Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the Table of the House copies of:
1.	Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary, and Protocol and Declaration, signed at Trianon, 4th June, 1920, (with maps);
2.	Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at Sevres, August 10, 1910, (with maps).



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford) :: I beg to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to consider the official report of the Debates as follows:
The Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates, begs leave to present the following as Its second reading report:
Your committee has had under consideration the desirability of having printed at the end of each session an index to the unrevised edition of the Debates of the House of Commons;
Your committee is aware that a current index of the said debates is prepared daily and kept in the Debates office and is assured that said index can be printed as an addition to the last issue within forty-eight hours after prorogation;
Your committee considers that the said index will prove of great value to all persons who are entitled to receive the daily unrevised edition of the Debates and specially to those subscribers who are not entitled to receive and who are not supplied with the revised edition;
Your committee therefore recommends, with a view of increasing the usefulness of the unrevised edition of the Debates, that the current index kept in the Debates office be printed as an addition to the last issue and supplied to subscribers and persons who are entitled to receive the daily unrevised edition of the Debates of the House of Commons.
If I can obtain the unanimous consent of the House, I beg to move, that the second report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official report of Debates be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: I beg to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and, if I may have the unanimous consent of the House, I beg to move that the first and second reports of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 187, to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I would ask for an explanation, and also would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the title of the proposed bill, as now stated, is not exactly as given on the Order Paper.


Mr. FIELDING:: There is just the omission of the word "War" in the Order Paper. If my hon. friend desires to have the motion postponed on that acount, I shall not proceed.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no; I do not wish to have the motion postponed, I simply wanted to draw the omission to the attention of the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall have the correction made. It is not the intention of the Government to propose anything like a revision or an extensive change in the Income War Tax Act for the present year. I have no doubt that when the bill comes before the House hon. gentlemen will have many suggestions to olfer, and I may state now that we do not contemplate any general revision or any extensive changes. There are, however, several points that will be covered by the bill. For example, the exemption of $200 in the case of dependent children we propose to increase to $300. There has been difficulty in connection with the travelling expenses of commercial travellers, who have complained that they are not getting fair consideration in this matter. We are making an amendment to meet the situation. It will be remembered that the House passed legislation based on the practice of the American authorities at the boundary line of imposing certain taxes on Canadians employed across the border. In conformity with that resolution we are introducing a clause in the bill, with the proviso that it shall take effect only on proclamation by the Governor in Council. This proviso is based
Questions

on the hope that regulations may be passed at Washington that will render this legislation unnecessary. These are the chief purposes of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 180 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Maud Evelyn Clark Leith.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ann Phair.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 182 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Park Jefferson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 183 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva Maud Ginn.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 184 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louise Janet Maud Bigford.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 185 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Dickson Couch.-Mr Boys.
Bill No. 186 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecil Grenville Bell.-Mr. Maclean (York).

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

Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Has the Canadian Government contributed towards the purchase ot the submarine cable running from Ireland to Halifax, which is stated was acquired by the British Government about a year ago?
2.	If not, has the Canadian Government under consideration the subject of supplying in conjunction with the British Government, a Brtish owned cable between Great Britain and Canada?
3.	Of the seventeen trans-atlantic cables has the Canadian Government a financial interest in any?
4.	Does the Government propose to extend the Canadian National Telegraph system from Moncton to Halifax, and so connect with the British Atlantic cable?
5.	When official cablegrams are sent from Ottawa to the British Government in London, are they transmitted for a part of the distance through United States territory?
6.	Does the Canadian Government Telegraph system directly connect with the British owned Pacific cable?
7.	If not, is it proposed that this connection be made?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	The Government has been unable to ascertain any record of any such contribution having been made.
2.	No.
3.	No.

4.	Canadian National Telegraphs now connect with Atlantic cables by direct Western Union-Canadian National wires between Montreal and North Sydney. The Western Union Telegraph Company own and operate the telegraph lines east of Moncton, but Canadian National Telegraphs have an option for the lease or purchase of such lines, and the matter may be said to be under consideration to that extent.
5.	Cable messages by Canadian National Telegraphs pass solely through Canadian territory.
6.	No.
7.	Connection cannot be made as, under an existing agreement, the Canadian Pacific enjoys an exclusive arrangement with the Imperial Government to handle this westbound cable business.


STEEL BOUNTIES
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	In what years were steel bounties paid by the Canadian Government?
2.	What was the amount paid in each of these years?
3.	What was the total amount of bounties paid?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	During each fiscal year from 1895-6 to 1911-12, inclusive.
2.
Years ended-	Bounties on steel	Bounties on manufactures from steelJune	30, 1896	$ 59,499	Nil1897	17,366	Nil1898	67.454	Nil1899	74,644	Nil1900	64,360	Nil1901	100,058	Nil1902	77,431	Nil1903	729,102	Nil1904	347,990	15,3211905	676,318	231,3241906	941,000	369,832Mar.	31, 1907	575,259	338,999(9	months) 1908	1,092,201	347,1351909	838,100	333,0911910	695,752	538,8121911	350,456	526,8581912	Nil	166,750
3. Bounties on steel, $6,706,990; bounties on manufactures of steel, $2,868,122.


DENNIS BUILDING, HALIFAX
Mr. GENDRON:: 1.	Did the Government, or any branch thereof, rent offices in the Dennis Building, so called, in the city of Halifax, for any time between January 1st, 1914, and December 31st, 1919?
2.	If so, (a) for what purpose and (b) what was the total amount paid by the Government as rentals for said Dennis Building, and (e) to whom was it paid?
3.	For what length of time were said offices rented?

Questions
3361 .


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Public Works-
1.	Yes.
2.	Premises: Portion of 5th and all of 6th and 7th floors; occupants: M. and D. headquarters; term, 1st January, 1914, to 31st December, 1919; rental paid1: $47,782.00. Premises: two rooms on 4th floor; occupants: recruiting office, M. and D.; 17th December, 1915, to 17th May, 1916; rental paid: $151.00. Premises: two rooms on 4th floor; occupants: taxation office; term: 17th May, 1916, to 1st May, 1918; rental paid: $691.53. Total paid 1st January, 1914, to 31st December, 1919, $48,624.53. Paid to the Dennis Realty Corporation, Halifax, N.S.
3.	5th floor rented from 1st May, 1916, to 1st May, 1920; 6th floor rented from 1st October, 1913, to 1st May, 1920; 7th floor rented from 1st August, 1914, to 1st May, 1920; two rooms 4th floor for recruiting offices rented from 17th December, 1915, to 17th May, 1916; two rooms 4th floor for taxation officer rented from 17th May, 1916, to 1st May, 1918.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery-
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Printing of voters' lists; (b)
$60.40;	(c) Dennis Realty Corporation,
l imited, Halifax, N.S.
3.	Eight weeks.
Department of Railways and Canals-
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) For purposes of Hudston Bay
Railway, Port Nelson Terminals, and Canadian Government Railways (Marine Superintendent). (b) The total amount paid for rental of the Dennis Building was:	Hudson Bay Railway, $1,308.72;
Canadian Government Railways, $602.19; total, $1,910.91.	(c) Rental was paid to
the Dennis Realty Corporation.
3.	From June, 1914, to September, 1918.
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The Halifax District Office of the
Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, was located in the Dennis building, Halifax, from August, 1917, to January 3, 1920.	(b) Total rent paid, August, 1917,
to January, 1920, $2,592.03.	(c) The Dennis Realty Corporation.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


JOHN N. MCDONALD
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Was John N. McDonald dismissed from the position of inspector of dredges, Prince Edward Island district?
2.	(a) Was he employed as a hand on dredge Prince Edward from September, 1884, to January, 1897, and (b) was he promoted to captain of dredge during this period?
3.	When appointed as dredge inspector for said district in 1912, and up to May 6 last, were there any charges brought against him by his superior officials to the department?
4.	If so, what charges?
5.	Were there deductions made from his salary for retirement?
6.	Was he on the permanent list?
7.	On what grounds was he dismissed from the service in May?
8.	Did he ask for an investigation of all charges against him?
9.	Was such an investigation granted him? If not, why?
10.	Is the vacancy caused by his dismissal filled? If so, by whom?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Name does not appear in departmental records prior to 1890; (b) Yes.
3 and 4. None on record.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7.	In the public interest.
8.	Yes.
9.	Representation having been made by most responsible parties an investigation not considered necessary.
10.	No.


HUGH RITCHIE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Hugh Ritchie, a civilian, been appointed to a position in the Sales Tax Branch of the Customs [DOT] Department in Toronto at $960 per year?
2.	What are his qualifications for this position?
3.	Was the said Ritchie in the Civil Service before?
4.	If so, why did he leave?
5.	Has the rule providing that ex-soldiers be given preference in appointment to the Civil Service been rescinded?
6.	Have any complaints been received about this appointment from G.W.V. Associations?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes, temporarily.
2.	His experience in excise work, gained during seventeen years' previous service in the department, made him particularly well fitted for the position.
3.	Yes.
4.	He resigned.
5.	No, it is a provision in the Civil Service Act.
6.	No complaints have been addressed to the commission by any veteran association.

Questions


CANADIAN UNEMPLOYED
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Has the Government any information as to the number of unemployed in Canada at the present time?
2.	To what occupation or profession do they belong and how many in each profession?
3.	How many are married and how many are single?
4.	How many of these are returned men?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	The number of unemployed in Canada at any particular time cannot be stated at all exactly. To give the information required it would be necessary to take a complete census of the unemployed. As the result of telegrams sent to the superintendents of all employment offices in the Dominion on June 9, the Employment Service of Canada was advised that there were approximately 43,000 unemployed in Canada as of that date. On January 1 last the records of the Employment Service of Canada indicated that there were approximately 200,000 unemployed in Canada.
2.	No accurate information available for all unemployed in Canada.
3.	Information not available and would require census of the unemployed to secure.
4.	Applicants at employment offices are not required to state whether they have had military service or not.


SALE OP LAND TO W. REUBEN PARSONS
Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	When did the sale take place of the forty-acre portion of the South East J of Section 29. Township 14, Range 9, West of the 2nd Meridian, marked on the survey as lake?
2.	To whom was the sale made and at what price ?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	An area of 49.73 acres was sold at the rate of $8 per acre to Mr. Reuben Parsons at a sale of school lands held at Wind-thorst on the 23rd October, 1917, and sale was subject to adjustment in accordance with the latest revised township plan of survey. Surveyor General approved plan of survey 14th August, 1918, showing former lake area, comprising 100.10 arces, as hay land and sale adjusted as of the 30th November, 1918, in accordance with terms of contract.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Before disposing, by sale or otherwise, or the laying up of the twenty-seven smaller Canadian Merchant Marine ships, will the Government look into the utilization of those suitable for the formation of a Government Merchant Lake Marine, to act as a feeder to the Canadian National Railways, and to act as a regulator of lake rates?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Will the Government before making any disposition of these ships by tender or otherwise, afford an equal right to tender to the Hydro Radials Commission of Ontario, and to any Harbour Commission on the lakes that may desire to purchase any of said ships for lake and marine purposes?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1 and 2. The Government has not considered the establishment of a lake marine.
3.	Yes.


DEATH OP PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the Government order an inquiry into the death of two inmates of Kingston Penitentiary who were killed through drinking shellac which contained wood alcohol?
2.	Will the Government make inquiry into the overcrowding of this institution, the proper classification of inmates, and the need of additional accomodation?
3.	Will any commission or other form of inquiry be instituted during the recess of Parliament to make a thorough inquiry into the whole problem of prison reform in Canada and report their findings at the next session of this Parliament?


Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	An inquiry will be made into this matter.
2.	The population at Kingston Penitentiary is being taken care of and there is still cell accomodation for additional inmates. The erection of another building is under consideration.
3.	The creation of such a commission has not been considered.


INCOME TAXPAYERS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the total number of income taxpayers in the Dominion?
2.	What is the total number of income taxpayers for each separate gradation of the act?
3.	What is the aggregate of incomes represented by the amount collected under the Income Tax Act?


William Stevens Fielding: Fiscal year 1920-1921

1. 194,257.

Questions
2. Incomes.
. -	Corpor- ations	Indivi- duals	TotalExceeding $	6,000	1,590 665	171,230 11,534 5,339 1,240 776	172,8206,000 10,000 20,000 30.000 50.000 75.000 100,000 200,000 400.000 600.000 son nnn	a	10,000	12,199 5,868it	it	20'000	529	if it	it	30.000	
50.000	236 226	1,476 1,002u	It	75'000	101	238	339It	ll	100,000	85	98	183it	200'000	130	85 17	215it	it	400,000	74	91it	li	600'000	22	2	24it	it	800,000. 	11	11it	it	1,000'000	8	8" i non nnn	it	19	2	21' '	3,696	190,561	194,257
ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT Mr. LEADER:
1. What amounts were expended during the fiscal year 1921-22 in connection with the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, (a) on the administration of the act, (b) in compensation for animals slaughtered under authority of the act?
3. What amount of compensation was paid for (a) horses, (b) cattle, (c) hogs, and (d) sheep?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	(a) The cost of administering the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, as far as the inspection and condemning of animals is concerned, was, approximately $360,000. The exact figures could not be arrived at without analyzing each account, as while nearly all inspectors do more or less work in this connection only a small proportion devote their whole time to the work. It must be remembered of course that this amount includes the cost of inspecting horses, cattle, sheep and swine, both healthy and unhealthy. It is worthy of note also that in the case of the cattle subjected to the tuberculin test by the inspectors only about 8 per cent or less on the average react, hence about 12 or 13 cattle are tested for each one for which compensation is paid, (b) $661,725.71.
2.	(a) $2,519.98,	(b) $652,840.87,	(c)
$6,364.86, (d) Nil.
J. CLOVIS SAVOY Hon. Mr. BAXTER:
1.	Was J. Clovis Larivy appointed a fishery guardian for Gloucester county, N.B., last year?
2.	Was he appointed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?
3.	Who has been appointed this year to discharge the same duties?
215i
When the tax payable under the Special War Revenue Act or the Business Profits War Tax Act exceeded the tax payable under the Income War Tax Act no assessment was levied under the latter Act.
Corporations are only taxable on profits in excess o $2,000.
3. $912,410,428.89.


MR. THOMAS MULVET
Mr. McKILLOP:: 1.	Has any allowance, honorarium, or grant of money been made to Mr. Thomas Mulvey, Under Secretary of State, for his services as Deputy Custodian of Alien Enemy property?
2.	If so, what is the amount of such money grant or allowance, and under what authority was it made?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The question of payment to Mr. Mulvey as Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property, was referred by the Right Honourable A. L. Sifton, then Secretary of State, to Messrs. O. M. Biggar and Christopher C. Robinson, the legal members of the Enemy Debts Committee. The following is an extract from their report, dated 17th September, 1920:
Mr. Mulvey's work has extended over a period of about four and a half years, and in our opinion an extra allowance at the rate of $1,500 a year, or a total of $6,750, would be a small recompense for the special services rendered.
Payment of $4,000 was made to Mr. MuL vey by direction of an Order in Council dated 17th December, 1921, P.C. 4631: The payment was made under the authority of the Treaty of Peace (Germany) Order in Council, 1920, and was paid out of the proceeds of enemy property as part of the cost of administration.
33G4
Questions

4.	Was the appointee of this year appointed upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission ?
5.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No. J. Clovis Savoy was so employed.
2.	No. He was appointed by the Inspector of Fisheries following advertising the position. The appointment was confirmed by the Commission.
3.	Phillippe Landry.
4 and 5. No. Such appointments do not now come within the purview of the Com-nission.


HILET'S ARMY
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Did the Government or any minister thereof, offer free transportation, from Ottawa to Toronto by special train over the Canadian National, to the Veterans known as Riley's Army?
2.	Did the members of Riley's Army refuse to accept transportation over the Canadian National?
3.	If so, on what grounds?
4.	Did they return to Toronto by Canadian Pacific Railway?
5.	If so, why was such transportation provided instead of by Canadian National?
6.	Were three cars supplied by the Canadian Pacific Railway for such transportation?
7.	If not, how many?
8.	What extra cost to the Canadian National system, if any, would have been incurred had a similar number of cars been added for such purpose to its train instead of the Canadian Pacific?
9.	What amount was paid to or charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway for such transportation?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by answer to No. 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	The hikers arrived in Union Station, Ottawa, about 3 a.m., June 6, and requested a special train to take them back to Toronto at once. They were told a special train could not be supplied, but that extra coaches would be placed on the Canadian National train leaving Ottawa at 1 p.m. same date. They claimed that leaving at 1 p.m. would land them in Toronto at night and insisted that they would not go; that the city of Ottawa would have to keep them, etc., unless they were sent forward earier than 1 p.m. About 5 a.m. it was decided as inadvisable to ask or expect these returned soldiers to lie around on the floors or the benches of the station until 1 p.m. and that it was consistent and advisable to send them forward to Toronto at 9.40 a.m., and arrangements were made accordingly.
f Mr. Baxter. ]
6.	No.
7.	Four.	|
8.	No accurate information available.
9.	$1,422.72.
LETTER RATE; CANADA-GREAT BRITAIN


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What is the one ounce letter rate from Canada to the British Isles?
2.	What is the one ounce letter rate from Canada to the Republic of Mexico?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to put the Mother Country on a par with Mexico in the .matter of letter postage by reducing the rate to three cents?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Four cents-the rate from Canada to places within the Empire-established by the late government in October, 1921.
2.	Three cents-the Canadian Domestic rate-extended to Mexico by the terms of a long-standing postal convention with that country.
3.	and 4. Should it be decided to change the rates of postage from Canada to places within the Empire due announcement will be made.


CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	Why did the Government grant the increase of $1,000 to Deputy Ministers?
2.	Why does the Government propose to cut off the bonus from all civil servants receiving $2,400 or over, and from many smgle persons under that amount?
3.	Does the Government intend to grant more equitable salaries to the Civil Service?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
member to consult me with reference to the drafting of this question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I really do not know
what the Government have in mind as to the closing of this session. I have heard statements that they expect to close on Saturday. If so, I am bound to presume that there will be no supplementary estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there will be.


Arthur Meighen: Well, this is Thursday. While very small supplementary estimates, secondary or tertiary to the main supplementary estimates, sometimes do come down late, I have never seen the

Business of the House
supplementary estimates in general delayed to this time. I hope there will be none this session.


William Stevens Fielding: .There will certainly be supplementary estimates. The only part of my right hon. friend's statement that I would have to object to is that anyone expects the session to end on Saturday. I have certainly no such expectation. There will be supplementary estimates, and I hope to have them ready to-morrow. More than that I cannot say at present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to my right hon. friend's remark to the effect that the Government intends to close the session on Saturday, I would remind him that the Government has no control over Parliament in these matters. The Government has understood it was the wish of hon. members to get away as early as possible, and the Government has done all in its power to facilitate that end. The Government will continue so to do but I should not like my right hon. friend or any other member of the House to be under the impression that the Government will attempt in any way to control or limit discussions.


Arthur Meighen: It would have facilitated matters to have had the supplementary estimates down in reasonable time.


William Stevens Fielding: They will be down in good time.



SOLDIERS' RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Government if they propose bringing down any legislation this session in pursuance of the recommendations of the special committee on pensions and re-establishment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend will find on the Order Paper today some resolutions based upon those recommendations, and they will be taken up in due course.


Arthur Meighen: Do those resolutions cover all the recommendations? Those resolutions were put on before the report was adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but not until after the report had been printed and was before the House.


Arthur Meighen: But the House had not decided to adopt the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House adopted the report all right.


William Stevens Fielding: In the supplementary estimates provision will be made for the financial side of those resolutions.



LOSS OF THE LAMBTON-CANADIAN NAVY MEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I should like to ask the Government a couple of questions. What is being done for the families of twenty-two of the crew of the Canadian Government steamer Lambton that foundered in Georgian bay a couple of months ago with a loss of twenty-two of a crew? Some of the dependents of those men are in very distressing circumstances, and I should like to know if the Government is prepared to do anything in the matter for them.
I have received some correspondence with respect to the members of our Canadian navy who are now being demobilized at Halifax. Some are stranded and cannot get home, and are out of work and in need of help. Some of these men belong to the city of Toronto, and I should like to know what the Government intends to do for them. Their enlistment papers I understand called for eight years' service with transportation to and from their homes.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. friend that I have asked that a certain amount be placed in the supplementary estimates to provide compassionate allowances for the families of the men Who lost their lives in the wreck of the Canadian government steamer Lambton. Of course, we will have to bring down supplementary estimates if those dependents are to be assisted.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence): As to my hon. friend's second question, I wish he would let me see the correspondence which he has received from the navy men who, he says, have been left stranded in Halifax.



PERSONAL EXPLANATION-MR.

[Stage Direction]
DESLAURIERS On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DESLAURIERS. (Translation).- Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I should like to raise a question of privilege. Last Friday, referring to the Civil Service Commission estimates, I quoted and commented upon a certain case in the Department of the Secretary of State, which I gave out as an example, without, however, naming the person
[Stage Direction]
whom I had in mind and whom I still have in mind. This had the effect of causing some alarm amongst the staff of that department. I must, in all justice, state in this House that my remarks were not directed against the chief of the Naturalization Branch who, I acknowledge, is very competent to fill the post which he now holds; I must further add that the staff of that branch must in no way cast doubt upon the honour of some of their comrades, because I must admit and assert that I received my information from an entirely outside source, and not from any one connected with the Department of the Secretary of State.
I had no intention nor have I at present-I am speaking for the future, as I intend to again bring up this subject-to attack persons whom I think are very lucky to be recommended by the Civil Service Commission. What I have proved by my argument is that the commission is incompetent and unjust in the classification of employees. You will find further proof of this by looking over the Official Gazette of Canada, of June 3, 1922; you will note that the commission recommends a maximum salary of $3,600 per year for an ordinary shipping agent, while a little further it recommends a maximum salary of $2,100 for an expert in irrigation. .	.	.
Mr. SPEAKER. (Translation): I would request the hon. member to kindly confine himself to the question of privilege. Dn a question of privilege a member may not enlarge upon a speech already made. The hon. member has stated that what he said the other day in no way reflects upon the character of two or three employees of the Department of the Secretary of State. That does not come under questions of privilege, but rather under personal explanation. This having been clearly stated I would ask the hon. member to desist and not further transgress the Rules of the House.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
That it is expedient to provide that whenever the Governor in Council is satisfied that the resources of the Canadian Patriotic Fund are inadequate to the continued performing of the relief work that has been carried on by that organization anid that the result of the cessation of any part of such work would throw upon the public authorities addi-

tional burdens for the relief of distress, the Governor in Council may by Order in Council authorize the payment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Canadian Patriotic Fund of such sums as may be p-equired from time to time to enable the said Canadian Patriotic Fund to continue its work, such sums not to exceed $900,000.
William Stevens Fielding: Soon after the outbreak of the Great War, the Canadian Patriotic Fund was organized for the noble purpose of providing for the dependents of the soldiers who went overseas. It was a great organization for a great purpose, and during all the years of the war did splendid work, as most hon. members are aware. After the close of the war, the operations of the society were naturally restricted. The society, owing to the generosity of the Canadian public, received very large contributions, and it has, to-day, about four and a half million dollars still in the treasury. The society divides its obligations into two classes. There are what you call continuous cases, concerning which they have come under obligations covering a number of years in future. Families have been taken care of by the fund, and they will have to be cared for, for a number of years to come. Besides that, the society has been dealing with a number of emergency cases. I may, for convenience, describe the two classes as permanent charges and temporary charges. They have recently had an actuarial survey made of their obligations and their resources, and they have found that, if they are to fulfil their obligations to what I have called the continuous cases,, those which are continuing for a number of years, they cannot continue the work I have described as of an emergent or temporary character. It will be obvious at once that if the large amount of work of that kind hitherto carried on by the Patriotic Fund ceases, in view of the possibilities-and I am afraid the probabilities

we will still have some hardship in the coming winter, if the fund ceases to discharge that duty, they will naturally throw upon the public authorities, Dominion, provincial and municipal, a very large responsibility. After much consideration, we have reached the conclusion to propose to the House that the Canadian Patriotic Fund shall be permitted to continue its work. It is not the fund that is asking for this money. They have merely intimated to us that without some such arrangement, they will have to cease that part of their work. We think, in view of the excellence of that organization, and

Root Vegetables
of the large number of men and women all over Canada who have assisted in building up that splendid system of relief, that it would be unwise, in reference to that local Work, that they should be disbanded or rendered useless. Some will say, "If you want to continue the work of that character, why not put it in the hands of the Government's own officials?"
I think most people familiar with the work will think that it is no disparagement to the Government officials to say that the work that has been carried on by the ladies and gentlemen connected with that organization will, at least, be as well done by them as it would be done by Government officials, and therefore, we are making an exception in this case by suggesting to Parliament that we should be placed in a position, as the necessity arises, to make this grant, not exceeding the sum of $900,000, in order that the Patriotic Fund may continue, not only its larger and wider obligations, which they call the continuous cases, but that they may also continue the other class of work to Which I have referred. I have had my attention called to the fact that in Manitoba there is a separate organization, and that the Canadian Patriotic Fund has not been operating in that province. When we come to the committee stage of the bill founded on this resolution, I shall endeavour to make provision which will deal with the Manitoba case. Here is a great organization which has been doing noble work. We think it is a pity we should not avail ourselves of the machinery which has the confidence of the country and is composed of ladies and gentlemen who have no other interest in the world except to carry on the work of relief, and we think that on the whole, it is better to continue that organization in its work, than to throw the responsibility upon the public authorities, whether local, provincial or municipal. That is the whole purpose of the motion.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 188, respecting the Patriotic Fund.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SALE AND INSPECTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 133, to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Potato grades.
Mr. SPENCE:: I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) for their courtesy in permitting this measure to stand over till to-day. I felt that the committee had not sufficient knowledge of this question to be able to give it a square deal. And I was getting much valuable information in regard to this matter, which I wish to give to the committee.
I realize that this is one of the most important Bills introduced in the House this year, and it should receive serious consideration. It pertains to one of the biggest industries in Canada and I hope the bill will go through as recommended by the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. MARTELL:: I do not like to interrupt, but the Bill has not been distributed.


