PENSIONS' COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Law-rence-St. George) presented the first report of the special committee appointed by the House to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed.
He said: This report recommends that the quorum of the committee be reduced from 15 to 9 members, and your committee recommend that leave be granted them to sit while the House is in session. By special permission of the House, I would move that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MEIGHEN:: Notice was given yesterday of a motion to concur in the second and third reports of the Committee on Agriculture. If action is to be taken on this matter-and some action should 'be taken, yea or nay-there should certainly 'be no delay.


Mr. KAY:: If the right hon. gentleman will look at the Votes and Proceedings of to-day he will see that notice of this motion has been given for to-morrow.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If it is the unanimous wish of the House, the motion which has been fixed for to-morrow can be debated to-day.


Mr. BUREAU:: Who blocked it yesterday? I understand this resolution was blocked yesterday by the right hon. leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: That is quite correct. The motion for concurrence came up yesterday, and it could only be adopted by consent. We had not known that there was to be a motion to concur. I certainly wanted to con-

Questions
slder it. For me, twenty-four hours is sufficient for consideration. I am prepared to wait twenty-four hours more if it is desired by any bon. member of this House but I think it my duty to say that the sooner we dispose of this matter the better, because very much hangs on our disposition of it.


Jacques Bureau: I understand the right hon. gentleman insisted on the rule being followed, and' it is beihg followed. Now he wants to break the rule, or make an exception by unanimous consent.


Hewitt Bostock: It could only be proceeded with to-day by unanimous consent. So, it will stand.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to request the [DOT]Civil Service Commission to resume the publication of the Civil Service List?
2.	If so, when?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The last edition of the Civil Service List was published in the fall of 1918, bringing the data contained therein up to 1st April preceding. Early in the fall of 1918 the classification of the personnel of the Service was commenced, and has been in progress since. As soon as the classification is completed, and this is anticipated in the near future, the Commission will submit to the Government a proposal that a new edition of the Civil Service List be prepared and published, and the matter will then be considered.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


EGG INSPECTORS
Mr. SPENCE:: 1.	How many egg inspectors have been employed by the Government since the regulations came into effect in 1918, each year up to the end of 1921?
2.	How much has been paid in salaries to the said inspectors during the years 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921?
3.	How much has been paid for travelling and other expenses of the said inspectors during each of the above mentioned years?
4.	What has been the total amount of salaries and other, expenses during each of the said years, of the officials and employees at Ottawa, who supervise the work of the egg inspectors?
5.	What number of cars have been inspected in each province during the years 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921?
6.	What number of cars were inspected for export during each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	In 1918, nine; 1919, twelve, seven of whom worked the full year; three appointed in September, 1919, and two in October, 1919; 1920, eleven, nine of whom worked the full year, one resigned on March 31, and one resigned on July 31; 1921, thirteen, nine of whom worked the full year and four were appointed in May, 1921.
2.	In 1918, $8,365.18; 1919, $12,326.21; 1920, $15,110.06; 1921, $18,305.82. These inspectors are engaged in work other than egg inspection for a large percentage of the time. The amount chargeable to egg inspection is as follows:
1918	..	45%	which	amounts	to	$3,764	331919	..	35%	"	"	"	4,314	171920	..	40%	"	"	"	6.044	021921	..	30%	"	"	"	5,491	743.	In 1918, $7,364.18; 1919, $11,442.15; 1920, $13,823.74; 1921, $13,337.27. These inspectors are engaged in work other than egg inspection for a large percentage of the time. The amount chargeable to egg inspection is as follows:1918	..	45%	which	amounts	to	$3,313	881919	..	35%	"	"	"	4,004	751920	..	40%	"	"	"	5,529	491921	..	30%	"	"	"	4,001	184.	In 1918, $3,336.51; 1919, $3,845.00; 1920, $3,007.20; 1921, $3,171.30.5.	1918	1919	1920	1921Ontario	96	416	522	386Quebec	
Prince Edward	6	68	93	58Island	29	28	74	69Nova Scotia.. ..	1	2	1Manitoba	89	112	123	86Saskatchewan. . .	47	167	112	105Alberta	20	21	19	8British Columbia.	1	2	10	6288	815	955	7196. In 1918, 41	; 1919,	415;	1920,	469;1921, 312; total, 1237.	
MATERIALS FOR OLEOMARGARINE Mr. SUTHERLAND:
1.	What quantity of the following commodities was imported into Canada and used in the adulteration of butter, to produce what is called oleomargarine, during each of the years ending March 31st, 1920, 1921 and 1922 2-Lard compound; oleo oil; cotton oil; cocoanut oil; peanut oil; 'butter oil; and salt?
2.	What amount of duty was collected on the above 'mentioned imports?
3.	What amount, if any, of drawback on duty paid has been refunded to the manufacturers of oleomargarine during each of the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 on the said commodities?
Questions


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.
Commodity	Period June 6, 1919 to March 31, 1920	Period April 1, 1920 to March 31, 1921	Period April 1, 1921 to March 31, 1922	TotalsLard Compound.	lbs. 105,687 605,736 527,058 154,589 49,203	lbs. 27,647 1,714,562 89,208 701,995 22,646 9,234 154,730 25,300 5,970 103,258 25,800	lbs. 335,161 1,731,005 348,583 219,132 125,889	lbs. 468,495 4,051,303 964,849 1,075,716 197,738 9,234 978,288 25,300 5,970 382,892 82,356Cotton Seed Oil.. Cocoanut Oil	Corn Oil	Butter Oil	823,558	Nucoline	Stearine	Salt	279,634	Beef Fats	56,556	
1,498,829	2,880,350	3,862,962	8,242,141
				
2.	Duty collected, period June 6, 1919, to March 31, 1920, $69,730.55; period April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921, $139,765; period April 1, 1921 to March 31, 1922, $182,772.66; totals, $392,345.53.
3.	Drawback refunded, period June 6, 1919, to March 31, 1920, $69,033.25; period April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921, $138,367.34; period April 1, 1921, to March 31, 1922, $180,944.94; totals, $388,345.53.
I asked the hon. gentleman to amend his question the other day, and I have answered it as if he had amended it. I can give him no further information. Answered for the time being.


ALUMINUM ELECTRIC COMPANY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: Does the Aluminum Electric Company of Massena, New York, pay any /duty or tax to the Canadian Government for the sixty-five thousand horse-power they get from Cedar Rapids for electric energy?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: No.
Mr. W. R. BOON


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What position, if any, did W. R. Boon hold with 'the Canadian National Railways from April 1st, 1919, to June 26th, 1920?
2.	What is the position of the said W. R. Boon at the present time?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Bridge and Building Supervisor, Montreal Division.
2.	Bridge and Building Supervisor, Montreal Division.


FUEL OIL, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What is the amount and value of the fuel oil imported into British Columbia in each of the years from .1915 to 1921 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount and value of coal produced in British Columbia in each of the above-mentioned years ?
3.	What royalties were paid on the said ooal?

4.	What duty was paid on the above fuel oil?
5.	What number of persons are employed In British Columbia, in and about coal mines?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.
Fiscal year	Item	Gallons	Value1915	Petroleum, crude, fuel and gas oils, (-8235 specific gravity or heavier) at 60	$1916 1917	degrees temperature	110,611,379	2,171,970do do Petroleum (not including crude petroleum imported to be refined, or illuminating or lubricating oils) [DOT]8235 specific gravity or heavier at 60 degrees	102,007,687	2,072,0781918	temperature	95,090,675	2,711,823do do	100,338,591	3,809,3601919	do do	88,540,378	4,044,4821920	do do	95,407,034	4,395,9331921	do do	90,813,225	5,136,265
2.
Calendar Y ear	Long Tons	Short Tons	Value1915	1,844,297 2,307,197 2,173,114 2,293,383 2,174,940 2,552,569	2,065,613 2,584,061 2,433,888 2,568,589 2,435,933 2,858,877 2,601,727	S 6,455,041 8,075,190 8,235,716 11,494,681 12,420,445 16,726,950 15,262,5271916	1917.	1918	1919	1920	1921	
3.	Royalties and tax on coal (provincial public accounts), 1915, $158,867.25; 1916, $173,261.75; 1917, $194,536.62; 1918, $1,919,928.33; 1919, $196,657.21; 1920, $195,657.21.
4.	1915, Free; 1916, $58,521.75; dutiable from Feb. 16, 1916; 1917, $475,453.36; 1918, $501,692.46; 1919, $442,701.84; 1920, $477,035.17; 1921, $454,066.13.
5.	Number of employees: 1915, 4,957; 1916, 4,949; 1917, 5,126; 1918, 4,982; 1919, 5,813; 1920, 6,152; 1921, 6,594.


GRAND TRUNK-SALARIES OF OFFICIALS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What salary is paid Howard G. Kelley for his services as President of, or in any other capacity in connection with, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific?
2.	What connection has the said Howard G. Kelley with, and what offices does he hold in, and what salary is he paid by, other companies connected with, controlled or operated by, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and what is the total amount that is paid the said Kelley by such companies, or by the Grand Trunk for such services?
3.	What salaries are paid Frank Scott, W. H. Biggar, W. D. Robb. J. E. Dalrymple and R. S. Logan for their services in any capacity in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific?

Questions
4.	What connection have the said Scott, Big-gar, Robb, Dairymple and Logan with, and what offices do they hold in, other companies connected with, controlled or operated by, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and what is the total amount that is paid to each by such companies or by the Grand Trunk for such services?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Salary: $50,000 per annum, all chargeable to Grand Trunk Railway System, i.e., Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and subsidiary companies within the system. No portion of the amount is chargeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific properties, and Mr. Kelley receives nothing whatever from or on behalf of those properties at the present time.
Director's fee, Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, $2,000 per annum.
2.
Howard G. Kelley holds office in following companies as shown:-
Grand Trunk Company of Canada, Director and President.
Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad Co., Director and President.
Portland Elevator Co., Director and President.
New England Elevator Co., Director and President.
The Champlain & St. Lawrence Railroad Co., Director and President.
The United States & Canada Railroad Co., Director and President.
Vermont & Province Line Railroad Co., Director and President.
International Bridge Co., Director and President.
St. Clair Tunnel Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Western Railway Co., Director and President.
The Grand Trunk Junction Railway Co., Director and President.
The Chicago & Kalamazoo Terminal Railroad Co., Director and President.
The Pontiac Oxford & Northern Railroad Co., Director and President.
The Detroit & Huron Railway Co., Director and President.
Detroit Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co., Director and President.
Grand Rapids Terminal Railroad Co., Director and President.
Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railroad Co., Director and President.
Chicago, Detroit & Canada Grand Trunk Junction R.R. Co., Director and President.
Michigan Air Line Railway, Director and President.
Bay City Terminal Railway Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Co., Director and President.
The Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co., Director and Vice-President.
Detroit Terminal Railroad Co., Director.
The Belt Railway Co. of Chicago, Director.
Chicago & Western Indians Railroad Co., Director.
Central Vermont Railway Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Central Vermont Transportation Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Southern New England Railroad Corporation, Director and Chairman of the Board.
Southern New England Railway Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Bethel, Granite Railway Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Southern Vermont Railway Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Montreal & Vermont Junction Railroad Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Montreal & Province Line Railway Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Stanstead Shefford & Chambly R.R. Co., Director and Chairman of the Board.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co., Director and President.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co., of United States, Director and President.
Erie, London & Tillsonburg Railway Co., Director and President.
Pembroke Southern Railway Co., Director and President.
Toronto Belt Line Railway Co., Director and President.
Maganetawan River Railway Co., Director and President.
Ottawa Terminals Railway Co., Director and President.
Canadian Express Co., Director.
Canadian National Express Co., Director.
Whipple Car Co., Director and President.
Montreal & Southern Counties Railway Co., Director and President.
Montreal Warehousing Co., Director and President.
Ontario Car Ferry Co., Director and President.
Toronto Terminals Railway Co., Director and President.
Questions

Lachine Jacques Cartier & Maisonneuve Railway Co., Director and President.
The Hon. the Minister of Railways, receiver-
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan Railway Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Development Co., Ltd., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Co., Ltd., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Dock Co. of Seattle, Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Co., Director and President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Terminals Elevator Co., Ltd., Director and President. The only company from or on behalf of which Mr. Kelley receives a salary- apart from the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada-is the Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company. From this company he receives a salary as VicePresident of $2,500 per annum, but this he in return remits to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. He receives a fee of $10 and in one or two instances $20 from a few of the companies named above for their infrequent Directors' meetings. In the majority of cases however no salary or fee of any kind is received.
3.	Mr. Frank Scott, $18,000 per annum; Mr. W. H. Biggar, $20,000 per annum; Mr. W. D. Robb, $19,000 per annum; Mr. J. E. Dalrymple, $18,000 per annum; Mr. R. S. Logan, $14,000 per annum. These amounts are all chargeable to Grand Trunk Railway System, i.e., the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and component companies in the System. No portion whatever of these salaries is charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific properties.
4.
Frank Scott holds office in following companies, as shown:
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, Vice-President and Treasurer.
Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad Co., Director and Treasurer.
Portland Elevator Co., Director, Treasurer and Assistant Clerk.
New England Elevator Co., Director, Treasurer and Assistant Clerk.
The Champlain and St. Lawrence Rd. Co., Secretary and Treasurer.

The United States and Canada Rd. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Vermont and Province Line Railroad Co., Director, Assistant Clerk and Treasurer.
International Bridge Co., Director and Treasurer.
St. Clair Tunnel Co., Director and Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Western Railway Co., Director and Vice-President and Treasurer.
The Grand Trunk Junction Railway Co., Director and Treasurer.
The Chicago and Kalamazoo Terminal Railway Co., Director and Treasurer.
The Pontiac, Oxford and Northern Rd. Co., Director and Treasurer.
The Detroit and Huron Railway Co., Treasurer.
Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Co., Director, Vice-President and Treasurer.
Grand Rapids Terminal R.R. Co., Director and Treasurer.
Toledo, Saginaw and Muskegon Railway Co., Director and Treasurer.
Chicago, Detroit and Canada G. T. Jet. R.R. Co., Director and Treasurer.
Michigan Air Line Railway, Director and Treasurer.
Bay City Terminal Railway Co., Director and Treasurer.
Detroit Terminal Railway Co., Director.
Grand Trunk Milwaukee Car Ferry Co., Director.
Central Vermont Railway Co., Director and Vice-President.
Bethel Granite Railway Co., Director and Vice-President.
Central Vermont Transportation Co., Director and Vice-President.
Southern New England ;Railway Co., Director.
Southern New England R.R. Corporation, Director.
Southern Vermont Railway Co., Director.
Montreal and Vermont Jet. Railroad Co., Director.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co., Director and Secretary-Treasurer.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co. of United States, Director, Treasurer and Asst.
Erie, London and Tilsonburg Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Pembroke Southern Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Toronto Belt Line Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.

Questions
Maganetawan River Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Ottawa, Terminals Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Canadian Express Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Whipple Car Co., Director, Vice-President and Treasurer.
Montreal Stock Yards Co., Director. Montreal and Southern Counties Ry. Co., Director, Vice-President and Treasurer.
Montreal Warehousing Co., Director. Ontario Car Ferry Co., Secretary-Treasurer.
Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maison-neuve Ry. Co., Director, Secretary and Treasurer.
Rail and River Coal Co., Director and Vice-President.
The hon. the Minister of Railways, receiver-
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Co., Director and Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan Ry. Co., Director and Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Pacific Development Co., Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Pacific Steamship Co., Director and Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Co., Treasurer.
Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company, Ltd., Director.
Also Director of all of the above-mentioned G.T.P. Companies of which Minister of Railways now receiver.
W. H. Biggar holds office in following companies, as shown:
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, Vice-President and General Counsel.
Central Vermont Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Montreal Stock Yards Co., Director. Rail and River Coal Co., Director.
W. D. Robb holds office in following companies, as shown:
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, VicePresident.
Portland Elevator Co., Director and Vice-President.
New England Elevator Co., Director and Vice-President.
The Champlain and St. Lawrence Rd. Co., Vice-President.
The United States and Canada R.R. Co., Director and Vice-President.
International Bridge Co,, Director and Vice-President.
St. Clair Tunnel Co., Director and VicePresident.
Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
The Grand Trunk Jet. Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
The Chicago and Kalamazoo Terminal R.R. Co., Director and Vice-President.
The Pontiac, Oxford and Northern Rd. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Detroit and Huron Ry. Co., Vice-President.
Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Grand Rapids Terminal Rd. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Toledo, Saginaw and Muskegon Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Chicago, Detroit and Canada G.T. Jet. R.R. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Michigan Air Line Ry., Director and Vice-President.
Grand Trunk, Milwaukee Car Ferry Co., Vice-President.
Bay City Terminal Ry. Co., Vice-President.
The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Rd. Co., Director.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co., VicePresident.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co. of U.S., Director and Vice-President.
Toronto Belt Line Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Ottawa Terminals Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Maganetawan River Ry. Co., Vice-President.
Erie, London and Tillsonburg Ry. Co., Vice-President.
Pembroke Southern Ry. Co., Vice-President.
Canadian Express Co., Director.
Montreal and Southern Counties Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Montreal Warehousing Co., Director and Vice-President.
Ontario Car Ferry Co., Director.
J. E. Dalrymple holds office in following companies, as shown:
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, VicePresident.	*
Portland Elevator Co., Director.
New England Elevator Co., Director.
United States and Canada R.R. Co., Director.
Chicago, New York and Boston Refrig. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Questions

Central Vermont Ry. Co., Vice-President.
Minister of Railways, receiver-
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., Director and Vice-President.
Grand Trunk Pacific, Sask. Ry. Co., Director.
Grand Trunk Pacific Terminals Elevator Co., Director.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co., Director. Canadian Express Co., Director. Montreal Stock Yards Co., Director. Montreal Warehousing Co., Director. Ontario Car Ferry Co., Director. Oshawa Railway Co., Director and President.
Thousand Islands Ry. Co., Director and President.
R. S. Logan holds office in following companies, as shown:
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, Vice-President.	*
Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maison-neuve Ry., Director and Vice-President.
Apart from the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, no salary is paid Messrs. Scott, Biggar, Robb, Dalrymple and Logan by or on behalf of any of the companies mentioned above. Directors' fees amounting principally to $10 are paid by a few of the companies named for their infrequent directors' meetings.
MENNONITE EMIGRATION Mr. STEVENS:
1.	Is the Government aware that a large number of Mennonites who settled in Western Canada are moving as a colony to Mexico?
2.	If so, what disposition have they made of the lands which they secured from the Dominion Government?
3.	Have these lands been secured by an organization who intend to settle them with immigrants from Roland and other districts of Central Europe?
4.	Are the immigration authorities negotiating with or co-operating with agencies, individuals or organizations in Canada and in Europe for the purpose of bringing to Canada settlers from Poland or other Central Europe countries?
5.	If so, with whom are these negotiations being carried on?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No information.
3.	No information.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


ASIATIC IMMIGRATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1. What treaties or agreements are in force dealing with, or directly or indirectly affecting 
Chinese or Japanese immigration, or the rights and privileges of Chinese or Japanese in Canada?
2.	What are the details of any such existing treaties or agreements?
3.	When do such treaties or agreements expire, or when may same be abrogated, and In what manner?
4.	What is the Chinese and Japanese population in Canada, male and female, in the various Provinces of the Dominion?
5.	What occupations are generally followed by Chinese and Japanese in Canada, and, approximately, how many are engaged in each occupation?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	There is no Treaty or Agreement in force affecting Chinese. There is an understanding in effect dealing with the immigration to Canada of Japanese; this understanding is of a confidential character.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4 and 5. It is understood that these questions will be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


INGLIS BOILER WORKS
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works, in the years 1920 or 1921, award a contract to the Inglis Boiler Works, Toronto, Ontario?
2.	If so, what firms tendered on the said contract and what were the respective amounts of tenders?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by answer to question No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McTAGGART:: 1.	What was the total area in acres in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan sold to settlers as Pre-emptions, as provided by Dominion Lands Act, 1908?
2.	What area of said Pre-emptions has been patented?
3.	What was the total revenue received from: (a) Pre-emptions for which patent has been issued, (b) Pre-emptions which have not been patented?
4.	What amount remains unpaid on all preempted lands in said area?
5.	What revenue was received from preempted lands in said area in the years 1920 and 1921?
6.	How much land in said area was sold as purchased homestead since 1908, and what revenue was received therefrom?
7.	What amount remains unpaid on said purchased homesteads?
8.	How much land was pre-empted south of Weyburn-Lethbridge railway since 1908?
9.	How much revenue was received therefrom?
10.	How much was received in the year 1920 and 1921?

