[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 206, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is based upon the recommendation of the report of the committee which has just been adopted. Its purpose is t" suspend the Crowsnest pass agreement, except as regards grain and flour, for a period of one year, and to give to the Governor in Council power to suspend for a further period of one year if in his judgment the then existing conditions justify that course.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Hewitt Bostock: Moved by Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Fielding, that the said bill be now read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would like to recall to the attention of the House the statement I made on May 4 when the question of the Crowsnest pass agreement was, among other matters, referred by the House to the Special Committee on Railway Transportion Costs. On that day I spoke as follows:
In order that there may be no mis-take as to the Government's position on this matter, I have reduced to writing the exact statement of the Government's position towards the expira-

Transportation Costs
tion of the Crowsnest pass agreement, and I hope my hon. friends opposite, after hearing it, will feel, as I think they ought to feel, that, as regards this particular resolution, there is no reason why It should not have their wholehearted support. In a word, the Government's policy is this:
Unless it can be shown that in the public interest there are good and sufficient reasons why, what is termed the Crowsnest pass agreement of 1897, should not again become operative in July next, the existing Statute will not be interfered with.
In other words, the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement will then have expired.
A little further on I said:
All that the Government is asking is that there shall be an opportunity, not alone to the Government itself, but to the members of Parliament and to the country, to understand all that is involved in the coming into effect of that agreement on July 6th of this year, or in the continued suspension of it after that date.
The committee, in the report which has just been adopted, has gone, Mr. Speaker, very fully into all that is implied in the partial suspension of the agreement as proposed in the bill. In its report the committee says:
Some of the reasons advanced in 1918 as justifying the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement have disappeared, and your committee has reached the conclusion that an immediate reduction of freight rates on grain and flour is in the national interest.
Your Committee, therefore, recommends a suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement, except in respect of grain and flour, for one year from July 6, 1922, with power to the Governor in Council to suspend for a further period of one year, if in its judgment the then existing conditions justify the same.
There was only one dissenting voice, I am informed, to the acceptance of its report by the committee. The House has just adopted the report, I think, without any dissent, and it is on the recommendation of the report of the committee that this bill is based.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, the first remark I wish to make has to do with almost the last sentence that fell from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In that sentence he stated that the House had just adopted a report without dissent. He said that in the face of a vote by which the House has just passed on an amendment moved by the Opposition, and in the face of a recorded vote on the main motion "carried on division."1 The House by no means adopts this report without dissent. The dissent of the Opposition is decided, and it is reinforced by the arguments advanced frankly by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German); advanced just as strongly by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and just as strongly by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) ; arguments expressed tersely and forcefully in the report itself-all of which tell against the conclusion the report arrives at and which the Government in an attitude of helpless silence now seeks to implement by legislation.
The Crowsnest pass agreement is embodied in legislation of this House dating back to 1897. As stated by the hon. member for Halifax, it has virtually been without effect from that day to this. For some time, possibly, the rates under it were lower than they otherwise would have been-for the time that intervened between the passing of that legislation and the creation of the Railway Commission. I apprehend myself that the agreement was not ratified at the time by this Parliament in the belief that there was to be established thereby any discriminatory rates, any rates that would not have been enforced at that time by any efficient judicial tribunal which had charged upon it the duty of fixing rates fair to all classes of producers and to all portions of the country. At that time there was no such tribunal, and as part consideration for some subventions then made this reduction, was agreed to by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It was not felt on any side to constitute1 anything in the way of discriminatory rates. After the creation of the Railway Commission, rates fell far below the Crowsnest pass schedule, and remained far below until the summer of 1918. Then the McAdoo awards forced a situation wholly abnormal in this country. Then it was. seen that the Crowsnest pass agreement, were it kept in effect, would have resulted not only against the public advantage, but in. such a disaster as would mean the paralysis of the whole railway traffic of Canada. Consequently, that agreement was then suspended. We are now at the expiration of the suspension, and Parliament is about to decide by legislation what shall be done as regards the continuance1 of the suspension so expiring.
A committee was appointed on the 4th day of May, such committee being asked to inquire into the general question of transportation costs and to hear witnesses as to the effect on the whole rate structure of this country of the Crowsnest pass agreement. At the time I expressed the view that a general inquiry of this sort by a committee of Parliament was a wholly
Transportation Costs

impracticable and worthless piece of procedure, that inquiry into transportation costs toy a committee with a view to ascertaining the effect of the continuance of the Crowsnest pass agreement upon the rate structure of Canada could end in nothing, and could have no result save to delay a determination of policy by the Government, which determination had to toe made before general reductions in Canada could take place. I wonder have I been vindicated by the event?
Som hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I wonder is the view then expressed not expressed just as well, and possibly more forcefully, in the report of this committee? Is there any finding here on transportation costs? There is an acknowledgement by the committee that they have come back with hands empty, With nothing to report on the whole subject. Is there any verdict here, any information in this report to throw light' to this Parliament on the question as to what effect the Crowsnest pass agreement would have now on transportation costs? There is an open confession that the committee can make no finding or even comment on that-point at all, and the report abounds in the conclusion expressed over and over again that the whole subject of transportation costs, and the effect of the continuance of the agreement upon that subject, is one for the Railway Commission, and for the Railway Commission alone. If the members of that committee had come back to Parliament and said: "We find we were wrong in voting against the Opposition amendment,-the amendment should have carried," their language would have been no more explicit than the language of the report to-day. But it has had the effect of delay. For four months Parliament has been sitting, for two months since that motion was made, and the people of Canada have been paying excessive freight rates, because of the farce of that committee. Had the Government come to its conclusion at the opening of this session and brought it down, the people of this country in every part of Canada would have saved millions in transportation costs and there would have been that revival of business that such reduction brings about; there would have been acceleration in the recovery of this country from the after effects of war.	>
That is all we have got out of the committee. Well, not quite all. No, we have a piece of reasoning, we have something

new in the realm of logic. We have a process of deduction which I think should be spread before the minds of all interested, for their delectation and amusement.
I have the report before me. It declares in explicit language:
Fixing rates by legislation is no doubt generally a bad principle, because it hampers the free action of the Board of Railway Commissioners and may create a discrimination in favour of the commodities covered by statutory rates.
I hope the House notes the full effect of that sentence. I wonder does any one question the truth of that sentence? Is there any one who in his mind to-night has the slightest doubt as to its absolute fidelity to truth? And if it is true, how does this House now justify fixing rates on any commodity whatever? The next sentence reads:
The Crowsnest pass agreement was enacted before the institution of the board. This board, created in 1903, have been charged by the Parliament of Canada with the duty of regulating railway rates and of establishing just and reasonable railway rates. It is the only body in Canada equipped for the determination of the intricate matters relative to railway rate making.
The only one. It goes on:	.
The matter of the Crowsnest agreement becoming effective or being suspended is related to other concrete railway rate issues either pending or imminent. The one reacts upon the other, and both upon the whole freight rate structure which must, within a short period of time, undergo many substantial changes. The question would seem to be largely one that can best be treated by one body, the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Now, all the facts adduced,-not very many, all the premises laid down, all the reasoning advanced up to that point, are wholly consistent with the quotation I have just made. There is no want of harmony. There is no collision. All is consistent up to that point. What follows? Having declared that there is one body, and one only, constituted and equipped to decide the matter of rates, it then proceeds to say that as respects grain that body shall not be permitted to do so. I felt some sorrow for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). I was going to say that I knew his mind on this question. I once knew it, and I think I know it yet. The hon. member's mind, though it moves somewhat cautiously, moves true to reason if he gives it a chance. It is of sound and honest structure. When, from that point on he proceeded to explain to the House the conclusion of the report, the reluctance, the hesitation,

