tax of 11 per cent on the sale by the wholesaler or jobber. There is no tax on the sale of the retailer. If the tailor, instead of buying his goods in the ordinary way, imports them and uses them directly himself, he will have to pay the tax.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is perfectly clear.
Now, in case of any dispute with the excise officers, who might want to exact a tax on a basis other than the minister has stated, can we depend on what the minister now says, as a final decision? We have had a lot of trouble.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no doubt about that; but you have behind you this time, not only the statute itself, but

also the considered judgment of the Exchequer Court. There can be no more trouble.


Jacques Bureau: When goods are bought in containers, is there any tax on the containers if they are returned? Suppose a man buys a carload of cement, returns the containers and is given credit for them; does he pay the tax on the full amount of the sale, including the cost of the containers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the containers are returned, and the purchaser is given credit for them, only the cement is taxable. The firm in sending the cement may charge not only for the cement but also for the containers. If the containers are returned and an adjustment takes place, of course there will be a refund for the containers.


Mr. KAY:: Should not the exemptions from the -sales tax in connection with dairy products^ include condensed milk, milk powder and ice cream? If these articles are not exempt the farmer will receive so much less from the factory than would the farmer who sent milk or cream.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There 11 p.m. is no tax at all on anything the farmer sells. There is quite a difference between What the farmer gets for his milk, and what is charged for ice cream, and I do not know whether any attempt is being made to maintain the spread that now exists. We have not given any exemption on the things my hon. friend refers to. As I said when the resolution was being discussed in committee, there are very many things to be considered in connection with these matters, and I certainly do not pretend that it is possible to cover the whole field without careful consideration. We have reserved the power to go into these questions of further exemption, and there are some things which we contemplate granting. At present I cannot go further than to say that we shall consider these matters.


Mr KAY:: Should not the exemptions c oil cake, bran and cattle feed also exter to cotton seed and gluten meal?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cotton seed now exempt.
M*-/?DL?W:	Mr' Chairman, whi
part of the Bill are we discussing?


Georges Henri Boivin: The entire Bill; it i all included in one cla VICO


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It would be far better if we discussed the Bill paragraph by paragraph. It is too comprehensive to be dealt with en bloc.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the Bill were considered paragraph by paragraph, I fear that t'he Chairman would be obliged to invoke the rule which prohibits repetition of the same arguments. The contents of this Bill were discussed paragraph by paragraph in committee on Saturday last and the resolution which was adopted by the committee is embodied without change in the present Bill.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I was present when
that discussion took place, but I was under the impression that we could discuss the whole Bill at this stage. Certain amendments were proposed and accepted when we were considering the resolutions in committee, and the present Bill varies in some respects from those resolutions.


Georges Henri Boivin: It does not vary from the resolutions as amended.


Lucien Cannon: On the former occasion
did we discuss the resolutions or the Bill?


Georges Henri Boivin: We discussed the
resolutions.


Lucien Cannon: Well, a discussion of the resolutions is altogether distinct from a discussion of the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman did
not rule that the committee could not discuss the Bill. He only ruled that the entire provisions of the Bill are included in one clause.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand correctly the motion of the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) he moved that the Bill be discussed paragraph by paragraph, and the Chair ruled that that course could not be followed because the Bill had already been discussed in that way. As I understand it the resolution was discussed in committee on the former occasion but we are not dealing with the Bill itself in committee for the first time.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Dorchester is perfectly right when he contends that it is permissible for an hon. member to move that a clause be considered paragraph by paragraph. That motion, however, was not made by the hon. member for Renfrew nor by any other hon. member. If such a motion is made the Chairman will be pleased to put it to the committee and abide by its decision.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: To make my meaning
clear, I move that this clause be considered paragraph by paragraph.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On paragraph 4-Tax on sales.
John Howard Sinclair: Is coal one of the articles exempt?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, coal is exempt.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think this clause has been very considerably changed from the form in which it appeared in the resolution which we considered on Saturday. I do not know exactly what its meaning is now and to determine its effect will take some little time.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister explain to the committee the nature of the changes that have been made?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that the changes made had first to do with the lumber situation. Under the amendment the rate on importations of lumber will be 3 per cent, and the rate on domestic sales of lumber will be 2 per cent. There will only be the one tax in the case of domestic lumber and also in that of imported lumber. The main change made was that which brought into effect the law of last year. The original proposal this year left it entirely to the vendor, the wholesaler or the manufacturer, to say whether he should show his tax in the invoice at all. We have gone back to what we did last year which compels him to show one-half of the tax in the invoice.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In reference to the
clause providing for a tax on lumber, my understanding is that on imported lumber there is a tax of 3 per cent and nothing further. Provided that lumber is manufactured into doors, desks, chairs, and so on, will the manufacturer be compelled, under the sales tax, to collect 11 per cent on the article manufactured from that lumber?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is not expressly
stated in the section. I would like to have a ruling on that particular point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is not selling lumber in that case, he is selling, we will say, a desk or a chair and he is taxable on those articles.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: First of all there will
be 3 per cent on the lumber imported.
Then there will be 11 per cent on the finished article-including the cost of the lumber, the cost of the labour, and the profit. That is to say there will be the tax of 11 per cent to the jobber or wholesaler, and in addition 11 per cent to the consumer. That is my understanding of what is proposed but it is not expressed in the Bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so.


John Howard Sinclair: The
exemptions make no mention of hospital supplies and medicines used in the hospital. Did the minister consider that question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some consideration has been given to it but it has not been finally determined what will be done. That is one of the matters I have referred for action by the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have heard some
complaint from druggists touching the very high tax that is put on alcohol. I understand the manufacturer gets his alcohol at a very much lower rate than the ordinary retailer. For example the manufacturer pays only $2.40 whereas the retailer pays $9. Is there any way at all of relieving the druggist of this high taxation, or of lessening the difference between the price paid by the manufacturer and what the druggist who is dispensing medicine pays?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a matter which does not arise under this Bill, but under another measure. However, I will be glad to give what information I can. There is no doubt there is a considerable difference in the rates because the manufacturer uses liquor in large quantities, whereas the retail druggist does not. Furthermore the manufacturing chemist is under surveillance while the ordinary druggist is not. The latter, however, can take advantage of the provisions of this Bill if he desires to bond himself in the manner required of the manufacturer. I have asked for suggestions that will be useful in the practical working out of the measure and will be very glad to accept anything of a helpful nature.