National Defence


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I beg to put to the Government a question of which I gave notice, as to whether they proposed bringing down, at this session, a measure providing for redistribution.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: The Government has no desire to delay the bringing down of such a measure, but the Government does not wish to proceed with undue haste in the matter. As my right hon. friend knows, a measure of redistribution is one that is likely to occupy a considerable share of the time of the House, both in committee and in subsequent discussion in the chamber; and as it is not anticipated that there is any desire for a general election between now and the end of the year, the Government has felt that redistribution might well stand until the next session of Parliament.


LIQUOR IMPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver) :: I should like to ask the Government a question in reference to a despatch which I saw in the press this morning and which refers to an interview given by Mr. Manson, Attorney General of British Columbia, in which, according to the despatch, he states there is to be introduced into this House by the Government during this session, certain important legislation which will serve to restrict the importation of liquor into provinces in which liquor is sold only by the governments of such provinces. Is such legislation coming down? And, if so, would it not have been better if the Government had taken the House into its confidence, the Prime Minister having frequently stated that to be his doctrine, than to have this announcement made to the public press?
Hon. W. L, MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) : I am unable to speak for any person other than myself. The subject which my hon. friend has just discussed is under consideration at the present time, and the House will be informed as soon as it is definitely decided whether legislation will be brought down or not. I think I shall be able very shortly to inform my hon. friend as to what will be done in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No decision has been reached in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been no final decision.


CIVIL SERVICE BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Has the Government come to any decision in reference to the Civil Service Bonus?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This matter also is under consideration.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 27, respecting the Department of National Defence, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Mr. GRAHAM:: We discussed this matter the other day in Committee of the Whole on the resolution. I do not know that I can add anything to what I said the other day concerning the contents of the bill.
On section 4-services included:


Arthur Meighen: I submit that important clauses of this bill should be read out to the committee, so that members may have a better understanding of them.


George Perry Graham: There was a good deal of discussion the other day on this clause, which relates to the inclusion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There was, of course, a difference of opinion as to whether this force should be included or not. Almost every member of the House had a good word to say for the force, but they differed somewhat on the advisability of maintaining the force at its full strength. There seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that perhaps it would not be wise to include in the Defence Department the control of the mounted police, the argument being that this force was created as a civil and not a military force and should remain such. I do not feel like combatting that view to any extent, as undoubtedly the facts stated are correct. This much, however, the committee will bear in mind, that, in taking this step, we shall be unable to carry on the economies that were expected to be effected by the combination of executive staffs of these two branches. As was stated the other afternoon, it was thought that the civil staff of the mounted police could, in a large measure, outside of temporary employees, be worked into the new department without hardship to any person and with increased efficiency of the combined
National Defence

Department of Defence. If we accept the proposal that the police branch be not attached to the Department of Defence, we shall not be able to do that. I think it is fair to say to the committee-I forgot to mention this the other afternoon-[DOT] that for the last couple of months the Minister of Militia has been administering the Mounted Police. It was in the Justice Department when the Government came into power, and it was transferred or attached to the outside, without giving authority to the minister.
I believe it is the opinion of the committee generally that the Mounted Police might be greatly reduced in numbers. Of course, if we intend to restrict the activities of the force to the unorganized territories the force will be very small. There will always be work in connection with the Mounted Police in the city of Ottawa and vicinity. I would not say that the work of the force ought to be restricted altogether to the unorganized territories. I have communicated with the several provincial premiers, and while I have not heard from all, the correspondence that I have so far received leads me to think that perhaps it would not be wise, all at once, to withdraw all the forces from the provinces. As our Object is not so much to stand on technical differences as to protect the people where we can, I want the committee to consider what the various premiers have said. I will not encumber Hansard' with al the letters but will give a synopsis of the reply from each province. Ontario thinks that the Canadian Mounted Police would be of material assistance in the enforcement of law and order if proper co-operation between the Dominion and the province could be established. The Prime Minister of Quebec thinks that some use might be made of the Mounted Polite in Ungava and the northern portions of that province, but so far as the older and settled parts are concerned he does not think that it is wise to continue their services.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: The province of Nova Scotia thinks that some advantage might be gained if it. .were able to call upon a federal police at any time. As regards Saskatchewan, Premier Martin thinks that some arrangement should be made such as existed prior to 1917, by which the Mounted Police should have charge of the enforcement of criminal law. The province of New Brunswick was somewhat canny; it has not so far replied. Its premier

thinks that the maintenance of a force there might cost the province something, and the matter has not yet been decided because it would depend on the services that could be rendered. In some cases it might be well to ask the provinces assisted to help in some of the expense. No replies have been received from British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Under the present circumstances I think it is impossible for us to come to any fast and firm decision as to what we should do, but I take it as the view of the committee that, whether or not the Mounted Police be included in the new Defence Department, the number of men in that force could be materially reduced. As I pointed out, I do not strongly hold the view that it ought to be brought info the Department of Defence, for the reason adduced by hon. gentlemen, that it is a civil force; and as the estimated economy to be effected by the amalgamation of the two executives cannot be expected1 if the police be not taken absolutely into the Defence Department, it will not make any material difference as to the authority of the Government to reduce the police force to any size it may think .wise. To meet the wishes of the committee I move that in line 3 of the section the words "Air and Police" be struck out and the words "and Air" be substituted therefor.


Arthur Meighen: I highly commend the minister for his decision. It is true, it robs the bill of about its only radical feature, but it is a wise move to leave the Mounted Police out. The Police, as has been stated, is a civil force. I do not see, however, that the minister's point, that he is going to be disarmed from effecting economies, has any force. If the Mounted Police are left in the Militia, then the officers of that department will be in control of the force. As minister of that department my hon. friend will be requisitioned for the services of the Mounted Police, and gradually in the public mind the opinion will grow that the force are a part of the military organization of Canada. Now, they are no part of the defence of the country; they are a part of the force for the maintenance of law and order, which is not a function of the Militia or the Defence Department. It is far more a function of the Justice Department, and previously the Dominion Police were under that department. When the Mounted Police came in they remained under that department for a time, and then both went under the department

National Defence
that had controlled the Mounted Police before. While the Department of Justice is not responsible for the maintenance of law and order, nevertheless its functions are closely related thereto, and by placing the police under that department and utilizing its officers, economy can be effected in that way, just as well as in the Militia Department, if it is really desired to eliminate high-paid officers. I was glad to hear the minister's remarks about the reduction of the Mounted Police. I do not doubt that a reduction could now be effected; but if I measure the opinion of the minister aright it does not differ very much from my own, that anything in the nature of reckless or wanton reduction now would be very poor economy, and instead of meeting public opinion would go in defiance thereof. I hope the force will be reduced to the utmost extent possible, consistent with serving the purposes of the Mounted Police, but no further. The minister in his communications with the premiers of the provinces has so far received the replies which I should have expected. I do not like to prophesy, but I think that when he hears from the other premiers in the West they will give very much the same judgment as that of the premier of Saskatchewan. By the way, I observed applause when the minister stated that the police would not be required in the older parts of the province of Quebec, but might be used in the district of IJngava. Why the distinction? If the maintenance of law and order is wholly a provincial function, and if we are not justified in assuming any part of it, we have no more right to go into Ungava than into the older parts of Quebec. They might be able to use the police more in Ungava, it is true, but the principle of the division of constitutional jurisdiction applies just as much to Ungava as to the city of Montreal. It is a question of expense, that is all; and the force may be needed as much in Quebec as in any other province. If we are to maintain a fluid reserve force for the purposes for which the police are established, it is hard to justify saying to three, or four or five provinces: "We will maintain a force at your disposal, subject to your requisition," and to three or four other provinces:	"The force
shall not be subject to your requisition at all." I do not know how that stand could be justified, and consequently the minister's present state of mind is about the right one [DOT]-to reduce where he can. We are getting further from war conditions and some reduction may be possible, but the main purpose of the Mounted Police will not permit of any wanton or reckless reduction of the force, or the contraction of its utility from the purpose which it is now constituted to fulfil.


Mr. BAXTER:: The section refers to the "Militia," the "Military, the Naval," and other forces. Is there any possible distinction between the "Military" and the "Militia" forces? In other words, is there any military in Canada which is not militia, either active or passive?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is part of the active militia of Canada?


George Perry Graham: I may not get the military terms right, but we generally refer to the volunteer force as the militia, and it is so described in the British North America Act.


Mr. HANSON:: So far as I am aware there are no Mounted Police in New Brunswick, nor were any ever brought in except under requisition. There is a detachment in Halifax. Are the provincial authorities bound to pay for the services of the Mounted Police when they are requisitioned for local duty?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, under the statute the Mounted Police are not requisitioned, but the militia; and under the same law the local authority is supposed to pay the expenses incurred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is under the Militia Act?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I suppose the same principle would apply if the municipality requisitioned the services of the Mounted Police, although the law makes provision only for the militia to be sent in answer to a requisition from the local authorities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: About a year ago there was trouble down east and the municipal authorities, through the Attorney General, as I understand, requisitioned the Mounted Police. Would the expenses incurred be payable by the municipality?


George Perry Graham: I cannot answer that
offhand, but I imagine the municipal authorities would have to bear the expense. It is merely a matter of opinion. There is an account, if I remember rightly, between a municipality and one of the departments for something, but I would not like to say whether it relates to the requisitioning of the Mounted Police or not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For a great many years Fredericton, which is in my constituency,
National Defence

was the headquarters of a detachment of the Royal Canadian Regiment, and the Government acquired considerable property there. For the most part that property is situated on one side of the principal street, and since the termination of the war it has not been utilized by the Militia Department. At the moment the buildings are being occupied temporarily by the New Brunswick Liquor Commission under a terminable lease. Is it the intention to re-establish at Fredericton any portion of the permanent forces? If not, would the minister consider the sale of any portion of that property? I think the citizens would like to see the military school re-opened and a portion of the regiment again quartered at Fredericton. If on the score of economy that cannot be entertained-as to which I express no opinion-I would point out that this very valuable property in the heart of the city might very well be placed upon the market. I know at least that one of the local banks would like to purchase a portion of it as a site for a bank building. This would relieve the situation so far as available business lots there are concerned.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. This discussion is scarcely relevant to the particular clause under consideration, but perhaps the minister is willing to answer the hon. member's question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was almost through, and perhaps I may be permitted to finish my remarks.	,


George Perry Graham: Perhaps it would be better, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member should be allowed to conclude his remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no desire to transgress the rules of the House. This is an important matter, and my only excuse for dealing with it now is that I may not have an opportunity to speak to it again. I should like the minister to consider the advisability of putting that property on the market. The suggestion was made when the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was Minister of Militia, but no decision was ever reached. I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration so the people down there may know what, if anything, is to be done.


George Perry Graham: I realize that we are both out of order, Mr. Chairman, but if you will permit me I will deal with the hon. member's question. I would not like

to give him any encouragement respecting the re-establishment of a militia unit at Fredericton, because we are trying not to increase the expenditure of the Militia Department. The Government, through the Militia Department, owns a great deal of property throughout the Dominion, and if I thought this a good time to put it on the market I would do so, but I am inclined to think that we would not be able to realize what we paid for these properties if we attempted to sell them now. However, if the city or the bank has any offer to make to the department it will be considered.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There has been some
employment of the Mounted Police in St. John in connection with immigration. A detachment of about six men go there each winter for that purpose. Of course, that is not a municipal expense in any way.
Amendment (Mr. Graham) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On Section 5, sub-section (2)-Officials:


Arthur Meighen: This does not imply
that even nominally there is any presumption that they are not still officers? Would it not be better to read-


George Perry Graham: When the Governor
General signs this bill and it becomes law, there is a new department created, but the old departments that become the new have passed out of existence. Under this act it may be presumed that all these appointments that we have in the departments now will be nullified. It might be presumed that their classification would be nullified-


Arthur Meighen: That is just the point.


George Perry Graham: -and the object of this section is to enable us to carry into the new department the employees of the old departments without having to go through all the formality of having the Civil Service Commission appoint them. In other words, their services would be continued, but any deviation from the principle of simply transferring a clerk from one department to the other at the same salary and under the same classification will have to receive the approval of the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: That would hardly go far enough. Do I understand the minister to say that so far as the exercise of this power does not consist in merely transferring an officer to a position of the same rank in the new department the Civill Service Commission will have jurisdiction just

National Defence
the same as in the case of a new appointment or promotion?


George Perry Graham: Yes. No power is given to the minister to place anyone in a new position without the consent of the Civil Service Commission. An example of a deviation from the principle which I have referred to would be this: an office might be abolished and the .employee transferred to a position of similar status and the same salary. We would ask the Civil Service Commission for authority to do anything of that kind.	'
Subsection (2) of section 5 agreed to.
On subsection (3)-appointment of officer to exercise powers of the deputy:


Mr. MARTELL:: Is it intended that the official here referred to shall receive, in addition to the salary of a deputy head of a department, extra remuneration as a member of the Defence Council?


George Perry Graham: Not at all. The Naval Service is peculiar in itself, as those who have administered that department know, and, for the present at least, the Government is desirous of retaining the services of the present Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, who understands the work of that department better than any one else, even the Deputy Minister of the Defence Department. In the Naval Service Department there are many technical branches, such as hydrographic surveys, radiotelegraphic service, and that kind of thing. I take the House into my confidence and say I want the authority to retain Mr. Desbarats, the present occupant of the office, as deputy to manage that part of the service, for a time, at least. He will receive no additional salary as a member of the Defence Council.


Lewis Herbert Martell: His salary as deputy is $6,000 a year?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have been fold that ths object of this provision is to give him $3,000 in addition, which would be unfair to the other deputies.	,


George Perry Graham: No, not at all.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: If you are going to have two deputy heads you will ,not accomplish what the bill sets out to attain. It is true that there are many branches of the Naval Service Department, but when they are all added together, the department is really an exceeding^ small one. The
proposal here is merely to change the title of the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service and take him into the Defence Council. He will get the same salary; he will rank as deputy head; to all intents and purposes he will occupy the same position ,that he occupies to-day. That is not an amalgamation at all. The late government brought together the Inland Revenue and the Customs Departments. In each of these departments there had been a deputy minister, but we let one go and brought the two services together under a single deputy head. I am satisfied that there is in the Department of Militia a deputy minister who can take care of the whole amalgamated service-a man of long experience, of great intelligence and capacity for work. It looks to me as if this proposal was put forth merely for the purpose of including somebody whom the Government did not want to displace and to continue him in the same rank and at the same salary. I would like to know more of the reasons for retaining Mr. Desbarats, or anybody else, in the rank of deputy head. The work can all be done by a single deputy minister. You can save $6,000 a year by striking out this subsection; I certainly am opposed to it.


Mr. MEWBURN:: A few days ago I commended the minister for his efforts in bringing these departments together, his aim being, as I believed, to bring about greater efficiency and economy. But I cannot see where the economy will come in so far as this particular appointment goes. In bringing the two departments .together there should be only one deputy minister. Of course, there would be at the head of the military branch the Chief of the General Staff, and at the head of the naval branch a technical officer whose advice could be sought in matters pertaining to that part of the service. But if the two departments are to be merged to have only one deputy head will result in greater economy and efficiency.


George Perry Graham: Yesterday my hon.
friends were warning me very strongly against depriving any official of his position; they seem to have changed their attitude since then.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


George Perry Graham: However, that is only on the side. Besides, I would not expect the hon. gentlemen to admit it so soon. My hon. friends who have presided over the Militia Department have never had the

National Defence

Naval Service under their jurisdiction, so I warn the committee-


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I 'had it for six months, with militia as well.


George Perry Graham: Well, that was temporary. No one has a higher opinion of the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence than I have. I have known him for a great many years; he is a man who has given great service to this country, particularly during the last few years,-service which, perhaps, we did not appreciate during the busy period of the war. But as I have said, the Naval Service is of a peculiar character, and the Deputy Minister of Militia, for a year at least, will have all he can do to work out the other branches. I do not agree with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that we cannot bring about any economy. Although the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, for the present at least, will be responsible for that branch we do propose to amalgamate the accounting staffs, the buying and selling staffs, and so on, and have the work done, as far as possible, in one office only.


Arthur Meighen: Whom will that staff
be under as a deputy head?


George Perry Graham: That will be by agreement, but largely, if not altogether, I think, under the Deputy Minister of the Defence Department. These economies can be effected without abolishing the position of Deputy Minister of the Naval Service. I have studied this thing for the last two months and I want to assure the House that the practical way of effecting this amalgamation is to allow us to retain the Deputy Minister of Naval Service to look after that branch of the department for a year at least, until we get the other branches thoroughly absorbed. I would not propose this if I did not think it was absolutely necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: That is practically the
organization we have now. We have a Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries now, Mr. Johnston, a Deputy Minister of Naval Service, Mr. Desbarats, and a Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Eugene Fiset; and the only change you propose is to take the Naval Service into the other department under the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, retaining the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, Mr. Desbarats, but calling him something else. That is not a consolidation or amalgamation, to my way of thinking. I feel sure

that you could drop Mr. Desbarats and carry out your scheme without him, saving the country $6,000 per annum. You would depend then for your guidance in regard to matters pertaining to the Naval Service upon an expert in that department. By the present scheme you are just continuing another deputy head, without giving him that name, saving the position perhaps for-what shall I say?-a friend, political or otherwise.


George Perry Graham: It makes a difference to my hon. friend, I suppose, who is being hit.


Arthur Meighen: It is not simply a
matter of saving $6,000, but once you retain the deputy head of that department, he is going to concentrate his energies upon holding the whole department. He will consider every time he gives up a man that he has made a surrender to the other deputy, and the other deputy in turn will consider that everything he does in the way of compromise is a surrender. In a word, the minister is maintaining an organization that will prevent him from accomplishing anything in the way of the object he has in mind. Perhaps not wholly prevent him, but it will prevent him to such an extent that he will never get very far. He is putting obstacles in his own way that he will find it very difficult to surmount. Why could not the same thing be done in this case as was done when the Inland Revenue Department was amalgamated with the Customs Department? Where are the different circumstances? The Inland Revenue Department had been wholly distinct from the Customs; the officers were distinct; the deputy head was distinct; the work was wholly distinct, just as distinct in every particular as is the work of the Naval Service from the work of the Militia Department to-day. But we let go Mr. Vincent, the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, and placed the two departments under the Deputy Minister of Customs. It is true we were not at all harsh with Mr. Vincent. He got a year's salary, 4 p.m. perhaps a little more, and I would have no objection to Mr. Desbarats being treated the same. But when you maintain the deputy head, you maintain the department, and there is no consolidation; you may call it consolidation, but it is not consolidation at all. The minister in the first ten minutes this afternoon, wisely, I think, dropped about half of this bill. If he insists on holding this clause, I^think he is dropping the other half.