Transportation Costs
the mildness and the meekness of his sentences convinced me that they did not express his thought at all, convinced me that he knew he was enunciating not a conclusion from facts, not the result of the reasoning of his mind, but an irrational decision forced upon him by the Government after log-rolling for two months with hon. gentlemen to my left. Yes, the Railway Board is the only body in Canada equipped or fitted to give judgment on these matters; but he says, "we find that grain is very important to three provinces." It is a " basic industry of three provinces of Confederation," and furthermore " the prosperity of that basic industry is a factor vitally affecting the economic welfare of the nation." More than that, the grain grown in those prairie provinces is " mostly for export purposes," and the price of that commodity is settled " by competition in the world's markets." He puts that motley collection of words together as a reason for concluding that the Railway Commission should not be allowed to decide the freight rates on grain. It is true that grain is the main industry of these three provinces. Very well, is not something else the main industry of other provinces? Is not something else the main industry of British Columbia? Is not something else the main industry of Quebec? And if so, why not withdraw the subjects of those main industries from the Railway Commission too? The success of the grain industry, he says, is vital to the nation. Very well, is not the success of other industries vital too?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Were not those
things covered by a special contract?


Arthur Meighen: And is the contract sacred? If so, why is the hon. member himself voting to violate it? Contract of course. We are debating now whether the contract is to our national advantage be cause if it is not we shall not longer bind ourselves by it, provided the other party is ready to let us out. The other party is ready, and we are deciding whether it is in our interests or not. The next assertion is this: That the grain is mostly for export. So is our copper, so is our nickel, so is our cheese. The very same could be said of all these and a dozen more-pulp-wood for example. Why should not those be withdrawn from the Railway Commission? Think, Mr. Speaker, of this piece of reasoning with which the Government has coincided. I do not know that I am
surprised at the Government, but I am surprised at many hon. members behind the Government. The report says, " The rate on wheat and grain is very important. It is immensely important that such rate be decided rightly." In the paragraph preceding it is said that the only body that could decide the rate rightly is the Railway Commission. And this follows: " Because it is something important we will not let the Railway Commission, which is competent, decide it, but we will turn it into this Parliament, which is incompetent, and let Parliament decide it." Such is the report for which the hon. member for Brome voted.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: As regards incompetency I trust the right hon. member is only speaking for his own group.


Arthur Meighen: I am not speaking for my own group when I said we voted for this report; I was speaking for the hon. member for Brome. The hon. member for Brome voted that way and also other hon. members of the Government, but I am more surprised at him than at some of the others-


Mr.   McM ASTER@: As a matter of fact I was paired, otherwise I would have voted for the report.


Arthur Meighen: They say, "Because the grain trade of this country is an important industry, we will not let the decision on the freight rates on that subject go to the only body that is competent to fix the freight rates; we will hold fast to it and decide it here in a body that is not equipped, that does not know the facts." The committee, after two months' consideration, says: "We do not know the facts. We do not know what effect it is going to have, but we will let it be decided by this unequipped, incompetent body, and take the consequences." "Oh," it is whispered somewhere, "there are some who have not confidence in the Railway Commission." That was stated, I know, in evidence before the committee. Indeed I do not know what can be behind the motive of the Government in supporting this report unless it also has no confidence in the Railway Commission. I know that one hon. member of the Government used to declare very loudly that he had no confidence. I know that he has been astonishingly silent in this debate. His representations still lie under consideration on the desk of the administration, and the personnel of the board hangs between heaven and earth awaiting the verdict of the Government.
Transportation Costs

That is the condition of affairs they think proper for this country-the right position in which to suspend the Railway Board. Well, if this decision arises in any degree out of lack of full confidence in the board, is the result any more logical than it was? They say: "the board is the right body, and we have confidence in it, to fix the rates on coal, but we have not enough confidence in it to allow it to fix the rates on wheat. We take out of the original Crowsnest pass agreement all fruits, and we declare that we will let the Railway Commissioners fix the rates on fruits, but we will not let them fix the rates on flour; we have not confidence enough in them for that. We will take binder twine out, we will take farm implements out, we will take furniture out, and we will let the Railway Commissioners fix the rates on all these unimpeded'; but for the life of us we cannot summon confidence enough in them to let them fix the rates on wheat." What a fine position to be in!
To-day the grain growers of the West come, and they say to the Government: "Grain is an important industry in our country. We ask you to make an exception, we ask you to take it away from the Railway Commission and fix the rates by log-rolling and agreement in Parliament because grain raising is an important industry." Next week the coal mine owners of Nova Scotia will come down to this Government and will say: "Here, the raising and the selling of coal is an important and vital industry to our country. We want you to take that out from the Railway Commission and fix a low rate by Parliament." What is going to be the answer of the Government to that appeal?
Mr. CARROLL. It is not out.-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says it is not out.


Mr. CARROLL:: It never was out.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member want it out?


William F. Carroll: I certainly do.


Arthur Meighen: I expected he would. And what answer is the Government to make to him?


William F. Carroll: General lower rates.


Arthur Meighen: That would be a fine answer. The Government says it will not interfere except in grain. But if a delegation should come and ask this Parliament

to take coal out of the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission and fix by statute the rate of freight to be charged thereon, we could give no answer at all.


William F. Carroll: We are not selfish.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the compliment is understood by hon. gentlemen on my left. The following week the farmers of British Columbia come to the Government and they say that fruit is the mainstay of agriculture in British Columbia. They show this Government that fruit was in the Crowsnest pass agreement and they say: "We must have special rates on fruit. You gave it to wheat and flour for the prairie provinces and we want the same concessions for British Columbia. We want fruit taken out of the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission and we want it fixed by Parliament." What can be the answer of the Government. Can they make any answer to the fruit growers of British Columbia? Has*the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) an answer for his people? Has he even thought of the position which the Government have placed him in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fruit coming from British Columbia is not in the Crowsnest pass agreement.


Arthur Meighen: But fruit is out of the Crowsnest pass agreement for good, if my hon. friend's Government has his way tonight.	[	,,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fruit from the west is not under the agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Fruit going west is in, but not coming east. So the hon. member is satisfied. Has the Government not just as much right to deal with fruit because it is the basic industry of British Columbia, as on the appeal of the prairie provinces it has now to deal with grain? Can the hon. minister make any answer to the farmers of his province when they say to him "Our rights are just as strong as our brothers in the prairies? We have just as much right to have parliament enact a special rate for us as have our brothers in the prairie provinces?" What answer can the minister make to that?
What answer can be made to the stock growers of the prairie provinces themselves? They had at least certain rights under the Crowsnest pass agreement. They have none whatever now. They can say "Stock raising is our only industry. We want a special rate. We had a special

Transportation Costs
rate when we were under the' old agreement, and you have taken it from us, and you give the man beside us who is raising grain a special rate by act of parliament". What is going to be the answer of the Government? They have no answer to these demands. No, they have only one answer, and it is this: "We had to stay in power, and to do so we had to have the Progressive vote." That is the position. That is the position on every issue that has come before this Government. It has not been able to arrive at a conclusion on anything until it went through the necessary manceuvres to find out where just each member stood and just about how strongly he stood on his pins in that position. The whole process of deciding the right legislation and the right time to enact legislation is just a process of estimating the stiffness and the obstinacy of members of this House, of the members that stood in one quarter as against those that stood in another quarter. This matter should have been decided from the standpoint of the whole country. When you decide it by a method of concession to a district in order to get the votes of the representatives of that district, you only make the trouble greater for the other district and pile upon one class something you are taking off another class, to get a political result.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to what the right hon. member has just stated, does he think the Government should pay no attention to the views entertained by members of this Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, but they
should also pay attention to the arguments advanced in support of propositions to the realities of the case, more than to the arithmetic of the vote. One of two things is going to result. By the statutory rates on wheat and flour, discrimination because of a lower than just rate is going to be given or it is not-one or the other. If it is, by what right does the Government of Canada levy the difference or the loss upon the other class of the community? If it does not, then is the Railway Commission not competent to find that out, and, under its general unhampered jurisdiction, fix the rates at the level they are fixed there?