John Howard Sinclair: Would -the minister be kind enough to say whether he will receive a suggestion of this kind relating to the vendor who . is in charge of the sale of intoxicating liquors in all the provinces? Under the regulations I think the vendor would be an officer that could be trusted to deal with the question of the sale of alcohol for medicinal pur-

poses under some system that might be fixed by the department. They are officers of the provincial governments, but there is no reason why the duty should not be imposed upon them by the Federal Government under some arrangement with the provinces.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Lucien Cannon: Could the minister tell us if he intends to impose this tax on the houses which will be built in accordance with the housing sdheme which has been encouraged by the Government? What would be the result? With one hand the money would be given by the Government, and with the other it would1 be taken back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid the bookkeeping entry would not recover the amount of money whidh would make a serious offset to the houses alone. We had figures given the other day, and my recollection is that it was stated the tax on a $5,000 house would amount to $105. I am not sure that that is right, because even that was calculated upon the higher or old three per cent rate and not upon the new two per cent rate.


Lucien Cannon: The member for South Renfrew has raised a very important point. I read an article recently on the reconstruction policy of the British Government, and I gathered that one of the main features of that policy is to considerably increase and improve the housing accommodation of the ordinary people. The result of this tax will be to impose another hardship on our labouring people. It is right that the country should tax to the full extent the rich man who wishes to build a mansion, but I do not think this tax ought to be imposed on poor people. There should be at least a limitation as to value, and houses coming within that limitation ought to be exempt from this tax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the hon. member's suggestion as to limitation of value?


Lucien Cannon: I would not dare suggest any minimum to the minister. He is in a much better position than I am to fix a limitation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The Bill provides that:
The Governor in Council shall have power to add to the foregoing list of articles exempted from the excise taxes on sales, as he may deem it expedient or necessary to exempt from the said excise taxes.
Does the minister deem it necessary to encourage the building of a certain type of house? If he does, I think it would be wise for him to exercise the power given by this section.
Paragraph 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSERVATION ACT AND AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 187 (from the Senate) to repeal the Conservation Act and amendments.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Is not the right hon. gentleman going to make a statement in regard to this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: I can make a statement on the second reading, but as it is a Senate Bill, and a very full statement has been made by the leader of the Senate, I thought possibly a further explanation would not be required here.
The Conservation Act was passed, I think in 1909. Its purpose was to provide a commission, with power to investigate and advise as to the right lines of development of public policy in the conservation of Canadian resources. The Act itself sets out its objects, and the speeches made in support amplified its purpose. Canada in this regard followed the example of the United States. A commission was appointed there-I do not recall its exact name

[DOT] with like ends in view. In both countries the commission sought to perform the purposes for Which it was created.
By reference to the Act it will be observed that consonant with what I have . said, no administrative functions devolved upon the commission; its purposes were advisory only. Consequently I think it should be assumed that such a commission could only be of a temporary character. I do not think it is sound policy that there

should be any public body of a permanent character in the Civil Service whose purposes are merely advisory. Unless it combines administrative functions with its advisory functions it has not the seeds of permanency in it. The same conclusion is inevitable from other premises. The commission was constituted an independent body. It bore no relationship to any minister, or to the Government, such as a governmental activity, in my judgment, should. It does not seem to me to be consistent with our system of government that theie should be any non-judicial body of a permanent character determining rights as between individuals and units that is not responsible as a branch of a department. That does not seem, I say, consistent with our system of government and it is my experience that it has not worked well.


William Stevens Fielding: How about the railways?


Arthur Meighen: The functions of the Railway Commission are judicial.


William Stevens Fielding: I mean the Canadian National railways. I am afraid the principle my hon. friend is laying down would not apply to the Canadian National railways.


Arthur Meighen: But they are responsible.	.


William Stevens Fielding: As a branch of a department?


Arthur Meighen: They are not a branch of a department.


William Stevens Fielding: Those were my right hon. friend's own words-" as a branch of a department".


Arthur Meighen: But there is direct
governmental responsibility there. We appoint men to carry out those duties; we put them in the position of a corporation. There is no doubt that we are responsible for their work. We are responsible for the character of the men we appoint, and if they do not do their work properly it is our business to remove them. But I say I do not think it is consistent with our system of government that there should be a body for which no one is answerable and over which no one has any control, as is the case with this commission-in a word, a body in the position of a court but without the functions of a court. Consequently, reasoning from both those premises; from the premises that its functions are merely advisory, and from the premises that it
is wholly independent of any department of government and answerable to no one,
I think it should be assumed that the life of the commission was intended to be, or at least ought to be, temporary.
In working out the legislation creating it the commission has gone about in one direction or another, laying its hand on anything that looked alluring, anything that could be regarded as a possible field for its activity. It has invaded the province of one department of government after another, one branch after another, and necessarily it has duplicated services wherever it has so invaded. Where work was being done in this department or in that department which could be used by the commission for the purpose of amplifying in the general view the usefulness of the commission-well, it simply laid its hand on that work, and very soon the results of the activities of officers of the Government would appear in a very handsomely bound volume with the name of the Conservation Commission on the cover. Furthermore, the work of the commission has been most expensive, and one could look for nothing else in view of the irresponsible character of the commission. I do not say those words with any reference at all to the members of the commission; I say it with reference to the nature of its constitution. The Minister of Agriculture was, under the statute, the minister through whom the commission made its requests of Parliament. He, however, was merely the channel through which the commission reported-or, rather, through which the commission appealed to Parliament for money. There was no effective control over the commission's expenditures; it determined what its expenditures should be. Of course, it had to get the money from Parliament, but the commission's views were merely recited in Parliament by the minister; indeed that was the limit of the minister's power. The commission has cost the country an average, I think, of about $104,000 or $105,000 a year during the term of its existence.


Jacques Bureau: As bad as the Purchasing Commission.