National Defence


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am somewhat surprised at the apparent indifference of the minister to this point. As I understand the minister's attitude, it amounts to this really-that the Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs is so well posted in his duties that the minister desires to retain his services, changing his title, but paying him the same salary and allowing him to maintain virtually the same authority. For the clause provides that he shall "exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions vested in or exerciseable by the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service." Could a more complete definition of a deputy minister's functions be given than that? If he is to perform these functions it is not changing the status of the gentleman at all; but that is not what I rose to observe.
My hon. friend says that he is desirous of bringing these two departments together under one head. He admits that in the Deputy Minister of Militia he has an excellent officer who can handle the whole business. I am going to tell the minister and the House my frank and blunt opinion of the other gentleman, whom the minister appears to be anxious to retain. I have during the past eleven years gone to the Naval Service Department on many occasions, and whether it was through purposeful stupidity or absolute incompetence, I do not know, but I never could get from the Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs any satisfaction at all, and he is the only civil servant of standing in Ottawa I would say that about. But I did and have got the information I desired through assistants of his,-I could name two or three but I shall not do so-the chief officers of his staff, not naval officers, but civil servants in that department. They have been able to give me all the information I desired, and that courteous treatment which is due to any person in Canada from a civil servant; and they have exhibited a competence and a knowledge of the business of the department which transcended that of the deputy minister by i great deal.
Now if the minister desires to co-ordinate these two services, he has at his disposal excellent sub-officials capable of taking the lead as branch heads, without maintaining the two departments distinct and separate, as will certainly be the case if this clause carries. I hesitate to offer a resolution on the spur of the moment, but I think the minister would be well advised to consider the replacing of this official provided for in sub-clause 3 by a branch head, just as we have in a dozen different departments;
47i
-in the Interior, for instance, where you have several branch heads but only one deputy minister who is supreme over all the branches. I certainly think the minister ought to give a little more consideration to this than apparently he is doing. He is a very good-natured gentleman, but we want something more than mere courteous treatment. I think if he would let the clause stand and at another sitting of the House give us the result of his mature consideration, it would be better. Otherwise I think it would be desirable to take some action now in having the clause struck from the bill, but I do not wish to do that.


George Perry Graham: It is immaterial to me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think the minister should assume that attitude. I am not approaching this matter with any desire to destroy the value of the minister's effort. I approach it with a desire to assist the minister in obtaining what, I think, the House desires to obtain, namely, the amalgamation of the two departments.


George Perry Graham: I only rise to point out to the House that this is the first time I have ever heard of Mr. Desbarats being anything but capable and courteous. I know him well; I have known him for years before I came here. Sometimes of course in our enthusiasm even a member of the House will ask a deputy for things which he ought to ask from the minister, because the minister only has authority to do these things; some of them a deputy should not do. My hon. friend suggested, rather sneeringly, that I should give this matter consideration.	I can assure him
that I have given it consideration every day for the last six weeks, and I think I can arrive at a conclusion that will satisfy myself after six weeks study of a matter that he can dispose of in half an hour. I want to give the committee all the information possible.	My judgment and
the judgment of the Government, after fully considering this question of retaining the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, is that the only satisfactory way, under the conditions, to bring about this amalgamation, which must come about gradually and cannot be the work of a moment, is that the able deputy minister should be retained for the time being in his present position as head of the Naval Service branch..


Mr. CRERAR:: It does not seem to me that any very serious objection can be taken to the proposal of the minister in this respect. I have no desire to enter
National Defence

into any discussion of the merits or demerits of Mr. Desbarats. I have always understood he was a highly efficient officer, but, as I understand it, what the minister is proposing is that the services of Mr. Desbarats may be available for a period until the organization is complete, and he has given some reasons for that course. The clause authorizes the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, to appoint this officer. It is merely a permissive authority. I quite agree that a good deal of exception might be taken to having a department with two gentlemen in the capacity of deputy ministers, and I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of Major General Fiset. As far as I know, these gentlemen are both very capable men. It seems to me, however, that we should give some latitude to the minister in carrying on the reorganization, and my hon. friends to my right are scarcely quite consistent in the position they have taken on this question; because, if I recall aright, when this matter was first under consideration a few days ago, both my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who was the Minister of Militia in the late government, and his predecessor, my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), took the position quite strongly that officers in the Militia Department should be looked after. I believe that latitude should be given to the minister to carry on this re-organization in the way he thinks best for the service. If there are two deputy ministers next year, or the following year, and this Parliament is asked to vote their salaries, the question then can very well come up for reconsideration. We are not passing legislation that will put this matter away beyond our control. The principle is sound, and once the principle -of a bill is sound -and I think the minister's explanations are fairly reasonable in respect to carrying it out-then I think he should give the minister the necessary latitude to carry it into effect.


Mr. DUFF:: I think, perhaps, nobody in this House or outside of it has criticised the Naval estimates more than I have. I am opposed to the present so-called Canadian navy, for the simple reason that it is no navy, and never will be any navy, and is only a waste of money. But I agree with the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) when he says the minister should be given a chance to re-organize his department, and should have the advice, for a short time, of the gentleman who has
TMr, Crerar.j
been deputy head of naval affairs. I do not see how the re-organization is going to take place, in view of the fact that we now have only one cruiser and two destroyers, to protect the Atlantic coast from the people who may come down from Greenland some night and destroy all our cities, or to protect the Pacific coast from some other enemy who may come from Alaska. And this cruiser and these two torpedo boats, I may say, have been hibernating in the West Indies for the last six months. I say we have no navy, and the quicker we get clear of these boats the better, and the quicker we clean up the $215,000 voted last year for overhead expenses in Ottawa, in regard to the navy, which would be voted this year, the better. I say that the Minister of Militia should have a chance to keep Mr. Desbarats for one or two years, until the mess is cleaned up. I cannot agree with the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that Major General Fiset can do the work in connection with the Naval Department. Would the hon. gentleman say, if something happened Major General Fiset, and he resigned, that Mr. Desbarats could do his work in the Militia Department? Of course he could not. Neither could Major General Fiset, good a man as we all know he is, do the work which Mr. Desbarats does in regard to naval affairs. I say, certainly, let us have economy, not only in this department but in other departments, but for the present, much as I am opposed to the so-called Canadian navy, and much as I would like to see the whole thing wiped out, I agree with the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) that for the present Mr. Desbarats' services should be retained.


Hugh Guthrie: As I understand the
proposal, it is not merely for the present time, or in the nature of a temporary proposal at all. The hon. gentleman from Marquette intimated that during the process of reorganization it would be well to retain Mr. Desbarats. This is a permanent arrangement, not for the process of reorganization at all. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) says that it is necessary to retain the services of Mr. Desbarats for a year or two years, and let us do it. If that were his suggestion, it would alter the situation very much.


William Duff: Could we not amend the
act next year?


Hugh Guthrie: We can amend any act of this Parliament whenever we like, but

National Defence
we must go on the assumption that this is a permanent arrangement and not a temporary one. That is what the bill says, and it says nothing about a temporary arrangement, so that we must assume and presume that it is the ordinary permanent appointment. I draw a strong distinction between a person in the position of Mr. Desbarats and a person in the position of one of the higher offices of that department, to whom I referred a few days ago. I thought I made myself clear on that occasion; if not, I shall try to do so now or later on during the discussion of this bill. I say that we should retain as far as possible the services of those men who, through their ability and experience, and through gallantry in the field of action, have risen to high command and high military positions. That is a principle, I submit, that we should maintain.
Subsection 3 of section 5 agreed to.
On subsection 4-Controller:


Mr. CARROLL:: I ask the Minister of Militia, have they a purchasing commission connected with the department, or is it just one officer in the department?


George Perry Graham: We have a purchasing department, but it has no connection with the Purchasing Commission. I pointed that out the other night that two or three of the gentlemen in this department are doing the work of clerk. They were on the list of the Civil Service Commission. They were given the title of "assisting purchasing agent," and they are doing the work in the department. And this department, and all departments, whether they purchase through the Purchasing Commission or not, are responsible for their requisitions, and the details afterwards pass through the Purchasing Commission for confirmation.


Hugh Guthrie: If I understand aright, the position of controller, to be created under this section, is largely that of a chief accountant or a paymaster-general or something of that kind. He is not a purchasing agent in any sense of the word. He is in the nature of a chief accountant in the department.


George Perry Graham: I tell the House frankly I have not seen the man, and have not appointed him at all, and possibly I may transfer some one in the department, but with my casual observation in a large department of this kind I think the financial end could be managed more successfully if they have a shrewd financial man to oversee all the expenditure of money in the
department particularly as the other branches also are being brought in. I was calling him "financial comptroller," and my object was to get a good, able business man, whom I could consult in connection with all expenditures of every branch of the department, a man who would be responsible to myself and the deputy head for every dollar expended.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is this the creation
of a new position?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How was the financial end of the department handled before?


George Perry Graham: We have an accounting branch, an audit branch, and a paymaster's branch, and it maybe that I may take one of the men in charge of these branches. I admit I had in mind doing something else. If we were running a business of this magnitude as a private concern, we would have some man of the description I have given, and he could possibly save his salary in a month. If, in the department, there is a man of that capacity that I could appoint to this position, it would be my object to do so; but if I did not find such a man, I wanted to feel free to go into the business world to find one.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: The minister is on
absolutely sound lines. I know, from my short experience while f was in charge of the Militia Department, there was sadly needed a capable business man to oversee the finances of the organization.
Sub-section 4 of section 5 agreed to.
On sub-section 5-holder of any position abolished' may be appointed to another position:


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is there in the Militia Department a practice whereby a man who occupies a certain position under which the department should have all his time, is given some other work to do which he should do in his time, but for doing this work, he is given another salary?


George Perry Graham: I do not know of a case except that of a deputy minister in several departments, who have a combination of salaries. As to the ordinary civil servant, I do not know of a case. I have been asked that question several times in communications, and I asked my department to make investigation, but up to date, I have not found such a case.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the minister not
think it would be fair to the House and to
National Defence

the country to give a deputy minister a straight salary without giving him so much for this and so much for that? In that way, the people would know exactly what salary he was receiving.


George Perry Graham: The salary of my
deputy minister has been explained in this House several times. I shall be glad to explain it again, but I think the question is hardly germane to this discussion.


Mr. CHURCH:: I hope the minister will not overlook the importance of retaining those high officials of the Militia Department, men like Sir Henry Burstall and Major-General MacBrien. It has cost a great deal to produce military experts like those men, and their services are necessary. While the principle of the bill, which is to effect co-ordination of and economy in the various branches of the service which have to do with the defence of the country, may be all right, I am of opinion that if these military experts were retained, perhaps in another sphere of activity under this clause of the bill, they could effelet a great deal of economy. I do not think the country expects very much curtailment in military expenditures; you may spend a great deal of the nation's money and not get very much for it. The question is not the amount of money which is spent, but how it is spent. I hope the minister will not overlook the fact that highly trained officials like these can save the country many millions of dollars, not only in the Department of Militia, but in other affairs. Officers whom I have consulted in No. 2 Military District, the Toronto District, are of the opinion that it is a retrograde step for the Militia Department to lose the services of these high experts , at such a critical stage in the ' history	of this
country, just after the war and begin everything over again. At such a time as this we need the services of these trained men and we should retain them. I feel that an economy will be effected by retaining their services, and I hope the minister will consider the suggestion which I have very humbly made.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister tell the committee which of the principal officers are likely to lose their positions in the service by reason of this amalgamation? In the papers we have seen that Major-General Sir Henry Burstall and Major-General Gwatkin are both to be allowed to retire. Are any of the other chief officers to be retired likewise?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to be held as making a pledge, because conditions might change, but there is no need for alarm. The suggestion of dispensing with the services of any of these officers has not been considered at all.


Hugh Guthrie: The point is simply
this that the minister is dispensing, or has dispensed, with the services of one of the most experienced and one of the highest in rank of the officers in Canada. I think the retirement of Major-General Sir Henry Burstall has already taken place officially. As I understand the matter, he is now out of the service, and so, I believe, is Major-General Gwatkin. In the case of the latter, the facts are not quite the same as they are in regard to Sir Henry Burstall. Major-General Gwatkin is a very able Imperial officer, who came to Canada shortly before or during the war, who has remained in Canada since and whose services were of the greatest value to Canada during the war. I understand that Major-General Gwatkin is entitled to an Imperial pension. At the conclusion of the war, he was virtually retired or retiring from the service, and his services were enlisted by the Canadian Air Board. For the past year and a half or two years he has been in charge of the Canadian Air Service, and it may well be, in his case, that retirement is proper. I know that he has no very great desire to continue in the service, and he rather helped us out in a situation which we had on hand a year or two ago. His services to Canada, however, have been of the highest. He is a very able and tried experienced officer, a man who made his mark in the Imperial service long before he came to Canada.
The case of Major-General Sir Henry Burstall is a litle different. That officer is a Canadian, a man now of military age, I believe only 51 or 52 years old, a man who joined the Canadian service as a provisional lieutenant away back in 1888 or 1889, a graduate of our Royal Military College, a Staff College man-for he went to England and took there, at the expense of this country the course which many of our leading officers have received. He there obtained that special and particular knowledge which is so hard to acquire, namely, the knowledge that is necessary for a staff officer. The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) a day or two ago mentioned in the House that staff officers were, perhaps, not as highly appreciated by ordinary individuals as they

National Defence
should be. But there is no question about the fact that the greatest difficulty in time of trouble is to secure competent staff officers. It is not a hard thing to get an ordinary officer. He can be trained easily and without much loss of time. The staff is a very different thing. It requires a long course of training, and for that reason we in Canada for many years back have been accustomed to send a number of our most prominent and most promising officers to the Staff College at Cam-berley to take the necessary course. Only a few days ago General Sir Arthur Currie discussed the question with the newspapers in Montreal. He strongly objects to any proposal to retire Major General Sir Henry Burstall from the service. He points out that you cannot easily get men to fill positions like his. We want in the service men who have the qualifications and experience. We have trained such men and paid the expenses for that training, and these men, who have acquitted themselves well, have now the advantage of four or five years' experience of actual warfare. They are thoroughly competent and in every way equipped, by education and otherwise; and now because there is a re-organization of the Militia you let out one of the most effective and useful of officers. Is there not in this re-organization some place where a man like Sir Henry Burstall can be utilized? Can he not be put in charge of some necessary and suitable work in order that the valuable services of which he is capable may be retained? Surely hi3 experiences and his ability are worth a lot to the country. Why dispense with him? That is the point I want to have cleared up. I sincerely trust that all these officers on the headquarters staff who have had experience are going to be retained- The minister does not want to bind himself in respect of them, but here is a specific case where a man has already been retired. Again I ask, is it not possible in the Militia of this country to maintain the services of a man who has done such excellent work and acquitted himself so admirably, and who should be a very valuable officer in the department?


Mr. MANION:: As one of those who served at the front, I may say that General Burstall, who was a staff officer over there-


George Perry Graham: He was more than a staff officer.


Robert James Manion: Yes, he was in charge of the Second Division, and I met him in
the lines on many occasions. There was no man I know who served over there, with the possible exception, of Sir Arthur Currie, who had a higher standing with the men of all ranks than General Burstall. I desire to do him that justice. I am aware that the minister himself spoke highly of him the other day, but it has been a puzzle to me,, since reading in the press that he is to be retired, with a pension, I believe, to understand, on what grounds he is being dispensed with. As the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) has said, no man in Canada has a better standing in military matters than General Burstall.


William F. Carroll: If the stand taken by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) were to be taken as a sound basis for the department to go upon, then I should think that care would have necessarily to be taken of every man who made a splendid record at the front in the war. I have no doubt that the gentleman in question not only made a splendid name for himself, but also enhanced the reputation of the Canadian soldiers. We must remember, however, that thousands of other men did exactly the same thing, though perhaps they did not all win so brilliant a name.


Hugh Guthrie: But I have referred to men of the permanent force who in their boyhood agreed to serve the Government of Canada in that force, and have done so ever since. Now the Government is turning them out.


Mr CARROLL:: My hon. friend is now, of course, on safer ground. But we are coming to the time when we shall have to reduce the expenditures of the Militia Department, in common with all the other departments of Government, and it is essential that we make a beginning. And because a man has given the best in him to the service of the permanent force of Canada is, I submit, no reason why he should be retained if he is not required. Not only that, but an hon. member tells me that this gentleman is getting a pension, which I hope is a reasonable pension for one in his position. I do not think that that is an unreasonable ground to take in a matter of this kind. Personally, I hope that the time will soon come when we shall be able materially to reduce the burden of the Militia Department, and I trust that the minister in the next few years will be able to rid his department, always under fair and reasonable terms, of very many of those who are now employed in it, and
National Defence

who are not actually giving, in the present condition of the country, services commensurate with the salaries they are receiving.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I do not wish to
weary the House with any long quotations, hut I read a few days ago a speech made by General Sir Douglas Haig, who, as we know, was in command of the British army in France. In unveiling a memorial at Camberley Staff College, which I think is recognized as the greatest staff college in the world, General Haig said:
In the desire to retrench, and especially to economise on defence forces, there is a great danger that governments may go too far. The staff has always been a favorite target for those who do not understand either it or its functions.
Further on he says:
A nation industrially efficient and with a sound national character can improvise much in war, as our history in the war has shown; but principles are things that cannot readily be improvised. They have to be evolved by deep study and clear thinking through many years, tested often by the touchstone of experience. Our two staff colleges and the "p.s.c." officer gave us the sound military principles on which the war was fought and won.
He goes on to speak of the work of staff officers in France and also of the necessity for ensuring that future generations shall reap the benefit of their experience. I quote further:
Whatever a nation may do, it is a mistake to imagine that an army can muddle through a great war and reach victory at the end against an efficient and highly trained enemy. The handicap we started with from the smallness of our military forces could never have been overtaken if the pre-war training of our regular army, the military education of its officers, and its system of organization and command, had not been all on the right lines. It is no small consolation on such an occasion as this to feel and know that the work done in those old prewar days has been amply vindicated.
Let those who write ignorantly of the safe and easy life of the regular staff officer come and study this memorial, and remember that this is not the full tale of officers who held staff appointments and gave their lives in the war-
And so on. Whatever the minister has in mind regarding any reduction in the staff, I do hope that the country will not lose the services of those officers who made good in the war, who distinguished themselves, and who are now able to impart their knowledge to the generation that succeed them. I sincerely trust that other officers to come will have the privi-* lege of acquiring some of the knowledge and experience which these others have gained.