Mr. CRERAR:: Does the hon. member favour the complete abrogation of this agreement?


Arthur Meighen: I do not, and I will explain why in a moment. I favour the amendment and the amendment sets out clearly, the course which should be pursued. There has been a statutory agreement Under the terms of the Railway Act creating the Railway Commission a certain review by way of appeal was retained over the actions of that commission by the Governor in Council, and for what purpose? In order to find out, first, whether, through any inadvertence or favour, there had been omission to hear all the evidence that might be advanced before a decision was reached, and, secondly, in order that in arriving at a decision and in enforcing that decision, the Government could see that no principle of public policy had been violated. Those two reasons have been held up all through these years as the reasons that constituted the ground of the appeal, and the reasons that actuated the government in deciding what course it should take when an appeal came before it. Now in this special case there has been a statutory restraint, and certainly the right of appeal should still be sustained, but inasmuch as there has been a statutory restraint all these years, and it was not permitted for the Railway Commission to evade that restraint, therefore I say parliament would be justified in keeping jealously its hand upon the agreement until convinced that the new conditions effected as the result of its removal are satisfactory to the representatives of the people. We dp so by this amendment. Let the Railway Commissioners who have the data and the equipment and machinery to act, lay before the Governor in Council-they cannot lay them before parliament now before prorogation -the new schedules they propose. Give the Governor General in Council power to revoke the suspension if he feels there is in these new rates any failure to observe any sound principle of public policy, and if there has been any failure to hear all sides of the case-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the Government in that case be a better judge than the railway commission?


Arthur Meighen: On principles of public policy, yes, but not in initiating and fixing rates.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is it not a question of fixing rates?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly the Railway Commission fixes the rates, but in fixing
Transportation Costs

the rates there are principles of public policy that must be observed. For instance, there must be such rates as will enable trading to function between the maritime provinces and the West, and such rates as enable trading to function over the stretch of barren territory to the north of the great lakes. There must as well be an absence of discrimination. This country has proceeded on the hypothesis that, though it may be at the expense of the whole of Canada, we must bridge the chasm that lies between the maritime provinces and our central provinces, and as well bridge the chasm between the prairies and the mountain provinces of the West and the eastern provinces. We must do those things and it is the business of the Government and Parliament always to see that they are done and that no rates are enforced which prevent those two great objects being reached. It is our business I repeat, to see, even though the cost fall on the whole Dominion as a Dominion, that such rates are maintained over special stretches of territory as make possible the continuance of interprovincial traffic, without which Confederation is more of a name than a reality. If hon. member will look back over the records of the Privy Council in deciding appeals that came before it from decisions of the Railway Commission, he will find it has invariably had regard just to the considerations I have named. And in this case, where the statutory restraint is being removed, I think it only right that the hand of the Privy Council, and back of the Privy Council the hand of Parliament, should be upon the agreement which contains the restraint until we are satisfied that in such new schedules that will be given effect to when the agreement is removed, justice has been done every part of our Dominion, and, that no principle of public policy has been violated. With those things satisfactorily accomplished I would be prepared to let the agreement stand suspended, that is to say, as soon as the representatives of the people are content that there have been established on a permanent basis such schedules of rates as are fair to the various provinces of Canada, and as to make possible the great objects of confederation. But how can any hon. member who wants his future conduct to be consistent, take hold of the Railway Commission and say "We have every confidence in you to fix rates for all the basic commodities of the country, but we cannot let you fix rates on wheat and flour coming from the prairie provinces to Fort William.

We must fix those ourselves by statutory enactment even though there results an unfair and indefensible discrimination. We now fix that rate. We do not know whether it is discriminatory or not, we do not know the possibility of necessary reductions elsewhere. We do not know what effect it is going to have on problems that are before us, now pending or imminent", to use the language of the report. We do not know what is to be the result from our action, but we are going to act anyway. Such is the report which we are asked to concur in to-night. I dissent from the report, because it is not based on reason or on fact. It does not pretend even to follow the facts contained in the report itself. It does not pretend even to embody the conclusion reasoned out from those facts in the language of the report itself.
The ex-Minister of Finance has proposed a thoroughly sensible and simple plan by his amendment. If, next session, in the judgment of this House, the Railway Commission has failed to discharge its duty, if the Railway Commission has failed to function as Parliament intended it to function, then it is the business of the Government to come to Parliament and to propose a remedy. Parliament has power to effect a remedy. While the Railway Commission remains as it is unmolested, it is presumably there with the confidence of this House. Presumably reposed in it is the confidence of the country; and if such be the case, surely it is the duty of Parliament to leave to the commission the exercise of its functions as they should be exercisedi Its powers should be exercised subject only to review by the Government as expressed in the original act and to those special precautions outlined in the amendment which it seems proper to take on this particular occasion.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I contend that we should not delegate to an outside authority, the Governor General in Council, power to suspend the Crowsnest pass agreement for one more year, because to do so would be class legislation of the worst kind. By clause 1 of this bill there is a provision to frame rates by legislation. This is vicious in principle; it is against the principle of the Railway Act, which provides for equality of treatment as regard rates for all localities. The general act gives the commissioners power to fix rates for all classes of the country on the principle of equal rights to all and special

Transportation Costs
privileges to none. No cry of East or West should be raised in regard to this rate question. It is an economic question and not a sectional one. There is no East and no West in fixing rates on the American railways. In the United States the rates are fixed on an economic and business basis, and in this country there should be no question of East and West in fixing rates. The late chairman, Mr. Justice Mabee, when chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, had no such principle or sectional way of fixing rates, and it is unjust and inequitable. It is all very well for us to have the benefit of the Crowsnest pass agreement for some products cmd classes in the country; but what about other classes in the West and in other parts of Canada? What about the other class of products covered by that agreement? The bogey is set up that people in the East will have to pay for the abrogation of the Crowsnest pass agreement. That is not the case. The Railway Commission should protect the East. The East paid the biggest part of the cost of constructing western lines, and it should not be discriminated against by such a class cry. The Railway Commission should do its part or be removed; it should see that any order it issues does not rob Peter to pay Paul. For that reason I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Maclean (York) that the bill be not now read the second time, but that it be read the second time this day six months hence.
Amendment (Mr. Church) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) :: Mr. Speaker, the question now comes back to this Parliament and it goes from them to the people. It will never be settled aright until it is settled on some public principles such as those laid down by the previous speaker (Mr. Meighen). This question has not been settled here tonight; it is widened out. Every industry that feels aggrieved now must come to Parliament for relief just as the western farmers have come for relief. Therefore, the responsibility is on the Government to frame a policy and to remedy grievances that exist, and the question will go back to the people. What has happened in this House to-night throws the question open in the election that is coming on in Manitoba next month. The people there are not satisfied with what is going on to-day.
Just wait and see-that is all I have to say. Watch the developments that take place.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I have no desire to delay the passing of this bill; but I should like to speak on behalf of the people in some parts of Ontario and, indeed, of Canada generally, who will be prejudicially affected by this legislation. There is no question at all that, according to the evidence given before the committee, the railways will suffer a severe loss by the adoption of the provisions contained in this bill. I represent a constituency in which many linen, in fact, probably most men, are engaged, in some degree at least, in lumbering and in the pulp industry. We have had an abnormal condition throughout northern Ontario in that regard. I have in mind cases where the prospective farmer clearing a farm has been offered $3 a cord for pulpwood while the freight rate was $10 to the nearest pulp mill. These men have suffered more proportionately than the men who are raising grain; and while I have every desire to see the men raising grain have every satisfaction and every possible reduction in rates, nothing should be done to prejudice the interests of those men who are engaged in lumbering or mining or any other industry in Canada. I feel that Parliament, in passing a measure of this kind which provides that one interest shall benefit at the expense of all others, is not doing the right thing at the present time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I wish to say a word in. respect of the argument advanced by my hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs). I think he has spoken without a full knowledge of the facts in connection with this matter. It certainly is not the desire of the farmers of western Canada to do any injustice to any other portion of the Dominion.