Arthur Meighen: In that regard I think it is worse, but in results it has been much less beneficial to the country. The Purchasing Commission saves money much in excess of its cost. As to this commission, I do not know what it saves. I do not say that its work has been useless, by any means. But I do say that through all these

years it has continuously tended, and more and more each year-it had to do so in order to do anything-to duplicate and overlap the functions of various branches of the different departments. That could be illustrated with reference to many departments. One might refer first to the commission's forestry activities. It set to work to tabulate the various forest resources of the country and to give a lot of publicity to its investigations in that regard. It has always been certain to publish those results in very expensive books, with a paper and binding that other departments could not dare to emulate. Its functions, as I say, were advisory in the first place, and once its advice was given, once it came to the work that was necessarily connected with the administration of the forests, it could not do anything, and rather than do nothing, of course, it actually got into the work that was necessarily connected with administration. It has continually pursued that work and, naturally, it has done so very much to the discouragement of the different branches that have had to administer the various government forestry services-branches which, in that administration, did precisely what the commission was doing; and very frequently the commission absorbed those services, or at least the credit for them. The same is true as to its overlapping the work of the Water Power Branch of the Interior Department. Of that
as well, indeed, as of the overlapping in connection with the forestry work-I myself have an intimate knowledge through my association with the Department of the Interior. Instances could be given-not one, but many-of its doing work that was being done by the Water Power Branch, work that the Water Power Branch had to do in order to carry on its administrative functions, and considerable public expense which could have been avoided has thereby been incurred.
The commission has even assumed responsibilities as regards external affairs; and here, I think, it has brought about a condition so anomalous that further argument will surely be unnecessary after that condition is explained. The External Affairs Department must, of course, receive advice from its responsible officers as to what should be done as regards certain of our resources-for example, as regards our resources in the waters of international rivers, both for navigation and for power. Matters have arisen in which the interests of the United States and of Canada were

concerned; for example, as regards St. Lawrence development. Such matters are judicially determined by the International Joint Commission. Canada must necessarily be represented before that commission and must state what is the policy pursued and what is the desire of this country as expressed by its Government in relation to the matters in dispute or the matters which are the subject of consideration by the International Joint Commission.
We have found ourselves appearing before the International Joint Commission to state the position of the Government, and. immediately alongside would appear the representative of the Conservation Commission who would also state the position of this country. If one can conceive of anything more anomalous than that, one's conception must be very lively. Surely it never was the intention that the Conservation Commission should determine what should be said before the International Joint Commission as representative of the views of the Dominion of Canada regarding the subject of international waters. If the Conservation Commission are the proper body to represent Canada, then the Dominion Government cannot do so too. If both can do so, what is to be done in case of conflict of views? The secretary of the Conservation Commission appeared in one case; he read before the International Joint Commission the names of all those who were members of the commission, many of them ex-officio members, made so by statute. Those names included the Minister of the Interior, another minister whose name I cannot recall,-I think it was the Minister of Mines, or possibly the Secretary of State, and after he had read that imposing list of names, it really looked as though he had the authority of all the members of the commission for appearing there and presuming to state the views of Canada on the question in dispute. As a matter of fact, in this case the commission had not been called, and if it had been called, it would not have been for its members to express what the attitude of the Government should be before the International Joint Commission.
That merely illustrates what is likely to occur when a commission, which was created merely for advisory purposes as respects different departments, as respects the policy to be pursued by the appropriate department or branch in relation to natural resources, created for that purpose, only and necessarily, I think, of a temporary

character,-when such a commission assumes that it is a permanent institution and competent to act on those lines permanently. It cannot act permanently unless it pervades and conflicts with the proper functions of branches and departments. I believe, the cost of publication of reports of its various investigations has reached a total of some $280,000. Last year the commission cost $155,771.31, and the cost naturally increases from year to year. It seems to me that the right thing to do is not to discontinue any useful work that the commission may be doing; but where the commission is overlapping, to see that that work is done only by one service, and that service the appropriate service under a minister responsible to this House; if it is performing any function that is not being performed by the appropriate department of Government and that should be performed, then to see that such service is performed by the most suitable department or branch. In this way, there will undoubtedly be a very considerable saving and, I think, a much more efficient service.
It is the intention, when vacancies occur, or where officers of the commission can be used to the advantage of the service in different branches, that those of the permanent service shall be used, but only where they can be used to advantage and where they can earn their salaries. But even were all so taken-and I do not think it will be necessary to take all

there will still be a very substantial saving to the public treasury, and there will also, in my judgment, be a more efficient and certainly a more harmonious service, because a great deal of money is wasted in duplication of travelling expenses. We will find a representative of the commission away up in the Northwest Territories, perhaps, looking into water-power resources there, taking stream-flow data and the like, and a representative very probably has to follow from the water-power branch, getting almost, although not exactly the same data, but getting data which the branch must have in all its details for the work which it has to perform. Similar travelling expenses are duplicated in connection with forestry and other investigations. There is necessarily overlapping as well of publications, all of which will be saved by the repeal of the Bill establishing the commission. I am not criticising the purpose for which the commission was originally established. I
merely say that its very purpose indicated that its duties would be performed within a limited period of years; that its duties could not be continuous in their nature and, consequently, the status upon which the commission was placed, the isolated position which it received, the degree of irresponsibility that was vested in it, all indicated that it could not have been intended that it should have any administrative or semi-administrative functions nor that it should have permanent existence. Therefore, the Government believe that the ends of public policy will be served, that we will get a more efficient and a cheaper service, and that very considerable expense will be avoided, by repealing the Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House very long on this subject; but I desire, in a few words, to take exception to what was stated in the upper chamber and also to what has been stated this evening by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in connection with the Conservation Commission. The remarks made to the House just now by the Prime Minister would leave on the public mind generally the impression that the Commission of Conservation was a fifth wheel to the car of state, if I may use the expression. I have been more or less constantly connected with the Commission of Conservation; I have belonged to it from its inception; I have followed its work, and I believe that it is, 'on the whole, rendering a great service to this country. It was originated, as stated a moment ago by the Prime Minister, in 1909, in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a conference called the North American Conference for the Preservation and Conservation of Natural Resources, held in Washington at the call of the then President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt. At that conference the United States, Canada, and Mexico were represented. The Act creating the commission was passed by this Parliament in 1909. The commission was constituted for the purpose of conserving the natural resources of the country; that is to say, the main natural resources, man, our lands, forests, water-powers, minerals, fisheries, wild animal life and game.
As was stated by the Prime Minister, the commission is not an administrative body. Its functions are mainly advisory and consultative. The Prime Minister stated that the commission was responsible

to nobody. That statement, I believe, is a little outside the mark. The commission is responsible to Parliament; it could not be otherwise. Its constitution gives it power to take into consideration every subject which may be regarded by its members as relating to the conservation of the natural resources, but the results of the commission's consideration are, as stated before, advisory only. In a sentence, the commission is a body constituted for the purpose of collecting exact-I insist upon the word -exact information, and deliberating upon, digesting, and assimilating this information so as to render it of practical benefit to the country; also for the purpose of advising upon all questions of policy that may arise in connection with the administration of the natural resources where the question of their effective conservation and economic use is concerned.
The commission has been a pioneer in many lines and in many directions. It has been able to discover advantageous and efficient methods of utilizing our resources, and has carried on this work, I say, at an insignificant cost. The hon. the Prime Minister stated that the commission spent last year $155,000.