Mr. CLARK:: There is an impression
in the House which I desire to correct to some extent, namely, that these officers who are now in the permanent force are there of their own desire. To my knowledge a great many of the senior officers are men upon whom great pressure was brought to bear to remain in the service after the war. Most of the others were already in the permanent forces. By far the majority of both senior and junior officers retired and went back to their civilian occupations when the war was over. As one hon. member put it the other day, those officers returned to the plow, and returned gladly, and to-day they are doing their duty as citizens. But certain officers and noncommissioned officers who devoted themselves exclusively to the service before the war and won the seniority in the field, have remained in the service under pressure, brought to bear by the Department of Militia when the war was over. Those are the men, I think, whom the country wants to see retained, the men who know, and those are the men who, if we are ever again faced with war, will be responsible for organizing our military force on a basis which will enable it to be administered efficiently, and so save the lives of thousands of men who might otherwise be sacrificed. Had Canada been equipped with the officers who to-day are in the Militia Department, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that thousands of our soldiers would not have been sacrificed as they were. The same condition applied to the British army and to every other army in the late war. Has it ever occurred to hon. members why Germany was able to withstand the onslaught of so many other nations? Mr. Chairman, it was because at the outset she had the benefit of a thoroughly trained and organized army. If we cast aside the men who have the knowledge and the training, we are, so to speak, cutting our own throats, and if another war should occur the absence of these trained men may mean the sacrifice of our sons to no purpose.
Subsection 5 of section 5 agreed to.
On subsection 6-provision for retirement, etc.:


George Perry Graham: If economies are to be effected it is possible that the services of some of the minor officers may have to be dispensed with on account of the work being diminished. Such a case as this might arise: an officer at the time his services were dispensed with might be

National Defence
*within one year of the conclusion of the term which would entitle him to a pension. Under this subsection I want to make it possible for him to qualify for his pension.
I have been considering it for the last day or two, and I think we would be sufficiently generous if we changed the three years to two.
In reply to my hon. friend in reference to the gentlemen he has named, I fully agree with everything that he has said regarding their qualifications both as gentlemen and officers. I do not like to discuss in Parliament the names of such distinguished men. I might say, however, that Sir Henry Burstall had attained the highest position possible in the militia, what we call the blue ribbon-he had become Inspector General. I think I was not ungenerous in my recommendation, for he was entitled to a pension. I repeat, I do not like to discuss these gentlemen in public, because certainly it is no fault of theirs in the way of lack of qualification cr ability that they are being retired. The record of Sir Henry Burstall and of General Gwatkin is well known to all of us and will bear comparison with the record of the most distinguished military men in any country.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think there is a serious principle involved in this clause. Having been a member of the Pensions Committee of this House fur two years past, if this clause carries I do not see why the returned soldiers should not ask that their disabilities be considered, although they occur two years after their discharge from service. I think you are establishing a very dangerous precedent in passing this clause, and so far as I am personally concerned I do not think it is wise to entertain it. I am again a member of that committee this year, and I feel that the idea of adding two or three years to the length of service in order to grant a man a pension is absolutely unsound. I know of many cases of real hardship under the provision of our Pensions Act, that if a soldier's disability occurs after a certain limited time after his discharge he is not entitled to a pension. But if this consideration is to be extended to the men affected1 by this bill, I think the Pensions Committee will approach their duties next week with a very different idea as to what is just and right in regard to pensions for disabled men.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is in error and is apparently confusing entirely
different classes of pensions. This has nothing to do with the Pension Board.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand that. This is a Civil Service pension.


George Perry Graham: There are several acts involved in this clause, but it does not give a pension to any person-


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: It is not a disability pension at all.	.


George Perry Graham: That is it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand that.


George Perry Graham: It does not give a pension to any person who is not entitled to one; but it does put us in a position to deal a little more generously with officers or civil servants who have to be retired. It does not deal with pensions for disability due to war service; it applies to another act altogether.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I thoroughly understand that, but I cannot help thinking that the minister is confusing the point. This man would not be entitled to a pension unless he had one, two or three years' more service than he actually had to his credit at the time of his retirement. Therefore by giving the Governor in Council authority to add from one to three years to this man's service he is entitled to a pension which he would not otherwise be qualified for. I understand that it is not a disability pension, -but a civil service pension. I have no great quarrel with civil service pensions, although there is a considerable body of opinion that holds the principle to be rather unjust, for people in all walks of life do not get pensions when they become too old to work. * Personally, I think civil servants should be paid salaries sufficient to enable them to accumulate enough during their official life to provide for their old age. If they are to be given a pension, I think they should contribute as those do who receive the benefit, for instance, of an old age pension fund.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: Of course, other pension acts are involved here-what is known as the Calder Act, and any other Civil Service pension law that may be in force. But under the Military Pensions Act the contributions of the members of the permanent force made the fund absolutely self-sustaining. That condition, of course, could not prevail during the war, when the casualties became increased beyond anything we had ever experienced.
National Defence


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That puts a different aspect on it. I had understood that the Government contributed large sums toward these civil service pensions.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: This is a military
service pension, not a civil service pension.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I still contend, however, that this clause is unsound. I am sure that hon. members have been disappointed in the minister's civil government estimates, as, indeed they have been with nearly all civil government estimates so far brought down. The Finance Minister made it plain the other day that the Government had not said they would practise economy this year. I was a little disappointed in that.


Mr. FIELDING:: Oh, no; I did not say
that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Well, that they had
not made any statement with regard to economy; I do not want to misquote the minister. We certainly expected a saving in the Militia Department by the co-ordination of these different arms of the service. We all feel that in the years to come, expenditure for military purposes should be reduced, and I see no reason for increased expenditure now under the head of civil government in connection with the administration of this branch of the service. I do not approve of this clause, and I do not think it should carry.


George Perry Graham: I move that subsection
6 be amended by striking out the word "three" in line 26 and substituting therefor the word "two."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
On section 6-regulations:
Hugh Guthrie: What is the meaning
of the words "such regulations as are deemed necessary or advisable?" Would not "necessary" be sufficient?


George Perry Graham: It is the usual wording,
I suppose; I am not accustomed to the intricacies of legal phraseology. Certain regulations which might not be absolutely necessary might be advisable for the purposes of economy or for other reasons connected with the proper carrying on of the work of the new department. All the regulations which have been promulgated

in connection with these different branches will have to be revised, and the new regulations will embody all the necessary features of the old ones.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-powers vested in ministers and deputy ministers under various acts, to be vested in Minister and Deputy Minister of National Defence:
George Perry Graham: I move to strike out
on page 2 all the words from and including the words '"the Royal Canadian" in line 38 to and including the words "Revised Statutes" in line 41. The purpose of this amendment is to strike out all the words relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-functions of Defence Council:
George Perry Graham: I move that the words
"Air and Police" in line 33 be struck out and that the words "and Air" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. George P. Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence) Bill No. 14, to amend the Salaries Act and the Senate and House of Commons Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1:
George Perry Graham: The object of this bill is to make it possible to pay the head of the new Defence Department, whose title is being changed by the bill we have just reported.
Bill reported.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF THE ADDRESS
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor

Supply-Public Works
General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my Speech at the opening of Parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Bins op Vimt, Government House, Ottawa.

House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Civil Government-Public Works-salaries, $5S3,035; contingencies, $94,000.


Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) :: When these estimates were under discussion on Tuesday evening last, there was a desire expressed by some of the members of the committee for a fuller explanation with regard to the transfer of certain employees from the
5 p.m. engineering branch, outside service, to other branches of the service. At that time I stated that these officials were not permanent officials, had not been classified and admitted into the service as permanent employees, and that being temporaries, they would naturally come under the contingencies vote. I find that that statement is confirmed by a letter written in October of last year, when the chief accountant advised the Auditor General that it would be necessary on account of these transfers being of temporary officials to have them put under the contingencies vote instead of the outside vote. I think that explains the situation satisfactorily. It was also suggested that I should give the committee the total expenditure last year under the civil government vote. I find that the expenditure last year amounted to $557,545.52. It was also suggested that I should explain the item at the bottom of page 96 of the Estimates, "To provide for new appointments if required, $5,000." That item is to provide for unforeseen expenditures. It may become necessary to make one or two new appointments this year, and it is for that reason this item has been put in.


Hugh Guthrie: Should that really not be counted as a contingency? Is it customary-as far as my knowledge goes it is not-to put an item under details of civil government such as appears at the bottom of page 96, " To provide for new appointments if required, $5,000 "? I would think that was a contingency if ever there was one, and that if a new appointment is necessary or desirable during the year it
would be charged to your contingencies vote. In the minister's statement, it will be noticed the total expenditure under contingent account in this department was $557,545.52, while the estimate last year was $620,000. Therefore, there was a saving of about $63,000 in the estimate of last year. That makes a pretty favourable showing for last year. Then during the present year the estimate is $583,000 plus $94,000 of contingencies, being far in excess of all that was spent last year, and in addition, I point out, referring to the last line on page 96, they propose to take power to spend $5,000, without knowing what they want it for. I submit that this $5,000 should be struck out, and- that the expense, if incurred at all, should be charged to contingencies. If the Government knew what they intended the money for, or what work had not been done that they wished to provide for, I could understand the item, but at present I think it should be struck out.


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: My hon. friend realizes, I think, that the same item was carried last year in the Estimates, and it was for a very good purpose, because the private secretary's allowance was paid from that item last year.


Hugh Guthrie: Why should it not be paid out of contingencies?


John Warwick King: Under the act I am advised the Auditor General would not allow it.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Under contingencies,
there is an item " Clerical and other assistance, $31,000." Would not that cover any possible new appointments that might be required for which you put in the $5,000?


John Warwick King: I am advised that it would not carry a permanent official, a private secretary, or officials of that character, but that it would carry temporary employees.


Arthur Meighen: Permanent officials, of course, should be named. Their offices should appear in the item. That is the 'reason the Auditor General would not allow it to be charged there. They should appear among the officers, detailed, one by one. Why provide a salary for the employment of officers that this House knows nothing about?


John Warwick King: I think the
right hon. gentleman realizes that in a de-
Supply-Public Works

partment spending some $15,000,000, cases might occur where a new official would be required.


Arthur Meighen: He could be taken on temporarily.


John Warwick King: It occurred last year when the same vote was shown in the Estimates and it became necessary for the minister to charge under that vote the payment of his private secretary, and the amount is not an unusual one. You find it in other departments, and it is placed there for the purpose of meeting any unforeseen condition that might arise.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister not think the principle is wrong? I assume we did it last year. I do not know whether we did it or not, but the minister states that we did, and we will assume we did. Is it not a wrong principle to have a vote in contingencies for clerical and other assistance of $31,000 and then, in addition to that, to vote $5,000 to provide for another contingency? If any extra assistance is required during the present year, is it not possible and proper to pay, out of the contingency vote, for clerical and other assistance? If you charge it to that account, will the Auditor General not pay it? I can understand that if you were making a permanent appointment the Auditor General might say " I cannot charge that to contingency account." But as my right hon. friend and leader has pointed out a permanent appointment should be specified directly in the Estimates. What I object to is carrying a contingent vote for clerical assistance of $31,000 on one page of the Estimates, and another contingency vote, of $5,000 blank, at the bottom of page 96 of your Estimates. You have really two contingency accounts and I think one of them should be stricken out. I appeal to the minister's own judgment. Is it not fair and proper that the $5,000 item should come out, and if the minister will suggest it, I think the committee will act upon it.


John Warwick King: I can assure my hon. friend that, as far as I am personally concerned this item in the estimates is there if necessity requires. I trust it will not be required or used. But these items were presented to me on the basis on which they were made out last year. You accepted that estimate last year and thought it was a proper one, and I, in the short time I have been in office, am not disposed to disturb

that estimate, but if it is not required it will not be used.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the principle upon which we vote money in this House. The minister must show to the House in some reasonable manner that the money is going to be used. We do not give a blank cheque. We do not say "We will vote you $50,000, and if you do not use it, well and good". Some scheme must be laid before the committee on which they can act. My hon. friend comes before parliament and says this was there last year, and it is there this year. Well, if it was wrong last year, I suppose it is wrong this year. Unless there is some reasonable explanation of why that $5,000 appears in the estimates, I think it should be struck out. If the contingent vote for clerical assistance is too small, it should have been made $36,000 instead of $31,000. Does not that suggestion appeal to the common sense of the committee? Why have two contingency votes in the estimates of one department. If they want more than $31,000, make it $36,000. I think that $5,000 item can be eliminated.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I sympathise with the
minister. We all know he has been thrown suddenly into something with which he is not familiar, but I draw attention to the fact that last year the amount for clerical and other assistance was placed at $15,000, and this year it is $31,000. There is an increase of $16,000, or, if you take the whole item, you find an increase of $7,600. Now, surely, if you are going to add $7,600 to contingencies, you do not want the $5,000 to which reference has been made. If you strike out the $5,000, you still have $2,600 more for contingencies than you had last year.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend must understand there are two contingency votes here, apparently. This $5,000 I tried to explain was the contingency vote for the permanent service and may not be required. It might not have been required last year, but experience did show it was required last year to pay the minister's secretary, and as far as an increase of $16,000 under contingencies is concerned, I took occasion the other night to point out that last year, under the general vote in the engineer's department, these officials had been carried, but that this year some thirteen of them were being transferred. They would be paid this year from the contingency vote, having been transferred from the engineers' vote of last year. I do not think I can make that any more definite or clear.

Supply-Public Works
There is a certain amount required for the payment of a number of civil servants. Last year they were paid from the engineering vote. This year they are going to he paid from contingencies.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is the engineering appropriation reduced?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :: Why
is the average salary in this department nearly $400 higher than the average salary in the Department of Agriculture? Is this department more important to the country than the Department of Agriculture, to justify this condition?


John Warwick King: I would think, perhaps, the explanation would he that, in the Public Works Department, you would have a larger technical staff, men drawing, probably, larger salaries.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The
average salary is about $400 higher in the Department of Public Works than in the Department of Agriculture.


John Warwick King: More technical, I think would be the explanation.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is partly the explanation and also this, that the Department of Agriculture has been expanding more rapidly than has the Public Works Department. The officers in the latter department, as a consequence, are older and have been in the service longer, and, as a result of that, they, perhaps, enjoy a little higher classification. The more recent the appointment of officers, the lower would be the average salary.
I quite admit that the minister's explanation as regards the $5,000 item is clear; there is nothing in the way of ambiguity about it. I know what he is saying; I know what he means; but the comment I make is that it has no force. The minister simply says, as to this $5,000: "It was there last year."


James Horace King: And used.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. Possibly
last year there was no provision, in the usual way, for the private secretary, and the minister made provision in this way instead. That explanation may have been given-I do not know. But the minister knows whether he needs this for his private secretary or not; and if he does not need it, why have this special appropriation? I have looked through about one-half of the Estimates; I have not had time yet to go through them all; but so far as my
information goes, I cannot find such a vote anywhere else. The minister's reasoning would be just as good if he said: "The appropriation last year for clerical assistance was $15,000; that was right, so I will take it this year." He does not say that; he says: "I want $16,000 more," and the only reason given is that he is taking in thirteen men from the engineering branch. Does he need them in this service? If he does not, why does he not let them out of the engineering branch, as last year we let out numerous employees. What does he need the $5,000 for? Where is the work? What does he require the extra $16,000 for? Where is the work?


John Warwick King: As regards the thirteen men to whom the right hon. gentleman refers, these have been in the service for many years.


Arthur Meighen: They have not been in this service; they have been in the engineering service. Does the minister need them in this service? What is the work?


John Warwick King: Some of these
people have been in their present positions for a number of months, one from August, 1, 1921, another from October, 20, others from January, 22, March, 20, July, 19 and so on. They are gradually being placed in vacancies that occur from time to time in other branches.


Arthur Meighen: That is in the engineering branch?
Mr. KING (Kootenay) No.


Arthur Meighen: That is what the minister has been saying. They have been in the engineering branch and paid under that vote.


John Warwick King: They have been in other branches of the service, but heretofore they have been paid out of the estimate for the engineering branch.


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand the minister to say that their duties are not being changed at all; that they are doing just what they were doing before?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then what is the explanation of the change in the Estimates?


John Warwick King: There was last year a memorandum to the Auditor General from the Chief Accountant advising a change in payment in this way. It was suggested that owing to their being temporary employees and not permanent, they should be paid from contingencies. That
Supply-Public Works

is a matter of record. The memorandum states that these men were employed for a number of years prior to 1919 in the engineering branch, their appointments having been made on the order of the then Minister of Public Works without reference to the Civil Service Commission, and without any certificates being issued by the commission in any of these cases. It further states that their positions have been classified by the commission; that recently, owing to the shortening of the staff in the engineering branch, these men have been transferred to other branches to fill vacancies as they occur; that they are doing purely civil government work, but that as they have never received certificates of permanent appointment, it is impossible to charge their salaries to the appropriation for civil government salaries. That is I imagine, the reason why the change was made.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say that
some time ago, owing to the contraction of the other branch and their being required in civil government work here, they were transferred but continued to be paid in the engineering branch. That is the explanation.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That has some force
with me, but now the minister is back on his $5,000 estimate. What of it?


William Stevens Fielding: The minister, finding
that appropriation last year, might be pardoned for copying it and considering that it was required. I think, in the matter of preparing estimates, it would have been better, if, as in other departments, an amount had been inserted for the private secretary^ If, however, the item was in the Estimates a year ago, I do not think we can blame the minister for continuing it. If he has the private secretary to pay out of the vote, clearly he will have only a small amount left.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister would
say that it is required for the private secretary, then he would be giving an explanation that the committee could consider. He has not said that, and I presume the private secretary is provided for.


John Warwick King: We are carrying the proper allowance for the private secretary over and above this.


Arthur Meighen: Then the explanation,
so far, shows that this is not required.


Mr. GOULD:: Possibly the minister
would answer a question that would apply to every other department of government. Who are the minister's advisers who compile these lists?


John Warwick King: The heads of
the various branches of the departments are the advisers. This item of $5,000 is immaterial to me and it may be dropped. It is put in there by the officials of the department, and it very distinctly says what it is for-perhaps not an unwise provision -to provide for new appointments, if required.


Arthur Meighen: That is a wrong principle, one that I cannot find elsewhere. I accept with pleasure the minister's suggestion that it be dropped.


Oliver Robert Gould: There is, as has been shown by an hon. member, an average difference of $400 between the salaries paid in this department and in the Department of Agriculture. I understand the reply to be that a greater degree of technical knowledge is required in this department. When the Minister of Agriculture had his estimates before the House a few nights ago it was distinctly shown that that department was in dire need of experts. The minister even declared that he was unable to secure enough money to obtain the experts in the entomological, research, and other branches necessary to combat the various pest nuisances which agriculture has to contend with. Now it appears that this department can and does afford to pay an average of $400 more in salaries to its officers than the Department of Agriculture can pay to their men. I have persistently contended for the past two years in this House that the Department of Agriculture has the right to pay the same salaries to its officials and technical men as this or any other department pays. The Department of Agriculture, I hold, should be put on the same basis as this department in the matter of salaries paid to expert men.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It was shown the other night that the Department of Agriculture had lost two of its most valuable men because their salaries were not sufficient. They had better offers abroad which they accepted. I do not think that that department should be discriminated against in that way.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. King (Kootenay) that

Supply-Finance
the item be reduced by $5,000. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Governor General's Secretary's Office: Salaries, including Governor General's Secretary, addition to salary authorized by K. S. c. 4, $3,600.
Contingencies, including allowance of $600 to A. P. Sladen, Private Secretary, $66,600.
William Stevens Fielding: There is absolutely no change from last year; the totals are the same. The salary of the Governor General's secretary is paid in part by vote of Parliament and in part by statute.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the full salary of the Governor General's secretary?