James Arthurs: I did not say it was the desire of the farmers of western Canada to do this. I said that the effect of this resolution would be that similar reductions could not be made on basic commodities in other parts of the country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I veTy much question, indeed, the deduction that my hon. friend has drawn from his reading of the reports.


Arthur Meighen: The report says that they do not know anything about it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was referring to the reports of the committee, to which the hon. member for Parry Sound also had refer-
Transportation Costs

rence. I was not speaking about the report submitted to Parliament to-day.


James Arthurs: I did not refer to the report of the committee. What I referred to was the evidence given before the committee by the persons who represented the various railway companies. I never referred to the report of the committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let me make myself
clear, if it is possible for me to do so. I understood that my hon. friend referred to the daily evidence given before the committee, which I was describing as reports. He deduced from that evidence that if these Crowsnest rates on grain were put into effect his lumber and pulp could not get reduced rates; and in that he has not correctly interpreted the evidence given to the committee. What was the proposal that we have heard quite a bit about during the discussion this afternoon and to-night, and which was submitted to the committee by the railways? It was a proposal for a reduction on basic commodities generally. The basic commodities were set out and it is quite true that lumber and pulp were among those specified. But in the proposal of the railways to give a reduction on basic commodities there was also the suggestion that a reduction of 20 per cent would be given on the existing grain rates. In other words, that would bring the existing grain rates down about two-thirds between where they are at present and the Crowsnest scale. All that the report recommends is that these rates be put into full effect on grain, and if this is done it will take from the railways only $3,800,000 of revenue. There is no evidence, other than the statement of the railways to the effect, to show that if the full reduction were made to the Crowsnest level on grain, reductions could not be made on basic commodities. The railways themselves, in the evidence given beforei the committee, state that the loss to their' systems outside of grain altogether would amount to $6,163,000. If they do bring the rates down from what they have pro-, posed to the exact level of the Crowsnest pass agreement it only means $3,800,000i of a loss. So that they sttill have $2,500,-< 000 to go upon, on their own word, in' making reductions on basic commodities before they would lose a cent; and I am1 convinced that they can make reductions on basic commodities and give the Crowsnest rates on grain without suffering in1 any hardship.


James Arthurs: Is lit or is it not true that a question was asked in the committee

whether, if the grain rates were lowered' to the level of the Crowsnest agreement, the railways would then agree to reductions on other basic commodities to which they had already referred?-to which they replied, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is quite true that the railways stated that they could not give reductions on basic 'commodities. But I, as one member of the committee, do not take the words of the railways in that matter. I have already pointed out that they could give almost 50 per cent of ai reduction on the basic commodities they suggest without losing a single cent.


Mr. STANSELL:: I was not a member
of the committee and have not followed the reports very closely. But it is apparent to me that there could not have been any Ontario dairy farmers present at least judging from a perusal of the report. An exception is made in the case of rates on grain and flour, and it should certainly apply also to bran and shorts or the byproducts of wheat. Most of us in Ontario who use the by-products know very well that in many cases we have to buy in mixed car lots, and under such an arrangement as this, a low rate being granted on flour, it is possible that the railways will charge correspondingly high rates on bran and shorts, which will work a hardship against the Ontario farmer who needs these by-products. I submit in all fairness that if wheat and flour moving from the West to the East are given special rates, then by-products such as bran and shorts should be put on the same basis. I firmly believe that the country demands that there shall be a substantial reduction in rates, and I believe also that the people are quite willing that a preferential treatment should be accorded certain basic commodities. Unquestionably wheat is one of those commodities to which this should apply; and I would also extend the same concession to the coal produced in the maritime provinces and possibly the fruit in the far West. It must be apparent to all of us that if we are to justify Confederation, if we are not going to tear down what has already been built up, a certain preference in the matter of rates should be given on many of the basic commodities that move East and West, so that the various provinces may be bound more closely together. Granting that, what is the fault in the present bill based on the report of the committee? Merely this: It is wrong in principle; in introducing the report the

Soldiers' Re-establishment
chairman of the committee (Mr. Maclean, Halifax) said, and the same thing is stated in the report itself, that the principle is unsound of a government fixing rates. If that is correct, then it is clearly wrong for the Government or Parliament to fix rates on any special commodities. If the report had recommended that the Railway Commission fix the lowest possible rates with a special preference to certain basic commodities, then I could agree with it. In a word, when the Government says: We believe the proper principle is by legislation of our own to fix a special rate for a few provinces where we are most anxious to get' some support and to let all other interests of this country depends upon pious hopes and prayers, I say that principle is wrong. If I have learned anything this session from hon. members to my left it is that they believed in certain definite principles; that in the consideration of any question those principles should first be applied; that there should be equal rights to all and special privileges to none. They have insisted on that principle all through, in the consideration of every important question, but here is one question which, on the admission of the Government itself, involves a wrong principle; yet because the loaves and fishes are extended to hon. members to my left they are willing to accept the bait, and are ready to swallow all that they previously said in that respect. I say that to proceed in this way is entirely wrong, and I cannot teee how Progressive members can consistently support the bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. ,S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) : Mr. Speaker, before we leave the order "introduction of bills" I would ask leave to introduce a bill respecting the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.
Mr. BELAND moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 207, respecting the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
He said: The other day the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me if we intended to introduce any legislation in connection with the report
of the Re-establishment Committee that was laid on the Table at that time, and I said that outside of the resolutions themselves already printed in the Order Paper, I did not think any other legislation was required; that Orders in Council or regulations would be sufficient. It appears after consultation with the Justice Department that a bill such as this is necessary to enable the department to carry out the various recommendations of the committee. I will read the bill; it has only one clause:
The recommendations contained in the second and Anal report of the Special Committee appointed at the present session of Parliament by the House of Commons to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendment in the existing law in relation thereto are hereby approved and put into full force and effect, subject to such regulations and limitations as the Governor in Council may prescribe.
I may say that this bill was prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, this is not only contrary to the statement of the Government as to what legislation they propose but it is the most astonishing legislative proposal I think I have ever seen. I do not know whether hon. members got the purport of it as it was read by the minister. It is not that I obj'ect to the recommendations; I am not discussing that at all- generally I agree with them. But to legislate in this form would seem to me to be -well, the best way in the world to sow a plentiful crop of lawsuits. This bill may have been submitted to the Parliamentary Counsel, but I really have such profound respect for the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) that I venture the assertion now that it was never submitted to him.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: I may say that I was not consulted in the matter by the Parliamentary Counsel, who, I understand, prepared the bill.


Mr. BELAND:: This bill was prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel and sent by him to me. I am not a lawyer, but I am willing to couch the bill in any terms that would conform to parliamentary usage. The object of the bill is to carry out the provisions of the report.


Arthur Meighen: I think the bill is past redemption in its present form. There might be a bill enabling the Government to carry out the recommendations, but a bill enacting the whole body of those regulations, comprising a report that is almost
Questions

the size of a book, and to say that they shall be law-really, I do not think it does justice even to the Government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may say to my right hon. friend that though I am not a lawyer I think I concur in his view. If the House will give me leave to introduce the bill, the second reading may be postponed till to-morrow and I shall have the form of it prepared toy the Justice Department- which, I understand, is infallible.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SENATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205, respecting matches.-Mr. Fielding.