David Spence: I think it has been distributed. I am sorry the hon. member has not the bill before him.


The CHAIRMAN:: It has been distributed for weeks, and was before the committee a week ago.


David Spence: I asked that this bill be held over because I was getting certain information I wanted to give to the committee. This bill had its origin in certain representations made to the department for many years by growers of potatoes and dealers in root vegetables asking for examination of cars of potatoes received which were not graded. The department very wisely started to get in touch with the different potato growers all over Canada and with the dealers in these commodities, and a conference was held at the Chateau Laurier two years ago last fall. The conference was attended by men of prominence from all over the Dominion connected with the potato industry. The official delegates appointed from the various provinces were as follows:
Prince Edward Island-Representing growers: W. N. McGregor, Central Lot 16. Representing dealers: Nelson Ratterbury, Charlottetown.
Nova Scotia-Representing growers: F. W. Foster, Kingston. H. M. Palmeter, Grande Pre. Representing dealers: A. E. McMahon, Kent-ville.
New Brunswick-Representing growers:	a.
A. H. Margison, East Centreville. Representing dealers: O. R. Estey, Woodstock.
Quebec

Representing growers:	Joseph E.
Parent, Rimouski; Roger Gagnon Rlviere-du-Loup; John McEvoy, Montreal. Representing dealers: William Rell, Montreal.
Ontario - Representing growers:	Henry
Broughton, Sarnia; J. G. Fleming, Blenheim, J. M. McNaughton, Orangeville. Representing dealers: David Spence, Toronto.
Root Vegetables

Manitoba-Representing growers:	R. P.
Andrews, Birds Hill. Representing dealers: J. G. Anderson, Winnipeg.
Saskatchewan-Representing glowers: E. W. Marvel, Indian Heaid. Representing dealers: *J. M. MleCrae, Moosejaw.
Alberta-Representing growers:	R. Noel
Hammon, Edmonton. Representing dealers: S. Savage, Calgary.
British Columbia-Representing growers-C.
E.	Barnes, Walhachin; J. T. Mutrie, Vernon; *R. M. Winslow, Vernon. Representing dealers: E. L. Fraser, Vancouver.
Representing Consumers: Mrs. F. S. Mearns, Toronto.
Representing Retail Trade: E. M. Trowern, Ottawa.
Unable to be present.
The Provincial Departments of Agriculture also sent representatives, who took part in the discussion and acted in an advisory capacity, as follows:
Prince Edward Island, Wilfred Boulter, Charlottetown.
Nova Scotia, Ur. M. Cumming, Truro.
New Brunswick, A. G. Turney, Fredericton.
Quebec, J. H. Lavoie, Quebec.
Ontario, A. H. MacLennan, Toronto.
Alberta, J. D. Smith, Edmonton
British Columbia, R. C. Abbot, Vancouver.
In addition to federal officers with headquarters at Ottawa, the following were present:
S.	J. Peppin, Botanical laboratory, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
G. C. Cunningham, Botanical laboratory, Fredericton, N.B..
R. G. L. Clarke, Chief Fruit Inspector for British Columbia.
F.	H. Steele, Chief Fruit Inspector for the prairie provinces.
R. E. Robinson, Chief Fruit Inspector for Quebec and E. Ontario.
G.	H. Vroom, Chief Fruit Inspector for the maritime provinces.
P. J. Carey, Fruit Packing and Orchardist Specialist, Toronto.
I have read these names so that the committee may see the class of men who were present at that conference. They discussed this matter for one whole day, and in the evening two special committees were appointed to bring in a recommendation of a designated grade. The next day the committee brought in its recommendation, and after a few slight amendments had been made it was carried unanimously.
I hope that the Government will see that this bill goes through in the form recommended by the Department of Agriculture. In that way the public will get a square deal that they could not otherwise get. It is the public I am considering, not myself.
I may say that the bill as recommended by the department has the approval of every potato growers' association from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We had as advisers to the committee the vegetable specialist

of the Department of Agriculture, Ontario; the Potato Specialist from the maritime provinces, and the Provincial Markets Commissioner from British Columbia.
My hon. friend from Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell) made the statement in the Committee of Agriculture that a certain gentleman whom I know by repute had told him that it was impossible for him to make a living in. the potato business if the grade he recommends does not go through. I immediately got in touch with the headquarters of the potato industry in this Dominion, at Woodstock, and I have here three wires from men who thoroughly understand the potato business. The first is from Mr. O. K. Esty:
Heartily approve of grading act as outlined.
The next is from Nelles & Clark:
We strongly urge the adoption of the potato grades as outlined in the report of proceedings of potato and onion conference held Ottawa February 24 and 25, 1920. Working under great difficulties, both shippers and farmers, present conditions without grading law.
The next one is from the New Brunswick Potato Exchange, Limited:
As representatives of several of largest shippers here we find ail shippers favour the adoption of potato grades similar to those in effect in United States.
I have not much further to say. My objection to the first subsection of section S as read the other night is that it is pro-1 posed that certain words be struck out. It now reads this way:
Canada A quality, which shall include only sound, reasonably mature potatoes of similar varietal characteristics-
And so forth. Then it goes on:
In this grade the diameter of potatoes of the round varieties shall not be less than one and seven-eighths inches, and of potatoes of the long varieties one and three-fourths inches, and not over twenty per cent 'by weight of any lot shall be less than two and one-quarter inches in diameter.
That means that eighty per cent must be two and one-quarter inches in diameter or over, and only twenty per cent one and three-quarter inches in diameter. My hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton thought that was very hard on the grower of potatoes, and he moved that the last line be struck out. I have here in my hand a sample of the potatoes that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton suggests should be called grade A. If his amendment is agreed to, a man could ship a carload of potatoes this size, and the inspector could say to the dealer "That is A grade, and you must accept it as such." I would

Root Vegetables
move, if I am in order-I am not accustomed to moving amendments-that the amendment be struck out, and that the grade be as recommended by the department.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Does my hon.
friend want the bill to stand as originally drafted?


David Spence: Yes. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture, to my knowledge, has been studying this question for the last five or six years, and surely after his recommendation and the recommendation of the conference of representative men whose names I have given, it is ridiculous to turn the whole committee against their recommendations.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would ask the
hon. member which words he desires to strike out in clause 3.


David Spence: I would let the whole
thing remain as it is, and not strike out the last words of the subsection as was proposed.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the words
"grown in Canada" remain?


David Spence: Yes, that will be all
right.


Mr. HANSON:: I am sorry to delay the
consideration of this bill but I only rise for the purpose of asking the minister some questions and obtaining information. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Committee on Agriculture, and did not know that this bill had been before that committee at all. I would ask the minister to say, on his responsibility as a member of the Government, that this measure has been thoroughly discussed with the representatives of the Potato Growers' associations, as well as with the dealers, of the various provinces, and that they agreed upon the provisions of the hill as he originally introduced it?


William Richard Motherwell: When this matter was before the committee I took the ground that, seeing that the bill was a new one and that the principle of grading farm produce was being introduced pretty rapidly all along the line, perhaps it would be just as well not to have the grades too severe at the outset until the people became familiar with the idea of grading roots and vegetables. I further expressed my belief that although this legislation was a little severe at the beginning, it
would be all right in the course of a year or two. I may say that theoretically the proposed legislation, framed in the way spoken of by the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence), is sound, but I think that if its provisions were a little milder it could be introduced with less disturbance. Probably it would be better in the direction desired by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Caldwell). In considering the bill the committee were very evenly divided; numerically there was not much difference between the two schools of thought. The dealers, and a number of others, wanted legislation according to the bill as originally draughted, with fairly severe provisions and fairly high gi'ades. The farmers present at the Committee on Agriculture-including my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell), wanted grades of a little easier character; and I must say that I felt that at the outset that was preferable until the provisions of the bill had been in force for some time when we could tighten them up and demand grades that were a little higher. The vote in the committee stood seven : eight in favour of legislation such as the farmers wanted. Had the chairman voted the division would have been eight: eight. However, inasmuch as there was not a tie his vote was not called for. As I say, the committee were pretty evenly divided; there was not a strong preponderance of opinion either way. I took the ground, and I have had no reason to change my opinion, since that while the grading set forth in the bill as brought before the committee was technically and theoretically right, I did feel that for a year or two the grades demanded might be a little milder and a little easier until we got people familiarized with the idea of grading. After all, there is bound to be a certain amount of disturbance in new legislation, and the idea at first should be to familiarize people with it, and then tighten up later on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the minister
a question and he has entirely ignored it. I did not ask him what took place in the committee but whether the bill, as originally draughted, had been submitted to the representatives of the growers and the dealers from the different provinces, and whether they had agreed upon the principles enunciated in the measure as it was originally framed?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When did that conference take place?
Root Vegetables


William Richard Motherwell: I thought my
hon. friend took it for granted from my reply that such was the case. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) made it quite plain. The conference took place about two or two and a half months ago-


An Hon. MEMBER:: Two years ago.


William Richard Motherwell: -and after some two or three days' debate the conclusions embodied in the original bill were arrived at. However that does not mean to say that such recommendations must be concurred in by this House; even the decisions of the Committee on Agriculture are not always adopted here. Parliament must be the supreme authority with respect to this matter. Let me say further that no bill that I know of is ever introduced
4 p.m. into this House, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, that is not first submitted to all the bodies interested throughout the country. That is the general policy which is always adopted, and in this case we brought in and consulted with people from various parts of Canada, including the dealers. That is strong presumptive evidence that the provisions of the bill are not far from being right. Nevertheless they have to be assented to by Parliament.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I was rather interested in the statement of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) and the telegrams Which he read to the committee. Those telegrams state that the shippers anddealers in New Brunswick approve of the United States grade. Wei, that is just what we have here with the amendments made by the Committee on Agriculture.


David Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to-*


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman, or the member for Parkdale?


George Newcombe Gordon: Mr. Caldwell has the floor.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member for Parkdale held up two smjall potatoes and deelareid "Here are No. l's." I have graded boo many potatoes, and seen too many potatoes graded, to think that any such potatoes are No. 1 potatoes. In reality, they are a poor No. 2, and I object very strongly to any hon. member trying to stampede the committee by exhibiting such small potatoes and claiming that they are What this bill calls for. Furthermore I wish to say

this: The bill as amended by the Committee on Agriculture will provide for even better grades than the United States grades, and I propose to prove that to the committee. Our No. 1 grade includes all the potatoes above 13 of the long variety and 11 of the round variety. ' The United States grade provides for a Fancy grade that may be taken out of their No. 1 grade, and the balance above 13 or II are No. 1. We are not providing for any Fancy grades. The Fancy grades in the United States are all potatoes from 2 to 31 inches weighing from 10 to 16 ounces. The balance of the United States potatoes larger than II inches are No. 1. In the case of our No. 1 the grade is 11 for the round potatoes and 13 for the long potatoes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have just stated that the growers desired to conform to the American grade. Will you please explain why no provision is made for the fancy grades such as the American public have?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Our growers do not want that because it means lowering the quality of our No. 1 grade. They want the grades to conform with the United States No. 1 and No. 2 grades Which are commercial grades. The Fancy grade in the United States is not a commercial grade: it is the grade that is in demand by railroad companies foir baking purposes in their dining cars, but it is not a practical grade for farmers to conform to. Due to the fact that we are not making provision for this Fancy grade, our No. 1 grade includes the United States No. 1 and Fancy grades. I think the members of the committee are hardly in a position to arrive at a sound judgment on this matter from the bill as it appears on their files. The bill as amended by the Committee on Agriculture should have been distributed among the members generally and then they would have been in a better position to pass judgment on the proposed legislation. Here is the United States Fancy grade:
This grade shall consist of sound potatoes of one variety which are mature, bright, smooth, well shaped, free from dirt or other foreign matter, frost injury, sunburn, second growth, growth cracks, cuts, scab, blight, soft rot, dry rot, and damage caused by disease, insects, or by mechanical or other means. The range in size shall be stated in terms of minimum and maximum diameter or weight following the grade name, but in no case shall the diameter be less than two inches.
Now I give the United States grade No
1:
This grade shall consist of sound potatoes of similar varietal characteristics which are practi-

Root Vegetables
cally free from dirt or other foreign matter, frost injury, sunburn, second growth, growth cracks, cuts, scab, blight, soft rot. dry rot, and damage caused by disease, insects, or mechanical or other means.
The diameter of the potatoes of the round varieties shall not be less than one and seven-eighths inches, and of potatoes of long varieties one and three-fourths inches.
Now, the description of the grade ends there. Our No. 1 or A grade will he the same, with the amendments as recommended by the Committee on Agriculture. The hon. member for Parkdale has read telegrams from dealers who say they are in favour of a grade conforming with the United States grade. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I was one of the first men in New Brunswick to ask the Government to pass a grading act, and we want it passed for these reasons. We have been under a handicap in times past with regard to shipping potatoes. We ship potatoes to men posibly like Mr. Spence in Parkdale, who is a potato dealer. If the market went down before a car arrived, they would wire back that the potatoes were not good. As we had no standard grade, we had nothing to decide whether the potatoes were No. 1 or not. I want to cite an instance that happened in Toronto. I would hate to think that Mr. Spence was the man involved; I doubt if he was. Let me tell the committee what happened and why we want this grade. The man whose letter I am going to read shipped a car of potatoes to a man in Toronto, and the man in Toronto wired back and said the potatoes were no good. The market had gone down.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Even though they
came from New Brunswick?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The shipper had an agent in Ontario and he wired him immediately to proceed to Toronto and investigate this case. This man landed in Toronto the next morning. He went into this dealer's office, and he said: "Have you any good New Brunswick potatoes for sale?" The dealer said, "Yes, I have a car of the finest stock I have ever handled." The agent said: "I would like to see them." The agent had the number of the car, and he went in and was shown his own company's car, recommended by the dealer as the best potatoes he had ever handled. After talking with the dealer for a few minutes, the agent presented his card, and I am free to inform the committee that he received a very good settlement for that car of potatoes. If a New Brunswick shipper ships a
car of No. 1 potatoes to Toronto and the man in Toronto turns them down, we can, under this measure, ask the Government to send an inspector to Toronto or wherever the point may be. If the inspector says that the potatoes are No. 1 according to this specification, the man in Toronto must pay for them. This will also protect the dealer in Toronto, because if they are not No. 1 potatoes, he will not have to pay for them. I am one of the strongest supporters in this House of grading. I want to read a letter from possibly the biggest shipper in Canada of potatoes, a man who had the advantage, not of reading a telegram from any hon. member of this House as to what he thought was some theoretical Grading Act but of having a copy of the bill.


David Spence: What is his name?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will give his name directly. Mr. Macintosh, Acting Fruit Commissioner had sent this man a copy, not of the amendments, but of the original bill. I do not think I will read the whole letter; I will read the last paragraph.


David Spence: I would ask the hon. gentleman to read the whole letter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With pleasure.
Mr. G. E. MacINTOSH,
Acting Fruit Commissioner,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
We have your letter of the 12th instant enclosing official grading rules as are in force at present, also copy of bill covering compulsory grading of potatoes.
We do not think the grading regulations as mentioned in this act are any good. In fact, the act. as we see it, does not contain any grades or state any standard quality, and if put in force it will leave the potatoes to the mercy of inspectors, who can go into farmers' cellars, shippers' warehouses or receiver's store and condemn any potatoes for no reason whatever and just using their own judgment. So far as we can see there is no redress. There is a clause in the act stating that no one can sell or offer for sale any potatoes so diseased as to be unfit for human consumption. We believe this is unnecessary, as any lccal health officer has the authority to prevent the sale of food unfit for human consumption. Section 2 of the proposed act covers faced packages. We do not believe there is any facing done in packing potatoes, as they are handled in such large quantities, we do not believe they would be able to do this. In fact, in our experience, we have never seen it done.
This is the pragraph I proposed to read, but my hon. friend wanted it all:
So far as we can see, after a complete and careful examination of the proposed act, it does not mean anything nor get us anywhere. What the potato industry of the country needs is com-would recommend that a grade be made to
Root Vegetables

pulsory grading of a practical sort, and we correspond with the United States grade one and two. This will make the potato grading regulations uniform in hoth Canada and United States, and will enable the farmers to grade the one grade only, and when stock of this grade is produced they can sell it in either United States or Canada. Grades as mentioned in the Inspection and Sales Act are practically the same as regulations of the United States grades, but there are some minor differences. We have asked the United States Department of Agriculture to forward us up-to-date grading regulations, and when we receive these will forward to you.
This is signed by Mr. Guy G. Porter, of Perth, N.B., one of the largest exporters and shippers of potatoes in Canada. He wrote me this letter accompanying the copy of the letter which he had mailed to Mr. Macintosh. This is dated June 16, 1922:
Dear Mr. Caldwell, we are in receipt of a report from the House, giving us proposed bill for the regulation of sale and inspection of root vegetables. We have gone very carefully over the proposed regulations, and as near as we can find out, it does not mean anything. There is no grade or standard quality established but gives the inspector authority to use his own discretion in condemning any potatoes as he wishes.
Under the provisions of the proposed act, an inspector can go into a farmer's cellar, or warehouse, or the receiver's store and condemn any potatoes he finds there, and so far as we can see we have no redress. If the enforcement of the act is left in the hands of the usual half-baked inspectors the Government usually appoints, we will have to go out of business.
Guy G. Porter.


Mr. HOEY:: Is he a grower of potatoes?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He is a grower as well as a shipper. He was one of the first men in New Brunswick to ask for a Grading Act. Five or six years ago, before the New Brunswick Potato Growers' Association, of which I was president at the time, he gave a very able address on the grading of potatoes. This was an organization formed by some of the foremost growers of potatoes in New Brunswick as a means of educating farmers to the necessity, not only of grading, but of selecting better seed and other factors along the line of growing potatoes.
Another clause of this bill that my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) wants cut out, the cutting out of which will have the effect of allowing United States potatoes to come into Canada and not bear this inspection and compete with our home grown potatoes-


David Spence: I asked that nothing be cut out. I did not make that statement.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Left in then. The hon. member wants the words "grown in Canada" left in. I am speaking of the bill as amended by the committee on agriculture.


David Spence: I was willing to accede to the wishes of the hon. member to cut that out if he so wished.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think I am unreasonable. If there is one thing about which I know more than any other one thing, it is growing, grading and marketing potatoes. I know what the wishes of the people of New Brunswick are in that regard. I was president of the New Brunswick Potato Growers' Association for the first two years that it was formed; in fact, I was one of the originators of it, and it was started for the purpose of educating the people to select better seed, to use better methods of cultivation and to grow a better crop per acre so that they might make it pay. This organization was carried on by men who gave their time and energy to it without cost to anybody. We, the officials of it, spent our time; we paid our own expenses; there were no funds in connection with it. The work was done for the purpose of assisting the potato growers of New Brunswick. I would respectfully submit that we should not pass a Grading Act that would put a greater handicap upon our own potato growers than is necessary. We want a Grading Act; we want to conform to the United States grading, because we are selling in competition with United States shippers in every market in which we are selling, even in our own. We are shipping to Cuba in competition with United States shippers. If we quote a No. 1 grade to the buyer in Cuba and the United States shipper also quotes a No. 1 grade, we do not want to be under any handicap. Further than that, as well as asking for a Grading Act, in New Brunswick, we have been grading our potatoes for something like three or four years. We have bought grading machinery, the same as the United States shippers use, which conforms with United States regulations. The mesh in our machinery for a No. 1 grade is D'Hoths of an inch. Every potato that goes through that mesh is not a No. 1; every potato that goes over it is a No. 1. would be according to the United States Act and should be by our act. What machinery can you get with a llths inch mesh or some other size that will tell you how many of the potatoes which go over that mesh are some other size? That is the

Root Vegetables
reason I want this cut out, because it is impracticable, impossible. No one ever saw a crop of potatoes like the one the hon. member for Parkdale held up. We feed practically all such potatoes to hogs. There is a demand in the West Indies for those small No. 2 potatoes, but there is no demand anywhere else that I know of. I hope the committee will see fit to accept this measure. It is getting pretty late in the session and we are all anxious to go home; but I would be willing to stay here until the end of July rather than see a bill passed the provisions of which the shippers of New Brunswick could not comply with.


Mr SPENCE:: Our potatoes are not up to the standard of the American potatoes. Our A1 grade is in competition with the American Fancy grades. I was in Toronto the other day and visited the markets, and they were selling American potatoes there. The people of Virginia handle an enormous quantity of potatoes. They have several thousand acres on the eastern shore of Virginia and they quote Fancies at $5 a barrel and Straights at Sj>4.75. The different states have different laws and my hon. friend is not right when he says that the United States No. 1 is in competition with our A1 grade. In the United States 25 farmers, say, will fill a 200-barrel car, and because the potatoes are taken from different farms they are sold at so much less. If one man produces the whole carload the potatoes are graded as Fancy. Our A1 grade is in competition with those potatoes, and we have no Fancy grades. Our A1 is our fanciest. My hon. friend says that the gentleman to whom he refers, Mr. Porter, is one of the largest dealers in the country. Let me tell him that there are men in this country who route more cars than he has individual potatoes; and that gentleman is not even the third, fourth or fifth largest shipper in the province of New Brunswick, nor does he ship on as large a scale as many potato growers in Ontario. The firm of N. Ellis and Clarke will ship more in one year than Mr. Porter will in probably three years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You are misinformed.


David Spence: My hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) knows the conditions in his own little locality, but I want to tell him that he is not as familiar with conditions generally throughout the country as I am. I have given this matter careful study and I know what
I am talking about. The hon. gentleman does not know all the shippers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend says that I do not know these men, although I live within twenty miles of each of them.