Jacques Bureau: And thirty-one cents.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He is a little overstating the case. I have the exact figures before me, and I find that last year the commission had a total vote of $140,000.


Arthur Meighen: I think my figures are right. I have the details.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When an economical and efficient method has been demonstrated by the commission, the carrying out of such method is transferred to the administrative department concerned, which can conduct such operations on a scale forbidden by the organic Act establishing the commission, and by its limited financial resources.
The House would perhaps like to know the composition of the commission. The commission is made up of three members of the Federal Government, and one member of the Government of each of the provinces. There are twenty other members appointed by reason of special qualifications. All the commissioners, including the chairman, are debarred by law from the acceptance of any remuneration for their services. The commission had formed out of its membership a number of committees. I will mention the committees on forests, waterways and water-powers,

lands, fisheries, game and fur-bearing animals, minerals, and there are others.
Acting solely on an investigatory and an advisory capacity, the commission has been able to achieve results of far-reaching importance in promoting the conservation of our natural resources. It has studiously avoided any duplication, in spite of the accusation laid at its door, or in any manner encroaching upon the work which properly belongs to an executive department, but an examination of its record reveals that it has proven a highly efficient instrument in investigating our resources and in co-operating with every agency seeking their greatest and most economical utilization. If I insist upon this work of the commission, it is mainly for the purpose of offsetting the bad impression created throughout this country by the speech presented to the other House by a member of the Government in introducing this Bill or upon its second reading. The right hon. the Prime Minister did not go as far perhaps as the Hon. Mr. Loug-heed in minimizing the efforts of the commission and the results it has achieved.
I might say that much valuable assistance has been rendered to the Governments of the different provinces and to the municipalities of Canada by the commission, which has placed the services of its experts freely at their disposal. Frequently, it is neither possible, nor as an economical proposition advisable, for the provinces or municipalities to employ highly paid experts whose services may be required for only a limited time or for only a portion of the year. Again, the fact that these experts are officers of the commission carries weight with the man in the street, who is not in a position to valuate the services of expert professional men.
Let me go into some details of the work of the commission. Take statistics, for instance. The commission repeatedly called attention to the inadequacy of the statistics published from time to time, and prior to the organization of the present Statistical Branch, which is giving such excellent service, urged the creation of an efficient organization along these lines.
The commission also has acted, and still acts as a bureau of information, and furnishes much valuable data to investors, business men, farmers, and others interested in the development or utilization of our natural resources. The right hon. gentleman has referred to forests in particular. I believe that it is in connection with the conservation of the forest wealth of Can-

ii- [DOT]
I;
ada that the commission has accomplished perhaps the most commendable part of its work. The commission has devoted constant attention to the conservation of Canada's forest resources. The primary problem has been to check the enormous waste through forest fires. Investigations by the commission in the early years of its existence showed that forest fires started by locomotives constituted a very large percentage of the total number of fires occurring. For several years a propaganda to inform and enlighten public opinion as to the importance of this question was carried on, and the Commission of Conservation was instrumental-nobody will gainsay the fact -in securing legislation empowering the Board of Railway Commissioners to promulgate regulations for the prevention of forest fires along the railway lines.
In May, 1912, the board issued an order covering the railway fire situation very thoroughly and placed upon the railway companies, subject to the jurisdiction of the board, the responsibility for taking all measures necessary for the prevention and control of fires due to railway operation. This order obliged the railways to use the most efficient and most modern spark arresters and other protective devices, as well as to place fire patrols on dangerous sections of the lines in dry seasons. The result has been a great reduction in the damage caused by fires due to railway agencies. I wonder why, in the course of their remarks, both hon. ministers carefully avoided referring to this important part of the work of the commission. The results that have been thus obtained, if the Commission of Conservation had accomplished nothing further than this, amply justify all the money that has been expended by the commission since its organization ten or twelve years ago. The whole question of forest protection in Canada has been gone into thoroughly by the chief forester of the commission, and the publication of the results of his investigations has been of incalculable educational value. Now, while much has been done by the commission to prevent the destruction of forests by fires, a great deal has also been accomplished in taking stock of our forest resources, and making studies of the annual increase by growth. This may appear, on its surface, as a matter of no importance, but any one who will give a moment's thought to the subject will realize that it is most important that we should be made fully aware of the extent of the forest wealth of Canada. This work is being, and has been, done province by province, most of it through co-operation with Provincial Governments. The surveys of the forest resources of Canada being carried out by the commission have been heartily endorsed by the lumbering interests, who thoroughly appreciate the reliable information of the extent of raw material available not only to their industry but to the entire nation. The development which is now taking place in the pulp and paper industry is of such magnitude that every effort should be made to complete the surveys with the least possible delay.
There is another feature of the work of the commission in connection with the surveys of forests, and that is reforestation. In addition to pushing forward the survey of the extent and character of our forest resources, the commission is carrying out extremely important duties of the rates of production of commercial species on cutover and burnt-over areas. The commission is therefore engaged upon a very important series of investigations, as it has been for a number of years, of the conditions governing the reproduction and the rate of growth of pulpwood species. The investigations have already shown that it takes much longer than has hitherto been supposed for cut-over lands to become reforested under natural conditions. From the results already available, it is believed that instead of a period of thirty years, as was generally believed formerly, it will take from fifty to one hundred and fifty years, to reproduce merchantable timber. It is not too much to say that, to a large extent, the permanence of our pulp and paper industries will depend upon-the information obtained from the studies now being made and those that have been carried out in the past by the Commission of Conversation, and the use that has been made of the data obtained.
Now, let us look at the water-powers. This is more closely connected with the allusion made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), to the alleged interference of the commission with external affairs. When the commission began its work in 1910, it found that only the most fragmentary information was available respecting water-powers. In 1911, the commission published a report on "The water-powers of Canada," but only as regards the area east of lake Superior was much data available. Concerning the western provinces, there was scarcely any information of a precise character. A series of field investigations was begun, to make good this deficiency, and after years of painstaking work, 'both in the field, and