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

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Why does the Government propose to cut off the bonus from all civil servants receiving $2,400 or over, and from many single persons under that amount?
2.	Does the Government intend to grant higher salaries to the Civil Service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The
Government stated its views on this question during the discussion of the supplementary estimates on Saturday night. I do not know that the question is quite in order; I think it might be dropped, in view of what already has been stated.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member (Mr. Garland) is not here.


Hewitt Bostock: Stand.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE-EMPLOYEES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What are the wages paid to (engineers, stewards and other such employees of the Canadian Merchant Marine, (a) in the Pacific service and (h) in the Atlantic1'


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: In the Pacific service, engineers, including chief engineers, are paid from $120 to $230 per month; stewards, from $88 to $100 per month, and assistant stewards when employed, $48 per month. In the Atlantic service, engineers, including chief engineers, are paid from $80 per month to $200; stewards from $73 to $95 per month, and assistant stewards when employed, $48 per month.


CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the total profits of chartered banks between 1901-1911 and 1911-1921 inclusive?
2.	What percentage do the profits of chartered banks bear to the capital between the years 1901-1921 inclusive?
3.	What was the amount of Dominion Government notes in circulation 1901, 1911, 1921?
4.	What is the amount of interest paid to the Dominion Government by the banks for the use of Dominion notes?
5. Where is this amount recorded in the public accounts?
6.	What amount of excess circulation was issued by the chartered banks for moving the crop during the years 1911-1921 inclusive?
7.	What rate of interest was paid by the chartered banks to the treasury for the use of this excess circulation?
S. What did this interest amount to?
9. Where is this amount recorded in the public accounts?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1 and 2. These statistics mot compiled.
3.	As at April 1:
1901	$ 28,498,519 52
1911	 89,994,270 25
1921	 277,882,884 92
4.	Answered on page 3262 of Unrevised Hansard of this Session.
5.	Under miscellaneous revenue items in the revenue schedules.
6.	7 and 8. Answered on pages 3262 and 3264 of Unrevised Hansard of this Session.
9. Included in the item "Casual Revenue, Finance," in the revenue schedules.


GOVERNMENT CUTTER HUDSON
Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Do Captain P. A. Sandall, engineer Charles
Johnson, cook Thomas Oulton, and deckhand Alfte Lougere, constitute crew of Government cutter "Hudson"?	_
2.	If so, when were they appointed?
3.	Were they appointed on the recommendation of a local patronage committee?
4.	If not, what are the names of the persons who recommended tneir appointment?
5.	Was Captain Sandall formerly appointed in 1912 to command this cutter?
6.	When was he dismissed and for what cause?
7.	When the new crew took charge was the cutter not in good condition?
8.	What has happened to the cutter, particularly to the machinery, since that time?
9.	Was not the engineer accustomed to a stationary engine?
10.	What experience had he with a marine gasoline engine?
11.	Has this crew been discharged in consequence of an accident?
12.	If not, for what cause and when was it discharged ?
13.	What, if any, correspondence on the subject has been received by the Department of

Questions
Marine and Fisheries, or any other Department of Minister, including the Secretary of State, from Captain Sandall, or any member of the crew, or any member of the Provincial Government of New Brunswick or other person?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	There is no government cutter Hudson. The persons named were employed on the Fisheries Patrol Boat Mildred Mc-Coll.
2.	Began duty May 8th.
3 and 4. They were appointed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	The engine needed two new cylinders.
8.	After the new cylinders were installed by the Inspecting Engineer one of them bursted when he was testing the engine, as it was defective.
9 and 10. His continued employment was contingent on the Inspecting Engineer being satisfied that he possessed the requisite qualifications. Before entering on his duties the Inspecting Engineer became convinced that he did not possess the needed qualifications and consequently his employment was not continued.
11 and 12. The crew were not discharged but their pay was discontinued until the boat was replaced.
13. This question should stand as a Notice of Motion for a return of the correspondence.


POSTAL REGULATIONS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: 1.	Did the Post Office Department recently establish a ruling defining a bona fide subscriber to a newspaper or magazine?
2.	If so, on what date?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LUSITANIA REPARATIONS CLAIMS
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Has the Government received claims of Canadian citizens for reparation for loss arising out of the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine in May, 1916?
2.	If so, how many claims have been so received and what is the aggregate amount of such claims?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken to collect from the German Government for losses suffered as above?
4.	If no steps have been taken, does the Government purpose taking any action in the premises?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1. Yes, for loss arising out of the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915.
2.	There are 162 claims. 8 claims of no stated amount. 154 claims totalling $1,627,937.83.
3.	The Treaty of Peace with Germany makes no provision for payment to the individual claimants for loss occasioned by the sinking of the Lusitania. Claims for such losses were asked for, for the purpose of computing under Article 232 and Annex to Section I of Part VIII of the Treaty, the amount payable by Germany for reparation. Any amount paid by Germany for reparation to Great Britain will be paid to Canada to the extent of Canada's allotted share. What amounts may be paid to claimants for losses sustained by the sinking of the Lusitania will then be considered.
4.	Answered by 3.


CUSTOMS DUTIES-CANADIAN FORD COMPANY
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: 1.	What amount of customs duty has been paid by the Canadian Ford Company in each year since 1904?
2.	What amount has been paid by this company in each year by way of taxes under The Business Profits War Tax Act?
3.	What amount has been paid by this company in each year by way of taxes under The Income War Tax Act?


William Stevens Fielding: For reasons set forth on April 19 in answer to a question concerning the income tax, the Minister of Finance is of opinion that the transactions of particular individuals or corporations with the Government as respects payment of taxes should not be regarded as ordinarily open to disclosure in answer to questions in the House.


MR. L. J. GABOURY
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the duties of Mr. L. J. Gaboury of the Post Office Department, Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Was he recently promoted, and to what
position?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	How long has he been in the service?
5.	What was his salary when first appointed?
6.	At what dates did he receive increases in salary, and what amount in each case?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1. Under the direction of the General Superintendent of Postal Service, to act as travelling representative of the Post Office Department in an assigned division; to supervise and co-ordinate the administration of postal service districts; to supervise the work and staffs of postal districts and instruct district superintendents and their staffs in their duties; to advise district
Questions

superintendents and other supervisory officials in matters or organization, methods of administration, and problems of discipline; to examine into the management and efficiency of district offices, post offices, railway post offices, and steamboat, rural and stage routes; on occasion, to assist the General Superintendent of Postal Service in the peformance of his duties and, when designated to act for him in his absence; and to perform other related work as required.
2.	1st March, 1921, promoted to position of Division Superintendent of Postal Service.
3.	$5,400.
4.	21J years.
5.	$400.
6.	5th September, 1900, $200 on permanent appointment, $600 being minimum of junior second class; 1st October, 1901, $50, annual increase; 1st October, 1902, $50, annual increase; 1st October, 1903, $50, annual increase; 24th October, 1903, $50, (Act to amend Civil Service Act); annual increase; 1st October, 1904, $50, annual increase; 1st October, 1905, $50, annual increase; 1st October, 1906, $300, promoted to first class; 1st January, 1907, $300, maximum first class; 1st January, 1908, $500, appointed assistant postmaster at Montreal at minimum for position; 1st April, 1910, $800, salary based on revenue of office; 1st April, 1912, $400, section 2, act to amend C. S. Act, 1912; 1st January, 1913, $300, appointed superintendent city and semi-staff offices in Quebec and maritime provinces; 1st January, 1918, $500, supplementary estimates; 1st April, 1919, $800, minimum on classification; 1st April, 1920, $300, annual increase; 1st April, 1921, $300, annual increase.