David Spence: You have lived there all your life and you are acquainted with the conditions in that particular area, but you do not know what is done elsewhere. Nothing has come up in this House touching any question at all, with which the hon. gentleman has not conveyed the impression that he is absolutely conversant. He appears to know everything, no matter what it may relate to. Now, I am not a potato dealer; I am a wholesale fruit merchant, and although I handle potatoes on the side it does not matter to me a twopenny piece whether this legislation goes into effect or not. It does not mean one cent to me; whether it is passed or not my pocket will not be affected. I am working purely in the interests of the potato growers and dealers of the country, and I can say that 25 per cent of the dealers are unscrupulous and will give no one a square deal. Seventy-five per cent of our farmers and dealers are absolutely honest and will give every man a proper deal, and I do not see why the other 25 per cent cannot do the same thing. I appeal to all hon. gentlemen to pass the legislation as recommended by men who know what they are talking about and who have given consideration to this matter for five or six years. There is no sense in any hon. gentleman sitting here and indulging in carping criticism, reading such letters as my hon. friend has quoted from Mr. Porter, saying that these inspectors are only half-baked men. Fourteen years ago when the Fruit Marking Act was passed you could not buy an honest basket of peaches or barrel of apples in Canada.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Oh, my.


David Spence: No, Sir, you could not do it. But to-day the average grower would no more think of reverting to the old condition of things than he would think, of flying in the air. Everyone is satisfied with the way in which the act has been enforced, and the fact that only five convictions have been registered in four years is ample proof of the efficacy of the law. I should like other hon. members to express their view on this subject.


Mr. HALBERT:: As a member of the Committee on Agriculture I desire to say a word or two in regard to the facts that
Root Vegetables

have been submitted to the committee. For some years the potato growers of New Brunswick have been grading their potatoes in accordance with the regulations proposed in this bill, which corresponds to an act, a copy of which I have seen, prescribing the grades of American potatoes. I understand that the Fancy grade of American potatoes is used only for special purposes. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) criticising the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) in the way he did and suggesting that that hon. member did not know anything about potatoes. I heard the member for Parkdale say in the committee that the best potatoes he got came from New Brunswick.


William Richard Motherwell: Under the grading system?


Robert Henry Halbert: Yes. It is evident therefore that the grading system has been successful, since the potatoes which the hon. member for Parkdale praises were marketed under that system. I cannot see where his objections come in. I agree absolutely with the minister in regard to these regulations. Every place is not like New Brunswick, and as the grading system is not general throughout the country it is as well to go a little slowly. But the men who load potatoes on the track from the farmers can, I think, comply with the regulations.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is one other point I want to have cleared up. The hon. jnember for Parkdale says that our A1 grade corresponds with the United States Fancy grade.


David Spence: It is in competition with that grade.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is no comparison whatever. The regulation with regard to the United States fancy grade requires that this grade shall consist of sound potatoes of one variety. That means that the potatoes must be either Irish Cobblers, Green Mountains, Gold Coins, or any other one particular variety. Our No. 1 grade does not comply with such a regulation. Our A1 grade, it is required, shall include only sound and reasonably mature potatoes of similar characteristics, which means that all white potatoes can come under this grade. The United States Fancy grade, on the other hand, must be all of one variety. There is therefore absolutely no comparison between the United States Fancy grade and our No. 1. I hope the

member for Parkdale will not insist that the United States Fancy grade is put on the market in competition with our No. 1 grade, or that the two are in any way comparable. Our No. 1 grade includes the United States No. 1 and Fancy, because we take nothing out of our No. 1 grade, while they take out of their No. 1 to make up their Fancy grade.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I understand that
this bill has been drafted on the advice of a conference of potato growers, sellers and handlers, and it seems to me that we shall be on safe ground if we follow that advice. I have nothing much to say on this question except that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In that connection I want to say a further word. This matter was not submitted in all its details to the committee. The member for Parkdale has several telegrams from various men, one of whom was at the conference, and the general desire is to have our Grading Act correspond to that of the United States.


David Spence: I suppose the hon. member is a particular friend of the supporter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: These men in New Brunswick are all my friends. There are very few people in that province who are not my friends. If the bill in its entirety were submitted to the men who sent the telegrams to the member for Parkdale I am sure they would want our act to correspond with that of the United States. I want something that will correspond with the United States grade.


David Spence: The hon. gentleman
makes a statement that is absolutely false.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I object, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I ask the hon. gentleman to retract.


David Spence: If I have offended, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. The hon. gentleman has stated three or four times that those wires came from men who say they want grading according to the United States act. I say that is not so. The telegrams are in the hands of Hansard now and a perusal of them will bear me out. I am asking for nothing that is not fair. What I am advocating does not come from any narrow-minded group at all. I claim that the highest grade in Canada should

Root Vegetables
compare favourably with the highest grade in the United States. And anyhow, is Canada not big enough to make a grade for her own without reference to the United States? We always find that the United States have a higher standard than our own. Honourable men have been driven out of the business because of the conditions prevailing, and it is only by establishing proper giading and picking the business out of the mire that you will get men of that type back into the business again. It should be here as in the States, that if a man in his office receives a wire from the country, " I have five cars of first grade potatoes at a certain siding," he can feel absolutely assured of their quality and reply, "1 will accept them. Ship two to Pittsburg and three to Buffalo." I have done that many times. To-day you cannot trust any shipper sufficiently to do that. Why should we be in that condition in this country? Only three weeks ago I received a wire from Charles Kelly, Sons & Co., Pittsburg, for a few carloads of high grade potatoes. Those here who know the potato dealers in the United States are aware that that firm buys hundreds of cars of potatoes in this country to ship across the line. I cculd not get any in Ontario, and I had no time to try Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. They grow good potatoes down there, and down in Prince Edward Island they excel in that business-in fact I have never got a crooked car of potatoes from Prince Edward Island. I met Mr. Nelles on Col-borne'street and asked him, "Can you do anything for Kelly?" He replied, "Mr. Spence, it is no use trying, you cannot get those potatoes in Ontario." Are we to tolerate a condition of affairs like that? I say, No, that this House has sufficient backbone to pass legislation as recommended by the department. What do we have departments for? To make recommendations, of course. Their experts have been on the job for years. They put through the Fruit Grading Act, and every one today can buy a basket of peaches fully assured that the fruit will be as good at the bottom as on top. That is the condition we should have in the potato trade.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Sure.


David Spence: Some members may think that I am personally interested in this bill, that its passage will enure to my benefit. Not a bit of it. But it will be a good thing for the country. We had objections raised at the conference. Some of
our good friends from the East said that we should allow them to export potatoes of an inferior grade to what would be handled in the home market. I objected to that, but when they explained to me that the people of Bermuda and the West Indies wanted this small stuff which my hon. friend desires to grade No. 1, as they were very poor and can buy these potatoes at a very cheap rate, I withdrew my objection. 1 was also given to understand that the people there bought these small potatoes for seed. Anyhow we allowed our friends to have that privilege.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I am glad to see that hon. members are practically unanimous in the view that it is a good thing for us to establish grading in the marketing of potatoes. We have accomplished a good deal in that way in other lines of agricultural products, and we hope to be equally successful in respect te potatoes if this hill is adopted. This grading has been discussed for many years by producers' associations as well as by dealers, and at the conference which has been referred to the grade was pretty will agreed upon. But we are a little divided on the standard to be adopted. It is that point I shall deal with. The grade adopted by the conference has been approved by the experts in the Department of Agriculture, and therefore my hon. colleague has introduced this hill. But in the Agricultural Committee some division of opinion arose in regard to allowing certain smaller varieties than some thought was advisable to come within the grade. It is a great benefit to the producers to have not too low a grade. The samples exhibited to the committee by the hon. member for Park-dale sljowed potatoes of Is inch size, which size our expe'rts consider is rathei small for the No. 1 grade. I was a little surprised to hear my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton question the accuracy of the size. Evidently with him seeing is not believing. I think the potatoes shown here are similar to those shown in the committee, and according to our experts they are true examples of the small size that is allowed in the grade. In the commercial varieties of potatoes sold in eastern Canada, and especially in the province which I know a little better than 1 know the other provinces, potatoes of the size of 11 are not allowed. It is very rare and only by mistake that they ever get into our commercial shipments.
Root Vegetables


David Spence: You can grow larger potatoes than that.


John Ewen Sinclair: In fact 21 inches is considered a very small potato. In order that the producers and others who are ready to put proper potatoes in their shipments may get the full benefit of their honesty, it is necessary to meet the views stated by the conference and embodied in the bill which was amended in committee. But I feel it would be doing a benefit to the trade to retain in the bill those words which are sought to be struck out. However, I am merely expressing the views as I see them from the standpoint of the potato producers in eastern Canada, andl know that in my province it would be of much greater value to us to have the grade kept at not less than 21 inches, making allowance for 20 per cent to be as low as li.


Mr. GOOD:: One point in connection with the size I think has been overlooked. I presume that the samples exhibited by the hon. member for Parkdale measure li in their greatest transverse diameter. But as a matter of fact the grading screen has a square mesh, and the potatoes are of such a shape that they pass through the mesh diagonally, and I think hon. members will find that potatoes very much larger than those exhibited will pass through the screen. If every potato went through exactly across the square it would be different. This I think ought to be kept in view, as it very largely does away with the objection raised by the hon. member for Parkdale as to the size of the potatoes which he has produced.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before the vote is taken, seeing that the hon. member from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) has exhibited what he calls a No. 1 potato, I want to show the House a potato 21 inches, of the long variety, and my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Sinclair) says they do not use any smaller potato than that. I will submit that that is a pretty good sized potato.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is it?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Judging from the look of it, I would think it was a Green Mountain. As regards that potato, we are saying there shall not be more than 20 per cent smaller than that.


James Dew Chaplin: What size is that?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is 21 inches. I think surely the hon. member from Queens

who knows a lot about potatoes, has hardly measured the potato. I am not doubting his honesty or sincerity, because he is one of the most sincere men in this House, but I am afraid he has been stampeded by the hon. member from Parkdale.


James Dew Chaplin: Show us the potato 12 inches.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have not got one.


David Spence: Prince Edward Island scarcely ever ships a potato of that size. We are asking that 20 per cent be allowed on li, which, I think, is a fair proposition. In the United States, there is nothing less allowed than 21. We are not asking that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend says that Fancy in the United States is nothing less than 21 inches.


David Spence: I object to my hon. friend making that statement. I have been making a logical comparison, I think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The United States Fancy Grade is not under 2 inches. He says 21.
Amendment (Mr. Spence) negatived on division: Yeas 37, Nays 64.
Section as amended agreed to.
On clause 13-Vegetables to be sold by weight.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This clause provides
that vegetables have to be sold by weight. Would that apply to a sale by a farmer to a neighbour, or to a man living next door to him?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It applies to all sales, I take it.


William Richard Motherwell: I think not-not any more than to a sale of grain. It is not necessary to grade, where one farmer deals with another. Potatoes are exposed, and both parties can see them. It speaks about that question in the former section, where they have to buy in barrels.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is not included in this clause, and I submit it might be well that clause 13 should only apply to closed packages.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think there should be a safeguard there for potatoes sold openly by the farmers, in the open market. I would suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) be added to clause 13. It seems to me it is

Root Vegetables
not necessary they should be sold by weight. It is not done locally in my city.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This only applies to the open barrel, because the clause says: Or when potatoes are sold or offered for sale by the closed barrel, this section shall not apply to the same.
I think you should substitute the words "open barrel or package" for "closed barrel" in this section. This should only apply to the open package. I can see a very great hardship will result. Farmers will haul potatoes into the market, as my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says. They have no scales there, and they sell them by the bag or barrel, the standard bag being 90 pounds and the standard barrel 165 pounds. Clause 12 provides for the closed barrel as follows: No person shall sell or offer, expose or have in bis possession any potatoes for sale by the closed barrel unless every such barrel is well and properly filled.


David Spence: Is it not the intention
of the department that everything shall be sold by weight? There have been complaints in the past about people selling potatoes in different-sized bags. I believe the fairest thing is to sell by weight. We have a number of a cheap class of jobbers in every city in the world, and they will sometimes fill the bottom of the receptacle with hay or wood or anything else.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that done in Toronto?


David Spence: Yes, and in your country too.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Never.


David Spence: It is done everywhere
no matter where you go. There have been repeated convictions for this offence. The weighty system of selling is the only feasible and proper thing.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: In Montreal the custom for a long time has been to sell potatoes by the eighty-pound bag whereas the regulation size is ninety pounds. This matter has often been discussed in the House, but the old custom still prevails and very often the person buying a bag of potatoes is not in a position to know whether he is getting an eighty- or a ninety-pound bag. Has there ben any final ruling on that point by the department, and will the bill put an end to that difficulty and establish the weight for a bag of potatoes?


William Richard Motherwell: Bags vary so
much in size that it is difficult for a person to know just what he is getting. Consequently, weight seems to be the only logical way of selling potatoes, especially when dealing with men at a distance. This system will disturb some of the old usages my hon. friend speaks of, and that is why we are adopting the system of grading so as to reduce this disturbance to a minimum during the first year or two of the operation of the bill. I do not think it will cause much friction, and once the people get familiar with the idea of buying by weight they will no longer want to hang on to the old system of buying by the bag. A bag is usually understood to be a bushel and a half, or ninety pounds, but sometimes bags contain only eighty pounds. This bill will remove the uncertainty that now prevails in that respect.


David Spence: The matter of selling
by weight was taken up at the conference and I remember that a gentleman from Quebec stated there that in his province the bag was eighty pounds. There is no law regulating the size of a bag of potatoes at all. A bushel of potatoes is sixty pounds and a bag may hold any quantity. In British Columbia they want to make the bag from 150 to 200 pounds. We cannot get people around Toronto to handle that size, but they have the labour out there in British Columbia and want it that way. In Nova Scotia also they have large sacks. What we want is to have uniformity, and the only way to get that is to sell by weight. In the fall of the year when potatoes are heavy, you will only get six pecks to the bag; in the spring potatoes are much lighter, and ninety pounds weighed into a bag will measure out sometimes seven pecks. This is giving the consumer the worst of the deal. My experience has been that selling by weight is the only proper and fair way.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As usual, the hon.
member for Parkdale is absolutely wrong when he says there is no definite size for a bag of potatoes provided in the law. By an amendment to the Inspection and Sale Act in 1914 it was provided that:
A bag of any article mentioned in this subsection shall contain that number of Dominion standard pounds of such article which is shown in this subsection opposite the name of such article.

Root Vegetables

Weight in Dominion Description of Article	Standard pounds
Artichokes	
84	lhs.Beets	
75	"Carrots	
75	"Onions	
75	"Parsnips	
66	"Potatoes	
90	"Turnips	
75	"
So my hon friend is wrong again, as usual.


David Spence: I am not wrong. It
has been decided in court over and over again that a bag full of potatoes may be only that size. That is the law to-day, as my hon. friends who are in the legal profession will know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: I would again
call attention to section 13. I believe the act as drafted is the correct way. The weight was not meant to apply to the closed barrel, because the size of it is designated in inches and therefore in that case it is not necessary to sell 'by weight. I think that is the intent of the act, and it is only intelligible from that' standpoint.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no very serious objection to this, only I did not want to disturb the method now in vogue at all. I want the man to get what he pays for, certainly.


David Spence: The hon. member for
Victoria and Carleton was opposed to this because he had a certain size of barrel down there that he wanted to use for his own purposes.


William Richard Motherwell: Has section 13
passed?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.
On section 16-penalty for violation of act:


David Spence: The committee will notice that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton imposes a heavy penalty on the man who deals in the stuff, and the penalty is all taken off the grower. Is that square? Does not the dealer deserve consideration? The penalty suggested by the department was $40. . My hon. friend suggested that it be made $100. Why should that be changed? Why should we legislate against the dealers any more than against the growers? I just want to draw attention to the class of legislation we are getting.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend says
that I object to a penalty for the grower. I do not object. Section 16 provides a penalty for the grower.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Repeal:
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is one clause
that I object to because it would upset the well-established practice throughout the country, that a bag of potatoes shall be 90 pounds, a bushel 60 pounds, and a barrel 165 pounds. Our barrel of potatoes used to be 180 pounds. In 1914, after a very strenuous session, 1 possibly almost as strenuous as the debate this afternoon, we got the act amended to provide that 165 pounds of potatoes should be a barrel Now I am not objecting to selling by the pound, in fact we do that now; but this applies to selling in a local market by farmers. It is a custom that has been followed for a long time. I would like to know what my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) thinks of this. He lives in a town that is supplied by local farmers, and he is familiar with the customs and conditions there. I am a little afraid you are going to make confusion in Canada this year by doing what is proposed. It may be possible to cut this provision out at some later period, but I do not think it is advisable at the present time. I do not think it will affect the operations of the present bill if the existing legislation is left as it is in that particular.


William Richard Motherwell: Is that in regard to cutting out section 22?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes. I would like
to know what my hon. friend from York-Sunbury thinks about it because he lives in a potato growing section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One hundred and sixty-five pounds is the accepted weight of a barrel of potatoes in the province of New Brunswick, and unless there has been a demand for a change on the part of the dealers or growers I would like to have that stand.


William Richard Motherwell: Then, you would
suggest cutting out section 22?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know what the effect of that would be.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would suggest that
you let it stand. If you find next year that it would be unwise to allow the provision

Root Vegetables
to remain it will be easy to make the change. To cut out the provision now might simply create more confusion in the trade.


William Richard Motherwell: I believe in simplifying legislation of this kind as much as possible.	[DOT]


George Newcombe Gordon: The two acts will be absolutely in conflict as to measure and weight.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not like to differ with your opinion, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot help but do so. The act provides that the weight of these vegetables offered for sale shall be so many pounds avoirdupois. This clause that we are proposing to repeal provides that a bag of potatoes shall be ninety pounds, a barrel one hundred and sixty-five pounds and a bushel sixty pounds. In my humble opinion the present bill will not conflict with the existing act. If I thought it would I would not urge this action on the minister. My theory is that unless my suggestion is acted upon it will create very great confusion in the trade as it is carried on at the present time.


Ernest William Robinson: Does my hon. friend wish to reduce the size of the barrel?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, I wish to leave the law as it is.


Ernest William Robinson: Section 10 fixes the size of the barrel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The law merely applies to closed barrels. What we propose here applies also to open barrels and to the local trade.


William Richard Motherwell: I would not like to agree to the elimination of this section until I 'had looked into the matter and ascertained just how it would affect the rest of the act. I think we might report the bill from committee so that it might stand for third reading. This would give opportunity for reconsideration and if It were deemed necessary to refer the bill back again into committee that course might be taken.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is perfectly
satisfactory.


Charles Marcil: In my constituency potatoes are sent out in carload lots. Does this bill provide that hereafter they will have to be sold by weight?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, sold by
weight.


Charles Marcil: Is that a new provision?


William Richard Motherwell: It is a provision in the present bill that potatoes shall be sold by weight.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before you leave tJhe chair, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he would give still more consideration to the provisions of section 13.
Now, that section will affect the
5 p.m. market gardeners. If you enact a law that all vegetables shall be sold by weight and it does not apply to closed barrels it must mean open barrels. I would like to have a definite understanding on the point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It does apply to open barrels.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure it does from the construction of the section, and, from the point of view of the local consumers, that ought not to be. The bill enumerates the vegetables that are to be sold by weight and then provides that when any of these vegetables, or potatoes, are sold by the closed barrel the section shall not apply. The inference to be drawn is unmistake-able.


William Richard Motherwell: I will be very glad to discuss the point with my hon. friend to-morrow before the third1 reading. Then if deemed desirable the bill can be referred back to the committee to make such changes as may be found necessary.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I presume the bill will not apply to potatoes sold in closed packages. The section mentions "closed barrel" but it does not refer to a closed bag.


William Richard Motherwell: We can inquire into that and have all such matters cleared up to-m'orrow.
Section agreed to and bill reported.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 176 to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the Chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: The only thing left to consider is an amendment by Mr. Johnson (Moosejaw), which reads as follows:
The Board shall have power hy regulation, approved hy the Lieutenant Governor in Coum
Wheat Board

cil of any province which has enacted such legislation as in the last preceding section described; to prohibit, or to impose such conditions or restrictions as may be deemed advisable upon the export of wheat from that province, except by or under the authority or direction of the Board.
It is proposed that this amendment shall be included in the bill as Section 18.


Mr. ROBB:: If my hon. friend from Moose jaw will agree to an amendment to this effect-
-and also approved by the Governor General in Councilthe Government will accept the new clause.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I would like to ask the mover of the amendment if he seriously thinks it is desirable legislation to give power to this Wheat Board to prevent a man from exporting his wheat from one province to another, or if he considers it fair to tell a man in any of the provinces, say the maritime provinces, that power should be vested in this Board to prevent him from buying wheat from any persons in these provinces who wish to buy from him? On what principle can anybody defend a proposition of this character? I think it is most vicious legislation, and I am astonished that it gets support from any person in this House.


Mr. SPENCER:: Someone-I think it was the hon. member for Oomox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)

mentioned that those who knew most about farming were always those who live in the cities. We have a good deal of criticism from hon. members who do not happen to be farmers and who probably know very little about farming except from hearsay.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Farming
has nothing to do with this question, has it? What relation is there between the occupation of farming and determining intelligently the effect of this bill? Is there any remote or close relationship between the two questions?


Henry Elvins Spencer: There is this in it that it is surmised by hon. members that this legislation is not asked for, is not wanted by the people of Canada for whom the legislation is being passed. Speaking for myself, as a member representing one constituency in the West, I have received no fewer than 202 resolutions, not from individuals, but from organized communities, making demands for this sort of legislation, and other hon. members have received
[The Deputy Speaker.]
similar numbers of resolutions along the same lines. The people of the West, through their organized conventions, have for some time past made a definite demand for this sort of legislation. This is not a matter of doing some harm to some other part of the Dominion; it is not a matter whether we are penalizing individuals or not. If we are penalizing anybody, we are penalizing ourselves. We are simply asking for legislation so that we can market our crop to the very best advantage, so that we may do away with certain customs that have been detrimental to the best interests of the farmers. Moreover, it was suggested the other day by an hon. member on the other side of the House, if this legislation is passed it would be detrimental to immigration, but I say if it does not pass, after it has been asked for by such a huge majority of the people of western Canada, I can safely say that that fact will have a detrimental effect on immigration, because it is the people of western Canada who, in the long run, are going to say if we are to have immigration into that country or not. If those people do not want immigration to go into the West, they will certainly stop it from going in; if they want immigration, they are the best people to encourage it. If hon. members refuse to give those people the legislation they are continually asking for and which they have to have if conditions are to be improved, it will certainly be very harmful to the best interests of agriculture. I would therefore ask for the passing of this act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am afraid that I cannot have any great hopes of converting this committee to a serious appreciation of what we are doing, but at least I will do my best.


Arthur Meighen: I admit myself a convert.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am glad to know that the leader of the Opposition is a convert; but I wish he would have the zeal of a convert; that he would not take it out in strong language, calling this thing a famished, deformed monstrosity with teeth. I wish he would get himself and his supporters, if he has any serious men amongst them, to withstand this legislation which, as has been said in the most kindly and amiable manner by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), is, I believe, the most vicious legislation that

Wheat Board
has ever been presented to this House. What does it mean? It means that it will be in the power of this board, with the concurrence of a Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the Governor General in Council to prohibit interprovincial trade in Canada; that this board shall have the right to say that grain grown in Alberta shall not have free course into Manitoba; and if I mistake not, it also gives the board the right to prohibit the importation of grain from one province to another. I say this in all kindness to friends with whom, as a rule, I agree largely on public questions in this House, that they hardly realize what they are doing. Such a proposal, if I mistake not, would be prohibited by the constitution of the United States where trade must flow freely from one state to another. I take it and I believe students of history will bear me out, that one of the reasons for the tremendous material prosperity of the United States has been that, since the American revolution and since the formation of the thirteen original states, trade has always been absolutely free between the different states of the American union. That is one of the great reasons for their tremendous material prosperity. You are proposing by this legislation to do what, if you were south of the line, would be a violation of the constitution of that country.