William Stevens Fielding: Parliament votes $3,600 and $2,400 is [provided for in the Revised Statutes. That has been the practice for many years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Finance-salaries, including the Deputy Minister of Finance at $10,000, and the Librarian at $2,000, $413,545 ; contingencies, $50,000.
William Stevens Fielding: Thsse estimates follow closely the estimates of a year ago. The number of officials is substantially the same, and in the total amount there is a small reduction. There are two special increases to which I shall refer in a moment. Apart from this, whatever changes are proposed are due to the classification and the usual statutory allowances. There is one item which at first sight appears to be a new one: accountant, grade 6, at $4,020. There is no corresponding sum in that estimate a year ago. There is, however, really no change, the gentleman being already in the service. He is merely put into another grade. He begins now at the salary he has hitherto enjoyed, 'but in his new grade he will have an opportunity of climbing up- There is an increase in connection with the librarian. That is a special recognition to an old gentleman who is now considering an early retirement. The effect will be to add a little to his slender retiring allowance, and I think that in consideration of the circumstances the committee will hardly take exception. The larger and important increase is that given to the deputy minister. I find that several of the deputies are receiving $10,000 a year. I think it will be admitted that the Department of Finance is as important as any other department of the Government.
As a matter of fact, I know, and my predecessors no doubt know, that in more than one instance we have lost capable men from the department because of the insufficiency of salaries. It will be agreed, I believe, that if $10,000 is a fair salary for a deputy minister in any other department, the like salary ought to be paid the deputy minister of the Department of Finance, whose position is certainly not less important than others. I ask the committee to vote this sum.


Arthur Meighen: It is true that the Deputy Minister of Justice receives $10,000, but I am not aware at the moment of any other deputy that gets this salary.


William Stevens Fielding: There are others.


Arthur Meighen: I think that the Deputy Minister of Militia, being a member of the council in some way, gets that salary, but he does not receive the extra amount as deputy minister of the department. If I remember rightly, he draws just $6,000 as deputy. If there are any others who get a higher salary I have never known the fact. I do not dispute that, to get the right man to fill the responsible position otf Deputy Minister of Finance, it is necessary to pay the salary proposed, but I fear that unless resistance is shown this practice will spread rapidly. In the Department of Justice, it must be admitted, to get a man of the capacity requisite for the position of deputy minister, you cannot pay less than is given to-day, and the country would lose infinitely more in a week by having a deputy minister of inferior ability than it would lose in a year by giving the additional pay. It is a position requiring a professional man of the very highest order. In this department the reason for the increase can be differentiated, but I hope these increases will not proceed further, because if we have just one more instance I am afraid a similar increase will go all through the list-. While I am on my feet may I ask, is the report correct that to make room for the Minister of Public Works another officer was added to this department, namely, the elected member for the constituency nbw represented by the minister; and, if so, is that reflected in this vote?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not touched by this vote.


Arthur Meighen: It will be in another
vote.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Supply-Finance

Mr. HOCIfEN: The minister gives two contradictory reasons for making these increases. He first increases a man because he is inefficient or has reached an age when he ought to retire. He has increased the salary of the librarian because he is going to retire, and I presume if he were an efficient officer he would be retained. Then the minister increases the salary of another officer on the ground of efficiency. I would point out that if the House adopts this increase, next year you will have to pay the Deputy Minister of Public Works $10,000, and that will carry from him to the Deputy Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Minister of Railways, and so on to all the other departments.
It will be observed that the deputy ministers' salaries have been fixed generally at $6,000. Now you fix one of them at $10,000, and naturally and inevitably every deputy minister will want to be placed on a par with that increase-he will feel he has a right to it. I doubt very much whether the Deputy Minister of Finance has any heavier responsibilities than the Deputy Minister of Public Works. The Public Works Department requires a permanent head with a great deal of experience and ability and, sometimes, resistance, and so far as the actual work and worries of office are concerned I think the Deputy Minister of Public Works should get more salary-if there is going to be any difference at all-than the Deputy Minister of Finance.
My argument is this, Mr. Chairman, we fixed $6,000 as the salary of deputy ministers; that was an increase of $1,000 on the old scale. Now, that strikes me as being a pretty good salary. We will say that these men are capable and efficient; I believe they are. But the $6,000 that they earn is as much remuneration as they could command in private employment if you take into account that when they retire from the public service they get a retiring allowance. Let a man go into private employment at a salary of $8,000, or possibly $10,000-a substantial increase, it may be said, upon the government scale; but it must be remembered that when the private employee ceases to be able to work he has to fall back upon his own reserves, while a man occupying the position of a deputy minister falls back upon the pension list and continues to live at the expense of the country when he retires. I submit therefore that if you 
take that into account and a good many other things also, a deputy minister is much better off. For instance, a man in private employment has to make good in everything-he has to show results or he loses his job. On the contrary, a man in the public service is not required to make good in the same way, and that is an important consideration when you are fixing salaries. Take that into account as well as his pension, his short hours of work, and all the other advantages and perquisites of his office, and I submit that $6,000 is good pay for a deputy minister.
These deputies were satisfied to accept $5,000 until a couple of sessions ago, when the salary was raised to $6,000. This looks to me, Mr. Chairman, like the beginning of an agitation within the service to boost the salaries of deputy ministers, and they have selected my hon. friend's department as the place of attack.
I would warn the House that if this increase is granted we may expect every session to be met with demands from deputy ministers for a similar increase.
It does not seem to me that this is the time to add $4,000 to the salary of a public official. If $6,000 was enough during 1921, it is surely enough now, and it is going to be worth a good deal more as time goes on. Conditions are stabilizing in this country-they must if we are going to carry on-the cost of living is coming down, but the rate of salaries is going up, and not going up by small increases, but by chunks of $4,000.
I think this proposition is simply out- [DOT] rageous, and I am surprised that my hon. friend, who has preached economy so effectively all through the country, should be the first to propose a sixty-six per cent increase to one official in his department, knowing as he must, with his long experience in this House, that every deputy minister will be clamouring for similar treatment. I am sure he is putting upon his colleagues a load of responsibility from which they should shrink, and which should have led them to say to him: " No we won't make this increase this year." I submit that this $4,000 should be struck out. I notice all the way down that there are increases. I presume that these other increases are made in accordance with the Civil Service rates, and are statutory-I do not know whether I am right or not-but certainly we should not add four-sixths to the salary of one official

Supply-Finance


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Mr. Chairman, it is quite refreshing to And ourselves now in an absolutely different position to any we have heretofore been in when considering the estimates of a minister who knows very well exactly what ought to be done in his department, and who, besides that, is very deeply concerned in all matters of economy. In the first instance I would point out that we find ourselves in this happy position, that at least so far as one department is concerned we have in charge an authority who knows exactly what ought to be done, and he admits that that department was economically and properly administered by his predecessors. I also wish to point out to my hon. friends to the left that so economically was that department administered that the average salary there is only $1,124.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may not be an evidence of economy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is my hon. friend taking into account the defalcations?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am glad to say that those defalcations do not amount to very much. Certainly there never should be defalcations, and the late government did everything it could to discover just what they were and to punish the defaulters. But I am not taking that into consideration, nor was my hon. friend when he was considering salaries. Another time perhaps we might say something further about that matter, but this is not an appropriate occasion.
As I say, the average salary of that department amounts to only $1,124 a year. Now there is a slight increase in numbers, so it cannot be said that we had too many employees there. As to the duties of the office, I do not think that hon. members really appreciate the weight of responsibility that does rest upon the officials of that office. At one time the finances of the country were of a very different character to what they are to-day. To look after the national debt alone imposes a tremendous responsibility upon the Deputy Minister of Finance. What the minister has said in connection with the difficulty of keeping men in that position who can do the work is perfectly true. I know what the troubles have been in the past, and I appreciate my hon. friend's troubles now. I am convinced that the work is cheaply paid for at $10,000 a year. I endorse very thoroughly what
my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) said, that this vote ought not to be made use of for the purpose of increasing other salaries generally. I would like to ask the minister whether or not the auditors who have been going through the department are proceeding with their work and whether it is his hope, as it was mine, that we shall be able to get as a result of this examination such a system of preaudit as will make impossible any further defalcations. We have to-day accountants and book-keepers in every department. My idea is that that is an entirely unnecessary expense; we ought to have everything of this kind brought into the Finance Department. The Minister of Finance should have proper control over the country's finances, something which he has not at the present time.


William Stevens Fielding: I thank my hon. friend for his explanations and comments. The auditors to whom he refers are still engaged in the work, and I have every reason to believe that they are doing it efficiently. No doubt good results will ensue.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is the age of the deputy minister?


William Stevens Fielding: The age of the present deputy minister is fifty-nine. The minister himself does not confess to any such age.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister is still a very young man. It was the deputy minister, not the minister, about whose age I was inquiring.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 
William Stevens Fielding: The Civil Service Commission have nothing to do with fixing that salary. The deputy minister is not subject to Civil Service rules.


Archibald M. Carmichael: For how many years is this 66 S per cent increase to be continued?


William Stevens Fielding: From year to year, as it pleases Parliament. The vote comes before Parliament every year. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) was slightly mistaken in several respects. In the first place, I regret that his watchful eye did not perceive this thing at an earlier period; the attack which he says is being made might have been made some years ago. There have evidently been allowances to deputies that he has not been



S upp ly-I mmigration
aware of. Several deputies receive $10,000 a year; as a matter of fact there is one other official in the Finance Department who receives that sum. There has been much talk about the lower officials not being well paid. I think if there is any room for criticism it is that the higher officials and technical officers who have large responsibility are not sufficiently paid. We must pay these men enough if we are to keep them. With reference to the remark of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), I may say that the Deputy Minister of Finance has been nearly forty years in the service, but in asking this increase I am thinking not only of the man, but of the office. The time is not far distant when the deputy minister will wish to retire, and I think we ought to provide for this office a salary which will attract a good man. I am persuaded that in this case it is not wise to have an underpaid man.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Immigration and Colonization-salaries and contingencies, $263,265.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):: Last year the vote for salaries was $193,257.50; this year it is $213,265, an increase of $20,007.50.


Arthur Meighen: How much of the $193,257.50 was spent.


Charles A. Stewart: All of it. The annual statutory allowances approved by the Civil Service Commission are, for the lower grades. $60 per annum; for the intermediate grades, $120, for the higher grades, $180. These amount to $7,932.50. The increase in rates of salaries of officials reclassified during the fiscal year amounts to $5,685, making a total of $13,675.50. There were but two actual increases in staff, occasioned by the appointment of a secretary to the deputy minister at $1,500 and a female investigating officer at $1,230. Six officials included in the civil government contingencies this year, and accounting for an increase in that vote of $10,000, were paid out of the general contingencies vote last year, and were therefore not charged against civil government contingencies in 1921-22.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You mean, they were paid out of the vote for the outside service?


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly. There was one male investigating officer, grade 1; one female investigating officer, grade 1; one clerk-stenographer, one accounts-stenographer and two junior clerk-typists at $600 each.

The contingency vote is based on the actual amount expended last year, and includes the necessary funds to meet the travelling expenses of our head office officials, printing, stationery, temporary clerical assistance, and sundry expenses. The amount of $40,000 voted for 1921-22 has been found insufficient to meet these expenses up to March 31, 1922, and the department has been obliged to obtain a Governor General's warrant for $12,000, which amount will be included in the supplementary estimates for 1921-22. The accountant tells me that $2,000 of that $12,000 is unexpended, and although the books are not actually closed for the year, it is expected that only $10,000 of that Governor General's warrant will be spent. Hence we are asking that $10,000, the amount expended under Governor General's warrant last year, be added to the contingency vote for the coming year.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was attending the
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture before six o'clock and, therefore, I was not in touch with what immediately preceded the rising of the committee at six o'clock. I wish to ask the minister in regard to Mr. Duncan Marshall, to whom reference was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The minister will remember that when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were before the House, we queried him regarding the payment of this gentleman and the purposes of the trip he was undertaking to Florida. The Minister of Agriculture, I thought rather unkindly, turned the responsibility over to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). As a matter of fact, I think it is a little unkind on my part to press for information from him, because I think he is wholly innocent of offence in this regard, and has been perhaps the victim of one of the mysterious temptations which we understand are now current in this Green Chamber. But we were told by the Minister of Agriculture that Mr. Duncan Marshall had been sort of wrested from him by the Minister of the Interior. He said that frequently there was a sort of exchange made between ministers regarding officials of the depart-

Supply-Immigration
ments, and the Minister of the Interior had pressed very earnestly for the loan of this brand new $6,000 official. The Minister of Agriculture also said that Mr. Marshall had been sent by the Government to Florida on a mission in connection with immigration. I should like to ask the minister (Mr. Stewart) to tell the House very frankly exactly what Mr. Duncan Marshall's mission to Florida was, and I desire to say to him, so that he will not be taken by surprise later, that I am frightfully sceptical of the strict accuracy of the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that his mission was in any way closely identified with a necessary public service, and I think we might as well know frankly what Mr. Marshall is doing in Florida, why he is down there, and why the public money is being spent in that way.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be very glad indeed to answer the hon. gentleman. I have never been in Florida and cannot speak with authority with respect to the advantages of sending one of our officials down there. However, Mr. Marshall is not an official of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Tolrnie, who is in charge of the exhibits of the Department of the Interior, went to the Tarnipa Fair and put on an exhibit largely because, I am informed, it is the rendezvous of a very large number of Americans from the central states, who go down there and spend the winter months. He asked that a lecturer might be sent down to address a gathering on one of the days designated as Canada's day. Mr. Marshall was here and available and was sent down to deliver one address on a day specially dedicated by that fair to Canada. He made the trip, was gone one week, and for that time the department had not the services of Mr. Marshall.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister not think that is some distance to send a man to make one address before the class of people who would be assembled at Tampa, Florida, for the exhibition of the wares of Florida? What object could be gained for the country is a mystery to me. If . there is one part of the World from which we expect no immigration, it is the sands of Florida, where they grow oranges and pineapples, and where people go to sit by the fireside and to spend their time keeping alight the last flickering tapers of their lives. That is what they go from the central states for.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. It is not the old people who go there from the central states. There is a large temporary population, who remain there for several weeks, and a number of families from Iowa go there, if my information is correct. I am aware of the fact that it is a winter resort, and a great many people from Canada and the northern states go down there.
I quite agree that they would not be induced to come to Canada, and I do not want to be dragged into a discussion of what is going to happen in the central states, as far as immigration is concerned, but there is not any doubt that we are going to get a considerable number of people from the central states, if information coming to hand is correct.


Arthur Meighen: The Hast people we would get would be people from the central states who go down to the Tampa exhibition. They are well-off people who have time to spare, and who are in the evening of their days.	,


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is wrong again.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, I have been down there myself, but only for about three or four days, and it would take the minister a lot more time than this evening, and tomorrow evening, and all this session, to convince me that there was any bona fide purpose of getting immigration, or interesting people in immigration, by the visit of Mr. Marshall to Tampa, Florida.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps the whole question of the Canadian exhibit, so far as the Department of the Interior was concerned, was a mistake. However, I found him down there on an expedition which must undoubtedly have cost a considerable sum of money, and I am informed by Mr. Tolmie, Who is in charge of the work, that it was a considerable advantage to Canada. I cannot speak authoritatively. I am only voicing the opinions of the officials.


Arthur Meighen: How many others were there ?


Charles A. Stewart: I think two others, in addition to Mr. Tolmie.


Arthur Meighen: Four altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. MEIGHEN. The cost would run into many thousands of dollars.
Supp ly-Immigra tion


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot say. I have no information.


Mr. MACLAREN:: I notice the appointment of three new officials as immigration investigating officers. What duties do these three new officials perform?


Charles A. Stewart: They are not three new officials; they are promotions. I explained that before the House rose at six o'clock. There is an addition of two, one being secretary to the deputy minister, the other being a female investigating officer. Those are the only additions to the staff. They may have different titles, but they are officials who were in the department.


Murray MacLaren: What does the female investigating officer do?


Charles A. Stewart: She
might perform any number of duties.


Murray MacLaren: I asked what duties she performed.


Charles A. Stewart: Naturally, she would be carrying on investigations in connection with female immigrants who come to our ports. She might be investigating the question of females who were subject to being deported. She is simply an addition to the woman's organization of the department.


Robert James Manion: There is, throughout the country to-day, a widespread feeling that one of the very important necessities of Canada is a proper immigration policy. I should like the minister, if he can find it convenient at this time, to tell the House and the country something of the plans which he intends to put into operation to bring to Canada greater immigration than occurred during the years of the war.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
ask my hon. friend to delay that request until the general estimates are taken up. Before they are passed, I intend to take some time in explaining to the House some things that we propose to do in the way of securing immigration. Frankly, I am not in a position at present to go into the matter. There are still pending some questions that I would like to have settled. I think it is known that I am getting assistance from the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low), the hon. senator Dandur-and and the hon. senator Bostock. We have some matters on which we have not definitely made up our minds, and in regard to which we are desirous of recommending some changes. I am not, at this time pre-
pared to speak upon those matters, and 1 would prefer to cover the whole field when we take up the immigration vote.


Arthur Meighen: It is a fact, is it not,
that, notwithstanding the war, which, of course, stopped all immigration and, indeed, caused emigration for war purposes, there was more immigration to Canada in the last decennial period prior to the census than in the ten years preceding?


Charles A. Stewart: I could
not speak authoritatively with regard to that. I have not made an examination of the reports for the years mentioned by my right hon friend. Perhaps that information is correct.


Arthur Meighen: I find it in the census
statistics. I was struck by the fact that it was so touch out of harmony with speeches made in the late campaign by the minister and his colleagues.


Robert James Manion: W'hat are the figures of
the immigration into Canada from 1915 on?


Charles A. Stewart: The
figures are:
1915		 144,789
1916		 48,537
1917		 75,374
1918		 79,074
1919		 57,702
1920		 117,336
1921		 148,477


Arthur Meighen: 1913?


Charles A. Stewart: 402,432.


Robert James Manion: I knew these figures
roughly myself because I had seen them a short time ago; but the reason I asked for them was that I wanted the minister to point out to the committee what is really a fact and something the people will be pleased to hear. While an immigration of 48,537, in 1916, was the lowest figure reached by this country in many years, even before the late Government went out of power, immigration had got back to 148,477. Therefore, the country, it seems to me, may feel well assured that immigration into Canada is coming back to what it was before the war; that is, so far as we wish it to come back. I shall be very much interested when the minister makes the statement he speaks of. I hope, when his estimates come up, he will be able to give the House a complete statement of what plans the Government proposes to carry out.


Mr. HOEY:: How many native-born
Canadians left this country for the United States during the past decade? I have in my possession an announcement that re-

Supply-1 mmigra tion
minds me that a million and a half native-born Canadians have left Canada for the United States since 1911. I think the country should know that.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if I could give the number of native-born Canadians who have left Canada, although the census figures will show it, in comparison with those who came to Canada as well as the birth rate. To say just what proportion of those who left were native-born Canadians, would be rather difficult.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That statement has been given wide publicity. It was published recently in Maclean's magazine. From personal observation, and from looking at the matter from the viewpoint of a detached and disinterested student, I believe the statement to be absolutely true. Some one said that, in the old days, the test before you could get into the asylum for the insane, was a water test; that is to say, a water barrel without a bottom, was * placed in a certain position. There was not, I am told, even a false bottom in it. The man who was seeking admission was asked to carry water and to put it into this bottomless barrel. If he continued to carry the water without protest, he was considered a fit subject to enter. If he refused, why he was turned out. It seems to me that we might seriously consider the advisability of stopping the leak.


Robert James Manion: While I cannot contradict the figure given by my hon. friend, I should very much doubt if any such number as one and a half millions left Canada for the United States in the last ten years, and I do not think any such statement can be proved. The minister should, at the very earliest opportunity, give the exact figure if it is possible to obtain it. I believe a figure has been given, but that included, not only native-born Canadians, but any others who might have come to this country from any of the countries of Europe.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Admitting that, does the
hon. member not think that a tragic situation in view of the fact that we ought to have better opportunities in this young nation for men to make a living, and that we would have, were it not for the economic policies that have been followed ever since Confederation by both historic parties in this country?