WELLAND SHIP CANAL
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Has contract for sections number three and four of Welland Ship Canal been let?
2.	If so, to whom and what was the total price?
3.	What are the names of persons who tendered and what was the amount of their respective tenders?
4.	What were the estimates of the departmental engineers for this work?
5.	What security did each contracting firm submit with tenders?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	P. Lyall & Sons Construction Company, Limited, Montreal.

3.	A. W. Robertson, Limited, $20,750,762.50; P. Lyall & Sons Construction Company, Ltd., $15,497,777.10; Royal Construction Co., Toronto, $15,342,385.50.
4.	$16,343,517.50.
5.	As to the Robertson tender, a certificate of the Bank of Toronto, Montreal, that $850,000 in Canadian war loan bonds is held subject to the order of the Minister of Railways and Canals. As to the Lyall tender, an accepted cheque on the Mol-sons Bank, Montreal, for $850,000. As to the Royal Construction Company, an unaccepted cheque for $850,000.


PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS
Thomas Langton Church: '
1.	How many provincial government commissions during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 did the Hon. Justice Riddell and the Hon. Justice Latchford serve on, and how many days were they absent from their -judicial duties?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to fill the vacancy in the High Court Bench of Ontario caused by the death of the late Hon. Justice Sutherland.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	The Government has not been informed.
2.	Yes.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BAXTER:: For a copy of all correspondence from and to any member of "the Government, any government department or official thereof, or other persons, with reference to the appointment and dismissal in the year 1921 and 1922 of the crew :sf the Government cutter Hudson.


Mr. SEGUIN:: For a copy of the Report number three, dated the seventeenth September, 1920, re Administration and Organization of the Post Office Department addressed to Council Sub-Committee on re-organization and efficiency.


AUTOMOBILE TAXES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: May I ask what consideration has been given by the Government to the request of the automobile dealers in regard to the remission of taxes which they claim to have paid, and which they thought were to be refunded?


William Stevens Fielding: Is my hon. friend referring to the proposals in the budget of this year?


John Livingstone Brown: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Referring to the budget of a year ago? Application was made to

Alien Property
the late government to refund the taxes in certain cases, which they did not seem able to grant, and we have not been able to change their decision.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: May I ask whether the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has received a telegram from Mr. Calhoun, of Edmonton, with regard to Bill No. 54, which recently passed through this House, and if so, whether it could be read to the House?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :: I did receive a telegram to-day.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Could it be read to the House?


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe that last Saturday the report of the International Labour Conference at Genoa was tabled. Is this report to be printed and made available for the use of the public? It would be of very great advantage to have it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the report has already been printed in the Labour Gazette, which I thought my hon. friend read.


ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon) :: May
I at this late stage of the session be permitted to put a question which might more properly have been brought up in Committee of Supply on Saturday, when a vote of $2,000 was passed in connection with the armorial bearings of Canada. In these armorial bearings appear the arms and emblems of the English, the Irish the Scotch and the French, but I regret to say, sir, the emblem of that small nation which gives a title to the heir to the British throne, and which has given to the United Kingdom one of its greatest prime ministers-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Will the hon.
member put his question? Argument is not permissible on the Orders of the Day.


John Evans: I desire to ask if the
Government will take early steps to see that the leek of my native Wales is enshrined in our armorial bearings with the thistle, the shamrock, the lily and the rose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government will be pleased to take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend.


CUSTODY OF ALIEN PROPERTY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. R. CLARK (Burrard) :: On the
15th of May the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) answered certain questions which I had put on the Order Paper regarding the law firms of Fisher and Oughton and of Williams and Manson. I asked whether the custody of alien property had been transferred from the firm of Fisher and Oughton to that of Williams and Manson, and the reply was in the affirmative. I asked the reason for the change and the answer was that it was made for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration of enemy property. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State suggests that there was any inefficiency iin the administration of this property by the firm of Fisher and Oughton, and if so, whether any complaints were made by him to that firm at any time.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) :: I have nothing to add to the answers that appear in Hansard.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask whether the
minister suggests that there was any inefficiency on the part of Messrs Fisher and Oughton? Is he making the charge that there was inefficiency on the part of that firm ? I would call attention to-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member has put his question, and the minister has given his answer, and the matter must stand there. Otherwise, a debate might arise.	,


BANK INTEREST
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle) :: I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a matter of considerable importance. I have two letters here received from my constituency, which I shall not take time to read to the House, but they both complain that the banks, now that money is very scarce and farmers are

Soldiers' Re-establishment

very much in need of ready money, have raised their rate in many cases to as high as nine per cent. I would ask if the Government is prepared to make any representations to the hanks in regard to this matter. I suppose there is no thought of revising the Bank Act before next session, but perhaps the Government would make some representations to the banks and look into this matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid there is nothing
the Government could do at present. The whole question of the revision of the Bank Act will have to be taken up at another session. For the present, I do not know that anything can be done to remedy a difficulty of that kind if there is one.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) :: Following some remarks I made in the House in the early part of the session regarding the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, I have received several letters from civil servants employed in he B.P.C. at Ottawa. Probably all the members of the House are net aware that some time ago the D.S.C.R. absorbed the B.P.C. I may explain that D.S.C.R. stands for Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and B.P.C. for Board of Pension Commissioners. Can the Government inform me if permanent civil servants employed on the staff of the D.S.C.R. are being dismissed for inefficiency, and if not for inefficiency why have the provisions of Order in Council, P.C. 2722, dated August 17, 1921, been ignored? Have the D.S.C.R. the prerogative of vetoing any legislation passed by Order in Council? My reason for asking this question is that certain permanent civil servants employed by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman's question is not arguable.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If my hon. friend will come over to-morrow to my office and ask me this question I will be in a position to answer him. I may say offhand that I am ;under the impression that owing to the necessity of reducing the staff in the department a certain number of permanent employees have had to be retired. As they had been blanketed in, as it is termed, by a certain Order in Council, therefore

an Order in Council had to be passed to retire them, but it was not on account of any inefficiency but only by reason of the necessity for contracting the service.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. CALDWELL
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. CALDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the Orders of the Day I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) on Saturday in which he misquoted what I said in the House on June 12- *


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: -and then proceeded to read a document-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: -and then proceeded to read a document in which doubt was cast upon my veracity.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman is entitled to put a question and make a personal explanation before the Orders of the Day are called, but he must avoid attacking any other hon. member. He may state the facts which perturb his mind and then let the House judge of the matter; but he must not attack any other hon. gentleman. I understand the hon. member wishes to make a personal explanation. He may proceed to that explanation without, however, attacking another hon member.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I had no intention of attacking anybody. I simply wanted to clear up a statement made by the hon. member for St. John on Saturday as a question of privilege. In that connection I want to read the statement the hon. member attributed to me and then read what I actually said, leaving the House to judge as to whether the hon. member quoted me correctly. He was speaking of a statement I made in the House on) June 12; it was with regard to an amendment I moved to the Dominion Elections Act on that day. The hon. member was referring to a statement I made about a returning officer in my riding during the recent elections, and this is what he said:
He was charged-
That is the returning officer, he meant-
He was charged with having made electoral subdivisions which were not warranted by law.
Now, I wish to quote what I actually
did say:

Privilege-Mr. Caldwell
36Q3
Last fall, I learned quite accidentally one evening, just two weeks prior to the election, that five new polls had been established in my riding.
That is the only reference I made to the establishing of the new polls. I did not say they were established illegally because I knew better. While I am not a lawyer possibly I know the Elections Act quite as well as my hon. friend from St. John, due to the fact that I was in this House when it was passed. I opposed some of the provisions of that act very strenuously and was convinced last fall that I was justified in doing so.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the -hon. gentleman has stated his case fully.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Bourinot says in speaking of personal questions brought up when Orders of the Day are called, that it is the usage in both Houses of the Canadian Parliament to make personal explanations and ask questions of the Government. They make them in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official report, or in the newspapers, but they must not engage in discussion or further explanation. The hon. gentleman has stated that he has been misquoted. He has read what he said in the House and what the hon, member for St. John had said. Now the House must judge of the incident, which is closed and no further argument can be allowed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I be allowed to quote further from the hon. gentleman's speech to show that he made a misstatement later on in his remarks.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Orders of the Day.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have I not a right, Mr. Speaker, to quote further from the hon. gentleman's speech to correct another misstatement?