among the Dominion, provincial and private records, reports dealing with the water-power resources of the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia have been published. Thus it came about that the first adequate and reasonably accurate estimate of the extent and character of the water-powers of Canada is due to the work of the commission. The House will remember very well that during the years from 1910 to 1913, what might be termed a veritable raid was made by private interests to get control of water-powers. One of the most notable of these attempts was the project to dam the St. Lawrence river at the Long Sault. The matter came up for hearing before the International Joint Commission, and that body asked thp Commission of Conservation to investigate the scheme and report upon it. It was not a move on the part of the Commission of Conservation for the purpose of interfering in external affairs; they were requested by the International Joint Commission to investigate and report upon the scheme. This report showed that Canadian interests were not given adequate consideration and that the safety of navigation was threatened. The report advanced the opinion that when the time came to develop the St. Lawrence water-powers it behoved the governments of Canada and the United States to undertake the work jointly, to divide the power equitably, and to supply it to their nationals at a price free from unnecessary tribute to private corporations. What was the effect of the commission's report? It resulted in the defeat of a Bill to incorporate a private company, and valuable water-powers on the St. Lawrence were saved from passing into the control of private interests. These things, I think, should have been stated fully in the Senate the other day, and I think that perhaps they ought to have been stated this evening by the right hon. gentleman. It is now proposed that the Long Sault rapids be developed by the Governments of Canada and the United States, but it should not be forgotten that but for the intervention of the commission, the title to this great waterpower would have been alienated and, 1 make bold to say, would now be controlled by the Aluminium Trust, one of the greatest trusts in North America, if not, indeed, in the world. If I should not delay the House at this late hour, I would quote an extract from an editorial which appeared two or three days ago in the Toronto Globe referring to this very subject, but [Mr. BSland.J	. , j i,
I will not take up the time of the House by reading it now.
The principles laid down by the commission respecting alienation of waterpower have now been generally accepted by governments and by the people at large. These are:	that no unconditional titles
shall be given and that every grant or lease of power shall be conditioned upon the development in a specified time, public control of rates, and a rental charge subject to revision from time to time. Now, I do not desire to absorb too much time, but I will just, en passant, refer in brief, to some of the work that has been done for the conservation of land.
To ascertain, as fully as practicable, the condition of lands under cultivation, and whether the systems and methods of farming were resulting in the conservation of fertility and productivity, the commission conducted for several years surveys of conditions on groups of farms in representative districts in every province. These surveys, the detailed results of which were reported upon in the published annual reports, revealed the fact that in many cases fertility was being reduced, weeds were becoming increasingly prevalent, and systematic courses of rotation of crops were not being followed. On the other hand, in every group of farms surveyed some farms stood out conspicuously as examples of conservation and at the same time as illustrations of profitable agriculture. In consequence one of such farms in each of the first groups surveyed was chosen by the neighbouring farmers in co-operation with the commission, as an illustration farm. The illustration farm was not in any sense taken over by the commission. The illustration farmer did not receive any salary or subsidy. He agreed to accept regular visits from the expert adviser sent by the commission, and to put into practice on his farm only such advice or suggestions as he considered would prove profitable to him. The commission at first gave direct assistance to encourage the use of seed grain of first-class quality and suitability, to encourage the sowing of larger quantities of clover and grass seeds per acre, and to bring about more effective methods of cultivation to suppress weeds. In fact, by the combination of expert practical and scientific advice with the profit-making practices of the farmer, each illustration farm soon became, to an ever-increasing extent, an illustration of conservation through profitable use to neighbouring farmers. Meetings were held on these
MAY 26, mi
farms to explain the system and methods and to demonstrate what these were accomplishing when applied, not on a government farm, but on one such as the farmers themselves occupied, and under conditions similar to those with which they had to do. The results were striking. The improvements were notable and numerous. There was a pressing demand for these illustration farms in other localities. But the commission, not being an administrative branch of the Government service and having accomplished its object in pointing to an effective means of promoting conservation-and profit-turned over the scheme to the Department of Agriculture. There is now an Illustration Farms Division of the Dominion Experimental Farm. I wonder why these facts have not been stated to the House, or to the Senate, or to the country.
Before illustrating the admirable pioneer work that the commission has done let me say that a department of the public service is loath to embark upon many lines of work unless it is obvious that such work is of commensurate value. The department fears that, if such work be taken up and fail to justify itself, it will be difficult or impossible to discontinue it. The commission, being an independent body, could undertake pioneer work. If the results achieved were not commensurate it could be dropped and it has, in some cases acted in this manner. If they proved of value the administrative department could carry the work on upon an adequate scale, and the commission could then devote its attention to other work.
I might also refer to the work done in connection with the conservation of the fisheries, of game, and of fur-bearing animals, but I will not delay the House much longer. In connection, however, with the fisheries I may say that the commission has given considerable attention to the Pacific coast salmon industry, particularly the valuable sockeye salmon, and its sustained efforts in making known the declining status of this most valuable fishery have done much to educate public opinion to the necessity for adopting conservation measures before it is too late, and to pave the way for the conclusion of an agreement between Canada and the United States, looking to the preservation and upbuilding of the salmon industry.
During recent months the commission has drawn Dominion-wide attention to the urgent necessity of guarding against the 251
depletion of our resources in fur-bearing animals. As a result of the remarkable advances in the prices of furs, the most vigorous exploitation of these resources has been induced, and the threatened extinction of valuable fur-bearing species has become a matter of gravest concern.
I will not resume my seat without making an allusion also to the work of the commission in connection with the surveys of the mineral resources of Canada. I may say that as an initial step in regard to minerals, the mining engineer of the commission, in 1911, prepared a general summary of the mineral resources of Canada and outlined the more pressing questions connected with the industry. A special study was also made of mine accidents, and a brochure on the subject was published and distributed among miners and government mining authorities. Later, much attention was given to coal resources and an exhaustive report on the conservation of coal was issued in 1914. The Government, represented by the Prime Minister, this evening took some exception to the fine appearance of these reports. But there is some justification for preparing the reports in such a manner. You want first to catch the attention of the reading public by the external appearance of a book. That is so true that a declaration was made in the Senate by a staunch supporter of the Government, that while he never read the reports of the departments on these subjects he always read the reports of the Conservation Commission. In the report referred to, the problem of utilizing the lignite and low-grade bituminous coals of Western Canada by means of briquetting was fully discussed, and later on a pamphlet on the subject was issued, reporting the latest progress in solving this problem. The most efficient use of our domestic fuel and power resources constitutes a national problem the gravity of which has been most forcibly impressed upon the Canadian people during the past year. The studies, made by the officers of the Commission of Conservation, of the different phases of this problem are of the greatest value, and have been admitted by the whole of the press of Canada without a single exception.
I will not say anything about public health. In view of the establishment of the Department of Public Health in Canada the activities of the Conservation Commission in this regard might be to a large degree discontinued.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, the work of the commission has imparted, I submit, a wholesome stimulus to the activities of Government departments engaged in the administration of natural resources. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will readily admit that the different departments of this Government connected directly or indirectly with the natural resources have been very forcibly impressed by the activities of the commission, and they have received from the work of the commission an impetus which was never known before. Ten years ago most of these dpeartments gave little or no attention to any work of investigation for conservation purposes. I think this will be generally admitted. Now, in some departments considerable organizations have been built up to do work of a character which prepares for, promotes and accomplishes conservation. A marked change has come over the attitude of the public towards conservation during the ten or twelve years of the commission's life. It has become sensitive and alert to anything which indicates indifference on the part of public authorities, or hostility by private interests, to the principles and practice of conservation. This is particularly noticeable in the case of water-powers. The public has begun to realize what a valuable asset water-power resources are to a community, and no Government would contemplate permitting the alienation of great water-powers to private interests without conditions to ensure economical and efficient service and other appropriate returns in the public interest.
A great deal has been said, Mr. Speaker, by the minister who presides, I think, over the Department of the Interior (Sir James Lougheed) and by the right hon. the Prime Minister this evening regarding duplication of work. Let me say that the charge brought against the commission that it duplicates the work of some departmental organization is based on misinformation. Least of all is there any excuse for such an accusation respecting work of the Research Council, which was established I think about six years after the commission was created. If there has been overlapping in the slightest degree as between the Research Council and the Commission of Conservation no responsibility for such overlapping can be attached to the commission. In regard to fisheries in particular, the commission has had no staff expert, and its efforts have been restricted only to educational work and to special studies of a problem which either had not been made the subject of departmental investigation,