Robert James Manion: Can the hon. member tell me why so many people are emigrating from free trade England?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the hon. member
think that the comparison is fair, as between Great Britain and Canada at this stage in the development of both countries?


Robert James Manion: Well, we might compare Great Britain with Germany. Before the war the protectionist policy of Germany was increasing the population, and the movement was into that country and not away from it.


Mr. MORRISON:: That was during the last two years before the war, when they were preparing for the fight.


Mr. THURSTON:: What extra travelling does the' minister propose for his officials this year, and for which he wants this additional $10,000?


Charles A. Stewart: The
estimate for the past year was $40,000. In addition, an Order in Council was passed granting $12,000 to meet expenditures for the year 1922. That does not appear in the Estimates; they did not spend the full $12,000, having still $2,000 on hand. We are simply asking for the actual amount spent last year.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is there more business in the department than previously? There is practically no immigration to-day, and I think that we might do without the vote entirely.
Mr.	JOHNSTON	(Last	Mountain) :
There is a vote of $6,000 for a deputy minister. How long has the deputy been in the department? Was he in the service and in this particular department before he was made deputy?
Mr.	STEWART	(Argenteuil) :	Thl
appointment was made either at the end of September or about the 1st of October.
Mr.	JOHNSTON	(Last	Mountain) :
How long had the department been without a deputy before he was appointed?


Charles A. Stewart: This is the first deputy.
Mr.	JOHNSTON	(Last	Mountain) :
Does the minister consider the work of the department sufficient to warrant this new appointment? Although a vote went through last year for the same amount, the minister says that the appointment was made in the fall of the year. Does he intend to keep this official?


Charles A. Stewart: My experience with the department is brief, but I
Supply-Immigration

have seme important things to say about the Department of Immigration. I do not agree with the hon. member who said that we should wipe out the whole vote, because I think that if the department were utilized in the way it should be, very substantial results could be obtained. I do not desire to be in the slightest way understood as reflecting on the work of the department in the past, because I know nothing about what it has done. I do know, however, that once you place the agriculturists of Canada in the position in which they should be, you will 'have a field for immigration into Canada. When you have done that you will need a Department of Immigration, and having charge of four departments, I think that if there is work enough for a minister in this department there should certainly he work for a deputy.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad to hear the minister say this, because it is evident that the Government intends to make agricultural conditions such as to encourage im- * migration into Canada-something that, I think, is sadly needed.


Arthur Meighen: It would be still more interesting if the minister would tell us what means he hopes to adopt.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister is asking for $4,500 for a commissioner of United States immigration. Has this official to do with immigrants coming from the United States exclusively?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister give, roughly, some comparative figures to show the immigration from the United States as compared with other countries, so that we may judge whether this official is warranted.


Charles A. Stewart: The following are the figures showing the immigration from the United States:
1915.	.
1916.	.
1917.	.
1918.	.
1919.	.
1920.	.
1921..
59,779
36,937
61,389
71,314
40,715
49,656
48,059


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What was the immigration from other countries in 1921?


Charles A. Stewart: All the other countries are apparently grouped together, Great Britain and the United States being separate. The immigration from 
Great Britain, during the years I have given, was:
1915..
1916.. 1917. .
1918..
1919..
1920..
1921..
43,276
8,664
8,282
3,178
9,914
59,603
74,262


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Apparently there are more immigrants coming from Great Britain than from the United States. At least, there were in the last two years of the period. Now what are the duties of this Commissioner of United States Immigration? I suppose he must have a special office with some assistants, whereas the immigration from Great Britain does not seem to require a special official.


Charles A. Stewart: There are nineteen offices in the United States at which immigration agents are stationed. I cannot give their names and locations, but that will come up in the general vote. Mr. White, who is in charge, is an officer of considerable experience in American immigration. Since taking charge of the department I have frequently consulted him. He is here at my request as I am anxious to get the views of the man on the ground. He visits the various offices scattered throughout the United States from the Pacific as far east as Chicago. He supervises the work and generally keeps in touch with the activities of the various agencies that seek through advertising and other methods to obtain suitable immigration.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This work is all under his supervision.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. McMASTER:: Have we any proper method of determining the number of people who leave Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give a very definite answer with respect to that, but offhand, I think it would be difficult to arrive at the correct figures. Of course, the census returns would give some indication.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems to me it is just like keeping your accounts on one side of the ledger only, if you count the people coming in and do not count the people going out. As most people travel by rail, and as our immigration officers are on all the trains, I think these officials might as well count the people going south and those

Supply-I mmigration
going north. We cannot have any real knowledge on which to base a proper immigration policy unless we have all the facts, and I would urge upon the minister to take counsel with the able men of his department in order to devise some method of obtaining these facts. I think they can be obtained.
Let me add, that while we are passing estimates it is the most tiresome thing in the world if members will not speak out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -It is annoying not to hear the question as well as the answer. The acoustic properties of this Chamber are excellent if members will only speak in something higher than a conversational tone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If you talk as if conversing to a friend in a small room, you cannot expect to be heard in a chamber of these dimensions.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I would suggest that our immigration agents in the United States be instructed to receive native-born Canadians when they arrive there and help them to get comfortably settled; also to keep a record of the total number who go over there every year.


Mr. EVANS:: Does number five on the list, Chief Inspector of Immigration, mean a medical inspector?


Charles A. Stewart: The inspector in question is Mr. Percy Reid, who has charge of. the western section. Mr. Little has charge of the eastern section.


John Evans: As to medical inspection?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.


John Evans: How is this medical inspection carried out? It seems to me that some of the present regulations dealing with the inspection of immigrants on the other side of the Atlantic are decidely obnoxious. I am advised that this medical inspection is conducted in a most unscientific and unsanitary manner. An old friend of mine coming across not very long ago told me that not only the immigrants but the saloon passengers boarding the ship at Liverpool were subjected to unheard-of indignities, an officer using his fingers to manipulate the eyelids of each passenger, without cleansing his hands between each operation. It did not matter what any of these passengers were suffering from, whether barber's itch, cancer or granulated
eyelids, it was all the same to this officer, and as a result of the rough and unsanitary method adopted one lady suffered very severely with her eyes all the way over.
I believe in thorough inspection of immigrants, but surely it can be done in a scientific and humane manner. But apparently the Liverpool treatment is mild compared with what takes place on this side. At .the port of landing here is where the real embargo begins-a kind of slaught-ered-on-the-dock, as it were. It is a shameful thing for this nation that men and women of all classes are herded together in pens waiting for inspection. I think that state of affairs should be altered at once.


Mr. SPENCER:: I am going to give the House the type of advertising that was circulated in the States some years ago to attract immigrants to this country, because I hope that future advertising will not be along the same lines. Referring to the western provinces, where settlers were invited to take up land, the advertisement ran something like this:
It was a common thing up there for the farmers to grow from forty to fifty bushels of Number One wheat to the acre. What one man can do, another can do. Those farmers up there have more real money to spend than any other people on the American continent.
We have been wondering why people attracted to this country by such immigration pamphlets do not remain here. Is it surprising that immigrants become disgusted, and leave when this sort of pamphlet entices them to pick up gold bricks, and instead they find a lot of hard work. I hope that this is not the sort of advertisement that is going to be circulated in future, unless we want to lose most of the immigrants who are attracted to this country by such misrepresentation.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would like to add to what has been stated by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) in regard to medical inspection on the other side of the Atlantic. I have a case on my hands now of a Scotch family, the members of which bought their tickets and checked their baggage about a year ago. After they had gone through the preliminaries and were ready to sail, a doctor stopped one of the children, a little, girl, on the ground that she was mentally deficient. These people had sold all their goods in order to put themselves in funds for the voyage, and as a result of the doctor's action they had to postpone their voyage, and go to work, boarding out all the time. After a year the doctor finally passed
Supply-Immigration

the girl, and the family are ready to come to Canada, but they have spent all their money and are unable to pay their passage. Surely there is something wrong with the machinery of inspection when a case like this can happen.


Charles A. Stewart: I intend to deal with a great many of the questions that have been raised by hon. members with a view to prevent the recurrence of such cases as have been mentioned, but I regret that I am unable to do so to-night because we have not yet come to any definite conclusions as to what is best to be done.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: I notice that the staff of this department has been increased by six. The minister shakes his head. Well, one hundred and twenty-six and six make a hundred and thirty-two, which is the number given for the current year. What is the explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: Simply this: two of them are additions-the secretary to the deputy minister, and the female investigational officer. The others were in the department, but were paid last year from the general contingencies vote; they are now transferred to the civil government vote.


John Frederick Johnston: When were these two added?


Charles A. Stewart: In September and October.


John Frederick Johnston: Just about the time the new deputy minister was appointed. I wanted that answer in relation to my other question about the deputy minister. The right hon. leader of the Opposition stated the other day when the estimates of some other department were under consideration that when a new deputy head is appointed, he wants a staff. That is proved here; we have a new deputy head who takes on two people.


Arthur Meighen: Just one, I understand.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; the other, the lady investigational officer, was attached to the women's branch.


John Frederick Johnston: She would con. a under the supervision of the deputy, would she not?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not think so.


Arthur Meighen: I understand she came on some time before the deputy was ap-

pointed. As regards the Department of Immigration, I would like to make one comment in view of certain observations that have been made. Up to the war our immigration had increased almost continuously. It was at its highest point just before the war-some 448,000 in one year. The population undoubtedly was increasing-not, of course, at the full speed of the immigration returns and of the natural increase as well, but, proportionate to that, the increase was equal to that of any other country. The United States itself has a tremendous immigration. Every country in the world has immigration. It is true, as my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) says, that the immigration into Germany was the least marked of all, particularly subsequent to 1878. But every country, particularly every northern country, has immigration. Our immigration figures are most satisfactory up to 1914. Naturally the war practically put a stop to immigration; everybody knows the reason why. With the cessation of hostilities the Department of Immigration was reorganized to meet the situation. The returns for last year show results; the returns for this year, I have not the slightest doubt, will show good results as well. Indeed, we might have had hundreds of thousands more immigrants-and no one knows this better than the minister himself-had we opened the doors and let them in. But the laws of this country, and the will of the people reflected in those laws, are such that we do not propose to open the doors indiscriminately to immigration. A great deal of the expense, a great deal of the executive activities of the department, are directed to the selecting of immigration, the weeding out, at the proper point for doing so of those who come. I should be sorry indeed to see anything in the way of slackening of energy on the part of the Immigration Department. Certainly there is work enough there for a good deputy; the bigger and the abler the deputy, the better results we are going to have. If there is any department of government in which I would like to see increased rather than diminished activity, it is the Department of Immigration and Colonization. Furthermore, in western Canada at the present time, as all of us know, there is a great voluntary movement, a big voluntary organization, which is interesting itself in colonization. I have not myself gone fully into the details of its organization, but I know many of those who have put them-

Stipply-Immigration
selves behind it and are determined to make it succeed. That organization should have close relations with the Department of Immigration and Colonization, and the work of the two together should, I think, go a long way to solve the problem of peopling the near-railway lands of western Canada. The time now is not to talk about slackening down the activities of the Immigration Department, but rather to speed them up. We are sufficiently past the war to get the impetus we need so much in this country. The nation that is going to succeed best in the post war period is the nation that directs its immigration policy along soundest lines and puts the most horse power and momentum behind it.


Mr. JELLIFF:: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the slightest idea of saying anything in regard to these estimates, but I wish to support as strongly as I can the remarks that have just been made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). If ever there was an occasion for liberality in connection with our immigration policy, it is the present. It is only a year or two since, under the influence, I presume, of the leader of the Opposition, something like $500,000 was appropriated by the government to carry out surveys and plans for the redemption of southern Alberta through the irrigation projects that have been set on foot in that province. I want to give the hon. leader of the Opposition credit for hard work and painstaking effort in connection with these projects. Now, what is our position to-day? I am not going to depend too much upon my memory to-night, because I did not expect to speak on this subject. But of the 12,000,000 acres to the south of Calgary that are within the boundaries of the area affected by the drought, 5,000,000 acres approximately are in the hands of farmers. In that area there are 20,000 farmers, or, allowing four to each family, a farm population of 80,000. With the help of the government they have started to lay out and extend their surveys to redeem that whole country from the affliction of drought. Let me point out to you what that means. Take Lethbridge as a centre, and draw a circle which will include the affected area. In 1915, the year of our bumper crop in that part of the country, we shipped from that area 41,000,000 bushels of grain. In 1916 we shipped
39,000,000 bushels. A dry season followed, and in 1917 the crop yield dropped to
about 18,000,000 bushels. The drought and the dry seasons continued, and in 1919 only 4,000,000 bushels were shipped from there.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the
hon member's attention to the fact that we are on item 7, the vote for immigration and colonization.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I will attempt, Mr. Chairman, to connect this up, if you will allow me to place a few figures before the committee. The area which in 1915 produced 41,000,000 bushels of grain for shipment, produced in 1919 only 4,000,000 bushels. In 1919 we shipped 4,000,000 bushels only, but 1920 was a better year, with more moisture, and our shipments rose to 19,000,000 bushels. Then last year again we had dry conditions and our shipments decreased to 7,000,000 bushels. So you will see how important a national problem it is when production drops down to almost one-tenth between the years 1915 and 1919. There is only one way to solve the problem and that is to place the farmers on a basis where they can depend upon sufficient production to make a living for themselves and their families, and the way to do that is to introduce artificial irrigation throughout that territory. That is what we are doing. Those farmers have bonded their farms for that purpose to the amount of $40 per acre.
Now the application my remarks have to the item under discussion is simply this: This is a question of colonization. The individual farms out there are large in area, and the farmers, in order to make a success of irrigation, must subdivide their farms into plots not exceeding 160 acres each, and engage in a more intensified agriculture. For that purpose immigrants have to be found and brought into this country who are acquainted with irrigation methods. That must be done through the Department of Immigration, and the department must have sufficient funds available and enough men at its disposal to go out into the irrigation districts of the United States and carefully select immigrants who have had experience in irrigation methods. Every town and every city in southern Alberta is interested in this question; our railroads depend upon it, and I trust that when the minister brings down his final estimates they will contain an appropriation to help fill up that southern Alberta country with a suitable class of immigrants who will help subdivide these lands and bring up their families on them.
762	COMMONS
Supply-Customs and Excise
If that is done that whole territory instead of being a liability, as it has been at times in the past, will be a positive asset to the whole country. I might mention that in the Budget recently brought down by the government of Alberta quite a sum of money is provided for this same immigration work, which really should be carried on by the federal government, and I think I am quite within my rights in urging that this Government should at least go fifty-fifty with the province of Alberta in backing up that project and settling the country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Do I understand than my hon. friend has moved for an increase in the vote for that purpose?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: No, I simply suggested
that the supplementary estimates should contain an appropriation for that purpose.
Customs and Excise-salaries, $559,385 ; contingencies, $48,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: I notice that there
are in this department 94 clerks, costing $125,250, who are engaged in statistical work. As this is not constructive work, I think we could pare down the item by at least $100,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have been doing a little research work in respect to the cost of civil government in this country, and I find that in respect to the Department of Customs the total cost of civil government twenty years ago was $41,690: ten years later, in 1913, it had risen to $276,000, and the amount which my hon. friend is asking the committee to vote this year is $559,000. That is a very considerable growth. The expenditure has practically doubled in ten years, for the Department of Customs alone.


Jacques Bureau: The Inland Revenue Department does not exist separately now; it is merged with the Department of Customs.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is still an increase of over $200,000. Perhaps my hon. friend could give some explanation of that very considerable increase.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend has quoted the figures of ten years ago. Ten years ago we collected $73,000,000 at a cost of $2,187,174.76. In 1921 we col-9 p.m. lected in round figures, $209,000,000 at a cost of $5,000,000. As my hon. friend knows, these estimates cover both Customs and Excise. I would point out that although in item 13 on page 8 there is an apparent increase of $10,745, that is [Mr. Jeliff.l
really a sub-normal increase. The normal increase would 'be about double) that amount. We have 231 clerks in the service who are entitled to statutory increases, and if conditions were normal the salaries of last year would be increased this year by $17,945. Now, there is an increase of $10,000 which I may explain. Some hon. gentleman referred to a remark which had dropped from the lips of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that when a new minister came in he wanted a staff. I think it is only right he should have one, and when I was on the other side of the House I always advocated that, not only should a minister have a staff of his own, who should follow his fate, and when the minister goes out should go out with him, but that the members of the House are entitled to secretaries of their own. I do not think it is right that we should send our private papers down to a room where there are 50, or 60, or perhaps 100 stenographers, and where the papers would be open to the curiosity of all-comers. But this increase of $10,000 is due to the fact that we have taken advantage of a clause of the Civil Service Act, which provides that in any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable, in the public interest, to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exclude such position or positions in whole or in part from the operation of the act. Under that recommendation, the commission have excluded certain positions; for instance private secretary, secretary-clerk as they call him, and the secretary to the executive, one senior clerk-stenographer, one clerk-stenographer and one confidential messenger. That accounts for the increase. As I said, if things were as usual, we would have the ordinary amount of salaries, plus the statutory increase of $17,945, but this increase, with the $14,160, will make a total of $32,105. The salaries of nine positions, amounting to $12,630, have been discontinued during the past year, and a reduction of $8,730 has been effected by promotion, transfer, etc., making a total saving of $21,360, or a net increase of $10,745. I may say that the positions to which the minister was allowed to make appointments in his department are those which I have enumerated, secretary clerk, $3,360; secretary to the executive, $1,860; senior clerk-stenographer, $1,630, clerk-stenographer, $1,260, and confidential messenger. So that this is not an increase, it is a subnormal increase.

Supply-Customs and Excise


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not quite understand the minister. Does he say there are twenty-five less employees now?


Jacques Bureau: Apparently, there are
nine less.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought he said there was a saving of twenty-one employees. Amounting to how much in money?


Jacques Bureau: $12,000 odd.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When did that take place?


Jacques Bureau: That took place during the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When?


Jacques Bureau: I could not say the date.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the election probably.


Jacques Bureau: Before and after.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
after?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot say from
memory, but I know I have seen cases where the positions were not filled.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how many positions were dropped, whether by complete retirement, or under what is known as the Calder Act, prior to the end of the year in his department? I think he will find that before he had any opportunity to reverse the policy very considerable economies were effected there.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed not in the inside service.


Arthur Meighen: They were nearly all in the outside service, but these were in the inside service; I think there were nine anyway before the end of the year, besides scores in the outside service.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed not, but I have not had time to go through all the -I do not know how to qualify it-all the doings of my predecessors. I have no doubt I will have a job when I go into it, but I will go into it and give the information to my hon. friend. If he wants credit for all the good that he has done, I am not in a position to refuse it, because I do not know anything about it, but next year I will be able to give him credit for all he deserves, and blame him where he deserves it, and I have no doubt upon which side the balance will be.


Arthur Meighen: Nor have I. The
Postmaster General has a much larger department, and he is no abler a man than the hon. gentleman. How was it he was able, three or four days ago, to give us all the information while the Minister of Customs, whose department is not of the magnitude of the Post Office Department is not able to give us that information?


Jacques Bureau: If it will soothe the feelings of the right hon. gentleman, I will bring it down. You cannot expect me to have all the information at my finger-tips. The Post Office Department may have more officers, but they are not scattered all over the Dominion, and they have not as difficult duties as the officers of this department.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the other minister was not afraid of giving credit to us for the work we did.