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think it is really necessary. The hon. member has presented his case from his point of view. He has given a quotation of his own statement, and has also quoted a statement by the hon. member from St. John. Now the incident is closed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But I am rising to a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
230i


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have only explained one incident. The hon. member for St. John also charged that I had stated a falsehood in the House.


Mr. STEVENS:: I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point of order is this: I bring to your attention the fact that when the hon. member for St. John first attempted to make his statement he was ruled out of order by you, Sir, and I think quite properly. On the second occasion that he made his statement he was again ruled out of order, after proceeding for some short space, by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. Consequently he had not the opportunity of finishing his statement. Therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that it would1 be highly unfair to have another hon. gentleman debate further the hon. member's statement which was not completed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I speak to the point of order? I submit that it is quite a different thing to rule an hon. member out of order when he is replying to an attack by another hon. member and seeking to establish the fact that he was misquoted, and falsely accused of making a false statement in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will leave the
House to judge if I am not taking the right course.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The hon. gentleman has already misquoted me. I was careful to say that I was quoting from a letter signed by the gentlemen he had' attacked in the House. I made no statement about the hon. member himself because I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances.


Hewitt Bostock: No hon. member can use the expression "false" or "falsely" in speaking of another hon. member. It is not parliamentary language and I would therefore ask the hon. member from Carle-ton, N.B., to withdraw the expression.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I gladly withdraw the expression if it is misconstrued in any way. I desire to state, however, that I did not accuse the hon. member himself of making a false statement; I said he read a document "which falsely accused me of making a false statement in this House.

Privilege-Mr. Caldwell


Hewitt Bostock: I have given my ruling and I am now in the hands of the House.
I rule that the incident is now closed. It has been fully explained by all parties.
On the Orders of the Day:


ENTRY OF CHINESE INTO CANADA
Mr. McBRIDE:: I would like to know from the Minister of the Interior if he has any further information in connection with the entry of 360 Chinamen into Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: There are 144 Chinese on the Empress of Canada. There are 33 still to he examined and reported upon; 85 were returning to Canada, and 176 passing through Canada in bond.
MERCHANTS BANK ENQUIRY On the Orders of the Day:


Thomas Langton Church: As the session is drawing to a close I would be glad if the Government would inform the House whether they will order a thorough government enquiry either by a committee of this House to sit in the recess of Parliament or by a royal commission into the whole Merchants Bank case in the public interest in addition to the very limited enquiry now being held at Montreal. The Country expects it and also an inquiry into the whole Banks Act. Something should be done in the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware of any action being taken or contemplated than that at present proceeding in the courts in Montreal.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT On motion of Mr. Fielding for Committee of Ways and Means.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion which was proceeding when I was ruled out of order recently. I had stated that the hon. member from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) quoted a statement I made on the 12th June. I read what he said and I read what I said myself, and I am willing to leave the House to judge of the matter. In regard to the making of the list, I want to quote what the hon. member said. During the reading of this document he interjected this remark:
There comes a very distinct issue of veracity between the hon. member and the returning officer. I know nothing of the circumstances. I do not know anything personally of the circumstances now, except as I have heard the 
statement made in the House and as I have, in my possession, a statement differing very widely in practically all respects, of the returning officer.
He has qualified that again by saying-[DOT]
I cannot of course vouch for a single statement I am reading.
I am not in the same position as the hon. member for St. John. I am not going to make a statement I cannot vouch for in this case. I did not make a statement on the 12th June that I could not vouch for and could not prove in any court of the land and I do not propose to make a statement now which I cannot vouch for. I was quoting what I did say on that occasion with regard to preparing the list and will leave the House to judge whether the returning officer's statement differed from mine. I was speaking of the necessity for the polls created in my riding. I said:
I went to the returning officer to inquire if it was a fact that those new polls had been established, because I had no notice of the enumerators, and he said that it was. I asked him if he had his enumerators or registrars appointed for the polls and who they were: He said: "No and I do not propose to appoint any." I asked him how he proposed to get a list of those polls and to furnish it to the candidate on nomination day. He said that he did not propose to have a list for each polling division. He was subdividing one polling division into four. He said that he was going to have them all prepared as one list and revised as that. He said: "We will provide a copy of each poll for the deputy returning officer on election day, but no separate lists will be prepared for the candidate."
I	want to quote from the document the hon. member read on Saturday night and I will leave the House to judge. The hon. member for St. John read from the document prepared by the returning officer as follows:
He further says that he did not at that time want to appoint new registrars who would be
unfamiliar with the duties, and that
II	p.m. he proposed to allow the existing
registrars to make up his list for the entire division in the usual way and then, subdivide it geographically for the use of the deputy returning officers in the separate polling stations on election day.
That is identical with the statement I made on the 12th June. I wish to deal very briefly with this, because I do not wish to impose on the good nature of the House at this hour of the night and at this stage of the session, but I think it is due to myself that I should clear up this matter. This is also from the statement as read by the hon. member from what is supposed to be a document sent to him by the returning officer for my riding.