Mr. McCONICA:: Does the constitution of the United States not provide that the United States Congress shall have control over interstate trade and commerce, and does the Interstate Trade and Commerce Commission not to-day control interstate commerce in the United States?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I believe they have the right to regulate it; but I apprehend, and I believe I am right in the statement, that nobody in the United States, without a constitutional amendment, would have the right to prohibit trade from flowing freely from one state to another. The experience of that great people has been that they have never attempted to interfere with the free flow of commerce to and from the different states. Before the American revolution, when they were all cblonies of Great Britain, you could not bring a load of wood from New Jersey into the city of New York without paying a customs tariff. One of the great benefits given to the United States by the revolution was the wiping away of such economic absurdities. Whether or not the protests
made by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and myself may have any effect in this committee, I know not; but this I know, that our voice has been raised in protest; and in all sincerity, I ask: What is the situation that we meet in this committee? This legislation is asked for by a body at least one-third of which do not believe it is wise, it is given by another party, the whole of which think it is unwise, while a third1 party, after taking it out in hard language, apparently sit idly by without any effective protest against such legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Although I would not dare impugn the sincerity of my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), one would gather from his remarks, if one has followed the course of this debate, that his object in rising was to try, if he could, to set hon. members on this side against himself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I want all hon. members of good sense to agree with me, and if they will express their honest opinion, I think they can do nothing other than agree with me.


Arthur Meighen: Therefore, the hon.
member addresses himself in hostile language to the party in this corner, which has all along led the way in regard to this question, and which has presented to Parliament the only possible method of meeting the wishes of the people in this regard, a method wholly free from any of the objections urged by my hon. friend, but a method which he failed to support and which, had he supported it and used his influence to have it adopted, would probably to-day be accepted by this House. Does he want to intimate that I favour this legislation? I do not know what protest I could offer stronger than I have already made. Sit idly by! Well, I have sat by with some amusement watching this discussion, I must admit. But the Government with, the concurrence of my hon. friend-well, I am not sure whether it had the concurrence of the hon. gentleman from Brome (Mr. McMaster), although I did not hear any protest from him or his friend to the left-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I protested in a
speech of an hour and a half.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend says he protested-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did.
Wheat Board


Arthur Meighen: -so he was evidently the lone sparrow. The Government, at any rate, accepted the report of the committee, which report recommended that a bill should be introduced into this House by which Parliament would give all the powers that Parliament could give, of whatever character, to this board up to the limit of the powers held by the old board; and that when two provinces added to those powers all the powers that the provinces could give, up to the limit, again, of the powers enjoyed by the old board, then the act could be called into eifect by the Governor in Council. Parliament first had to give all the powers that it possessed. Now, no one disputes that the control of interprovincial trade is a federal power. Is Parliament undertaking to confer this power on the board? Is the Government fulfilling the pledge of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) ? I did not urge that that be done; I urged another method altogether. But that was the pledge of the Prime Minister. This board the other night was wholly denied that power by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) who has charge of the bill, for he gave a blank refusal. Then, on reflection, he comes back to-day with a change of front. But still he does not fulfil the undertaking of the Government. He says, "We will give the board this power, exercisable, however, only on two conditions." Here is the restriction by which the Government fails to carry out its undertaking. These two conditions which the minister now lays down are: First, that the province concerned out of which the grain is to be exported shall, through its Lieutenant Governor in Council, approve; secondly, that the federal government, through its Governor in Council, shall give its approval. Those two conditions render the legislation in this regard, if in no other,- and there are at least ten others-wholly opposed to the undertaking of the administration, and to the order of this Parliament by resolution supported by the Prime Minister himself. But let me ask again,

and in this I know I shall have the agreement of my two hon. friends opposite, the members for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean): Where is the principle by which any special control should rest in any province with regard to the rights of transportation? Let us say, for example, that some people in the province of Ontario desire to purchase some wheat from the province 
of Saskatchewan, and some people in the latter province desire to sell that wheat. The province of Saskatchewan has the power to say: "You cannot sell that wheat". The province of Ontario has no power in the premises at all. What gives the province of Saskatchewan any better right than the province of Ontario in that regard? Why should there be a compulsory power in Saskatchewan and not in Ontario? Now, it is all right to have controi of these matters vest in the Governor in Council for all the provinces, and that is what I suggested myself in the first place by way of general principle in the bill. But here is an acceptance by the Government to-day, its first change of front,-and there may be more-of the principle of particular power resting with the government of the province in which the vendors reside in respect of interprovincial trade, all power being denied to the government of the province in which the purchasers are located. How does the Government justify that? The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spence), says that he has 202 resolutions supporting this legislation. I do not doubt his word, and I do not think he intended to mislead the House at all; but I would ask him to reflect on what he says. I venture to say that he has not a resolution or a letter asking for such an amorphous botch as this is in the way of legislation. He has doubtless resolutions asking for a wheat board such as the farmers are desirous of seeing established, namely, the wheat board of 1919.-he has, no doubt, resolutions requesting that. He may also have resolutions-I have some- asking for a voluntary board. The establishment of a voluntary board is the only way we can meet the demand of western Canada. But this method of trying to dispose of the matter, by proposing one thing one day and another thing the next, will not work. Hon. gentlemen will realize that, and if they do not realize it by the denial altogether of the legislation, at the hands of either the provincial governments or this Government, they will realize it by experience under the act when passed.


William Richard Motherwell: This legislation is fashioned after the Australian system of disposing of wheat. That system was instituted shortly after the war broke out, and it is not an experiment at all. It has been in force there five or six years, first as a compulsory system and later as a voluntary method of disposing of wheat; and while it may require some fine adjust-

Wheat Board
ing in this case in order to get matters dovetailed into each other as regards the provincial and the Dominion, the system is not by any means unworkable. It has not proven unworkable where it has been tried, and there is no reason why it should not operate satisfactorily in Canada as well as in Australia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amendment is far-reaching, and I am inclined to doubt its constitutionality. I may ask the minister whether it has the approval of the Department of Justice? It appears before us for the first time, although I heard of it before; but I did not read it as carefully as I did a moment ago. I think we should have a little time to consider it. This is a piece of legislation that affects not only the western provinces, but the whole Dominion. It is a violation of the whole spirit of Confederation, and as we are to be here a considerable time yet, I think the bill should remain over until next week. In the meantime hon. members could study the amendment carefully. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion negatived.


Charles Marcil: The
hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) moves to amend the bill by adding thereto clause 18 the following:
The Board shall have power by regulation, approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province which has enacted such legislation as in the last preceding section described, to prohibit, or to impose such conditions or restrictions as may be deemed advisable upon the export of wheat from that province, except by or under the authority and direction of the Board.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) moves to amend the proposed amendment as follows:
The Board shall have have power by regulation approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province which has enacted such legislation as in the last preceding section described, and also approved by the Governor General In Council, to prohibit or to impose such conditions or restrictions as may be deemed advisable upon the export of wheat from that province except by or under the authority and' direction of the Board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand that the amendment proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is acceptable to my hon. friend?


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: It is quite acceptable to me, Mr. Chairman. I have gone over it carefully and I did not consider it necessary to say anything on the subject. The amendment is quite satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
add another clause, to be known as Clause 6 (a):
Sales of wheat to Canadian millers and other cereal manufacturers shall be on the same basis with respect to prices, terms of delivery and so forth, as sales to foreign buyers either for immediate or future delivery, provided that such wheat is to be milled or manufactured in Canada, and the purchaser when required must give proof of its manufacture.
In that connection, it is due to my hon. friends who have been urging this legislation that I should say they have made a fair attempt to approach all interests in the trade in a reasonable way. That amendment has been prepared after consultation with the gentlemen who were promoting the legislation and the millers, who feared that they might be discriminated against. I found the attitude of my hon. friends from the West most reasonable, and I think that the large millers-who, after all, are our friends' best customers because they mill 70,000,000 bushels of this wheat crop-went away satisfied that if the act should be approved by the two provinces and come into operation and be administered in the same spirit as that shown by the promoters of this legislation, the milling dairy and other interests linked up with the agricultural interests have no reason to fear the operations of the wheat board.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister say
whether this clause is compulsory or not?


James Alexander Robb: As it leaves the House no
feature of this bill is compulsory. My ,right hon. friend must keep in mind that the act is subject to revision and approval by two concurring provinces.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking if this
clause is not in its nature and essence a compulsory clause. Does it not compel the board to sell wheat to millers at a price fixed in a certain way by reference to the export market? And therefore is it not compulsory?


James Alexander Robb: I should not think so.
Mr. MEIGHEN! Then the board will not be compelled to sell at all in accordance with the clause?
Wheat Board


James Alexander Robb: So far as this legislation
is concerned, when it leaves this Parliament, the board will not be compelled to sell or to buy wheat; the board will not be created at all until the legislation has the approval of two concurring provinces.


Arthur Meighen: We will say that it
does reach that stage-I have my doubts, of course-and gets into operation, then is or is not the board compelled to sell wheat to millers at a price arrived at in accordance with that clause?


James Alexander Robb: Supposing I answer my
right hon. friend that this is merely a chart, a direction to the board.


Arthur Meighen: I am just showing the hon. minister that he has here a compulsory clause, indeed, he has more, a compulsory clause affecting civil rights. Now, will he answer me this:	Has he consulted the
Justice Department as to whether that clause will have the slightest effect if passed?


James Alexander Robb: Is my right hon. friend
objecting to this clause?


Arthur Meighen: I am asking the question: Has he consulted the Justice Department as to whether that clause would be enforcible if passed by this Parliament?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the kind words spoken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce about those who are asking for this legislation. I agree with him that they are as mild-mannered men as ever scuttled the ship of interprovincial trade or cut the throat of an economic principle. In order to make this legislation a little less undesirable, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Maclean (Halifax), the following amendment:
That the fptlowing paragraph <>
(b) be
added after paragraph 6 (a) : The board shall have the power to take such steps as in its discretion it may deem advisable for the fulfilment of bona fide contracts for the sale and purchase of wheat outstanding at the time when this act shall come into operation. Such outstanding contracts shall be intimated to the board within fifteen days of said date.


James Alexander Robb: Do I understand that this amendment has the approval of my hon. friends who are promoting the legislation?


Robert Milton Johnson: I did not understand that the first amendment had been carried, Mr. Chairman, but you are the judge of that, of course. I have studied

both these amendments very carefully. So far as I can see there is no objectionable feature in them from our viewpoint. I want to say on behalf of the people who are associating themselves with this legislation that if anything can be done to make it more acceptable to other interests without detrimentally affecting the purpose of the whole plan, we want to meet them all half way in a reasonable spirit. As to the point mentioned by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Meighen) I am not prepared to say whether there are compulsory features in the first amendment. Its object is to remove discrimination, and I think it does so. Both these amendments are quite acceptable to me, Mr. Chairman; others must speak for themselves.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the substance of that amendment was voted on before and defeated; therefore it would be out of order to re-introduce it now.


Robert Milton Johnson: I have compared carefully the substance of this amendment with the wording of the amendment offered a few days ago by the hon. member for Halifax, (Mr. Maclean), and there is a difference. The earlier amendment was objectionable to us in some of its features, but those features are not present in this amendment, and we think it is quite acceptable.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference? I did not see any as it was read.


Mr. CRERAR:: The differencee, as I recall it, is that for one thing this limits the power of the board-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To bona fide contracts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Another difference is that it cannot apply to contracts entered into after the passing of this act, while the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax, covered contracts that might be entered into a month after the legislation was enacted.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member mean by "the passing of the act" its coming into effect, or its passage by this House?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The operation of the act.


Robert Milton Johnson: 
Arthur Meighen: This amendment, then, is just the same as the amendment defeated the other day.


Robert Milton Johnson: No.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it is. This amendment is to apply to bona fide contracts. Does anyone suggest the other would have applied to malafide or fraudulent contracts? Nobody would dream of such a thing. The hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) would never rise and say he intended it should apply to fraudulent or fictitious contracts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, but it was open to the objection that it might cover a purely speculative contract.


Arthur Meighen: A speculative contract is just as bona fide as any other contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the goods might not be delivered under some of these contracts.


Arthur Meighen: I really sympathize with my hon. friend from Halifax. He wants to get the amendment through, and he is ready to exert all his ingenuity to see a difference between it and the one that was defeated, in order to put it through. The fact is as hon. members know, bona fides applies to all contracts, save such as are fraudulent. He never intended for a moment that his amendment should apply to fraudulent contracts. The next difference is that this amendment only applies to contracts entered into up to the coming into effect of the act. I do not think my hon. friend, in his amendment the other night, ever intended that it should apply to contracts made after the act was in operation. The very spirit of it is antagonistic to such an idea. It was contracts up to the time of the coming into operation of the act that he had in mind and argued in favour of, and all the objections urged on this side of the House were against protecting contracts made up to that time. Why have those objections all vanished into thin air? The fact is that there has been a reconciliation, and the animosity to my hon. friend's amendment has died away. It has passed into oblivion, and the House is left to guess the reason why.


Robert Milton Johnson: I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is handicapped in this matter, in not having the former amendment before him. The wording of that amendment would cover losses incurred by reason of the bringing into effect of this act, including losses of a speculative character. The amendment now offered is to enable those who have made bona fide contracts for the actual delivery of wheat to deliver wheat.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It gives power to the board to do it.


Arthur Meighen: That is all he intended to do. He never intended when men made losses, to make good those losses. He intended to enable those men to make good their contracts, and that is all this amendment intends.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is clearly a distinction between my amendment and this. The first part is the same, but this amendment excludes the demands for damages which might be made against the board by any person who had purchased grain speculatively.


William Charles Good: Does it not leave it in the discretion of the board?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


William Charles Good: Was that in the former amendment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It probably was not put forth so clearly and distinctly in the other amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MILLAR:: I would like to protest against this amendment. I think it is a dangerous one, and I would like to say that no one in this House can always tell the difference between bona fide contracts and dealing in futures, or tell when a contract is purely speculative and when it is not. Take the case of a farmer who decides that the price of'wheat in October is satisfactory to him and he sells. Later on, if his threshing is delayed, he cannot deliver in October, and, he switches the delivery to the next month. Again he finds that he cannot deliver in November and switches to December. It seems to me those are bona fide deals, and yet he has not delivered the wheat on those deals. He probably will deliver the wheat in December, but he did not deliver it in October or November. It seems to me this leaves the door wide open
Wheat Board

for the imposition of a great deal of expense on those who are producing the wheat. I do not like the look of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think a word will enlighten my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) : Precisely this same difficulty arose in 1919, when the wheat hoard was created under Order in Council. It will be recalled that, at that time, the markets in Winnipeg were open for a period in July. They were closed again towards the end of July, when the Wheat Board Order in Council was passed and there were certain contracts then outstanding. Now, in the final adjustment of those contracts a clear distinction was made between the contracts that were of a bona fide character and those of a speculative character. The contracts of a bona fide character were compensated for. The distinction was made then, and I see no reason why it cannot be made again.


Arthur Meighen: What right has this Parliament to dictate to the board the principle on which they may sell the grain, if the provinces, and not the federal treasury at all, are solely responsible for losses and solely entitled to profit?


James Alexander Robb: That is a very reasonable question, and the provinces may take that into consideration whey they have this legislation before them. I repeat that this was put in after a joint conference with the gentlemen who were promoting the bill and their best customers, who thought they might be affected. If they have reached a reasonable compromise, and we are going to have peace and confidence where before there was dissatisfaction, why should we not accept the legislation and let it go through?


Arthur Meighen: I quite accept the answer of the hon. minister which, being interpreted, is just this:	There is strong
hope that this clause will be such that it will frighten the provinces so that they will never accept the act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might I ask hon. members opposite, who are the strong proponents of this legislation, if I should propose an amendment to the effect that, before either of the acts passed by any two of the legislatures becomes effective, it shall be submitted to a plebiscite of the electors of that province?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the hon. member from Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) will answer that, and if he objects to that, would he agree to an amendment that before these acts came into force, in either of these western provinces, it shall be submitted to a vote of the people of Nova Scotia? Would he agree to that? I wish my hon. friend would give me an answer, because if he, and everybody around him, replies in the negative, perhaps, it would not be worth while proposing it. If I can get any support at all, I would like to propose it.


Mr. SALES:: It is absolutely impossible for me to answer about the people of Nova Scotia. I have never been there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is quite evident.


Thomas Sales: I can only answer for the people of my own province. I can assure this House that none of the fifteen members from my province, nor the member who sits on the other side of the House from my provinces, would have been here to-day, if we had not been willing to support this measure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that the reason the hon. member is supporting it?


Thomas Sales: I say I would not have been here, if I had not been supporting it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the hon. member changed his mind on the principle?


Thomas Sales: No, I have not. The hon. member speaks of a plebiscite. I can only say that our provincial government, with a practical grain man at its head, in the person of Mr. Dunning, passed this resolution through the House, without one vote against it. There could not be any plebiscite there which would change public opinion on the question.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there not one righteous man in the hon. member's province?


Thomas Sales: I think there are a good many, and they are all on our side.


Arthur Meighen: There is one more question I would like to ask the minister. His colleague the Minister of Agriculture was cieeted on a propaganda of his committee declaring that he was the outstanding champion, followed by all the other Liberals of Saskatchewan, of the Wheat Board, which I had been knave enough to put out of existence in 1920. He afterwards repeated

Canadian Red Cross
and declared himself an apostle of a purely voluntary board, and that he has reaffirmed in this House in this discussion. How has the minister managed to persuade him to accept this bill, which at many points is compulsory, and those the most perilous points of the bill?


James Alexander Robb: Not having taken part in the election in Saskatchewan, I am not in a position to enter into a discussion of that question.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. H. S. Beland (Minister of Health) Bill No. 175 respecting the Canadian Red Cross Society, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marci'l in the Chair.
On section 3-emblem and badge:
Mr. MacLAREN:: The society is here designated as "the Canadian organization which is authorized to act in matters of relief under the said treaty." I take it that under this section special privileges are granted to the Canadian Red Cross, so that it will be designated as "the Canadian organization which is authorized to act in matters of relief under the said treaty." In 1914, the very old and honourable society, St. John Ambulance Asociation, was incorporated in this Dominion, to carry on its work both in peace time and in war. The Canadian Red Cross had previously been incorporated, but only to carry on during war time. It was five years later, in 1919, that the Canadian Red Cross obtained authority to carry on its work during peace time. With both of these excellent organizations I have been personally connected, and still am at the present time. It is felt, however, by those associated with the St. John Ambulance Association, and it has been represented to me by my colleagues on the executive of that association, that subsection 3 of section 3 may restrict the work and the powers of the St. John Ambulance Association. The St. John ,Ambulance Association has a section in its incorporation which is much on the same lines as the section of the Red Cross Act regarding the work of the Red Cross for the improvement of health, the prevention of disease, and the mitigation of suffering. The
St. John Ambulance Asociation feels that under subsection 3 of section 3 its activities might be restricted, because the Canadian Red Cross is there designated as the organization to do certain special work. Now the act of incorporation of the St. John Ambulance Association, previous to the inception of the Red Cross Society, conferred upon it the authority to carry on much the same work as the latter organization is empowered to do. The St. John Ambulance Association therefore feels that subsection 3 will have the effect of considerably reducing its authority and powers. Accordingly I would suggest to the minister that the sub-section in question be modified in same such way as the following:
The society is hereby authorized, with or without the co-operation of any other society, association or organization which has been accorded similar powers by act of the Parliament of Canada, to act in matters of relief under the said treaty.
I may say that the two organizations were associated during the Great War. They worked in close co-operation and, to the extent that they carried on its splendid work, remained in friendly association. The position is still one of entire friendliness and of a desire to co-operate, on the part of the St. John Ambulance Association; but I would submit that it would be well that in this bill there should be such an amendment as I have indicated to protect the powers which have already been granted to that organization.


Mr. BELAND:: I do not think it was the intention of the Canadian Red Cross Society in seeking this legislation to exclude all other organizations from the privilege of carrying on humanitarian work in Canada, but the sub-section as at present framed might convey the impression that it was the only Canadian organization authorized to carry on the noble work of relieving and mitigating human suffering. The amendment which my hon. friend has suggested would meet with my entire approval if the words "in co-operation with" were omitted. If that omission did not take place the amended sub-section might be construed to mean that the Red Cross Society would have to act in co-operation with any other society. The object of the St. John Ambulance Association is not to force the Red Cross Society to work in co-operation with it; of course its desire is that either society should work alongside of the other. With that object in view I submit to my hon. friend that the
Soldiers' Insurance

following would meet the wishes of the St. John Ambulance Association:
The society is hereby authorized, with or without the co-operation of any other society association or organization which has been accorded similar powers by act of the Parliament of Canada to act in matters 01 relief under the said treaty.
The amendment, in a word, means that the Red Cross Society is authorized to act, in matters of relief under the said treaty, with or without the co-operation of any other society. It does not, however, preclude the St. John Ambulance Association from carrying on similar work.


Murray MacLaren: I appreciate the minister's attitude hut I am not quite sure that the words which he. suggests will express exactly what I have in my own mind. I think that even the minister's amendment would not entirely meet the ease. If it is acceptable to my hon. friend, I would like to ask that further consideration of the matter be deferred until the committee resumes after the dinner hour.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Amendment (Mr. Beland) agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. H. S. Beland (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
That it is expedient to repeal section ten of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1920, and to provide in lieu thereof:-
1.	That if on the death of the insured a pension becomes payable under The Pension Act or the Pension Daw of the United Kingdom, or of any of His Majesty's Dominions (other than the Dominion of Canada) or of His Majesty's government, or of any of. His Majesty's Allies or Associated Powers in the Great War, to any person or persons within the classes mentioned in section four of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, there shall be deducted from the benefit payable under the said Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act the aggregate present value of the pension or pensions so payable computed on such basis as may be prescribed by regulation made under the .provisions of section seventeen of that Act. and in such case there shall be returned to the beneficiary or beneficiaries in proportion to their respec-
tive interests under the contracts the proportion of the premiums paid (witn interest at four per cent .per annum compounded annually) which the amount of the said deduction is of the total amount assured under the contract; Provided,-
(a)	That in case the contract is for the benefit of the wife of the insured, or of his children, or of some one or more of his children, and the death occurs after six months from the effective date of the contract, the sum of five hundred dollars, if the amount of the insurance is five hundred dollars or over, or the full amount of such insurance if it is less than five hundred dollars, shall be paid to the widow, or to the widow or some one or more of the children, as the case may be, and the return of premiums, if, any, shall be based on the balance of insurance after payment of the amount due under this resolution and deductior of the aggregate present value of the pension as above provided.;
Ob) that in no case shall the benefit together with the amount of premiums and accrued interest to the beneficiary or beneficiaries under this provision exceed the face value of the policy.
(c) that this provision shall not operate when the beneficiary of the insurance is the wife of the insured and a penson is awarded under the Pension Act to some other person or persons named in section four of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
2.	These provisions shall apply to all .policies which have been issued or shall be issued under The Returned Sodiers' Insurance Act, and any amendment thereto, provided however, that this amendment shall not operate to deprive holders of policies issued prior to the .passing of this amendment of any rights or .privileges now vested in them.
3.	That no application for insurance shall be received under the said Act after the first day of September, .1923, and the Act to be based upon these resolutions shall become effective on the first day of July, 1922.
Mr. STEVENS:: I should like to have an explanation from the minister of what appears to me to be a departure from the principle that was originally laid down, that any returned man who served in the forces overseas would be entitled to insurance. I understand that under section 13 of the act certain restrictions have been imposed. I do not wish to criticize the minister or the department unfairly at all, but I was certainly under the impression, from utterances in Parliament last year when the matter was1 up, and on previous occasions as well, that any returned soldier who had served in the forces overseas would be entitled to insurance without medical examination. That was the understanding. I gather from statements which I have not had an opportunity of looking into closely that that principle has been departed from and that the authorities are now, in some cases at least, demanding medical examination. I wish the minister would be good enough to reply to that allegation, to put it mildly.