Jacques Bureau: I have never been afraid to give credit to hon. gentlemen for what they have done, because it has not amounted to much.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry the minister has a sort of off-period to-night, but we will wait in patience.


Mr. MILLER:: Does the question of liquor export in Saskatchewan fall under this department?


Jacques Bureau: No, that would come under the outside service; this is only the inside service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is for external use-not internal.


Mr. BRETHEN:: I notice here that a sum of $548,640 was asked for 1921-22, and the sum of $607,385 is asked for 1922-23, so that we must accept the minister's explanation of the sub-normal increase, but I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the imports had decreased from $1,-
305,593,000	a year ago to $778,702,000, why there should not be a decrease in the expenditure?


Jacques Bureau: I may answer the hon. gentleman that we have not only to collect the revenue, but we have to protect the revenue. Now there has been put under the charge of the Customs Department the sales tax, which involves a lot of work, the prohibitive legislation and the bonding of liquor in the dry provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: What provinces are they?
764	COMMONS
Supply-Customs and Excise


Jacques Bureau: Provinces that are supposed to he dry but which are importing more liquor than the wet provinces,-for export purposes, I suppose. The legislation passed by those provinces has given rise to a lot of illicit distilling, boot-legging and moon-shining.


George Arthur Brethen: Would that be outside or inside work?


Jacques Bureau: Outside. When we talk about inside work, we must not forget that all the outside work has to come to the inside,-the head office. There is only one control in the Department of Customs. What these men do must he controlled. I would not be able to give my hon. friend any information this evening, if all the various officials in the outside service did not reuort to the officials in the inside service. It is only in that way that we can control them and compile the information in our statistics.


Mr. SALES:: I notice in the list of
officials a supervisor of drawback claims and, lower down, four checkers of drawback claims, costing us altogether $6,360 for the four checkers and $2,520 for the supervisor or a total of $8,880 to superintend drawback claims. I do not know how much it cost us to collect the amount, but this drawback business seems to be an expensive one.


Jacques Bureau: Drawbacks each year
amount to about $15,000,000, and they have to be very closely watched and controlled. That cannot be done unless we have properly qualified officers for the work, and we cannot get them unless we pay them a sufficient salary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I notice further down on the page a provision for sixty two customs excise statistical clerks, involving an expenditure of $91,000. The other evening, when the estimates of the Labour Department were under consideration, I drew to the attention of the committee the fact that the Labour Department appeared to be building up a statistical branch with an expensive staff to look after work that might very properly be done in the Bureau of Statistics. Would it not be possible to have this work done in the Bureau of Statistics, where they have all the equipment and machinery for doing it at a much less cost than it is done in the minister's department?


Milton Neil Campbell: Before the minister answers, I would remind him of the figures
I gave a few minutes ago of 94 clerks engaged in statistical work, and costing altogether $125,250.


Jacques Bureau: These clerks are engaged in getting statistics compiled from entries which are kept under the Customs and Excise Act for the Trade and Navigation Report. These statistics are issued monthly. They are taken from all the invoices that are scattered over all the ports in the Dominion. They are transferred afterwards to the Department of Trade and Commerce. This work could not be done otherwise, because those invoices cannot be made open to the public; even under the act they are considered confidential.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would it not be possible to have the compilation of those statistics done in the Bureau of Statistcis?


Jacques Bureau: No, because the invoices are in the various ports of the Dominion. They come to Ottawa afterwards; but if they were to be handed over to some other department, we would lose control absolutely, and if anything should happen after an entry was put through, we would not have the entry with us; or we would have to make copies, and that would involve another expenditure without any corresponding benefit.


Mr. HARRIS:: Have the secretary-clerk and the confidential messenger, mentioned in the list as additional for 1922-23, taken the places of men who, perhaps, had charge of that work in the former ministry; and, if so, do they intend to stay with the department, or will the minister take them with him when he goes?


Jacques Bureau: The situation is just as I have stated. I will not take them with me when I go, but they will go when I go. Not a man, woman or girl in the general office, or the minister's office, has been removed. These are employes the minister has a right to have in his office, and their life in the service is equal to the life of a minister as a minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It appears a new position has been created, that of General Executive Assistant. Was this office in existence last year?


Jacques Bureau: No. This office has been created as part of the reorganization of the department. As I said a few minutes ago, both Customs and Excise have been combined with the result that a large

Supply-Customs and Excise
direct saving has been effected. I will give credit to my hon. friends for having brought that about. I did not do it, but I am carrying on the plan of the reorganization.


Arthur Meighen: Just one deputy minister?


Jacques Bureau: He is not a deputy minister; he is Commissioner of Customs and Excise. He was Commissioner of Customs, and he, who was heretofore deputy minister of Inland Revenue, is now assistant commissioner of Customs and Excise. Instead of having a collector of Customs and a collector of Inland Revenue, we have one collector of Customs and Excise at each port. My hon. friends may take credit for that. It is a feather in their cap. I am going on with my explanation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A little louder.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend understands. He hears me quite well. This business requires reorganization which has been commenced, and, as I have said, legislation in the various provinces has created a great deal of preventive work and the sales tax has also created a great deal of work. I do not think the House is desirous of merely having taxes imposed. The imposition of taxes would not pay our debt very fast; we have to collect the taxes. The collection is the important part, and to collect the taxes, we must have a staff to do the work. The staff has been found insufficient to do the work properly. As I said a few minutes ago, the outside work comes inside. The commissioner and the assistant commissioner are not able to cope with the work which is imposed upon them. The minister himself is not able to attend tc all the work of receiving delegations from morning till night. This takes another officer whom we are going to call General Executive Assistant, who is going to be an assistant to all these officers in the department. For this position a man is required who knows thoroughly the customs laws, the excise law, all the regulations that are passed by the department, who is familiar with seizures, with all the routine of the department, who knows the interpretation to be given to the various items of the tariff, the various regulations that are being passed, who can assist the minister to receive delegations, and who can be a supervisor of all the work done in the department and be in a position, by his knowledge and experience, to control it. This is an absolute necessity; otherwise,
the officers at present in the department could not cope with the work.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: A little further down the list I notice a supervisor of refund claims and further on four checkers. Will the minister explain just what are the duties of supervisor of refund claims?


Jacques Bureau: Those are refunds of overpaid duties. All those claims for refunds, after they have passed through the hands of customs officer at the port, come to the department, and they have to be checked and controlled. This supervisor certifies all claims that are made and the moneys paid back for refunds.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Do I
understand that those are corrections that have been made by officers of the department? In other words, are they mistakes that must be corrected?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, very often a man will import some goods, and they turn out to be not according to the order. In that case, if, within the time allowed by law, be returns the goods, he is entitled to a refund, because he does not use them. There may be errors in the invoice or in the appraisal. Sometimes, machinery that comes to this country does not suit the purpose for which it was ordered. It is returned, and it would not be fair to keep the money collected as duty upon such goods. We refund the money to the importers. I understand that the money saved pays the salary of the officer in charge, and the staff as well, ten times over.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the refund include the moneys that are paid back to certain manufacturers when gnods are exported?


Jacques Bureau: The manufacturers are given a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty on raw materials entering into the manufacture of goods that they export.


John Evans: The minister says that the important thing is to collect the revenue. I would suggest that the really important thing is to retain the revenue, and not pay some $15,000,000 back to the manufacturers in the form of a drawback. What percentage of the duty, is paid in the shape of drawback, and on what articles?


Jacques Bureau: It would be difficult to answer that question ih detail offhand.


John Evans: Does the minister think that it is good business to pay $10,000 for handling $15,000,000 in the way of draw-

Supply-Customs and Excise
back? My hon. friends to the right contend that we should have a tariff in order to get a revenue. Well, is it a sane policy to -pay $15,000,000 in the form of a drawback on raw material when our own natural resources are undeveloped?


Jacques Bureau: A rebate of 99 per cent of the duty on raw materials entering into the manufacture of articles that are exported is allowed. The manufacturing of these goods provides labour in Canada, and we desire to encourage our export trade. We lose nothing. We did not 'have the raw material, but we had the benefit of the labour, and we keep one per cent of the duty to pay expenses.


John Livingstone Brown: I would ask the question put by the ex-Minister of Finance so persistently in -the Tariff Commission: Where do you get your revenue?


Jacques Bureau: We get it from the articles that are imported and remain in Canada for consumption. We get our revenue from the excise and income taxes and the -sales tax. That is where we get our revenue; but we want to encourage Canadian industry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: If foreign material is required for the manufacture of goods in Canada we tell the manufacturer to bring in that material and pay the -duty, and when he exports the goods we will refund 99 per cent, keeping one per cent for the trouble of putting through the entry.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to draw a point
to the attention of -the minister and also to the notice of my hon. friends to the right, who appear to be getting a great deal of satisfaction out of his remarks. We import steel and iron from the United States for the manufacture of agricultural implements. On that material we pay a duty. The Canadian manufacturer makes the implements and if he sells them in Canada the cost to the Canadian consumer is increased by the extent of that duty. I think my hon. friend will agree in that statement. If, however, the manufacturer exports those implements to the United States he gets a drawback on the duty. So that the actual fact of the matter is that our Canadian manufacturers are thereby enabled to supply the American farmer with Canadian implements cheaper than the Canadian farmer can obtain them in Canada. Does the minister think that that is a desirable policy?


Jacques Bureau: Rolled steel and pig iron when used in the manufacture of mowing-machines, reapers, harvesters, binders, and attachments for binders get a drawback of 99 per cent. The American does not enjoy the advantage of making the implements, and I do not think that Canadian implements, by reason of the drawback, sell cheaper in the United States than in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad to have even
one solitary voice in support of my remarks. My hon. friend says that these implements would be cheaper in the United States than in Canada. I am not able to go into that question now, because I do not know the price of agricultural implements in the United States, but it has been the practice to pay this drawback and it is intended to encourage manufacturing on this side of the line. If you have to import raw material it is only fair that when you do not consume the finished product here you should get a rebate upon it. We do not lose anything because our workmen are employed.


John Evans: What are the chief
articles on which this drawback is paid?


Jacques Bureau: There are various kinds of raw material on which the drawback is paid, but I cannot name them offhand. If the hon. member will put a question on the Order Paper I will see that he gets the information.


Mr. HALBERT:: Does the minister think that one per cent pays the full expense in connection with this matter?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed, not.


Robert Henry Halbert: I was thinking that if
it did, and you could run the whole department as cheaply as that, you could save money.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it not
a fact that a drawback is paid on the duty on raw materials that go into the manufacture of implements sold in Canada?


Jacques Bureau: In the Customs Tariff
Act, at page 96, under the heading "Goods subject to drawback for home consumption" in article, No. 1002, there is a list of articles on which a drawback is given.


Arthur Meighen: That provision was
made at the time of the last reduction in duties on these articles. Is it not a fact that by means of the rebate or drawback as it is called on the raw material, the export trade thus developed adds to the scale of

Supply-Customs and Excise
production that it brings down the cost of the manufactured article in the home country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Evans: Why is it that we do not
use our raw materials in the manufacture of these goods? Since we are told that we should develop our natural resources, why do we import such raw material as iron and steel and other things that enter into the manufacture of implements to-day when our own forests and mines abound in these things and 250,000 men are idle at home? Is this the policy that we are going to maintain as a national policy?


Mr. MILLAR:: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question a little time ago, but I did not get an answer from you, nor from the minister, and I rather think he treated it as a joke. I should like to know now, through the chairman, if remarks regarding export liquor houses in dry provinces are in order?


Jacques Bureau: That matter will come up later, Mr. Chairman, when the outside service is discussed. I did not treat the question as a joke. It is a very serious question and I am ready to discuss it with my hon. friend when the other estimates come up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood that point to be well covered by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the first day that estimates were submitted. You then ruled that the general policy of the department, whether directly or indirectly connected with the item before the committee, might be discussed within reasonable limits. Therefore with that ruling in effect it is perfectly clear that the hon. member is in order in discussing the outside service.


Jacques Bureau: What is the question?


John Millar: The province voted "dry" by a very large majority, and yet there are export liquor houses in operation that can not be controlled by the provincial government, and up to the present time the federal government has refused to take action for their suppression. Those houses serve as supply depots for the bootlegger, and also for those who are running liquor across the line into the United States, cars going backwards and forwards at all hours of the night. The work of the police who are kept there in an effort to control the situation leads sometimes to danger to life, because these liquor runners are armed and desperate men. What is the attitude of
the minister towards these export liquor houses?


Jacques Bureau: I do not think they are under our jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman, because they are duty-paid liquor stores, and the moment we get our duty we have no more control over them. If my hon. friend means there are any bonded warehouses, my reply is that we do not grant any licenses for them unless we have the consent of the attorney general in the province. There are only two bonded warehouses in Saskatchewan, the licenses for which were granted long ago. I think my hon. friend is dealing with a matter which comes more under the jurisdiction of the provincial government than of this Government.


John Millar: There are more than two. I think I am using the proper term, "export liquor houses."


Jacques Bureau: They are not bonded warehouse's.


John Millar: I have received several petitions from local people protesting against those export liquor houses. The Minister of Agriculture was, I believe, in the provincial house when this controversy took place. The provincial government has always taken the attitude that it has gone as far as it possibly could in barring those houses.


Jacques Bureau: It is not a matter within our jurisdiction.


John Millar: The question has been discussed many times as to who is responsible, and we are led by the provincial authorities to believe that the federal government is responsible.


Jacques Bureau: No, Mr. Chairman. They are not bonded warehouses, they are duty-paid warehouses, and entirely under the control of the provincial government. I am informed that there are only two bonded warehouses in Saskatchewan, and that the licenses for those were granted quite a while ago. I am also informed that the licensees have only been granted sufficient time to liquidate their stock, and have no right to import any more liquor.


John Millar: I am told there are seventeen such houses.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that the licenses were granted under the approval of the attorney general of the province?

Supply-Customs and Excise


Jacques Bureau: That has been and still is the policy of the department. We do not grant any licenses unless we g'et the approval of the Attorney General attached to the petition for the license; at the same time we have the designation of the warehouse by him.


Oliver Robert Gould: Perhaps I can throw a little light on the subject. The majority of the warehouses referred to by the hon. member for Qu'AppeMe (Mr. Millar) are in the electoral district of Assiniboia, and, along with 'him, I have received many petitions protesting against their continuance. Likewise, I personally know of some of the acts done because of these warehouses. I believe there are twelve or fifteen on the southern line in my own electoral district.


Jacques Bureau: They are not ours.


Oliver Robert Gould: Last year I placed questions on the Order Paper concerning those warehouses, and the replies given to me by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue I accepted in good faith. Those replies were to the effect that the Dominion Government did not have any bonded warehouses there. Premier Martin took exception to that, and I believe he carried on a discussion with the then Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, contending that the Dominion government was responsible, and repudiating the answers which had been given to me. When I returned home I complained that I had not been taken into the confidence of the premier of Saskatchewan and that in the provincial campaign he had used the information given to me by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
As it appears to me the circumstances are these. On our referendum in Saskatchewan we voted for only a partially "dry" province, and not for a "bone dry" province. But it appears that certain liquor interests throughout Canada-and the charge is made that Jewish capitalists are at the back of it all-made application to the provincial government for the privilege of erecting warehouses in Saskatchewan. In my questions I used the word "license," but it seems that the authorities of Saskatchewan contended that I should have employed the word "tax." A tax of $1,000 was imposed for the privilege of erecting each of these liquor houses. I believe that at the last session of the legislature that tax was increased to $5,000. In correspondence and in discussion I have

taken the ground: If you want to carry out the wishes of the people of the province, as expressed in the referendum, why do you not impose a million dollar tax?
It seems to me that if the license had not been granted by the provincial govenrment the federal government would have had nothing whatever to do with the export business, because the buildings would not have been there. I protest in the name of decency and good government against those buildings being permitted, because the traffic carried on iby means of them is a menace to life and property and a disgrace and shame to the community. The women in those localities fear to remain alone because of the traffic that is being carried on by the rum-runners, desperate characters that come in all the way from as far south as Oklahoma in big cars, as many as eight such cars loaded with liquor leaving one small town in an afternoon. This is a condition that I object to, and I would be glad if something could be done to remedy it. For myself-and I am sure I speak also for my people-if it is a matter of the department losing revenue, I would rather see it go without one cent of revenue if the result would be to do away with the abuses to which I refer.


Jacques Bureau: The liquor to which my hon. friend refers is duty paid liquor, stored with the consent and on the responsibility of the provincial government. We did not get a cent of revenue from it. It was in the province before the law came into force. The moment the duty on it was paid, the liquor belonged to the individual and the Crown had no control over it. There are no bonded warehouses for export licensed by the Dominion government in Saskatchewan, with the exception of the two that I have just referred to. These two were licensed with the approval of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would not like the
statement made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), that the cost of Canadian goods to the Canadian consumer is increased by the duty, to pass wholly without challenge. There was a case not long ago in New Brunswick where it became necessary, through default under a contract, for the person entitled to certain goods to purchase them in the American rather than in the Canadian market. The result was that with practically the same freight mileage, the cost of a farm article of similar character delivered in New

Brunswick was higher than the Canadian cost by the amount of the duty, showing that the Canadian manufacturer did not take advantage of the duty. The statement of the hon. member for Marquette was, no doubt, made in good faith, but I think it was an attempt to sum up the prejudices of the party which he leads against the customs tariff of this country. It may have been based upon an observation made at some time or in some place under fortuitous circumstances, but in my judgment it is not a correct summing up of the general operation of the tariff. The round of applause with which he was greeted was not so much an expression of a concurrence in his view as it was a protest against the administration of a customs tariff.


William Irvine: In answer to a question put, I think, by the hon. member for Marquette, did I understand the minister to say that the increase of $10,000 was due in part to his employing certain persons who would leave the department when he left?


Jacques Bureau: Part of the increase is due to that.


William Irvine: Is that ordinary patronage?


Jacques Bureau: It is ordinary necessity, for the proper working of the minister's office.


William Irvine: I do not think it is
ordinary necessity. I am opposed to the voting of $10,000 simply in order that a minister may have his staff leave when he goes. It is bad policy, because the efficiency they have acquired while under him is lost to the country. I am opposed to that kind of thing.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) made the statement that the practice of paying drawback claims on raw material entering into the manufacture of implements sold in Canada commenced seven or eight years ago, at the time of the reduction of the duties on agricultural implements. Is that correct?


Arthur Meighen: I said I thought it took place on the occasion of the last reduction. But it may not have been at that time, for there was a reduction since-I think it was in the spring of 1919. I am not positive as to my information, but that is my impression.
Supply-Cicstoms and Excise


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I thought it was rather new light on this subject of the reduction of the duties on agricultural implements. The minister has in his department a tax-collecting organization, and within it there is another and smaller organization to hand back a portion of the taxes he collects. As has been suggested, the most important function of the taxcollecting agency is to retain the taxes collected. I submit that the minister should consider the advisability of adopting a saner policy in this regard and do away with the organization which has been set up within his department-not by him, of course-for the purpose of handing back a portion of the taxes taken in. He has a supervisor with assistants who receive salaries amounting to $8,000 for the purposes of these refunds. Would it not be better for the department simply to collect such taxes as they intend to keep?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Can the minister give us any information as to the amounts refunded on duties collected on farm tractors under $1,400 in value? A rebate of these duties was authorized, I understand, in 1919. Some hon. gentlemen to our left have been criticizing the refund of duties, and I think it is important that the committee should know how much is refunded on tractors inported into Canada for farm purposes.