Dominion Elections-Mr. Caldwell
He says that the hon. member's further statement that the hon. member threatened him with an injunction is quite surprising. At no time during the election did either candidate threaten him in any way, and so tar as he was aware, the conduct of the election from the returning officer's standpoint was satisfactory to all parties concerned. He says that it was surprising to learn that the hon. member had to put an injunction on the election.
At this point I rose to a point of order and I said-
Mr. Caldwell: I rise to a question of privilege. I never said that I had to put on an injunction; but I had to threaten to do so, and I can prove this by the attorney whom I employed.
I wish to read a telegram from an attorney whom I employed on that occasion. I wired him on Saturday night to verify the threatened injunction and this is the telegram which I received from my attorney. This gentleman is well known to the members of the House from the maritime provinces and his veracity would not be impugned. His name is W. P. Jones, barrister, of Woodstock, N.B.:
Woodstock, N.B. June 25th, 1922. Thomas W. Caldwell, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Hast Dominion election you instructed me to apply for injunction, against returning officer unless lists of new polls established by him were furnished without further delay. I telephoned returning officer that I would take legal action if lists not supplied. He referred me to Hayward his solicitor who undertook to furnish same.
W. P. Jones.
Now, in that statement read by the hon. member Saturday night and in his comments he stated that the returning officer had submitted all these things to the Chief Electoral Officer and had his sanction to do this. The returning officer also showed me these letters from the Chief Electoral Officer in his office, which showed that he had spent more time in corresponding with the Chief Electoral Officer to get authority to evade the Election Act than it would have taken him to have made the lists because he had had several interchanges of letters with the Chief Electoral Officer, and he read them to me in his office. I said, " I do not care what the Chief Electoral Officer told you to do about the list. He has authority to instruct you to establish a new polling division. You must make the list according to law, and I want to quote what the law says about appointing officers and making lists." I was not finding much fault because he did not appoint new registrars. It might have caused some inconvenience, but I was particular that we should have the lists and have
them according to law. I want to read what the law says about appointing registrars and making lists. Page 93 of the Dominion Elections Act, section 32, rule 1, reads:
Rule (1) Immediately after the receipt of the writ the returning officer shall appoint by writing in Form No. 5 one person only to be registrar of voters for each rural polling division. Whenever a competent person can be secured who is a resident within the limits of the polling division such person shall be appointed' and only in case of necessity shall a registrar be selected from an outside polling division.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that either the member for St. John or the returning officer in my riding would like to stand within the bounds of that riding and say there were not men fit to be registrars in any of those new polling subdivisions. I know the people in those subdivisions very well, and I do not think I know a crook in one of those new subdivisions. It is just possible that was the reason there was no registrar appointed in that division. I wish to read rule (3) with regard to preparing lists and furnishing them to the candidates. Rule (3) of section 32 provides:
Bach registrar shall complete, date at his place of residence and certify as in form No. 18 to this act such copies of the voters' lists on the 15th day before the polling day and not other-It appears to be all right looking at it from two of the most public and conspicuous places within such polling division and another he shall retain for revision. He shall on the day fixed for the nomination of cand'dates deliver or send by registered mail to each of the candidates a copy of such lists.
Although the law says that they must be made fifteen days prior to an election and not otherwise, the returning officer, according to the statement as read in the House by the hon. member for St. John and Albert, admitted that he did not propose to make these separate lists before election day or that he did not intend to have any for the candidates, but that he proposed to have one for the deputy returning officers on election day. There is a good deal more that I would like to have said, had it been earlier in the day or earlier in the session; but I want to repeat what I said at the beginning. I have not made a statement in connection with this that I cannot prove either in this House or outside of it. In fact, I think I am safe in saying that since I have been a member I have never made in this House a statement that I could not prove. Should it occur to the hon. member for St. John and Albert to wish me to prove the truth of some of the statements
3606	COMMONS
Dominion Elections-Mr. Caldwell
that I have made during this session, I shall be only too pleased to accommodate him.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to detain the House at any length on such an unimportant matter. Had I been permitted to read in full, as I endeavoured to do, the letter which I received from the man who had been attacked by my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell)', that would probably have ended the incident. As 1 read the whole letter with the exception of the last paragraph, I am not going to bother the House with the rest of it. The hon. member challenges me to a number of things, and all I wish to remark is simply this. I will not discuss the case further. I assured the House already that I interfered only because I was applied to by a man who claimed that he had been unjustly referred to by the hon. member and who wanted to have his case put before the House. The hon. member has admitted that he had read the correspondence with the Chief Electoral Officer. He was not, however, frank enough to tell the House that he had read it, and it is clear now that whatever this returning officer did, whether it may seem to be irregular as regards the law or not, was sanctioned by the Chief Electoral Officer. I will not go into the matter further. The only other observation that I wish to make is that the hon. member has given us his measure to-night. He has absolutely accused me, in plain and direct terms, of having falsely represented him. When he attempted to prove that, he read, not from my own statement, but from my quotation from the letter from the returning officer, language that I made it clear I was not responsible for except as the vehicle to convey it to the House. When the hon. member used that language with regard to me, that I had spoken falsely-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I rise to a question of privilege. I did not state that the hon. member had made a false statement. I stated that he read a document which falsely accused me. I reiterate that.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I adhere to my original statement of the matter, and my final comment on it is that the hon. member has shown respect neither for the amenities of personal contact, nor for the dignity of this House, in not withdrawing the statement that he made in regard to the matter. There is no question-the ears of hon. members
are sharp enough to hear it-it was said, and it would have been resented in a much more violent way by myself had it been made outside the walls of this Chamber.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With regard to the statement that the returning officer was instructed to do certain things and that he was justified in doing what he did, I want to say that he did not do what the Chief Electoral Officer instructed him to do, but proceeded to furnish me with the lists after I had threatened to get an injunction.
With regard to the last statement of the hon. member for St. John and Albert I can take up his offer outside whenever he wants to.


Hewitt Bostock: I will ask the Sergeant-at-arms to see that no disorder takes place in the lobby.	.




[Stage Direction]
On the Motion of Mr. Fielding for Committee of Ways and Means:
John Arthur Clark: As regards the answer given by me a few moments ago by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) to what I think was a perfectly proper question regarding the law firms of Fisher and Oughton and of Williams and Manson, I wish to place before the House certain facts. As I stated before, on the 15th of May, the Secretary of State answered certain questions regarding the firm of Fisher & Oughton acting on behalf of the custodian of enemy property and effecting a sale of certain properties. I think a reflection has been cast upon that firm. I am credibly informed that, throughout the period of the administration of this property by that firm, no complaint was made by the department regarding the conduct of the firm in regard to matters committed to their care. I think, in justice to that firm, the Secretary of State should now furnish the House with the true reasons for transferring the business from the firm of Fisher and Oughton to that of Williams and Manson. It appears to me that the real reason was a political one. I can see no other reason, and my opinion is confirmed by the answer which was given a few moments ago, when I asked what I consider was a perfectly legitimate, proper question.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend regarding the change of solicitors to which he refers-I do not know whether they are

Alien Property
in his constituency, or what constituency they are in, but they are in British Columbia-I may say to him, what I have already said by correspondence with the gentlemen for whom he speaks. My hon. friend himself took the responsibility of placing the question upon the Order Paper. I, as head of the department for the time being, thought that it was in the interest of the department to change solicitors at that time. I took the responsibility for doing so, and I gave my hon. friend the answer as I have given him the reply now.


Arthur Meighen: There appears no good reason for the action of the minister. His answer is this: We did it; and we have no reason other than that we wanted increased efficiency. Thus he reflected on the efficiency of a reputable firm. Now, the minister has no right to do that unless he can state his reasons. He does an injury to that firm in Parliament and he does an injustice to his office. He knows he has no reasons to give, but purely the reason that what he did was for patronage purposes. But he has not the courage to say so. The minister is called upon to give reasons for his action, and if he fails to give them he fails in his duty as a member of the Government. He does not get rid of his responsibility by evading the questions that are asked on the Order Paper, and now that he is questioned across the floor of the House he does an injury to a firm which he does not care to repair and to which he professes a cynical indifference. He at least could do credit to himself if he frankly admitted that what he did was for the purpose of party political advantage and none other.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not regard my right
hon. friend as a proper judge of what a minister should do in such cases. I can only repeat that in carrying on the work of the department I found it necessary to make some changes, among Which was the one I have already spoken of.




William Stevens Fielding: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1923, the sum of $175,766,646.71 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 202, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the year ending 31st March, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 60 to amend the Trust Companies Act, 1914, were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 58 to amend the Insurance Act, 1917, were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice) the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 93, to amend the Criminal Code, were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 59, to amend The Loan Companies Act, 1914, were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture), the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 149, to regulate the sale of agricultural fertilizers, was read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. H. S. Beland (Minister of Health), the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 137, to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, were read the second time and concurred in.
Canada Temperance Act

Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) moved:: That this House do not agree to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 132, to amend The Canada Temperance Act, for the following reason: That the said amendment destroys the effect of the whole hill and should not, therefore, be concurred in.


Mr. LADNER:: I would just like to say a word in favour of the motion. The amendments made by the Senate do- have the effect stated. I am of the opinion that it is in the interests of the province of British Columbia that the control of liquors be vested in the provincial government, and for that reason, without delaying the House any further, I express my approval of the motion.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Do I understand the minister to say that the bill is dropped?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Saskatchewan sections are not affected at all.
Motion agreed !to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours with the non-concurrence of this House in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 132.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 12:45 a.m.- Tuesday.
Tuesday, June 27, 1922