or had been approached by the commission from an entirely different angle. The work done by the commission has been calculated to strengthen and not embarrass the departmental officials in promoting the economical development of Canadian fisheries. The minister in the Senate quoted the refusal-and I give only this instance-of the Editorial Board to sanction the printing of the pamphlet written by a certain Mr, Babcock dealing with the Fraser River salmon situation. This refusal is really due to friction, Mr. Speaker-and I know whereof I speak-between the provincial and the federal authorities, which the publication of the pamphlet would undoubtedly have helped to allay.
I do not desire to detain the House any longer, except to say that this charge of duplication or of infringing upon the prerogatives of some department has no foundation in fact. If the inter-departmental committee appointed to investigate this alleged overlapping had sought first hand information at the offices of the commission, it is safe to say that no such charges would have been made. The only work that the commission has done has been work that the departments were not doing, or were not doing completely. The plain fact of the matter is that the energy and vigilance of the commission have been of inestimable effect in stimulating the departments to deal with problems and conditions affecting the efficient use of Canada's natural resources which formerly received little or certainly no serious attention. If after the commission had demonstrated the utility of a certain line of study, similar studies were commenced by a regular department of the Government, the commission cannot be regarded as guilty of duplication. I doubt very much if the time has arrived when Canada can afford to dispense with such services as have been rendered by the commission in supplementing and stimulating departmental activities.
There is only one ground, Mr. Speaker, upon which you can rest the case of the Government at the present moment, and that is the urgent necessity for the strictest economy. But if on the one hand you abolish the Commission of Conservation and save to the country $140,000 a year, and on the other hand you provide $400;000 or $500,000 for the creation of a scientific research bureau-only for the erection of the building for that bureau-
I say that instead of effecting an economy you are launching into larger expenditure and very much along the same line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close by reading a letter addressed to the assistant to the chairman of the commission, by Mr. Ross, who was formerly minister in the British Columbia Government. I think he was minister of-
Arthur Meighen: Lands and Mines.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Thank you. The letter is dated February 24, 1921. It deals in particular with the publication of a certain report on the water-powers of British Columbia, of which much mention was made by Sir James Lougheed in the Senate the other day as being a work that was mainly a duplication of what had already been done by some departments of this Government. This is the letter:
James White, Esq.,
Assistant to the Chairman,
Commission of Conservation.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. White,-
I duly received from your office a copy of "Water Powers of British Columbia" by Mr. Arthur V. White, consulting engineer, assisted by Mr. Charles J. Vick.
I have purposely delayed acknowledging its receipt in order that I might look through its contents so as to be the better able to form an opinion on its merits.
The subject dealt with so exhaustively by Mr. White is one with which I had much to do, and particularly during the formative stages of the present system of provincial water administration in British Columbia. This was one of the Important branches of the Bands Department over which I had the privilege of presiding in the years 1910 to 1916 during which period I was aible to be of some slight assistance to Mr. White in the assembling of his data. For this reason I have gone over the volume in its entirety, which has given me much pleasure as well as the satisfaction of feeling that one has contributed, even if in a small way, toward the splendid result which Mr. White has achieved in this volume.
I feel that the volume is an accurate, painstaking and complete textbook on the subject of which it treats and is one in which the Commission of Conservation may well take pride.
Mr. White is personally entitled to a very large measure of credit as well as thanks from the public of this province for the completeness of his research as well as for his method of compilation, which renders the contents of the volume so handy for ready reference.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd. Wm. iS. Ross.
Now, perhaps I may quote one or two extracts from papers published in British Columbia. The Vancouver Daily Province is a newspaper which, no doubt, my hon. ' friend who represents so ably that part of the country must know. Here is what the Daily Province says of the report to which I have referred:
An authoritative, comprehensive and scientific record .... The Commission has rendered the Province full justice in the careful and detailed research, and in clear and adequate exposition.
What does the Victoria Daily Times say:
A magnificent report .... An exceedingly valuable document and in its preparation the Commission of Conservation has performed a valuable service to British Columbia.
What does the Vancouver Daily World say:
A monumental work .... What it does not contain upon the subject no one need trouble about.
What does the Vancouver Daily Sun say:
A complete compendium .... The manner in which the information is presented, with adequate maps and handsome illustrations, is a credit to every one who shares the responsibility.
I quote from the Victoria Daily Colonist:
Is easily the outstanding work of its kind yet put out in Canada .... lifts the theme of water-powers to a new sphere of interest . . . There is no publication dealing with any resource of the Province .... which is so complete .... It will remain a standard publication and the most exhaustive authority on the subject for many years.
Then there are comments from the Canadian Engineer and the Electrical News, two technical journals, which I shall not quote. In a word, Mr. Speaker, the Commission of Conservation, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I think, of the great majority of citizens of this country, has rendered useful, efficient service. It has rendered service to the country that may not be fully appreciated at the moment but which will be appreciated more and more as time goes on and as the natural resources of the country come- to be more fully developed.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the reasons brought forward by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) are such as to justify the abolition of the Commission of Conservation, particularly when we have regard to the remarks made on this subject by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). The Prime Minister mentioned three reasons in particular for the course which the Government has taken. He said that there had been overlapping, but he gave no instances. The hon. member for Beauce has pointed out that in many of these matter the cue was given by the Conservation Commission and the departments subsequently took them up.