Jacques Bureau: All tractors valued at $1,400 and under were entered free of duty under the order of remission and refund. There was no refund, because they were entered free.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How is it that Canadian manufacturers are importing steel and iron from the United States or elsewhere when we have down in Nova Scotia a steel industry whose workmen are employed only on half time? Is that encouraging home industry?


Jacques Bureau: That is a matter I would have to consult the manufacturers about. It is more related to their business than to the administration of this department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With regard to the remark of the hon. gentleman for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), he surely knew better than to make the statement he did that the duty does not enhance the cost of goods purchased in Canada. Does my hon. friend tell me that Henry Ford does not take advantage of the duty on automobiles \Vhen we are paying $260 more for a car on the Canadian side than on the American side?

Supply-Finance

I was also surprised to hear the ex-Minister of Finance say that farm machinery did not sell dearer in Canada than the United States, because when the Tariff Commission sat in New Brunswick last year I supplied the commission with a very comprehensive list setting forth the figures at which a certain firm was selling farm machinery in New Brunswick and in the state of Maine, at two points only six miles apart. The figures were very much higher for New Brunswick than the state of Maine. We paid as much as $65 more for a potato sprayer in New Brunswick than our neighbours paid for the same article in the state of Maine. This present year we are paying $9 per ton more than they are paying in [Maine for the same fertilizer shipped from a Canadian factory. I have the two price lists on my file upstairs, printed in a Canadian office, for fertilizer shipped from a Canadian factory. Going into the state of Maine, this fertilizer passes over two roads, and a longer haul, whereas it has only one road to pass over to reach the county of Carleton; yet it is selling for $9 more per ton in Carleton county than in the state of Maine. There is absolutely no manufacturing done at this fertilizer plant in Canada; they simply import the chemicals free of duty, mix the ingredients, barrel the fertilizer, ship it out, and sell it to the American consumer $9 per ton cheaper than to the New Brunswick consumer. Last year the difference in the price was $15 per ton; I have those price lists too on my file upstairs, on the company's own bill head, for this fertilizer shipped from a Canadian plant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the
minister say how much was expended under this vote last year?


Jacques Bureau: This is the first year of consolidation so it is pretty hard to tell, but I am informed that practically the whole salary list was paid, and that about $42,000 was expended under contingencies, with some bills still to come in.


Mr. McTAGGART:: I understood the
minister to say that the total revenue for excise and customs in 1921 was approximately $209,000,000 collected at a cost of approximately $5,000,000. How much of that was excise and how much customs revenue?


Jacques Bureau: The customs revenue
for 1920-21 was $179,695,137.72 and excise $116,918,750.31.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Charges of Management-amount to be voted, $965,000.
William Stevens Fielding: It will be noticed there is a small reduction in the offices of the Assistant Receivers General' and Country Savings Banks. This is due to some readjustment and the dropping of some temporary clerks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the closing of one office I think.


William Stevens Fielding: I think perhaps so.
There is an increase, apparently a large one, for printing, advertising, inspection, express and so forth. That is largely accounted for by the express charges on gold. As the House is aware, the export of gold from the Dominion by private parties is forbidden; the gold from our mines is received by the Government and 10 p.m. refined at the Mint. Then we have to express it to the United States, and the express charges on our shipments to the United States have increased very largely, but a gratifying feature of that increase is that it really represents a large increase in the output of our gold mines. For example, in 1918 our Canadian gold refined at the Mint was about 300,000 ounces; in 1919, 500,000 ounces; in 1920, 750,000 ounces, and in 1921, 1,100,000 ounces. All this passed through the Mint and had to be sent to the United States. That is the chief explanation of that increase.
There is a small increase for brokerage on the purchase of sinking funds, but that is governed entirely by the amount that may be purchased.
At the bottom of the list there is an increase of $100,000 for clerical assistance in connection with the transfer and registration of bonds, the flotation of loans, and so forth. The House is aware that we have to look forward to the issuing of very large refunding loans. That is the chief explanation for the very considerable increase in this item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With respect to the last item, I take it from what the minister says that this is to cover the cost of a refunding loan for the issue of $184,000,000 falling due in December. I take it that it is for the purpose of looking after a domestic loan that tnis money will be required.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that is probably correct, although we have not yet made any final determination. It is, however, for refunding a domestic loan.

Supply-Finance


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only reason I rose was to say that if it was for a foreign loan, accompanied with the usual underwriting, and the like, the increase seems unnecessary, but if it is for a domestic loan there is no doubt my hon. friend requires the vote.


Mr. GARDINER:: Would the minister
explain the item of $400,000 for printing Dominion notes?


William Stevens Fielding: This is the same
amount as voted last year. It is the amount paid to the company which has the contract for printing our Dominion notes. There has been in that service of late years a considerable increase, explained simply by the volume of notes which the trade of the country requires.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend referred to the question of refunding loans. I think in one of the early discussions of the session reference was made to some financing in New York in regard to railway loans, and the remark was made, I think, by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that he approved of that method of financing, because it avoided the payment of commission. I should like to know from my hon. friend the minister whether or not that loan of $11,000,000 in New York was arranged without the payment of any brokers' commission.


William Stevens Fielding: I contemplated at a later stage making a full explanation of that, but I have no objection to answer at once. We did not exactly advertise, but invited proposals from leading financial houses in New York. They named their price and we got their price, and no commission in any shape or form was paid, as far as I am aware.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be under Order in Council, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $75,000.
William Stevens Fielding: Experience has shown that the appropriation in that respect has been insufficient, and we have been called upon to meet the difficulty by Governor General's warrant. T think it will be found that we will require the whole sum. It is difficult to estimate in advance what may he required. Experience has shown that $40,000 is insufficient.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask what the amount paid last year was, and for what purpose?
49J


William Stevens Fielding: The deputy informs me that, including the Governor General's warrant, the expenditure of the last year will be about $78,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the National Battlefields' Commission :
(a)	for expenses of administration.. $ 6,000
(b)	for expenses of the National
Battlefields' Park	 35,000
(c)	for maintenance of Martello towers 1,000
Thomas Langton Church: With reference to this vote for the National Battlefields' Commission which has done good work, while there is no objection to this expenditure for maintenance of the national battlefield's park in the province of Quebec, I should like to ask the Government to consider the advisability of extending this work to other portions of Canada. I might refer to the ruined battlefields of the war of 1812 in the Niagara district. It would be a good thing for the people of Canada if something were done to commemorate and mark these battlefields. Those in the Niagara district are to-day in ruins and nobody knows who owns them. I hope the Government will take this matter up and do something. Then, there are the battlefields of the North West Rebellion, 1885, and also of the war of 1837. I hope this Government will consider this matter and extend these grants so as to include the various other battlefields in other parts of Canada which are in a neglected condition. I hope the Finance Minister will give the House some idea as to whether it is the intention of the Government to extend this work to the other battlefields of Canada. People from the United States who have visited the Niagara district have been much surprised that Canada is so far behind the times. If you go to Chattanooga in the southern states, and to the valley of the Cumberland, where Grant made his reputation in the war between the North and South, you will see how the United States people have remembered those who fought for their country, and have beautified the battlefields and have commemorated the deeds of the fallen.
I realize, of course, the financial situation and the high cost of money, labour and materials in these days, but I hope the Government will look into the matter with particular reference to the Niagara district.


William Stevens Fielding: I am thankful for
what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Church)
Supply-Finance

has said, and I am sure his words will meet with the sympathy of the House. For the moment, I could not make any official statement, but his suggestion will receive due consideration. I can only deal with this particular appropriation which is confined to Quebec, but the matter as mentioned by my hon. friend will not escape our attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Press Limited	$50,000
Canadian Press Limited	 8,000
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I
would like an explanation of these two items. I do not understand them.


William Stevens Fielding: The general object of these items, I think, ought to commend itself to the House. It is intended to assist the Canadian press in the distribution of news in a larger way than they could possibly do with their own resources. I think there is very strong reason why we should try to make the different sections of Canada better acquainted with one another. The press is not always wealthy. There is a long stretch of country between our eastern provinces and our western provinces which produces nothing in the way of revenue to the newspapers and it is, I think, largely for the purpose of bridging that long distance. At all events, it is not a source of any great wealth to the Canadian press. It helps them to give service which they otherwise would not give, and I think it is of the utmost importance that the various sections of Canada should be better informed of what is going on, each knowing the other section of Canada better than it does to-day. How far this is effected by the appropriation is a matter to be considered. I think the object of the appropriation is one which will readily commend itself to the House.


John Evans: I would like to ask the minister if all the newspapers in the country will receive a subsidy out of this fund?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is open to all who are willing to participate and to contribute their share of the expense.


John Evans: I ask this question, because I read the other day, in one of our most influential journals, that it was a kind of tyrannical institution; that it has the right to say who shall be members of it, what papers shall be established, what shall be sold and so on.


William Stevens Fielding: It is an association of
newspapers, and I suppose, like all other associations, they make their own regulations for their government. I am informed that no representations have been made by any newspaper against it. My impression is that every newspaper in Canada has an opportunity of participating in it, if the proprietors are willing to do so. If that is not the case, I shall be glad to look into the matter, because the association should be open to all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Press Ltd., $8,000.
William Stevens Fielding: This is a continuation
of an old grant designed for cable service between Great Britain and Canada. It was established a good many years ago, and I believe I had something to do with the establishment of it. It was a service in which the late John Ross Robertson took a warm interest; he was its chief advocate and promoter. It has been continued in later years, and, so far as I know, it has given satisfactory service. It is distinct from the ordinary news service in Canada; it is devoted to cable service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Victorian Order of Nurses, $5,000.
William Stevens Fielding: This is a grant that
has been given for a number of years, and I think the committee generally realizes that the service is an excellent one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant in aid of the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association, $15,000.
Andrew Ross McMaster: What was the amount last year?


William Stevens Fielding: This is a case in which we are increasing the grant. The cases in which increases have been made are not very numerous. It was represented that the service was a very deserving one-indeed, we all feel that-and that it needed this additional amount. Indeed, a larger grant was asked. His Excellency the Governor General is Chief Scout; but Dr. Robertson, whom we all know in connection with the agricultural work of the country, is its chief director, and it was his eloquent persuasion that induced us to put this increased item in. It is an object which has the sympathy of the country generally, and that is my justification, if it be a justification, in asking for an increase.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are, throughout the country, hundreds of worthy organ i*

Supp ly-Finance
zations that deserve grants if we had the money to subscribe to them; but in the financial position in which this country is now, I do not think we should increase three times the Government grant to this very worthy object. I am not complaining about the Boy Scouts; no doubt they do splendid work, but this does not seem to be the proper time for increasing the expenses of the country. We have given a grant of $5,000 to the Victorian Order of Nurses this year, and I think they received the same amount last year. I am not complaining about that. Someone says that they should have $10,000. I suppose if they had all the money we would like them to have, they might have $25,000 or $100,000. That is not the point. There are hundreds of worthy objects throughout the country, and that we should single out this worthy object for three times the grant of last year is something that I would like to protest against respectfully.


Mr. MARLER:: Can my hon. friend
point to a more worthy object, one that has more far-reaching effects than the Boy Scouts Association?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether I am called upon or have a right to judge of the Boy Scouts as compared with hundreds of other worthy organizations. That is not the point. My hon. friend (Mr. Marler) has not quite grasped the point. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that this is an excellent institution. But until we meet, with ordinary revenue, the ordinary expenditure of this country, I, as a member of this House, and as representing the farming classes of the eastern townships, who are seeing their own revenues cut in half, am going to protest against any increase in the public expenditure of this country except for absolute necessities.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I accept my hon. friend's rebuke and, no doubt, the House does, in the same spirit.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: I wish to go on record as most heartily supporting the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Me-Master) in opposing this $10,000 increase.


William Stevens Fielding: The speech of the hon. member for Brome is so much in line with my thought on other questions that I have difficulty in dissenting from it. I am not going to break my heart if the committee does not want to increase this grant. It is for the committee to decide. There are
exceptions to all rules and if there is anything in which we are willing to make an exception, it would be in regard to the boys of the country who are going to be the men of to-morrow, the men who will be our successors at no distant date. I think this Boy Scout movement is a very commendable one; but I am not going to urge this inceased grant on the committee. If any hon. gentleman thinks this a grave departure from our sound policy of economy, he can divide the committee on the question; but I am not going to support him; I am going to have the liberty of voting against striking it out. I am not, however, going to urge this upon the committee at this late hour.


Mr. FORKE:: I am just as anxious for economy as any one in this House and will cut down the estimates wherever possible; but I have had some experience of the Boy Scout movement, and as I have no boys of my own, I am not speaking for myself in this case at least. There is no greater or more important work being carried on in Canada to-day than the Boy Scout movement. I have great respect for the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) but I do not think he has looked at this matter in all its bearings and in every phase in which we might Consider it. As has already been remarked to-night, the boys will be the men of to-morrow; they will take up the burden, and I hope they will carry the flag a great deal better than their fathers have done. No dollar that is spent is lost when it is spent in bettering the conditions of these same boys. I have much pleasure in supporting this appropriation at this particular time.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have much pleasure in endorsing what the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) has just said regarding the Boy Scouts. I have a boy who is a Scout, and I do not think this money is thrown away. I think it is one of the best expenditures the country can make.


Mr. WARD:: I wish to concur in all
that the hon. member for Brandon has said; but I can go back to my constituency and find a whole army of boys who have not clothes enough to go to school with, and it is a crime for us to spend money in this way while there are boys who have not clothes to go to school with and whose parents have not money with which to buy them proper clothes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Finance
[Stage Direction]
Loan to provincial governments to encourage the erection of dwelling houses, $9,550,080,
William Stevens Fielding: It was originally provided that $25,000,000 might be devoted to this purpose. Some money has been spent from year to year, and this is the balance of the $25,000,000. It takes the shape of a loan to the provinces that avail themselves of the arrangement, and as they pay interest it is not an unprofitable expenditure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While the
original appropriation was $25,000,000, my recollection is that last year, owing to representations by the Committee on Soldiers' Re-establishment, the Dominion held itself open to increase the appropriation to $31,000,000 in order to make further advances to the provinces in proportion to population. Have any provinces taken advantage of that offer?


William Stevens Fielding: The amounts paid
to date are:
Nova Scotia	$1,100,000
Manitoba	 1,975,000
Ontario	 8,750,000
New Brunswick	 1,525,000
British Columbia	 1,701,600
Quebec	 2,056,620


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have any
provinces received their full quota?


William Stevens Fielding: Manitoba and New
Brunswick, I understand, have taken their full proportion. The original appropriation was increased in order to allow an additional grant to be made to Ontario, but it is based on population.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand it, this is merely a revote of what was unspent last year.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Is this money spent by the provinces in organized or unorganized districts?


William Stevens Fielding: The provinces determine on their own responsibility how the money shall be expended. They deal with the details. We advance the money and they are free to apply it subject to the general regulations.


Thomas George McBride: There should be an understanding that the unorganized districts should have the same privilege as the organized districts. I know a great many farmers in our district who would like to take advantage of the loan, but they cannot participate in it because they are not in

an organized district. It is not right for us to advance money that serves the purpose of increasing the population of the cities. The cities are top heavy, and we should give more consideration to the country.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's district will have to look to the provincial government. I have no dou'bt that, in any case, the provincial government would be desirous to meet al'l demands. It is not, however, for us here to say how they shall spend the money. We loan the money and they must take the responsibility for its application.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that we have already advanced British Columbia its full quota.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, British Columbia has received its full share.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant in aid of the Dominion Council of the Girl Guides, $3,000.
William Stevens Fielding: The member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) is not present. If she were she might possibly claim that we were not dealing fairly with the Girl Guides. This is an appropriation that has been made for several years, however, and I am sure it will have the sympathy of the committee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the Boy Scouts have been trebled, why not the Girl Guides? I believe in equality between sexes.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will serve notice that we ought to increase the grant we will take it into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's proportionate share of the cost of expenditure made by the Imperial War Graves Commission-probable amount required, $669,410.
William Stevens Fielding: This is our share under an agreement between the Imperial authorities and the Canadian government. The Imperial War Graves Commission have intimated that they will need this amount during the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the House may assume that the difference in vote is not the result of any change of policy, but is merely carrying out the request of the commission?


William Stevens Fielding: Entirely so. We have made no change of policy whatever.

Supply-Health-Mounted Police
Civil Government-Health-salaries, $147,307.50 ; Contingencies, $71,000 ; Total, $218,307.50.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any satisfactory reason for the increase of $4,000 for travelling expenses?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health):: This increase is mainly in connection with the enforcement of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act. Illicit trade in these drugs is apparently on the increase in some of the provinces, especially in the large cities, and to cope with the situation it is necessary for our officials to travel more than in previous years. Their travelling expenses are very closely controlled and examined by the department. There may be some portion of the increase connected with the Food and Drugs Act, but the main increase is in connection with the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister I know has given very close attention to this matter. Could he state whether he will be prepared to introduce any amendment of the act to meet the representations recently made to him?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been my privilege to receive an important delegation from British Columbia, composed of members from that province regardless of their political affiliations, and of some gentlemen from outside, in connection with the suppression of this illicit traffic. The matter is receiving our most earnest and favourable consideration in so far as some amendment of the act is concerned. I cannot say to-night what the nature of the amendment will be, but we hope to be in a position to satisfy my hon. friend and those who accompanied him in the delegation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the cost of the department last year in regard to salaries?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amount expended to date is $135,496.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Will an opportunity for discussing the Inspection Act as applied to immigrants be afforded when the main Estimates are brought down? I assume that that medical inspection takes place under this act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As there was an expenditure of only $135,000, I suppose the saving was occasioned by dropping certain employees?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The difference between the amount asked for last year, $157,000, and that asked for this year, $147,000, is accounted for by the transferring to the Food and Drugs Act branch of a number of analysts and one food inspector because they reside outside Ottawa.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid my hon. friend does not quite catch my point. He is showing why he can get along more cheaply this year than last; but I was rather wondering why it is costing more money to get along this year, because while $157,000 was voted last year, as a matter of fact only $135,000 was expended, yet my hon. friend wants $147,000 this year. There is an increase in expenditure with a reduced staff.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A number of those officials were made permanent during the year, and consequently they are paid for only a part of the year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that the work of this department has decreased through the administration of the Fertilizer Act being transferred to the seed branch under the Department of Agriculture?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that this is a very small item indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-salaries and contingencies, $52,245.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : Mr. Chairman, as we have already agreed in the House that there shall be a reduction in the Mounted Police force, I have suggested to the commissioner and the comptroller that we should not provide by these estimates for any additional permanent employees.
I would therefore move that' the item for salaries be reduced by $5,982.50, and that the figure "10" under the first column, 1922-23, page 83, be changed to "2".
Henry Lumley Drayton: In view of the large decrease in numbers, I suggest that my hon. friend might simply take last year's vote.


George Perry Graham: There is a slight increase to provide for the statutory increases in salary for the present employees. We shall have to let that stand as it is until we decide what reduction shall be made in the Mounted Police.


Mr. LEWIS:: If you are going to take away this provision for eight additional
Wheat Board

employees, why make the reduction only $5,000?


George Perry Graham: The reduction is practically $6,000; it is $5,982.50.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government - annuities - salaries, $22,320.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This department was attached to the Post Office Department, hut it has been transferred to the Department of Labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has any further progress been made in the sale of annuities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I shall have to wait until the items in the main Estimates are under consideration. I cannot say offhand what progress has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.
Friday, April 7, 1922