Soldiers' Insurance


Henri Sévérin Béland: The act provides for the insurance of every returned man, and in certain cases of widows, without medical inspection. That is clearly set out in the act. There is also a provision in the same act, section 13, which says that the minister may refuse to enter into an injurious contract in any case where there are, in his opinion, sufficient grounds for his refusal. It would seem that the intention of the lawmakers when the act was passed was that, in certain cases, the application for insurance should not be allowed under such circumstances as would warrant the Minister of Finance in refusing it. I presume that this section was enacted because it was foreseen that a returned man, being very seriously ill and not expecting to live, might seek insurance on which his dependents would receive an amount varying from $500 to $5,000. Reading over the act, and bearing in mind what took place when it was pased in 1920, I take it that the intention at the time was that such cases should be refused in the wisdom of the Minister of Finance. Section 13 empowers the Minister of Finance to refuse applications in such cases. Last night in the course of the debate my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) read certain regulations passed for the guidance of the Minister of Finance by the Board of Pension Commissioners. I had not a copy of those regulations before, and I may quote from them again to clear up the matter and answer the point raised by my hon. friend:
Class 1-Applicants who are not seriously
111.
(a)	An applicant with dependents, ill with a pensionable disability.
Application is at present accepted.
(b)	An applicant without dependents who is ill with a pensionable disability.
Application is at present accepted.
(c)	An applicant with dependents, ill with a disability that is not pensionable.
Application is at present accepted.
(d)	An applicant without dependents ill with a disability that is not pensionable.
Application is at present accepted.
Class 2-Applicants who are seriously ill.
(a)	An applicant with dependents, who is seriously ill with a pensionable disability.
Application is at present accepted.
(b)	An applicant with dependents, danger ously ill with disability that is not pensionable.
Application refused.
The third class is that of applications from persons in so serious a condition of health that they have no reasonable expectation of life
(a) An applicant with dependents so seriously ill with a pensionable disability that he has no expectancy of life.
Applications are at present accepted E.nd insurance paid, provided death does not occur before approval of the application for issue of the policy.
(b)	An applicant without dependents so seriously ill from a pensionable disability that he has no expectancy of life.
Applications are at present refused.
(c)	An applicant with dependents, so seriously ili from a disability that is not pensionable that he has no expectancy of life.
Applications are at present refused.
(d)	An applicant without dependents, so seriously ill from a disability that is not pensionable, that he has no expectancy of life.
Applications are at present refused.
Class 4-General.
(a)	The above is the general procedure of the board. In cases, however, where an applicant with or without dependents, is seriously ill with an injury or disease attributable to service or otherwise, and has been ill for many months with a disease which is certain to terminate fatally within a reasonably short time and has postponed taking our insurance until death is practically imminent.
Applications are at present refused.
(b)	In cases where an applicant with, or without dependents, whose health has become impaired as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, during service, or after discharge.
Applications are at present refused.
These regeulations laid down will throw some light upon the grounds that may be invoked by the Minister of Finance when he decides to hold up an application for insurance. I understand from the Pension Committee that some 64 applications out of a total of 7,354 have been held up, and that since those applications were filed 13 of the applicants have died.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: When the duty of looking after the Soldiers' Insurance Act devolved upon me these particular regulations were not in force. We had regulations in force-I have not them before me as I did not know this matter was coming up to-night-which practically followed the statute and reserved the right to the Minister of Finance to pass upon applications. It seems to me that in the present regulations there is danger of overlooking the great underlying object of the act, which was to provide a returned soldier with insurance at a low rate, irrespective entirely of his condition of health; there was to be no medical examination. Under the original act there was no question as to whether he was seriously ill or not, he had the direct right to obtain insurance. And the object of that was quite clear. The returned man, coming back in a bad state of health, could not get his insurance at anything like the same rate which would apply to the ordinary risk; and, further, he had of necessity been delayed in making his application owing to his absence overseas. Therefore the idea was to put him back as nearly as possible to the condition he would have been in hav-
Soldiers' Insurance

ing regard to insurance if he had never been at the front at all, and the act particularly dispenses with any medical examination as a general rule. It is true we can ask for it if we desire, but I think my hon. friend will agree that, as intended by the act, physical disability was not to be a reason for refusing insurance. All I want to do is to call the minister's attention to the matter because the changing of these regulations will be in his hands. Take, for example, the important clause that my hon. friend has just read:
In cases however, where an applicant with or without dependents is seriously ill with an injury or disease attributable to service or otherwise, and has been ill for many months with a disease which is certain to terminate fatally within a reasonably short time and has postponed taking out insurance until death is practically imminent.
That case is refused altogether. I desire to remind my hon. friend that this is an insurance to be taken by the returned man as and when he pleases, that there is nothing whatever in the act to indicate that he must take it before he knows he is seriously ill. The idea underlying the act was to at least make sure that men returning from overseas with injuries which would ultimately result in death should be able to take advantage of that insurance. If the whole question were left open there might be some force in the present position, but it was not left open. The hon. minister will see that the soldier is told he has two years within which at any time he may write insurance. That is the position as it was left under the act. So a man suffering from a disease which may or may not terminate fatally is still entitled to write insurance within that two-year period.
We talk of deathbed cases. Ordinarily it might be said there is fraud in connection with deathbed insurance, but it is hard to say there is any fraud when the insurance is a matter of right irrespective of physical condition. Frankly, my view of the position was: never mind how desperate the case might be, where a man returns from overseas with an injury which ultimately causes death, or, to quote the words of this section, "he dies of an injury attributable to his service overseas" it does not matter when his application for insurance is received, in order fairly and properly to carry out the terms of the statute that insurance should be granted, it is a matter entirely in the hands of the Government and I draw this position to the attention of my hon. friend in the hope that these regulations may be modified.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As the hon. member for West York was in the House when this act was passed in 1920, I should like to ask* what his interpretation would be of clause 15, which provides:
That no particular examination or other evidence of insurability shall be required in respect of any contract issued under this act;-
Had the clause stopped there I would understand that every single application made at any time in the course of any illness coming from whatever source would be and should be accepted. But if we proceed one step further in the same clause, we read:
Provided, however, that the minister, may, for the purpose of determining whether he shall refuse to enter into a contract for insurance in any case under the provisions of section 13 of this act, require such medical examination or other evidence of the insurability of the insured as he may deem necessary.
I was not instrumental in drafting the act. I was present in the House when it was passed and I supported that clause. I understood then that in a general way any returned man might apply for insurance without any examination, but that as some abuse might spring up in the carrying out of the provisions of the act- some applications might be filed only for the purpose of getting insurance in a case where death was certain to happen within a short time-it was provided that the Minister of Finance in the circumstances would be clothed with power to instruct some one to make a medical examination for the purpose of obtaining sufficient information to decide whether the application should be received or not. If that is not the meaning, I do not know what the clause means at all. Is it desirable, I ask the House, that every application, regardless of the time and circumstances under which it is made, should be accepted? If it is the wish of the House, let the House say so, and if it is the desire of the House that there should be some discrimination, then this clause is there for that purpose, and it is in the hands of the Finance Minister to say whether the application should be accepted or not.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: What is the amount of the insurance?


Henri Sévérin Béland: $500 to $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In answer to the question put by my hon. friend, whatever the clause may mean, I have no difficulty in telling the hon. member that it never did mean the reservation of a

Soldiers' Insurance
right to deny insurance to a man whose death resulted from injury, or from a state of health or disease contracted as a result of overseas service. On the other hand, as I recollect, the question that was troubling the framers of the bill was that if the matter was left entirely wide open, the returned soldier dying from diseases clearly other than those as a result of overseas injury or exposure, might fraudulently obtain a death-bed insurance. The clause, certainly, was never drawn for the purpose of contracting the right which we thought we were giving to the returned soldier of an absolute insurance, within the two year period, if the soldier was suffering as a result of injuries received overseas, or exposure overseas. There is another matter covered by these regulations which was also in mind, and that was the case where the fatal illness results from the acts or misconduct of the man himself. That would be a proper case and proper circumstances for consideration but, in answer to my hon. friend's question, our view is that the statute does not contemplate such restrictions as are now put upon the insurance.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to ask the
minister one or two questions, to clear up some doubt about this resolution. In the first place, the resolution is based on the act of 1920. That act says that no medical examination is necessary; still in Some cases they have insisted on it. In some cases an examination is held. I think the new resolution should state clearly, first, that in the case of soldiers' insurance no medical examination will be necessary and, second, that it will apply equitably to the soldiers who have served on the land, on the sea and in the air. Some people seem to think it applies only to soldiers who served on the land. It should apply also to those who served on the sea and in the air. Clause 1 of the resolution says that applications will only be received till September 1923-a little over a year. I think that is a short time to receive applications from an army of nearly half a million men. I hope there will be no more difficulty about the administration of this act. It is a very splendid act for the insurance of returned men, if properly administered, but if it is to be surrounded with a lot of red tape and technicalities which have characterized the administration in the past, some soldiers will get relief, and others will not take the trouble to apply for it. I would like to have the point that no medical examination is necessary
cleared up and I think that the provision should apply to all members of the forces, land, sea or air, and that there should be a little extension of the time to receive applications.


Mr. CLARK:: Are the applicants required to be medically examined?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, medical examination is not required at all.


John Arthur Clark: How does the minister determine whether a man is seriously or dangerously ill, as provided by these regulations which govern?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister will be informed that an application is made by a returned soldier who is seriously ill and without any expectation of life, and under clause 15 of the act the minister has the power to order an examination, to satisfy himself that the applicant should be accepted or rejected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reason I brought
this matter to the minister's attention was that, in my estimation, the pledge was given that any soldier who made application within a period of two years would be entitled to insurance without medical examination. Without going into any details, and arguing finely upon some possible cases, I think we should extend the privilege for that period. That would be up till next September. If, in the wisdom of the parliamentary committee, the Government and the House, it is felt that, in the future, there should be some restriction for the next year, that is another matter, but I think we should keep faith for that period. Thai is the reason I brought up the matter, and if the minister will take it into consideration, he can deal with it in the bill. I urge that upon his attention. I refer to the period of time fixed in the original bill and the amendment last year whatever that period is.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The period was extended for this year, and it is this year again extended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I refer to the period prior to the extension now before the House.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: The minister has given to the House the regulations adopted and laid down for the guidance of the Minister of Finance in granting or withholding his approval of certain appli-
Soldiers' Insurance

cations. Could he tell the House when those regulations which he has read were adopted?


Henri Sévérin Béland: These regulations were not laid down as something that should govern the minister in every case but, as I read them, they were establishing what the custom was with regard to applications in general. I call them regulations, but, of course they do not bind the minister.


William Findlay Maclean: Are they contrary to the intention of the act? That is the point. If they are, I submit the House should insist on the intention of the act being observed during the continuance of that act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. member asks if they are contrary to the meaning of the act. That is a matter of interpretation.


William Findlay Maclean: Were they approved by the House?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, by the House, also by the lawyers and by the soldiers themselves, because I have heard from returned soldiers, from officers and others, as to some applications which were made with an obvious desire of getting insurance when, really, the insurance should not be granted. If it is the intention of Parliament that every returned man who makes an application for insurance should receive insurance, let Parliament say so. That is very simple. Why should there have been a provision in the act that the Minister of Finance might order medical examination when he has reason to believe that there is a fraudulent intent in the mind of the applicant, unless it was the desire of Parliament at that time that not all applications should be received without question? Generally speaking, the act was drafted and passed by Parliament to afford to returned men who otherwise would not get insurance, the privilege of being insured. That is quite clear, and that the intention of Parliament has been carried out to a very large extent is indicated by the fact that 7,300 applications for insurance have been received, and only 64 of these have been held up for final decision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: These 64 cases have all been delayed under the present regulations, have they not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position to say.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And those regulations were only put in force about eight weeks ago, were they not?


William Stevens Fielding: If it was the intention of Parliament that there was to be no question as to the physical condition of the applicant, then you ought to repeal section 13, which gives the Minister of Finance an over-ruling power. Then section 15, if I remember correctly, goes on to say that the Minister of Finance shall have power to order a medical examination with a view to determining the applicant's insurability. What do these things mean? If it is to be understood that irrespective of the condition of the returned soldier applicant, he is to receive the insurance, then why give the Minister of Finance power to over-ride that? Why give the Minister of Finance power, and implied instructions, to have a medical examination? I grant you there is a conflict perhaps in the intention. What has happened is this. Only a few cases have been held up, and recently in view of the fact that the Pension Committee was taking up that class of subject, I gave instructions that the matter was to be held over until we might ascertain the wish of the committee, and endeavour to conform to it. It is under these circumstances that lately there has been some delay. What would my hon. friend say if an application came in, from a returned soldier, it is true, accompanied by a medical certificate from the Pension Board that this unfortunate man had but a small expectation of life? I saw a letter written to a member of Parliament the other day in which a good lady wrote, "Hurry up the insurance because my son cannot live many weeks." That raises the question: Is it intended that in a case of that kind, where it is obvious the poor man cannot live many weeks, perhaps many days, he should be considered to be within the pale of insurability, whatever that word means? I am not laying down any policy. I am only trying to have the committee understand some of the difficulties which have arisen. If you want to take the rule laid down here to-night by some hon. gentlemen, that no matter what the physical condition of the applicant may be, he is entitled to insurance, even though he may die next week, then just repeal these two sections, and there will be no trouble. I do not want these sections. I will be exceedingly happy to have them left out, but being there they must have been intended to give the Minister of Finance some kind of reviewing power, I do not know just what.

Soldiers' Insurance


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend would tell me when these regulations were adopted.


William Stevens Fielding: They are hardly regulations at all. We are struggling for some understanding. When the Pension Board brought this matter up, I gave them some indication of what I thought would be sound rules to govern the matter, and while we were considering it the Pension Committee was appointed, and I gave instructions to my officials to withdraw these cases until the Pensions Committee could look into them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what are these things the Minister of Health has referred to as being regulations? Are they not regulations?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they were formally adopted as regulations.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The first time these regulations were heard of, if they are regulations,- was when the medical advisers of the Board of Pension Commissioners were before the parliamentary committee on pensions. They were asked what were the regulations laid down for their guidance in considering applications for insurance, and they gave to the committee, as I understand from the chairman, these regulations, if you wish to call them such, as being the principles which should guide them in accepting or refusing an application. I had never seen them before they were published in the report in Hansard and read to the House last night by my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark). I do not know that you can lay down regulations governing this subject. It is rather a matter of appreciation. I share my hon. friend's view, however, that to a large extent, even when there is no expectation of life and it is expected that the illness from which the man suffers will terminate fatally, if that illness was traceable to war service; the application should be accepted.


William Stevens Fielding: If he has dependents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend consider adding to clause 3 of the resolution the words:
Provided that no application under this act shall be refused except from persons suffering from disease caused by immoral conduct.
I know that that is not legal phraseology so far as a bill is concerned, but it will secure the opinion of the House, and if adopted, will indicate what the bill should contain "'hen it is brought down.


Mr. BUREAU:: You must define immoral conduct.


Mr. MARLER:: The resolution now before the committee is based, not on section 13, which gives the Minister of Finance power to make' certain provisions under the act, but on section 10, which gives to certain beneficiaries additional privileges. That is to say, the bill to be founded on this resolution will give privileges which beneficiaries have not at the present time. In the meantime hon. members have been discussing whether section 13 of the act should remain in effect as it is now, which gives the Minister of Finance the right to make certain regulations. These so-called regulations, as to which the House is being advised, have not been put into effect, but were submitted by the Minister of Finance to the parliamentary committee for its approval, in order to allow that committee while it was sitting to determine whether or not these regulations wetre fair and equitable, not only under the act itself, but under the intention of the act as originally framed. Those regulations or applications, call them what you will, were placed before the parliamentary committee on several occasions; were discussed one by one, as all members of the committee will bear me out, and not changed in respect of one word; discussed at subsequent meeting and again confirmed, again discussed and again decided to be fair and equitable. Consequently, the parliamentary committee came forward and in its recommendation to you-chapter 4, section 5 of the report- stated that in its opinion the regulations as read to that committee were fair and equitable. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has brought up the question as to why and how this act was framed. Let us take the reasons for the act from its inception. In 1919 the question came up as to an Insurance Act for returned soldiers, and this is part of the resolution which was put before the then parliamentary committee at the time, which shows what was expected to be placed in the act itself. I am not reading from the original document itself but from notes which, I believe, are accurate. This is the effect of the resolution:
Now therefore we, the Dominion Executive of the Army and Navy Veterans of Canada, do urge upon tht federal government the urgent necessity of issuing life insurance policies to all pensioners and all returned men at present unable to obtain life insurance through disabilities occasioned by service.

Soldiers' Insurance

In other words, these policies were to be issued to such men as could not obtain policies otherwise on account of their disabilities. That same theme has consistently prevailed through the various parliamentary committees which have been appointed from year to year. Now let us take these regulations, study them for a moment, and see whether the original intention is fairly carried out or not, bearing in mind that it was on account of the pensioner's disability and for the purpose of assisting his dependents that this act was originally framed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not disputing anything my hon. friend is saying, but what I wish to point out to him is that the act which has been in operation for two years, or nearly two years, distinctly gives this privilege which I am arguing should be given here to returned soldiers generally without any question as to disability. That is not provided for in the act except in a somewhat ambiguous, saving clause. Some of us hold that that saving clause was designed to prevent fraud or for application to persons suffering from disease through their own fault. Certainly last year on the occasion of the presentation of the report to the committee the House was distinctly given to understand there was no reservation whatever, except as I have intimated, and it is to keep faith with the understanding given to the men, and to give effect to the wording of the act, that I propose this amendment.


Herbert Meredith Marler: If the amendment which my hon. friend suggests is carried it will leave the whole act wide open, and we might as well not have section 13. I am sorry but I have to disagree with him. Section 13 of the act is perfectly clear and distinct. It was placed in the act for certain reasons, and its language is of the plainest character:
The minister may refuse to enter into an insurance contract in any case where there are, in his opinion, sufficient grounds for his refusing.
It is true that section 15 declares that no medical examination for insurability shall be required but goes on to say:
Provided, however, that the minister may. for the purpose of determining whether he shall refuse to enter into a contract of insurance in any case under the provisions of section thirteen of this act, require such medical examination, or other evidence of insurability of the insured as he may deem necessary.

Those clauses are perfectly clear and distinct. But what I was endeavouring to convey to the committee was the intention of the act originally, and there is every desire on the part of the parliamentary committee to see that that purpose is carried out. There is no intention whatever on the part of the parliamentary committee to defraud any returned soldier of the right to insure under that act in accordance with the intention of the act as originally passed, and I claim that these so-called regulations are eminently fair in all respects because they do give the returned soldier-where he is suffering from war disability, and in cases even where he has no dependents- the right to insure under the terms of the act. I do not want to trouble the committee by reading these so-called regulations over again, but hon. members should clearly understand this:	If they desire
the act to be thrown wide open, let them repeal section 13 which will have that effect. In that case the country is going to be deluged with applications for insurance which at present we could not entertain under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. The act in question intended that soldiers suffering from war disabilities, who could not obtain life insurance elsewhere, should obtain insurance under its provisions. They do obtain insurance under that act and, as will be seen by a reference to the record of the department, which is placed before you in the report of the parliamentary committee, there has been a vast number of applications for insurance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How could the minister, or any officer of the minister, know whether an applicant was suffering from war disability when they had no medical examination?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act is administered by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and the board has reliable information in regard to practically all returned soldiers. The application comes in to the Board of Pension Commissioners and a superficial examination is invariably made. Where there is no question of serious illness the man is not examined; he is given the insurance policy.


Mr. MANION:: According to the regulations that are in existence I do not think that any medical examination was necessary at all, and this insurance, according to my understanding, was open to any re-

Soldiers' Insurance
turned man without medical examination. I do not know where the limit would be, I am only suggesting that for information really, because, right or wrong, that is my understanding of the act.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am very sorry to have to disagree with my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). It is quite true the act does say it is open to any returned soldier, but under sections 13 and 15, as I have previously explained, there is a restriction and the act is not thrown wide open.


Robert James Manion: Read section 13 again?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Here is section 13:
The minister may refuse to enter into an insurance contract in any case where there are in his opinion sufficient grounds for his refusing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing in
that to call for discrimination between a pensioner and a non-pensioner, between a man suffering from war disa-
9 p.m. bilities or a man suffering from disability due to other causes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is quite true.
Now, let us take section 15:
No medical examination or other evidence of insurability shall be required in respect to any contract issued under this act: Provided, however, that the Minister may, for the purpose of determining whether he shall refuse to enter into a contract of insurance in any case under the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, require such medical examination or other evidence of insurability of the insured as he may deem necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly the same thing applies to that as applies to section 13.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What does my hon.
friend claim?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I claim that Parliament in that act said to the returned soldiers of Canada: "We will give you insurance without medical inspection for a period of two years. Simply apply and the insurance is yours." Parliament made one reservation, or two, if you like-it is all one-in sections 13 and 15, that the minister might, where he considered that desirable, ask for medical examination and refuse the application.


William Stevens Fielding: For what reason?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the regulations as framed, for certain reasons, but no reasons were given, in the act.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What was section 13
inserted in the act for? To give the minister power to frame regulations? What regulations would he frame?


Henry Herbert Stevens: To detect fraud and to deal with diseases from immoral causes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think my hon. friend can draw such a conclusion as that. That is a wide conclusion to draw from a section of that description.


William Findlay Maclean: Did the committee, which was recently in session, know of the 60 odd cases that were held up by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) ?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, we know of those cases.


William Findlay Maclean: What action did the committee take in regard to them?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The committee took no action at all. It was not within the) purview of our powers to take action,; we were not administering the Insurance Act. We were finding out whether the laws pertaining to soldielrs were right or wrong. We went into the regulations.


William Findlay Maclean: Did the committee investigate the 60 odd cases?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The 64 cases, no.


Charles Marcil: One of these cases was reported to me from British Columbia. A former constituent of mine, who went to reside there, informed me that one of his sons is very ill in hospital at Vancouver. This boy helped to support his motheir, and if the boy died, the mother would be left without his support. We have been talking about the returned soldiers. We should also consider the dependent, because if the soldier dies he gets1 no insurance, the dependent gets it. What I am interested in knowing is what will be done in the case of a mother who loses her son under those circumstances. This case has been held up by the board.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know what
the experience of my predecessor was in the matter; but when I came into office as Minister of Finance, if my memory serves me correctly, I think, as regards the first ease of this kind that came before me, I was disposed to over-rule, and I think I did over-rule, the judgment of the Board of Pension Commissioners. I thought there would be very few cases of that kind; but a number of days later other cases came in, and I saw that the situation was grave. What would you do, for example, in the case of a man who was unfortunately ex-
Soldiers' Insurance

pected to die very soon and who had no dependents? Would you say that insurance should be given? There is much to be said as regards liberally interpreting the law when a man has dependents. It has been suggested that a man who had no expectation of life beyond a few weks, who had no dependents, might have acquired a dependent by marrying and upon the man's death occurring a few days later, a wife, who had not been a dependent for more than a few days, a newly-discovered wife, would get the insurance. If I had to discuss the question at length, I would like to take individual cases. I can assure my hon. friends opposite that there was no desire on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners or on my part to strain the law against the soldiers; but if the amendment passes, you are opening the door very wide. I would rather say: Repeal sections 13 and 15, and let the Minister of Finance have nothing to do with the matter. After having had a number of these cases before me, I entered into correspondence and conversation with the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners, and I think what we call regulations, really means that I made memoranda and suggested to the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners certain lines upon which I thought this matter might be arranged. While the matter was under consideration, before these took the final shape of regulations, the Pension Committee was appointed, and I deferred action until I could learn the judgment of that committee. After learning the judgment come to by the committee and confirmed by the House, I can begin to see what is my duty under the regulations. That is the situation so far as I know anything about the matter.