This goes to show the ability and diligence of the commission in taking hold of these great questions affecting our natural resources. The second reason the Prime Minister gave was that on one occasion the secretary of the commission appeared before the International Joint Commission and that he read a list of those who formed the commission. Well, there does not seem to have been any great calamity involved in that; the Prime Minister has not shown that any disastrous results followed from the appearance of the secretary of the commission before that International Joint Commission. If the secretary of the Conservation Commission had done anything which was detrimental to Canada or anything which was not commendable, of course he would be subject to censure or to the loss of his position. The third reason given by the Prime Minister was on the point of expenditure. Well, if the services rendered are far greater than the expenditure incurred, then the expenditure is perfectly justified. But there seems to be something which has brought about this proposal to abolish the commission, some reason which has been suppressed. I think one of the senators may have stated the reason rightly, when he said he knew that the abolition of the commission was due to the-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I did not call the hon. member for Beauce to order when he made reference to the speech of a minister in the Senate, because of the exceptional circumstances and in view of the late stage of the session and the fact that the minister to whom reference was made is the head of a department. But it is a well known rule, and one which has always been very rigidly enforced, that there should be no reference in the House of Commons, to debates which have taken place in the Senate. I would ask the hon. member for Three Rivers particularly not to deal with specific references made by hon. gentlemen of the Senate.


Mr. BE  LAND@: May I suggest by way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, that if I referred to the debate in the other House it was because the right hon. Prime Minister stated that he was not desirous of making a full statement in view of a fuller statement presented to the other House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I have no doubt the Prime Minister considered that it was open to hon. members of the House to read the debates of the Senate. But the Prime Minister has no authority, and I am

quite sure there was no desire, to take it upon himself to abrogate the rules of the House.


Jacques Bureau: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If I am well informed, an hon. gentleman occupying a high position in political life has stated that the proposal to abolish the Conservation Commission was due to the fact that two civil servaiits were very anxious to see the commission go out of business so as to advance their own interests.
Now, I shall not take up very much of the time of the House. I only want to point out that the reasons adduced by the Prime Minister are not sufficiently strong, in my opinion, to justify the course which is being taken. I do not think that the fact that some of the commission's reports were got out in nice bindings is a sufficient excuse for abolishing the commission. These books go broadcast throughout this country and other countries and I am sure that the Prime Minister would not, any more than I would, like to see a publication hearing the name of a commission carrying on a public service, a Government institution, go out to other countries in anything but decent form. I am sorry to see the Conservation Commission go out of business, because I think it has rendered great service. It has rendered splendid service so far as forestry is concerned. As has been stated by the hon. member for Beauce, the commission has educated the people in the matter of the preservation of our forests, and I know that they have made valuable suggestions as to the line of conduct to be followed in this connection. Of course, if the Government have decided on taking this action there is no use in our continuing the debate. But I want to express my regret and my sorrow at the abolition of this very useful body, 'composed of men representing the various provinces who have been getting together each year to discuss the resources of those provinces and the result of whose deliberations in concrete form has been spread all over Canada and sent to other countries as well.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind hon. gentlemen that if the Prime Minister exercises his right to reply the debate will be closed.


Arthur Meighen: I know that I owe it to the House to be exceedingly brief, even if I do not do full justice tc the verv com-

prehensive remarks of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) and of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). I do not doubt for a minute the bona fides, or indeed the sincerity, of the hon. member for Beauce in the strong plea which he has made, but I do think he has been imposed upon by members of the commission, with whom he has been associated.
This decision on the part of the Government has not been come to precipitately, nor without consideration; nor has the Government been stampeded by the evil designs of two civil servants. I have been associated with the question very closely for four years and more. The difficulties inherent in the situation were impressed upon me, and it was not after consultation with one or two civil servants or heads of branches, but after very many consultations on the part of a committee of the Government, and, indeed, with all affected, and after the most thorough review of the question from the ground up that this decision was arrived at. I could go into details of all the matters presented by the hon. member for Beauce. I have heard that case urged before; it has all been put before me not in such good form, but in substance pretty much the same, and I am convinced that there is very little in what has been pressed upon the House by the hon. member. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the commission has not rendered good service; but those words are largely applicable to the initial work of the commission which, in my humble judgment, it must have been designed to perform, namely, to investigate in a broad way the general subject of conservation, and having done so, to advise as to the lines of policy to be pursued. It did that in relation to forest fires started by railways, and it indicated legislation that it thought should be enacted, empowering the Railway Commission in this regard. That legislation was enacted; the Railway Commission took the matter in hand as the administrative body, and very probably good has resulted. I believe the legislation was good; but now we have a forestry service; we had to have it to carry out a forestry conservation policy at all. That forestry service must necessarily be ascertaining data all the time; it has to do that to carry out its administrative functions. Why should there be another body and an irresponsible one doing the same work? The hon. member says that we have a Department of Health, so that the commission does not need to operate any longer as regards
public health. Having admitted that-and he is perfectly right-he throws up his whole case as to water-powers, because we now have a Water-power Branch; he throws up his whole case as regards forestry, because we now have a forestry service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We had it before.