Mr. POWER:: I am very sorry I have been unable to hear the greater part of the debate; but I gather from the chairman of the Commitee on Pensions and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment that it was the intention of either the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment or the Department of Finance to make a distinction between soldiers who were pensionable and soldiers who were not pensionable in the application of this act. If such be the case, may I call the attention of the chairman of the Pension Committee to the act itself?
*'Returned soldier" means any person, male or lemale, who served as an officer or warrant officer or who enlisted or was enrolled or was drafted for service in the naval, military or air

forces of Canada in the great war, or having been domiciled in Canada on the 4th day of August, 1914....
The minister may enter into an insurance contract with any returned soldier domiciled or resident in Canada or with any widow-
And so forth. Simply because section 15 of the act says that the minister may refuse to enter into an insurance contract, I do not think that gives the minister the right to say that such and such a class, because they are not pensionable, shall be refused insurance. That was not the intention of the act. I remember following the debate upon this subject with considerable attention. The former member for Muskoka, Mr. McGibbon, first brought this matter to the attention of the House, and it was in order to give something to the dependents of what he call sub-standard cases. A sub-standard case, if I understood him aright, was the case of a soldier who could not obtain insurance in an ordinary company, for instance, a man who returned to Canada with heart disease or with tuberculosis. There was no intention of taking away from him his rights to obtain an insurance policy, simply because he was not pensionable. In fact, the idea was to cover men who were not pensionable, who could not be pensionable, and who could not obtain policies in the ordinary line companies. The further idea was to give insurance to dependents of soldiers who were unable to obtain a pension. For instance, as regards a man who married after the appearance of the disability or the injury of which he afterwards died, under the terms of the Pension Act it was impossible for his dependents to obtain a pension. In order to give this man a chance to leave something to his dependents, this Insurance Act was brought into force. If there is any intention on the part of the committee or of the department to annul this privilege and to annul the privilege of the sub-standard risk, I for one must oppose it as bitterly as I can.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree very largely, in fact I think almost altogether, with the remai ks of the hon. member fo? Quebec South (Mr. Power). We did want to give that soldier insurance; that was our intention. Let me explain how we came to insert those sections that have been referred to by the minister, sections 13 and 15. I think that they should be in the act; but I do not think they should be applied for a purpose which was entirely foreign to the intention of the House i*

Soldiers' Insurance
originally passing the act. Let me make clear two points: First, that the whole of these regulations are predicated really upon the state of health of the insured at the time the insurance is received, and not a single word about that will be found in the original act; second, that you have two different classes of people insured under those new regulations, and a distinction is made between pensionable and non-pensionable cases. With a view to bringing the matter to a head we passed sections 13 and 15 as something necessary to protect the treasury, not against the claims of bona fide returned soldiers, but absolutely against fraud.


William Stevens Fielding: What	do you cal!
fraud? What would be a case of fraud in that connection?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are many ways in which fraud1 could be practised, and the question is a very large one, I admit. For instance, a returned soldier suffers injuries entirely dissociated from any effects of war service, and1 on his deathbed he takes out insurance. That is a class of insurance that should be refused, because it is fraudulent; and it was for the purpose of protecting the treasury against that sort of thing that the provision was put in. I beg therefore to move:
That in the opinion of this House no bona fide returned soldier with dependent; may be refused insurance by the Minister of Finance under sections 13 and 15 of the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, except in cases of fraud.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not believe that any bona fide case would be turned down to-day. The committee having given great care and attention to this matter, I do think the House should accept its recommendations. There is no desire on the part of anyone to do any injustice to the returned soldiers. If my hon. friend likes to strike out that provision I have no objection, but while that section is there you must allow for some reasonable measure of interpretation of it. I have no fear of any bona fide application being refused. I have not had the regulations before me for some time, but I am pretty certain that no application will be turned down if it is not fraudulent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me read
class 4:
The above is the general procedure of the board. In cases, however, where an applicant with or without dependents, is seriously ill
with an injury or disease attributable to service or otherwise, and has been :!' for many months with a disease which is certain to terminate fatally withih a reasonably short time and has postponed taking our insurance until death is practically imminent.
Applications are at present refuted.
Now, take the case of a man dying of serious injuries received overseas.


Charles Gavan Power: It was typical cases of that nature that the act was framed to cover.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has finished the sentence for me.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The report of the parliamentary committee was discussed at great length in the House yesterday and last night, and it contains a clause which declares in no uncertain terms that these so-called regulations were approved by the committee. That report was approved by this House. Is the House now going to recede from the position it took in approving that report last night, or is if not? The amendment would have the House go back on its approval.i Surely the House, after having approved the report, cannot a few hours afterwards repudiate it and say that it will no longer stand 'by what it approved last night 'but will pass the amendment and start something new. It is not a question of discussing the so-called regulations at all. The question is, is the House going to stand by the report it 'has adopted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are two flaws in my hon. friend^s argument. In the first place, this resolution was on the Order Paper before the debate took place last night, and before the report was adopted. In the second place, the minister stated a moment ago that these regulations were not really regulations, that we were using a term that was altogether inappropriate in describing them as such. The Minister of Finance says he has not seen them for a long time; and hon. gentlemen opposite would give us to understand that the so-called regulations, as they call them, are, to use one of their own expressions, merely a chart to guide them. Why not incorporate the regulations in the law? Make them a part of the report. They are not a part of the proposed legislation, because the minister himself says they can be changed at any time.


Robert James Manion: If what the hon. chairman of the parliamentary committee (Mr. Marler) says is sound, then it seems to me the committee would be precluded from changing any part of the report. I take
Soldiers' Insurance

it, from what he has said, that we should not be permitted to offer any suggestions that would tend to change the report in any way. Now, I cannot accept that view at all. We agreed with the principle of the report; I do not think that my hon. friend will deny that I for one did. But we are perfectly at liberty, when these questions are being discussed in committee, to make any changes that may be deemed necessary. That is the object of considering a question in committee. We agreed to the principle of the report but not to the details of it. Some of the suggestions of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), for instance, in regard to the Soldier	Settlement Board might
be dealt with in committee, and I think the committee is within its rights to suggest any desirable alterations to the report, not in principle but in matters of detail.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Finance states that the matter is one of interpretation. Well, he will have to go to the law officers for an opinion, and these 64 cases now before him will be subject to the interpretation which is based on their advice. The result will be that the applications will in all probability be refused.


William Stevens Fielding: It is more than a legal question; I would not interpret them in a strictly legal manner.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no question that the committee now sitting has a perfect right to amend the resolution under consideration, It may change it in any way it chooses. Now, these regulations are not in the report of the committee; they are not before the House at the present time. It is open to the committee however, to suggest any amendment, and propose, for incorporation in the bill that is to 'be based on the resolution, anything that will help to make the administration of the act clearer and easier, and to bring it into conformity with the original intention of its framers. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has submitted an amendment that all applications should be accepted, except in case of fraud. That appears quite clear. But there still remains the question of interpretation. What would he describe as a fraudulent application? That is a difficult question to solve sometimes. Let me state a concrete case. I am a returned man; I have been in good health; I am single; I have no dependents; I am taken ill with typhoid fever.

I become delirious; in the opinion of the attending physician I will certainly die. Next day I have some short periods of lucidity; I am coaxed into signing an application for insurance for $5,000; this application is filed with the Minister of Finance. Is there any fraud? Some will say no, others will say yes. Some will say the application should be refused, others may think it should be accepted. In a word, there are so many features about the different cases which may come before the minister that it is very difficult to frame a clause to cover them all unless you say that all applications without exception shall be entertained. If you do not say that, you cannot determine by legislation exactly what applications should be refused and what should be granted.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister suggest medical examination in a case of that sort to protect the department?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that would do no good.


Robert James Manion: What would my hon.
friend suggest to protect the department in that case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does he know the applicant is ill in that case?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a mistake to
assume that these applications come to the Minister of Finance in the first place; they go to the Pension Commissioners, who sit in judgment on them, and in nineteen cases out of twenty they approve of the application; but when some difficulty such as suggested comes up now and again it is referred to the Minister-of Finance. In no case is the law strained against the man. Cases arise here and there, and it is difficult to discuss this question unless you have a concrete case before you. I suggested a little while ago the case of a sick man who had no dependents and was induced to marry, although it was certain he would not live many days. In such a case the wife is not a bona fide dependent at all. I have not had such a case brought to my notice, but in the discussion it was suggested to me that if the door is opened as wide as that many of these poor men will be induced to marry on their deathbed and you will be presenting $5,000 to women who do not deserve it. 1 think the committee has given the matter careful consideration, and the House having adopted their report, we should not now go back on it.

Soldiers' Insurance


Charles Marcil: In the case I mentioned where the application was turned down by the Pension Commissioners and referred to the Finance Department, the committee have done nothing. The boy may die and his mother lose the benefit of his insurance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister
of Health asks for a definition of fraud. I should like to tell him in the first instance that there is not a single insurance policy but may be vitiated by fraud; and, further, that no court has ever yet attempted to set a limit to the endless possibilities of fraud, and that each case has to be dealt with on its own merits. The administration of this as of all other business re quires judgment, knowledge and tact. I start out with the premise that our Minister of Finance has judgment, knowledge and tact, and I am quite content to leave to him the question of fraud. In doing that we are going further than we have done in connection with the ordinary contract of insurance; we are here giving him the right ab initio, before anything is done, to go into the whole matter. Following up this question of fraud, let us take the case presented by the Minister of Finance. He' we have a man who knows he is going to die, a man without dependents and an intriguing woman, and they go through the farce of a marriage in order that this insurance may be effected. I have not the slightest hesitation in telling my hon. friend that he will have no difficulty in dealing with that case as a matter of fraud pure and simple,-


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -but here we cannot possibly cover iaM the different cases that may arise. You could not do it by legislation, you have got to leave it t some one. To my mind we cannot very well have these regulations recognized unless we go back, not upon the report as was suggested a little time ago, but go back upon the underlying intention of the act; in other words, go back upon the soldier. All I am asking in my amendment is that the bona fide returned soldier with dependents have an absolute right to insurance under this act except in causes of fraud.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says
that the Minister of Finance will have to use judgment, knowledge and tact. Well, that is the intention of the law as it is to-day. Does my hon. friend think it is necessary to have this amendment to enable the Minister of Finance to use knowledge,
judgment and tact? When my hon. friend was Minister of Finance he never thought he should be limited in the exercise of his discretion by such an amendment as this. At the time Parliament thought he was able to use judgment, knowledge and tact. Why does he not think that his successor in office is able to exercise the same qualities without this amendment?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The answer
is so plain to my mind-


Ernest Lapointe: It is very plain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -that I wonder at his getting up to make the statement. The manner in which the act was previously enforced was agreeable to the terms of that resolution. I was not fettering the exercise of judgment, knowledge and tact by such regulations as these; I was not saying that because the returned man has been very ill for a long, long time with a war injury from which he will ultimately die that he shall not get insurance; but that is what these regulations say. Strike out these regulations and I want no amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: May I suggest another thought? I believe it was never intended that this Insurance Act should be a permanent or enduring act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree.


William Stevens Fielding: I am advised that it
was originally proposed for one year only to afford an opportunity for returned soldiers who desired to immediately take advantage of it. Then a proposal was made to extend the act for a further period of one year and that was carried, to the regret of many members. Now it is to be extended for another year, and next session you will be asked to deal with it again. All the soldiers for whom this act was intended have, I believe, taken out their insurance, and those who come in at this late hour to take advantage of the act will probably be persons who, to use an insurance term, are not insurable at all. If you open the door wide in this matter I am afraid you will open it to a very large extent beyond what the House really intends. So far as I am personally concerned, I would be well pleased-and I am now speaking personally only-but I would not want the House to think that the Finance Department was grasping for more power. I am not complaining, but if you want the
Soldiers' Insurance

minister to have some discretion-and he does not want it-better leave the law as it is.


Robert James Manion: The hon. minister osed the expression "men who are insurable." Of course, this whole act is for the purpose of relieving men who are not insurable.


William Stevens Fielding: Then what is the meaning of chapter 15 of the act, which says the Minister of Finance may take steps to ascertain whether they are insurable? That is in section 15


Robert James Manion: If they were insurable, they would be insurable in ordinary companies, under ordinary policies. This was for the purpose, in my view-of course, I may be wrong-of giving insurance to men who were not insurable in ordinary companies. They were not insurable, and the act was framed for the purpose of providing insurance for them. I admit the point made by my hon. friend; there are cases, for example, where a man is on his death bed, and he endeavours to take out insurance; he perhaps pays one premium, and his relations draw the full policy. I admit that is a very difficult case to take into account, but, suppose insurance is refused a man, who had he made application six months before he was in a dying condition, would have been accepted. That man would have paid the same premium and would have been accepted. That makes it a very difficult thing to deal with. I know the matter is beset with difficulties but, at the same time, I think it is scarcely consistent with the intention of the act to impose a restriction at a certain stage, and say that this man shall not be insured, when, six months before, he could have been insured. If some rule could be made that would be equitable and fair, it would be better. I would not like to embarrass the Government by extending the limits of the insurance, but it is a very difficult case where a man could get his insurance, perhaps, to-day, and, three months from to-day, he would be sick in bed, and could not get insurance.


John Arthur Clark: As a member of the committee that considered this matter, I would like to say that in the case of the returned soldier who applied for insurance, who had dependents, where the returned soldier was suifering from such an illness that he had no expectation of life, provided that disability was a pensionable disability, the

intention of the committee was that that returned soldier should receive the policy of insurance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


John Arthur Clark: There is the other class of returned soldiers, without dependents, who are suffering from such serious illness that they have no expectancy of life, and in respect to these the committee came to the conclusion that, in fairness to the country, they should not be given insurance as of right. I think, if you will recall the original application of the returned soldiers for such an act, you will remember that they only asked for such an act as would give insurance to the returned soldiers who were suffering from a war disability, and, I think, that that was the intention when the act was passed. In the Committee, I suggested that if we are going to have any regulations which will cover the classes of returned soldiers who will be eligible they should be incorporated in the act. That was not considered advisable, but, in view of the misunderstanding of these regulations, and of the intention of the committee, I would suggest that the following regulations be incorporated ir the act in some manner so that the question will be clearly defined, and, I think, these regulations can be limited fairly well to these particular classes of cases. They are found in the third class of the so-called regulations which have been read as follows:
Third-class is that of application from persons in so serious a condition of health that they have no reasonable expectation of life:
(a)	An applicant with dependents so seriously ill with a pensionable disability that he has no expectancy of life.
Those should be made insurable in every instance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Without any qualification.


John Arthur Clark: Without any qualification.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a qualification.


John Arthur Clark: That is the usual legal qualification, where there is no contract.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The qualification is-
Provided death does not occur before approval of the application for issue of the policy.


John Arthur Clark: I say where there is no contract-the contract has not been concluded by acceptance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I want to make it clear. We are discussing it in a very friendly spirit, but if the application were held

Soldiers' Insurance
over for three or four weeks for further examination, and death should occur in the meantime, then would the insurance be valid? That is the point. The regulations read:
(a)	An applicant with dependents so seriously ill with a pensionable disability, that he has no expectancy of life.
Applications are at present accepted and insurance paid, provided death does not occur before approval of the application for issue of the policy.
But applications would be unduly delayed.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think there should be any delay in the acceptance of the application from a bona fide applicant with dependents, who is so seriously ill with a pensionable disability that he has no expectation of life. I think there should be no delay. Then the next paragraph reads:
(b)	An applicant without dependents so seriously ill from a pensionable disability that he has no expectancy of life.
I do not think he should be insured.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then the regulation
would be all right.


John Arthur Clark: The act, clearly, in my opinion, was framed for those soldiers who are not ordinarily insurable. I would add that, in the case of an applicant, with or without dependents, whose health has become seriously impaired because of immoral conduct, insurance should be refused.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend would cut off class 4 (a).


John Arthur Clark: I would strike that out.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the hon. member read the clause, so that hon. members will know what it is?


John Arthur Clark: reading):
(a) The above is the general procedure of the board. In cases, however, wnere an applicant, with or without dependents, is seriously ill with an injury or disease attributable to service or otherwise, and has been ill for many months with a disease which is certain to terminate fatally within a reasonably short time and has postponed taking out insurance until death is practically imminent.
I think if those regulations are made perfectly clear, it will result in all bona fide applications being expeditiously and satisfactorily dealt with. I would be afraid, as I was in the committee, that if it is not clearly defined who are insurable, it may result in bona fide applications being held up. I think the right of the
retrned soldier should be clearly defined under the act. I think also that every class of returned soldier which it was originally contemplated to include should be embraced within the act as it now stands, at any rate up to its expiration. Those classes which I have read are the classes which I understand from reading the act to have been intended to be included, and coupling my reading of the act with the original application which came from the returned soldiers confirms the interpretation which I have put upon the act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I entirely agree with the suggestion which has been made to the committee by the hon. member for Burrard. I think it would be a simple matter when the bill is in committee to have a clause inserted mentioning the. classes referred to, say in Schedule A annexed to the bill.	,
I also share the view expressed by the hon. member for West York that the class of cases known as Class 4 (a) where an applicant with or without dependents, if seriously ill with an injury or disease attributable to service or otherwise, and has been ill for many months with a disease which is certain to terminate fatally within a reasonably short time and has postponed taking out insurance until death is practically imminent, should be refused insurance, because you might have the case of the returned soldier with dependents, seriously ill with an injury attributable to war service. If that were struck out, I think the amendment would meet the spirit of the act and the intention of the committee as it has been expressed to-night.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Stevens.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood that my hon. friend had withdrawn his amendment or was willing to withdraw it, and that the hon. member for West York had moved an amendment covering cases of fraud.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment
before the committee is the amendment moved by Mr. Stevens. As the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York is not an amendment to the amendment, it must be moved separately.
Amendment negatived.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That in the opinion of this House no bona fide returned soldier with dependents may he refused
Soldiers' Insurance

insurance by the 'Minister of Finance under section 13 and 15 of the Returned1 Soldiers' Insurance Act, except in cases of fraud.


William Stevens Fielding: I must say that I do not think it is sound legislation to leave it to the Minister of Finance to determine what is fraud. You are only adding to your troubles if you ask the Minister of Finance to determine what is fraud. There is a great deal of difficulty even from a legal point of view in determining fraud. I suggested a case a moment ago, and my hon. friend said that was clearly a case of fraud. That was a case of insurance taken by a woman within a few days of the death of the policy holder. I do not think it is a case of fraud. I think it is a privilege you are going to give them under this act.
Amendment negatived; yeas 33, nays 94.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. On the motion of Mr. Beland Bill No. 191, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was read the first and second times, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Progress reported.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Beland the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act, chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1919, as amended by chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1920, and chapter forty-five of the statutes of 1921, and to provide:-
1.	That "widowed mother" may, in the discretion of the commission, include a mother deserted toy her husband, when the circumstances of the case are, in the opinion of the commission, such as would entitle her in a court of law to have her husband declared legally dead.
[DOT]2. That section eleven of the said act, as enacted by chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1920', be amended by adding the provision that any disability from which a member of the forces who served in an actual theatre in the Great War was suffering at the time of his discharge, shall for pension purposes be deemed to be attributable to or to have been incurred or aggravated during his military service, unless and until it be established iby the commission that the disability was not attributable to or incurred or aggravated during such service.
3.	That section thirteen of the said Act, providing that a pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years after the declaration of peace, be amended to provide that that provision shall not apply to an applicant claiming dependent's pension who was not resident in Canada at the date of the soldier's death and has not continuously resided therein.

4.	That section twenty-one of the said act be amended so as to provide that pensions for disabilities of less than twenty per cent in extent shall be paid at the pension's option semi-annually at the end of the months of March and September in each year.
5.	That section twenty-three of the said act be amended by adding the provisions,-
(a)	That when a member of the forces in receipt of an additional pension on account of his child or children dies under conditions which do not entitle his dependents to pension, a bonus equivalent to such additional pension for one year at the rate being paid at the time of death shall be paid by the commission for the benefit of the child or children to such person as the commissioners may direct.
(b)	That on the death of the wife of a pensioner pensioned on account of a disability the additional pension for a married member of the forces may, in the discretion of th, commission, be continued to him for so long as there are minor children of pensionable age, provided there exists a daughter or other person competent to assume, and who does assume, the household duties and care of the children.
6.	That section twenty-seven be amended to provide that the extra allowance for helpless disability shall apply to cases where the person is helpless in respect of his pensionable disability.
7.	That section thirty-three be amended by inserting the additional provision that no pension shall be paid to a widow of a member of the forces unless she was married to him within one year after date of discharge from the forces.
S. That section forty be amended to provide that the pension of any female pensioner who is immoral shall be suspended, discontinued or cancelled.
9.	That the bonus payments provided for by
schedules A and ,B, as enacted by chapter forty-five of the statutes of 1921, be continued during the years commencing the first day of September, 19 22 and 1923.
10.	That all cases affected by the proposed legislation shall be reviewed and future payments shall be made at the rates and in accordance with the provisions of these resolutions, and the proposed legislation shall come into force on the first day of September, 1922.
Charles Gavan Power: With reference to paragraph 1 of the resolution may I ask the minister to explain under what circumstances a court of law would be entitled to have anybody declared legally dead. I do not know of any one in the province of Quebec becoming legally dead. We have the person who becomes an absentee-


Ernest Lapointe: There is la morte
civile.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend mentions la morte civile, but civil death was abolished something like twenty years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what is meant. It may have been abolished in the province of Quebec but still that is what would be intended by this resolution.


Charles Gavan Power: That may be the meaning of the resolution but I am quite sure it is

Pension Act Amendment
not intended by the chairman or the members of the committee to declare that civil death was brought about by the party incurring certain civil disabilities, or having served a certain term in gaol.


Jacques Bureau: Death under the law and nothing else.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the intention of the committee was to provide for the case where a woman had been deserted by her husband for a certain number of years. Under those circumstances the Board of Pension Commissioners, in their discretion, would be able to give her a pension as they would to a widowed mother; but under no circumstances where the man had been condemned to gaol for a certain number of years, or had Deen condemned to be hanged or something of the kind. The question is, to find out exactly how long a man must be absent before the Board of _ Pension Commissioners is able to award a pension.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many years does the hon. member suggest that the husband should be away before the woman would be entitled to a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: This has arisen in consequence of a resolution of the House of Commons which has been interpreted, I think wrongly, by the committee which interpretation has had the effect of changing the state of the case altogether. The resolution in question, which passed the House unanimously, asked that the Board of Pension Commissioners should have the right, when the mother of a deceased soldier had been deserted, to grant her a pension in their discretion. When this resolution was unanimously passed and referred to the committee dealing with the subject there was no question as to how long the husband had to be an absentee before the pension was granted to the deserted wife. I think the government should have acted under the terms of the resolution and changed the law so as to meet the wishes of the House but since the committee has taken upon itself to act, I think the least it should do is to abide by the terms of the resolution as passed. In any case the recommendation as now submitted does not convey what was in the minds of the members of the committee themselves.


Murray MacLaren: So many members wished to take part in the discussion on this subject yesterday, and so much time was consumed, that other members who
desired to do so were not afforded the opportunity of expressing their 10 p.m. views. There were several matters to which I had wished to refer but owing to the time taken up yesterday I was prevented from doing so. There is one subject, having a bearing on the matter of pensions that I would like now to refer to, and it is connected with the organization known as "The InterAllied Permanent Committee on questions affecting disabled soldiers."
It is an organization which deals with all phases of disabled soldiers; that is to say, pensions', artificial limbs, vocational training, and all other phases which arise in connection with disabled soldiers and sailors. It was organized during the war, and it is composed of representatives of the various Allies and also of the British dominions. The Dominion of Canada was represented on that committee. I had an opportunity of attending a number of those meetings and, in fact, I had the privilege of being one of the Canadian representatives on several occasions. It holds several meeting a year for discussions. It is a collecting bureau of all that takes place on the subject of disabled soldiers. It collects information as to what is done by all nations, and it issues a monthly periodical giving the latest information regarding these different subjects. It is an organization with which any Ally or any Dominion may communicate by correspondence in order to ascertain up-to-date information regarding various phases of this question. It enables all dominions and all Allies to obtain information as to what other countries are doing, and the value of participating in such an organization as I have described is obvious. I know Canada was a partner and participator in this organization and made the necessary subscription, a small one, I think a few thousand dollars, to meet expenses and enable the Dominion to be a portion of this organization. At the present time I do not know actually whether Canada is a member of the permanent committee or not; but I am bringing this matter up now for the information of the House, and I wish to urge this upon the minister. When I say "minister," there is some doubt on this point. This matter hitherto, as regards Canada, has come under the Minister of Militia, I understand, because there was at that time no Minister of Civil Re-establishment in Great Britain. I think it would more naturally come under the Minister of Re-establishment. That, however, is
Pension Act Amendment

immaterial. I would urge upon the minister of whichever department would consider this subject, the necessity of maintaining that connection with an inter-allied committee at a small expense, thus keeping in touch with movements taking place in all the other allied countries. There are too many returned men, too many pensioned men, and the question is too large for us not to associate ourselves in the first rank with such progress as is being made from year to year.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the first clause of this resolution

That "widowed mother" may, in the discretion of the Commission, include a mother deserted by her husband, when the circumstances of the case are, in the opinion of the Commission, such as would entitle her in a court of law to have her husband declared legaily dead.
-is one of the most difficult matters for a widowed mother to prove, because under the civil law a man must be seven years absent continuously and not be heard of in order that he may be declared civilly dead, and it is difficult for a wife to prove a case like that.
With the permission of the committee, I would like to move this amendment to section 1. This is the amendment which I endeavoured to move yesterday evening:
That in the case of the blind-total disability cases-the pension be increased from $600 per annum to $900 in addition to the regular bonus of $300.
A deputation of blind returned soldiers appeared before the committee and made representations on behalf of the blind returned soldiers in Canada. During the war between 200 and 225 men in our forces of all ranks lost their eyesight. This is a total disability.. Blind men do not want anything because they are blind; but there are certain disadvantages that accrue to blind men to-day, especially in the larger cities where these men are principally working. Evidence was taken before the committee from representatives of the blind organizations of Canada.


Charles Marcil: I am afraid this amendment is out of order because it is increasing a charge upon the revenue, and it has not been recommended by the Governor General in the usual course.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to dispute the ruling at all, but late last night I endeavoured to bring this matter up in the House, and was promised an opportunity when in committee.


Charles Marcil: The rule provides that a resolution in which there is a charge on the revenue must be introduced by a minister of the Crown with the consent of the Governor General.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would suggest that wp take up the resolution, clause by clause.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just on
clause 1, I should like to suggest to the minister that he put this upon something like a business basis. Instead of having these unfortunate deserted women having to go to all this trouble, I hope he puts in some reasonable period. The whole thing is in the discretion of the commission, and I do not think it would do much harm if we struck out all the words:
When the circumstances of the- case are, in the opinion of the commission, such as would entitle her in a court of law to nave her husband declared legally dead.
Why not strike this all out if the idea . be to help these people?


Henri Sévérin Béland: How would it read?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would read:
That "widowed mother" may, in the discretion of the commission, include a mother deserted by her husband.
That is all, and that is the sense of the committee as I understand it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister on
behalf of the Government, when the bill is before the House, undertake to give an opportunity to discuss this question of the blind, because it is one of the most important problems which we have? The rules of the House are so framed that my amendment can not be discussed now because of a mass of technicalities. These blind soldiers have been heard by the committee, and no technical question should stand in the way of bringing up a matter of this kind. It is too bad if a member cannot bring up a matter concerning 200 blind men. This is a matter of life and death with these men, and I would ask the minister to show some sympathy for those heroes, the blind men, who fill our blind institutes and walk our streets.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I can assure my hon.
friend that I have a very deep sympathy for that class of disabled soldiers, and every opportunity will be afforded him and other hon. gentlemen who wish to discuss the question, when the bill is in committee.

Soldier Settlement Act
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 192 to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to an'd bill read the first time.



THE SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of the Interior), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1919, and to provide:-
1.	That section fifty-nine of the said act, as amended by chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1920, be further amended by adding the provisions that in the case of any settler who has not abandoned the land or whose agreement with the board has not been terminated or rescinded, the board ibe empowered to vary the provisions of the act so that the total indebtedness and liability incurred by such settler prior to the first day of April, 1922, may, on a standard date to Ibe determined by the board, be consolidated, inclusive of accrued interest, taxes and insurance to date of consolidation, and the consolidated indebtedness made payable in twenty-five or less annual instalments, such indebtedness bearing no interest from the date of consolidation for,-
(a)	two years in the case of any settler to whom advances commenced within the twelve months next preceding the first day of October, 1921;
(b)	three years in the case of any settler to whom advances commenced within the twelve months next preceding the first day of October, 1920 ;
(c)	four years in the case of any settler to whom advances commenced prior to the first day of October, 1919 ; the first instalment, consisting of one twenty-fifth of the consolidated indebtedness, to be paid by the settler on the date of consolidation and two, three or four further instalments (as the case may be, according to the period ©f interest exemption), each of the same amount as the first instalment, to be paid on the standard dates next consecutively following, the remainder of the consolidated indebtedness to be paid with interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum in equal consecutive annual instalments on the amortization plan during the balance of the term of payment. Provided that if default be made in the payment of any instalment of one twenty-fifth herein referred to, the amount of such instalment or the unpaid portion thereof shall bear interest until paid.
2.	That the said section fifty-nine be further amended to provide that the board shall be empowered,-
(a)	to vary the terms of payment as provided in the act so that stock and equipment advances or sales heretofore or hereafter made to any settler shall be payable within the same period as payment of advances for land purchase, removal of encumbrances, or permanent improvements ;
(b) to vary the terms of payment as provided in the act so that in the case of any
settler whose advances commence between the first day of July and the standard date in any year, the dates on which the settlers' first and subsequent instalments shall become payable may be fixed as if such advances had not commenced until after the standard date in that year; provided that interest accruing during the period of this deferment shall be consolidated with the iprincipal indebtedness and amortized therewith;
(c)	in the case of unimproved lands to vary the terms of payment provided by section 16 of the said act as amended by paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of section 59 so that payment shall be made in twenty-five equal annual consecutive instalments with interest on the amortization plan, the first of such instalments commencing not later than two years from the standard date next following the date of sale.
3.	That "standard date" shall mean the first day of October in Manitoba and the provinces west thereof, and the first day of November in the provinces east of Manitoba.
4.	That notwithstanding anything in the said act, or in any agreement, contract, or other document, in any case in which the indebtedness of a settler is consolidated, the board may cause to be delivered to the settler personally or to be directed by mail to him at his address last known to the board, a notice signed by such official as the board may designate, setting forth the amount of the total indebtedness of the settler at date of consolidation, the dates and amounts of payments to be made thereon by the settler, and the amount then due and payable, and the production of a copy of such notice certified under the seal of the board shall be accepted for all purposes and in all courts as prima facie evidence of the due service of the notice on the settler and of the amount of the settler's indebtedness, the dates and amounts of payments to be made thereon, and the amount then due and payable as in said notice set forth.
5.	That the provisions of subsection four of section twenty-two of the said act, relating to the surplus of resale being paid to the settler, and the deficiency paid by the settler, be added to by providing that in the case of a settler who has not, in the opinion of the board, established an equitable claim to such surplus by having taken possession of the land affected and by effecting improvements thereon or otherwise, or who has abandoned the property without notice, the board may pay the surplus or, in the discretion of the board, that part of the surplus in excess of the initial payment made by the settler, to the Receiver General to the credit of The Soldier Land Settlement Assurance Fund.
6.	That section twenty-seven of the said act relating to forfeiture by settler of title to land when he is in default be amended by striking out all the words after "surplus" in the second last line thereof, and inserting the following: "except as otherwise provided, may be paid by the board to the settler if he has completed the settlement conditions required for obtaining patent in accordance with the terms of his entry, or to the Receiver General to the credit of the Soldier Land Settlement Assurance Fund if such compliance by the settler with the conditions of his entry has not been established to the satisfaction of the board ; provided, however, that if a settler who has not complied with the conditions of his entry has effected valuable improvements on the land with his own capital or means to which he has an equitable claim for compensation, the board may, out of th*
[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement Act
surplus, if any, pay to the settler an amount which the board has determined that improvements added to the price realized by the sale of the land."
7.	That section sixty-two of the said act be amended by adding the provision that every land inspector, field supervisor, official employee or servant of the (board, and every agent engaged by the board or acting for it or on its behalf who knowingly or negligently makes any false or deceptive statement in any report, return, appraisal, statement or other document respecting or referring to any real or personal property, the subject-matter of any inspection, appraisal or examination made for or on behalf of the board or on the direction, instructions or request of the board or of any of its officials, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Mr. WARD:: Section 1 of the resolution empowers the board to vary the provisions of the act so that the total indebtedness and liability incurred by the settler prior to the first day of April, 1922, may, on a standard date to be determined by the board, be consolidated, inclusive of accrued interest, taxes and insurance to the date of consolidation, and the consolidated indebtedness made payable in 25 or less annual instalments. As I understand the matter when discussing it with some members of the committee, the back taxes and accrued interest were to be exempted entirely for two, four or five years, as the case might be. That is not the case, however, according to the resolution. Now, I submit that if the soldier is not able to meet his indebtedness in the first years of his experience, he will not be able to meet it twenty-five years hence if present conditions continue. I imagine that members of the committee were not fully aware of the nature of many of these farms. I know something about this matter, and I can inform hon. members that in the case of many of these farms the settlers will be less able to meet their indebtedness twenty years from now than they are today. Take, for instance, a second or a third grade farm where the soil is only three or four inches deep. If the first (fight or ten crops from that farm will not discharge the owner's imdjebtedhess, the next eight or ten crops will not. If all this accrued interest and the back taxes, coupled with the interest for the years in which we understood that interest was to he exempted, are to be paid in addition to the principal, then I think we are merely prolonging the agony of the returned soldier.
T am opposed to the carrying of this resolution until we have some explanation from the minister on this point.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Perhaps the minister would like me to explain the matter as I am largely responsible for the wording of the resolution in this connection. And I thought I saw the minister sending an S.O.S. signal. The hon. member has hardly understood the full import of the section or the import of my previous explanations. As I said yesterday, we came to the conclusion that neither the wiping out of capital debt nor re-valuation was possible or advisable at the present time; but we solved the difficulty by cancelling the interest. We took all that the man owed up to this year, whether back payments that 'he could not make, or interest that had fallen due which he had not been able to meet, or extra loans made him for subsistence, together with taxes he owed to the municipality which the board paid for 'him, and put these amounts all together into a new loan, the first payment to fall due in October, the standard date mentioned. For the first four years of the loan, in the case of 1919 men, no interest is chargeable. That is cancelled; it is not piled up as accrued interest later on, but is absolutely cancelled. At the expiration of that period the balance of the loan is amortized wtith interest, and the interest payments then start. There has been a real cancellation of nearly $12,000,000 of interest. We have not deferred the interest, but, as I say, we have cancelled it.


William John Ward: But the resolution says, "inclusive of accrued interest." We must take it as it stands.


Alfred Speakman: That is the back interest that has not (been paid, the interest accrued up to date. That is not the interest that we are cancelling. We are cancelling the interest op the whole new loan, the first payment under which is to made in October.


William John Ward: As I pointed out some two or three weeks ago, many of the farms I have personally " visited have been valued at possibly three times the'ir real value. Now, if these men are to pay the accrued interest to date on, say, a 300 per cent overhead charge, wihat hope have they for the future? I do not think twe are relieving them to any extent. If we expect that these men are going to carry that load a few years longer we shall find that eventually they will have to abandon their farms. If the load: is too great now, it will certainly he too great later.


Mr. LEWIS:: Although I do not see this matter exactly in the same light as my

Soldier Settlement Act
hon. friend to my left (Mr. Ward) because in my district the farms are not quite so badly inflated, yet it does seem to me that it is simply prolonging the burden four years. According to Hansard I find the Chairman of this committee has stated that in the space of four years the Government will lose interest in the neighbourhood of $11,700,000. If this amount, which is approximately $12,000,000, was taken away from the consolidated amount of $76,000,000, it would leave about $64,000,000 total indebtedness, for a little over 21,000 soldier settlers. This deduction of $12,000,000 from $76,000,000 is practically one-sixth of the total indebtedness. If this $12,000,000 which the Government is willing to lose was taken from the consolidated amount of the loan it would mean a saving to the farmers in twenty-five years of no less than $15,000,000 of interest, and it would not mean very much greater loss to the Government. Working out this plan on a basis of $5,000 to each soldier settler, I find that the amount of interest which will be exempted during the four years will be $940, viz., $250 the first year, $240 the second year, $230 the third year and $220 the fourth year. But if, on the other hand, the Government were willing to lose this $12,000,000 in one year that would reduce the capital loan to the individual soldier to one-sixth of his total amount, which at 5 per cent interest would be $800 on $5,000. This sum of $800 at 5 per cent with compound interest would amount in twenty-five years to no less a sum than $2,320. In other words, on the plan which is offered as a relief to the farmer at the present time, he gets relief of $940 in four years; but on the reduction of one-sixth of his total indebtedness in twenty-five years he would be exempted to the extent of $2,320.
Of course, I can readily understand that the chairman of the sub-committee has given this matter a great deal of careful attention, and the one difficulty I see in my plan would be to justify or equalize this one-sixth basis. It might take a great deal of time, but if the farmer-soldier was not able to pay his interest in the first place on the original loan without the accrued taxation and the accrued interest on farm liens, I do not believe he will be able to pay it when the original loan with its accrued interest, taxation and seed liens are consolidated. It seems to me that although re-valuation does not seem feasible according to the evidence presented to the committee, yet it would be an easy
matter to take this $12,000,000, which practically amounts to one-sixth of the total indebtedness and divide that equally amongst all those 21,000 soldier settlers. It would mean the greatest relief to them in the years to come. As my hon. friend says, if you cannot make farming pay during the first four years on light soil, I do not see how you are going to make it pay when you have to put something back into the ground. Moreover, we have had ample evidence from this group that a farmer who owns his land and implements under present conditions cannot even make a living. That being so, how do you expect a returned soldier to go on the land and make a living when he has at the same time to pay for his farm and meet accrued interest and taxation. It seems to me that the whole thing is impossible.


Mr. NEILL:: Is it the minister's intention to take into consideration the point I brought up last night? Under Section 16 of this act we find a man can buy a farm worth $5,000 by paying 10 per cent; he puts up $500, the Government puts up $4,500. Under Section 25, which is an identical proposition, the only difference being that there happens to be a mortgage on the farm when he buys it, he can get only $3,500 from the Government and he has to pay 50 per cent of the amount. In the one case the Government is willing to put up $4,500-that is to pay 90 per cent of the amount; in the other case it is only willing to put up $2,500, or 50 per cent of the total value of the farm. There may be a reason for it, I do not know, but it appears to me to be very unfair and likely to work very unjustly. Why is it that a man who has been industrious enough to accumulate sufficient money to buy the equity in a farm before going overseas, and when he comes back home wants a loan from the Government to pay off the mortgage, should be helped to the extent of only 50 per cent as against the 90 per cent assistance in the case of the man who pays down only $500?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: Is it my hon. friend's opinion that any particular settler has to put up more than 10 per cent to secure his loan?


Alan Webster Neill: Section 25 says so plainly. I will read it:
The board may from time to time advance to a settler to enable him to discharge the incumbrances upon agricultural land which is owned aud used by him as such loans in money not exceeding in the aggregate $3,500-
Soldier Settlement Act

Although they will go as high as $4,500 if the land belongs to somebody else.
-and not exceeding 50 per cent of the value of such land.
The Government will only put up 50 per cent.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The class of loan
referred to in that section is made only to a settler who already owns the land; it is not a loan for the purpose of buying new land. I might give an example of that. Supposing a settler owns a piece of land worth $5,000, the Government could advance $2,500. The settler might already have a $1,000 mortgage on the land, and if he wants to get $1,500 the Government will advance him $2,500, which will enable him to pay off his first mortgage and leave him a balance of $1,500. The loan is 50 per cent of the value of the settler's own land. Does that reply to my hon. friend's question?


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry to say it does not. It gives an explanation in a way, but the vital fact remains that there is the difference I have mentioned. Take the case of a man who has a mortgage on his farm. I had a case in my own district which is now under consideration by the Government. The man was told to go into the district and buy a farm. He looked around and the most suitable farm he could get was one which had a mortgage on it, and therefore he bought that farm. Technically, that brings him under the section I have just read. But the condition is ^identically the same in both cases. A returned soldier seeks to become established on land and because he happens either to have a farm with a mortgage on it, or to buy a farm with a mortgage on it, the Government will lend him only 50 per cent of the value of the farm. Is not that correct?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think that the case my hon. friend cites is correct. If the soldier buys a farm with a mortgage on it and the title is taken in the name of the Government, all he would be required to put up would be 10 per cent of that value; the Government would pay off the prior liens.


Alan Webster Neill: That may be the intention, but it is not the way the act is being interpreted because I have a concrete case which I have taken up with the board, and they gave that decision. I went further than that; I suggested the very thing the hon. member has suggested.

I said, " I am willing to find somebody who will buy the farm nominally, pay off the mortgage and resell it to the government, so that the whole transaction in connection with the mortgage might be wiped out," and I was told that was impossible, because the board or the government, being cognizant of the existence of this mortgage, could not evade it in that way, and they could not, and would not, and refused to grant more than 50 per cent. I am told this was put in when the act was first introduced in that way for the benefit of mortgage companies who held a large number of loans, which they had at a substantial rate of interest, and they were afraid it would lead to these men changing their loans from the loan companies at 8 and 10 per cent to the government at 5 per cent. And why should they not, if they had been frugal enough to accumulate a farm before they went to the war?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think I can throw a little light on the subject as to the difference in the two cases. In the case of the farms that were bought by the board, the property was vested in the government. They did not have to take any action at law, because they took possession of the farm on account of default. In the case of paying off the mortgage the board simply took up the mortgage. They were in the same position as any person taking a mortgage, they would be under the necessity of resorting to the law to foreclose the mortgage there would be more or less costs taxed, and they could not go into possession without taking proceedings. That is one feature of it.


Alan Webster Neill: I would not call it a feature. I would call it an excuse. I have no doubt that is one of the reasons advanced by the board, or the legal gentlemen, in favour of the act. I submit it is an excuse, because there is nothing to hinder the government saying, " We will lend this man $4,500"; and, instead of paying over the $4,500 to Tom Jones, they will pay $2,500 to pay off the mortgage, and $2,000 to Tom Jones. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). I understand the point he is making, but the function of this act is supposed to be to establish men on the land. They are willing to advance up to 90 per cent, but by this mere quibble, taking advantage of the fact that the land is mortgaged, they deprive the men of that land in many cases. It is natural to conclude that the best

Special War Revenue
farms will be taken up first, cleared and perhaps a mortgage put on them, but there is not a mortgaged farm that a man is not handicapped in taking up under the act for this reason. I, therefore, suggest that the section be left over and looked into.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think the point taken is a perfectly sound one. I do not know of any section in the act under which the Government can effect such procedure. It must be done under regulations, and I entirely agree with the hon. member that if such a regulation exists it should be changed, because the case he cites is most common. I think 50 per cent of the farms in the country are mortgaged and 50 per cent of the houses in the cities are certainly mortgaged. It is perfectly absurd to think of a man going to look at a mortgaged farm and being told you can only have 50 per cent, and then going to look at a farm next door, which is free, and being allowed 90 per cent of a loan, so that the point is well taken. I have studied the act with some degree of care, and I think it must be under regulations. I will be most happy to look into that to-morrow morning, and find out the situation. The amendments to the act are strictly in accordance with the report of the committee brought down by me.


Mr. BAXTER:: I think you will find on investigation the board has made an error in considering the value of the property as only the value after deducting the amount of the mortgage, which is evidently not correct. All you have to do is to see that the money loaned by the board is applied to get rid of the mortgage.
Resolution reported.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before this resolution is concurred in, I may say there are several clauses that were not read, or considered clause by clause. We were only on tne second clause. I wanted to make some remarks on the later clauses.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member will have an opportunity when the bill is introduced.
Resolution read the first and second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Ar-genteuil) thereupon moved for leave in introduce Bill No. 193 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House, in Committee of Ways and Means, resumed consideration of the proposed amendment to the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as amended by chapter forty-six of the statutes of 1918, chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1920 and chapter fifty of the statutes of 1921, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the Chair.
Resolution No. 11-Sales tax:
William Stevens Fielding: When the committee had these resolutions in charge before, we went through the sections respecting the sales, tax, and had one discussion on them; then they were held for final approval. Several suggestions were offered on both sides of the House for adding items to the list of exemptions. Some of these suggestions seem to encounter difficulties which we are not able for the moment to overcome, and we have not agreed to act upon them. Several others, however, seem to meet with general favour. I am, therefore, going to ask the committee to agree to amend the resolution by including the words "self-raising flour" in the interpretation of the word "flour", and to include, also, an item urged on both sides of the House very strongly, namely:
Condensed milk, evaporated milk, and powdered milk.
There is another item which has attracted considerable notice from the printers of the country. It is proposed that what may be called the small printing offices, doing a jofb printing business not exceeding $3,000 a year, be exempt. It has been represented to us that while that, as far as it goes, is all right, it fails to meet the case of a large number of small offices chiefly associated with country newspapers where the work of the weekly newspaper and job printing run hand in hand. It is exceedingly difficult to deal with this question, because many job printing offices in this country are conducted on a very large scale, and do a great deal of business. We do not want to adopt any form of resolution which will exclude them, so we have concluded to ask the House to change the words "three thousand" to "ten thousand". That will include most of the small weekly newspapers. Some of these newspapers are doing a considerable business, and probably will be doing a job printing business of more than $10,000 a year. These are the only changes in regard to the sales tax.

Special War Revenue


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand that up to $10,000 they are exempt?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, in the job printing line. The intention is to include the sm&U country weeklies. Three thousand dollars for a whole year's business is not a great deal, but $10,000 is a considerable sum, and most of the newspapers do that, and some of them more. Our object is to make a line of demarcation which will allow the small country newspapers to operate, while not cutting out the large printing offices which are doing business on a very large scale. That is the object, and I think perhaps we have accomplished it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How would the exemption work out? Take the case of a printing plant doing a business of $10,000. It is not taxed. In the case of a plant doing a business of $10,500, will the tax be on the excess, namely $500, or on the whole $10,500?


William Stevens Fielding: I think in that case we will assume that they are fairly prosperous and can pay on the whole.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They would be much more prosperous if they did not make that extra $500.