Arthur Meighen: No, it did not exist in 1909; it was established between that and 1912; before that no real forestry policy was developed. I have here a memorandum covering the subject very fully. As regards fisheries I could quote from some proceedings of the commission itself, which would establish most definitely that it really was anomalous to have the Conservation Commission even acting in an advisory capacity as regards fisheries. At the meeting it was admitted that they had no one competent to advise, and they sought, and continued to seek until 1918, to have some one upon whom they thought they could rely in this regard. They persuaded a Dr. Jones to undertake this work, and Dr. Jones, upon being requested to do so, said that he had not only an open mind but almost a vacant one on the subject; that while he would be glad to try the experiment for a year, if he did not accomplish anything, he supposed some one else would take the matter up. They did not succeed in getting that expert until 1918, and I do not think they have succeeded yet; but they were offering "advice on fish culture, oysters, salmon, white fish; they published a small library of expert treatises, and tried their hand in settling international, federal and provincial fishery disputes." That is an example of what went on in that regard.
The hon. member mentioned-and this is of some importance-that this idea arose from a similar one that had taken root in the United States, from a movement that at that time had reached considerable magnitude, a movement that generated from the belief that the resources of this continent were being depleted at too rapid a pace and that the attention of Government should be very forcibly directed towards the need of their conservation. It took its rise from that movement and an organization was formed in the United States, a Commission of Conservation, for like purposes to that which was formed in this country. But the hon. gentleman must be aware that the United States commission has not sought to plant its roots permanently in the soil and to continue indefinitely as an expensive Government de-

partment irresponsible to a minister. The functions of the United States commission have been either discharged or since allocated to appropriate departments. That is what we seek to do here; that is what I think, if I may say so, should have been done before this.
The hon. member mentions that the commission was asked by the International Joint Commission to make a report as to the Long Sault. That is only natural; but that did not constitute the commission an advisor as to public policy before the International Joint Commission, and the commission came as adviser on public policy before the International Joint Commission in connection with the application for a diversion. That occurred in 1918, and this country found itself represented by two bodies, the Government on the one hand and the commission on the other. Is 'that not overlapping? Could anything more absurd be conceived? The hon. member says that the expenditure is not sufficient; that there has not been overlapping shown. Let me just cite some overlapping. There is overlapping in water-powers; in connection with that power report from British Columbia, 133 pages were appropriated from the report of the Water-power Branch, simply embodied in it, and the name of the director was put down as co-editor of the report. That is all printed as a separate booklet. And what business have we in connection with water-powers that we do not own, taking upon ourselves the expense and responsibility of a compilation and an expensive investigation of them? We should do that in connection with the powers we do own; but as regards the others, we should merely co-operate with the provinces in giving them the general advantage of the information that we have. That is what we are doing respecting Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and, I think, in respect of the water-powers of British Columbia unnecessary expense was gone to simply because we had an irresponsible commission. There is overlapping in connection with External Affairs, and I have given that instance. There is also overlapping as regards Mines. As regards all this lignite investigation work, I think it is presumption on the part of the commission to claim that the results are in any way traceable to them. I think the same is true as to other investigational work mentioned by the hon. member. It is true as regards the Long Sault dam. I do not think the commission would come to this House now and say that it was responsible 
for saving this country from a calamity in regard to the Long Sault; I do not believe the hon. member credits this himself. I do not want to delay the House further. While I do not say that any useful work that the commission is carrying on should be discontinued, I do say that the work which it is carrying has to be carried on by administrative functions of Government, whether the commission does it or not. So, why have it done by two bodies simultaneously and at double expense? And why particularly have it done by a body over whose expenditures we have very unsatisfactory control?


[Stage Direction]
Mqjion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On clause 1-repeal.
William Stevens Fielding: Two points made by the Prime Minister seem to be good argument. One is that there is a large measure of overlapping between the work of the commission and the work of the department, and that should be avoided. The second point is the absence of any proper dink of connection between the executive power and the commission. It occurred to me not very long after the commission was appointed that there was a weakness in that respect. I am strongly of the opinion that for every branch of the public service provided for out of the public treasury, there should be somewhere a responsible minister answerable to this Parliament. I think that is a sound principle, and I wish I could feel it had been adopted as fully as my right hon. friend thinks in relation to the railways. However, we need not dwell upon that. I have felt all along that, excellent as was the work of this commission, it would have been better if it had had that connecting link. In view of all the important work it has done, and of the great number of volumes it has published, and the general excellent character of its work, I regret that the Government have felt that the only remedy is the abolition of the commission. I think that it would have been wise to establish that necessary connecting link and bring the commission under the authority of some responsible minister, and gradually work the two things into harmony. In view of the excellent work that has been accomplished by the commission, I think it is a pity that the Government have taken the extreme step of abolishing it.
Apart from the immediate officials of the commission, there are a large number of

gentlemen throughout the country who have taken an interest in its work, and who without reward or fee have given their services from time to time. I think that service also was worth preserving for the assistance and advice of the Government, and I therefore express my regret that the Government have felt that the only remedy for these evils, if they^ be evils, was the abolition of the commission.
I would much prefer that those services be utilized, and I had hoped that it would be possible to do that without abolishing the commission. The overlapping, I think, could have been avoided,, and a connecting link could have been established between the work of the commission and the Government, through a responsible minister.
I think that would have been wiser than to abolish the commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No doubt the Government intends to retain the services of the high officials of the commission, such men as Mr. James White, for instance, who from the inception has been- the Secretary, and later Assistant to the chairman of the commission. I have many times heard the Hon. Mr. Sifton, who acted as the chairman of the commission for I think some seven or eight years, speak in very high praise of Mr. James White, and I have myself on many occasions been in a position to judge of his ability and his fitness for a very important post in almost any department of the Government, in some department, at all events. I have no brief to speak for Mr. White. I have not seen him or heard from him for almost a year, and there was no question then of the commission being abolished. I speak absolutely independently of any suggestion on his part. Some of the other officials have also won the commendation of the commission and I hope the Government will find a way to utilize their services in some of the other departments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 12.58 a.m. Friday.
Friday, May 27, 1921