William Stevens Fielding: I now move:
That resolution No. 11 he amended as follows:-
By inserting in the filth paragraph after the word "flour" in the first line of said paragraph, the following:-
"including self raising flour,''
By inserting after the word "buttermilk" in the third line of said paragraph, the following:
"condensed milk, evaporated milk and powdered milk" ;
By striking out the word "three" in the thirty-fourth line of said paragraph and by inserting the word "ten" in place thereof so that the item amended will read:-"job printed matter produced and sold by printers or firms, whose sales of job printing .do not. exceed ten thousand dollars per annum" ;


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: I now invite the attention of the committee to Resolution No. 5 at the foot of page 1 of the Ways and Means resolutions. This is a resolution which touches the question often discussed here of depreciated currency. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) offered the suggestion-I am not sure whether he moved an amendment, but at all events we know what his object was-that in addition to whatever protection is afforded by the resolution as it stands on the Order Paper there should be a special provision for anti-dumping;

that is, in addition to whatever might be the rate of duty levied according to the valuation provided in this resolution, he proposed there should also be an antidumping provision. There was no such provision in the legislation of last year. The general dumping law was left to apply, and we think that with the resolution as amended, and with the general dumping law remaining unchanged on the statute book, the difficulties which at one time were represented in connection with this matter will be largely, I hope altogether, overcome. At all events, while I appreciate the attention my hon. friend gave to the subject, we think that the case does not call for the additional duty which he suggests, and I would therefore recommend that resolution No. 5 be amended to read as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend section 40 of the Customs Act by providing that in the case of importations of goods the manufacture or produce of a foreign country, the currency of which is substantially depreciated, the value for duty shall not be less than the value that would be placed on similar goods manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom and imported from that country, if such similar goods are made or produced there. If similar goods are not made or produced in the United Kingdom, the value for duty shall not be loss than the value of similar goods made or produced in any European country the currency of which is not substantially depreciated.
The minister may determine the value of such goods, and the value so determined shall, until otherwise provided, be the value upon which the duty on such goods shall be computed and levied under regulations prescribed by the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before this carries, I wish to thank the minister for such consideration as he has been able to give to the representations that have been made. I must, however, express my disappointment that he has not seen his way clear to making good what I think the country fully understood he intended to do when he first suggested this amendment a week or more ago. I am convinced of this, thal the commercial world understood that the minister intended to place the exporter of German goods and the exporter of goods of other countries with a similarly depreciated currency on the same footing as the British exporter; in other words, not to give them an advantage greater than that of the British exporter. I myself felt that we should maintain the clause of last year, perhaps reducing, as I suggested, the 50 per cent depreciation of currency to a point a little lower, but in the event of the refusal or failure of the minister to accept that suggestion I had

Special War Revenue
hoped that he would provide for the application of his well-known principle of the dumping provisions to this measure. I think the committee ought to realize that in opening this country to the importation of goods from European countries with a depreciated currency, they are not subjecting the Canadian manufacturer and dealer to fair competition. If it were fair, that is, if the value of the goods were based on an economic system similar to our own, I would not object, but it is not. German goods in particular, and the same thing applies to Austria and other European countries, are based upon a value that is entirely artificial. I am sorry the minister failed, as I think, to appreciate that point. I do not desire to-night to labour the question again, but it is in my estimation unfortunate that the minister could not have approved of the suggestion of bringing the German exporter to the same level as the British. Certainly we are going to give the German exporter a decided advantage. I am not going to protest further. I have placed all the arguments I can before the House, and we shall have to bow to the decision of the Government in this matter.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is not quite appreciative of the fact that one man's finished product is another man's raw material, and it may be of real benefit to certain of our manufacturers to have certain goods from Europe which have been excluded for some time come on to our market. For instance, I saw a letter the other day, a copy of which I hold in my hand, which is I think of interest to all the members of the committee. The letter which is from a Canadian manufacturer reads as follows:
In pre-war times we used to buy our bag frames in Germany, as they are not manufactured in Canada and the goods laid down very much cheaper than when procured in the United States. 'Since 1914, however, it lias been necessary for us to purchase these from the United States manufacturers, and we have been paying exorbitant prices. For some time we have been up against serious competition in our business as the American baggage manufacturers are flooding our country with cheap baggage, with which it is impossible for us to compete, unless we can secure some of our raw materials for considerable less money. Can you suggest someone who is in a position to give us the names of suppliers of th's commodity either in Germany or elsewhere?
The point which has been stressed so strongly by the member for Centre Vancouver is only part of the case. What he
2181 :
forgets is, that when you get goods cheaply into a country that may not only be a benefit to consumers in the ordinary sense of the term but also a benefit to our own industrial life in that it will enable oui manufacturers to take this finished product of some other manufacturer which, however, is their raw material, work it up and get a profit.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: In further protest

and leaving this matter with the Government and their officials-I desire to point out that the United States proposes to take care of the importation of German goods by levying a specific duty as high as 400 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: They have not done it yet.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They propose to do it.


William Stevens Fielding: Proposing is one thing and doing it is another.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is what they say they are going to do.


William Stevens Fielding: But many people in
Washington say they are not going to do anything of the sort, and who is right? Let me point out to my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) we are dealing with the question simply of valuation, and we are bringing the German goods, in point of valuation, to the standard of the English article of similar character, We are not dealing with the cost of production. We are dealing with the question of valuation and we are establishing the English valuation for the German article. In that way we are bringing it on exactly even terms with the English valuation. Now the Dumping Act, by the way, is broader and goes much further than my hon. friend supposes. I think the Dumping Act, as it has been applied for years, is a measure of protection. With this clause combined with the English valuation, and the provisions of the Dumping Act as understood and applied by the Customs Department I really think the difficulty that my hon. friend had in his mind will be largely, if not wholly, met.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Finance appears to satisfy himself in his answer to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) by saying that the American act is not in force. I hold in my hand a copy of the regulation that the American government have issued and that is now effective against Canadian
Special War Revenue

goods. I had not intended to delay the committee, but the minister having taken refuge in the way he has, perhaps I had better read it.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not talking of Canadian goods but of German goods.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will just read it. Here is what is in force in the United States; and I may say that the resolution that I suggested to my hon. friend is framed very largely on the same lines:
That in the case of all imported merchandise, whether dutiable or free of duty, of a class or kind as to which the Secretary has made public a finding as provided in section 201, and as to which the appraiser or person acting as appraiser has made no appraisement report to the collector before such finding has been so made public, if the purchase .price or the exporter's sales price is less than the foreign market value (or, in the absence of such value, than the cost of production) there shall be levied, collected and paid, in addition to the duties imposed thereon by law, a special dumping duty in an amount equal to such difference.
Just exactly what I proposed to the minister. Now then this is the order based on that issued by the Secretary of the Treasury:
(T.D. 39071.)
Antidumping Act, 1921-Finding by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Secretary of the Treasury makes finding under section 201 (a), antidumping act, 1921, of dumping in the case of wheat flour from Canada.
Treasury Department, April 22, l*22. To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:
Section 201 (a) of the antidumping act, 1921, provides as follows:
Then follows section 201 which I have just read. Then the finding continues:
After due investigation I find that the industry of making wheat flour in the United States is being .or is likely to be injured by reason of the .importation into the United States of wheat flour from 'Canada and that such merchandise is sold or is likely to oe sold in the United States at less than its fair value.
This finding is signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. It is apparent, therefore, that the anti-dumping provision is applied and to-day our flour is held up in United States ports in consequence. The Minister of Finance says the proposal I make is not being applied in the United States. He is undoubtedly wrong because it is being applied, and it is being applied against the country giving fair or equal competition. All I am asking is that the unfair artificial situation created by the German economic system shall be met by a similar action, that is all.


William Stevens Fielding: I understood my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryekman) to refer to the action taken by the United States customs authority on German goods. My hon. friend from Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) is talking about Canadian goods.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It applies to all goods.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but the fact that the existing law of the United States does not serve that purpose is evident from what transpired in Washington when new legislation was proposed. Any hon. gentleman who has had time to pay attention to it will have read a rather interesting exhibition that took place the other day at Washington when those who wanted protection, and further protection against German goods brought in an example such as my hon. friend has brought in, and they had quite a show on the floors of the Senate Chamber, illustrating the need, as they said, of additional legislation to protect them. However, to come back to the point we are dealing with here, that of valuation. We are not discussing the cost of production or anything of the kind. Here is the question:	The
customs duty is imposed in certain cases on the value of the goods. Now what is the fair value of goods? We say under this that the fair value of these German goods, or French goods, or any other goods shall be the price at which similar goods are made in England. Now, in addition to that we have the Dumping Act under which the duties are assessed pretty nearly to the extent my hon. friend has quoted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it limits absolutely the dumping duty to 15 per cent which, of course, against German goods is entirely ineffective.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, 15 per cent in addition to other duties. If you take the duty of 35 per cent and add
11 p.m. 15 per cent to it you get what many people think is a pretty heavy duty. But the Anti-Dumping Act that has been in force for years includes this section:
When the value of the goods for duty purposes is determined by the Minister of Customs under the .provisions of the Customs Act, by reason of the goods being exported or imported under unusual conditions, the value so determined shall be held to be the fair market value thereof.
My hon.- friend (Mr. Stevens) thought that would not apply, but I am advised

Special War Revenue
by the Customs Department that they have for years held that in this case the English value would be held to be the fair market value and the anti-dumping duty would go far to meet the case. However, I suppose my hon. friend and I must differ on the subject. I hope he is mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: I have read the antidumping clause pretty often and I think it would be a contortion of the law to apply that clause as it exists to-day to the class of goods that are imported here at the market value in the country of export and to say that that market value in the country of export is not the fair market value there. Why it is the only market value there.


William Stevens Fielding: I read the clause.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know. I venture to make this prediction: If the Minister of Finance will submit that clause to the Justice Department it will not be held that that clause applies to any such case as the imports from Germany when the imports are invoiced here at the fair market value of the country of export. My hon. friend is not permitted to apply the fair market value in some other country under the dumping clause if word's mean what they say. What ,1 do like in a law is to have set out definitely and clearly what is intended to be done and not to resort to a contortion of an existing statute, in order to avoid putting frankly on the statutes what ought to be there. The minister stated quite clearly and rightly what the effect of what he is doing to-day i's. It has undoubtedly the effect of bringing the duty on goods up to what it would be upon British goods. The duties are equalized; indeed, the duty is made a little more because of the preference; but it is not sufficient to equalize the duties. That will not meet the case ait all; it will go only a small fraction of the distance towards meeting the case. There is something else which has to be done besidds equality of duty. This is not a case of importing goods under the fair market value of the country of origin. It is a case of importing goods at an artificial value, due wholly to the depreciated currency of the country of origin. It is a new, a wholly uncontemplated case, never in mind at all at the time when the Dumping Act was passed. The Dumping Act was never meant to apply to a case of this kind at all. If sudh a case could hiVe been met by a right interpretation of the Dumping Act, there would have been no
necessity for the act of last session nor of What the minister proposes to do now. This is done because the case cannot be met under a fair meaning of the Dumping Act. There is no use in going part of the way to meet this situation. You only admit the principle and you fail to apply it. You fail to get actual results by your legislation. The minister has, of course, decided and we have to abide by his decision ; but I submit that he would be better to sink his pride a little more and meet us fairly on this matter, because there are undoubtedly going to be serious consequences if he does not. He has met the Opposition pretty fully; except in three or four vital matters he has really brought the stray ends of Ms budget into line with what the old government was doing. He has got pretty close into our footsteps now, and I venture to suggest this to him: Meet us in this and two or three other matters of importance, and then just appoint before the close of this session, though we are anxious to get home, a day as a sort of a day of thanksgiving on the part of the Government and the Government's supporters for the pitfalls out of which the Opposition has taken them, not only many times during this session, but especially in the budget discussions.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend
finds comfort in those reflections, I would not be willing to deprive him of it.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Jacques Bureau: I beg to move the following:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Customs Act by adding thereto, the following section:
(47a) If any time it appears to the satisfaction of the (Governor in Council on a report from the Minister of Customs and Excise that natural products of the class or kind produced in Canada are being imported into Canada either on sale or on consignment under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers, the Governor in Council may, in any case or class of cases, authorize the minister to value such goods for duty notwithstanding any of the provisions of this act and the value so determined shall be held to be the fair market value thereof.'


Arthur Meighen: Will, the minister be
good enough just to explain clearly and in simple language the full effect of the amendment? I do not care what tongue he speaks in so long as it is fully understood by my hon. friends to my left.


Jacques Bureau: This is to replace the
provision that the value for duty of new or
Special War Revenue

unused goods shall in no case exceed the actual cost plus a reasonable profit. We are doing away with that provision. We have received complaints from certain parts of the country that this would affect their market, and in those cases I told the parties that the actual cost plus a reasonable profit was nothing more than foolishness, and it is. How are you going to ascertain the actual cost of a cherry that classes No. 4 or No. 5 over a No. 1 cherry? How are you going to ascertain the cost of a cull or first grade lumber? They cost the same thing. How are you going to base your valuation on that? Under this provision the minister has the right to determine what the valuation will be for purposes of duty, and the intention is to protect those who are producers of fruit, grain or any other commodity. I have had complaints that people were throwing on the Canadian market barley or corn or things like that. If the minister or the Governor in Council sees fit that these gentlemen be protected, as he will see fit if they deserve to be protected, then the minister, under the authority of the Governor in Council will determine the value and will not go on the false basis of a fictitious valuation, which is supposed to be the actual cost plus a reasonable profit.


Arthur Meighen: What will be the basis upon which the minister will fix the value?


Jacques Bureau: That will depend on
the conditions each time, and the interest of the Canadian producer will be the primary matter which the minister will take into consideration. That might be the price of the goods on the Canadian market. I do not know what it will be. The matter will all depend on conditions at the time the producer asks the minister to protect him from those goods being dumped into Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether this is fully understood or not by the hon. gentlemen to my left; but I admit that it is fully understood by me. This provision is protection personified. This is the last emanation from the Government that denounced protection two or three days ago. For purposes of valuation the minister can fix the value where he likes, and any basis he likes, on any principle he likes, to suit any interest he likes, as low as he likes, as high as he likes, and when he likes. In a word, this simply puts into the power of the minister the whole elevation >f the tariff of this country.


Jacques Bureau: Has my right hon.
friend any objection to that? If he will give the minister credit for any degree of commonsense and patriotism, about, which my right hon. friend has been preaching so much, he must know there will be no abuse on the part of the minister, and that he will do what is right by Canada. There is nothing wrong. This is better than putting on the statutes a law that means nothing and allows the minister to put fictitious values, as has been done, on the ground that he is following a law that has never been followed in the Customs Department.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the amendment-carry?


Arthur Meighen: It would be, indeed,
amusing if this amendment Garried without discussion. Let me say this. The law as it stood placed a limit beyond which the minister could not go, the limit being the cost of production plus a reasonable profit.


Jacques Bureau: Which cost could never
be ascertained.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says that could not be found. I venture to say that he cannot produce a memorandum from the officers engaged in the task that they were unable to do it. I never heard of an instance of any difficulty whatsoever; in fact, I always understood Iquite the contrary, that it was working well and that, in relation to the only classes of goods to which it was necessary to apply it, there was no difficulty in ascertaining the cost and a fair profit, the Iprofit usual in' the business. But now this clause enables the minister to apply any profit he likes. He can put on any valuation he thinks fit. In other words, it virtually enaibles 'him to fix the tariff where he pleases, and the House is asked to support the minister in that. We are asked1 to do so by a Government who have denounced protection, but who, nevertheless, are introducing the most distinctly protectionist measure ever submitted to Parliament. There has never been anything that embodied every element of protection so clearly as does this clause. And furthermore-


Jacques Bureau: Why do you not congratulate us?


Arthur Meighen: We might, I think, congratulate ourselves on our conquests. But the House is being asked to support an administration that takes to itself the power virtually to fix the tariff by Order in Coun-

Special War Revenue
cil-an administration composed of gentlemen who howled for months against the ordinary functions of Order in Council.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot fix the value by law.


Arthur Meighen: Parliament has never been asked to pass anything like this before. Of course, it is what you might expect from hon. gentlemen who filled the air with threats of slaughter-


Mr. DUFF:: And we did slaughter you too; we slaughtered you in good shape.


Arthur Meighen: By what means?


William Duff: We slaughtered you in Portage la Prairie; that is what you got.


Arthur Meighen: Was it by proposals of legislation of this kind?


William Duff: No, it was on your record. You had to sneak out at Portage la Prairie into Grenville after being defeated in your own constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The old reply, "We won the election." Just in proportion as you succeed in exposing the hollow hypocrisies, the black trickery, the chicanery, the perfidy-just in proportion as you succeed in exposing all these attributes of hon. gentlemen, the louder becomes the reply: "Well, ,ve won anyway." Now, let me repeat, if ever a government came down to Parliament with a measure distinctly, emphatic-cally, superlatively protectionist, that measure is the one now proposed.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What is your kick?


Arthur Meighen: If ever a Government demanded order in council powers to the very infinite, that demand is made in this proposed measure. The Government proposes simply to arrange the tariff by Order in Council-


Jacques Bureau: Not at all; my hon. friend does not understand it.


Arthur Meighen: -and that in the very dying hours of the session, in a debate in which one minister denounces protection and another supports him. Most of them are silent, and particularly those are silent who know that they owe their election to this denunciation. And this measure is supported by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) ; it is supported by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) ; it is supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the author of all those phrases about hypocrisy, the hon. gentleman who held me up to scorn as a young autocrat. That hon. gentleman is now standing up and asking Parliament to give him power to exercise a degree of autocracy unknown in any country in the world. And this is supported by hon. gentlemen behind him. I do not know what hon. gentlemen to my left will say, but I know what they will think.


William Duff: You must be a mind-reader.


Arthur Meighen: Well, most of us can add and subtract. I did not think that this moment would come so soon. I expected conduct of this sort, otf course, but I did think that hon. gentlemen would have displayed a little more skill. However, it is enough for me now to see the whole farce exposed, to see the grand climax close the whole tragedy of hypocrisy, if ever one was perpetrated in any country of the civilized world. The minister comes along with an amendment to the budget, before the session takes its last gasp, by which he is to be the dictator of the tariff, no matter what the terms of the rest of the budget may 'be.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has made several references to the party to his left, but I shall not take them up. I want to ask the minister a question with reference to his allusion to some producers who had made representations to him as to changes in the Customs Act. What classes of producers, and who were they, that made these representations?


Jacques Bureau: I received representations from the fruit producers. May I say that this measure, which is so scandalous, is just curtailing the powers that the minister had under the old law. My right hon. friend, who is a lawyer, will understand that. Section 46 of the act says that the minister may determine the value for duty of goods. The provision reads:
Whenever goods are Imported into Canada under such circumstances or conditions as to render it difficult to determine the value thereof for duty because,-
It then states the various reasons, and proceeds:
The minister may determine the value for duty of such goods .... The minister shall be the sole 'judge as to the existence of all or any of the causes or reasons aforesaid.
Who is the judge of the unusual manner or conditions? Not the Government, but
Special War Revenue

the minister. He shall be the sole judge as to the existence of all or any of the causes or reasons. I wanted to take power into my own hands but the other members of the Cabinet said that they would curtail that power. Hence the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand the minister to argue that this was the law before, only it was under the administration of another minister?


Jacques Bureau: That has been the law all along.


Arthur Meighen: Then why is your motion here now?


Jacques Bureau: Because they wanted to curtail my powers.


Arthur Meighen: And give them to the Minister of Finance. Why is not the motion merely one to change the name of the minister?


Jacques Bureau: To change the name of the minister?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; according to the minister, that is the only change that is being made.


Jacques Bureau: They wanted to limit the power of the minister in regard to natural products.


Arthur Meighen: Not for a minute. I do not want any hon. member to go away with that impression. That will not be the effect of the amendment. The old dumping clause is very limited in its application.


Jacques Bureau: So limited that you cannot apply it.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly. It will not apply to the case of German goods or the fruit industry. But the dumping clause we provided would have fairly applied. The old dumping clause is very limited in its application; it applies only to certain cases, and those limitations were defined after fifteen years of experience.


Jacques Bureau: To what clause is my hon. friend referring?


Arthur Meighen: The old dumping clause, to which the minister has referred, has certain specific applications. It cannot be applied generally.


Jacques Bureau: The minister will be
the sole judge of that.


Arthur Meighen: And 15 years of experience has restricted its application to a very limited number of cases. It cannot be applied1 generally, and the minister is not the sole judge.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: No, otherwise there
would never have been any need for these specific provisions. Parliament would never have passed them. There have been certain limitations and it is proposed now to wipe away all those limitations and vest the sole power In the minister to fix the duties as he sees fit.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How is this going to work out in the case of an ad valorem duty of, say thirty cents on a box of apples? The duty is going to be the same whether those apples are worth $1 or $5 a box.


Jacques Bureau: Then the dumping clause applies, and the amount of the differences between the value put on the box and the price it is sold for shall be added to the specific duty.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So that in effect the power which the minister is taking is the power of valuing those goods for sale and not for duty purposes.


Jacques Bureau: For duty purposes.
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry) For sale.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It prac* tically amounts to this, if a box is valued at-*


Jacques Bureau: Fifty cents.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -one dollar a box in the country of production, and the apples are brought in here and the duty is thirty cents a box, they could naturally be sold for $1.30. If, however, those apples are being offered for sale at fifty cents a box, and the duty is thirty cents a box, they cannot then be sold here for fifty cents plus thirty cents, which would be 80 cents a box; but the minister would have power to add fifty cents more to the value of that box. He would practically have power to set the value for sale purposes and not for duty purposes.


Jacques Bureau: The value for duty. Then the dumping duty shall apply, plus sped-

Special War Revenue
fie duty, thirty cents a box as my hon. friend says. 1 do not mean the selling price at all.


Mr. EVANS:: I rise to protest against this amendment. The old Dumping Act was surely sufficient in itself for any purposes of this kind. When that was placed on the statute books no other country in the world had such a measure for putting its people into such bondage as the people of Canada at that time suffered. The old Dumping Act was sufficient for all purposes of protection, but this proposal goes beyond everything. When we came here as a progressive party we were prepared to back up the Liberal party in putting their platform into practice. But this resolution reminds me of a poem I once read about a bear that walked like a man. The party which since at least before 1896 consistently preached free trade is to-day the most protectionist party in the world.
This amendment is brought forward seemingly in the interests of growers of fruit and grain, but I venture to say that no organized body either of fruit or grain men has asked for this measure. A few days ago the statement was made in this House that apples were being dumped into Calgary last year at forty cents a box. I want to say, Sir, that no apples at that price ever struck the prairie provinces.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: I think I was the author of that statement. I did not say last year; I was referring to 1914 and 1915 before the ad valorem duty was imposed.


John Evans: I am somewhat acquainted with the apple trade. For some years past our co-operative company has done business along this line, and I can truthfully say that during any of the years that my hon. friend has already mentioned no forty cent apples ever struck the prairie provinces. Protection of this kind is not going to help the grower at all. It is not for lack of protection that the apple industry to-day in British Columbia is suffering. The lowest price the British Columbia grower got last year was eighty one cents a box; we paid at least four dollars. I leave it to hon. members to find out who got the difference between the 81 cents and the $4. The grower does not benefit by these measures of protection. The prices that British Columbia growers have been able to charge for their apples in the prairie provinces have simply killed their own market. We have never bought
apples in the prairies, not even windfalls, for less than $2.60 a box.
I have before me a very interesting letter which came from Magna Bay, B.C., in which the writer says:
Too want to know the reason why you have to pay $4 a box for apples. Well, I do not know why you have to pay that price, but I do know that for the same box of apples we here receive just 81 cents.
And he continues:
Now, I am going to ask you why we have to pay $2.60 for 100 pounds of what we call screenings for chicken feed. So it takes a little more than three boxes of apples to pay for It, and, remember, it is mostly weed seed and there is very little wheat in it. .
He paid three boxes of apples for 100 pounds of chicken feed. Well, we have to pay over 1,200 pounds of that chicken feed for a similar box of apples. I repeat that the grower does not benefit by any of these measures of protection.
The hon. Minister of Finance some days ago said that this budget was calculated not to disturb business. Well, according to his own words in 1911 he recognized that this system of protection was disturbing business in various parts of the country and creating unrest. It is a fact today that business is not only being disturbed in our agricultural operations, but our industry is being gradually choked to death.
I witnessed here the other night one of the most degrading incidents imaginable. I think that incident was a shame to this Parliament, and I am saying that in all seriousness. I am referring to the fact that when the hon. member for Brant got up to speak a night or two ago jibes were flung across the House from protectionist members on the opposite side and were kept up for some time in a determined effort to prevent him speaking, and not once were those hon. members called to order. How far do the advocates of protection in this House consider it safe to go in tampering further with the temper of the people in the different industries in this country? It is for them to determine. The Progressive party in this House will have done their duty when they have made plain those conditions.
To-night again we see the re-enactment of the scene that took place in this House in 1897, when the leader of the Tory party at that time threw a jibe across to the Government side for breaking their pledges and promises. What was the answer? It was this: "Well, we are here and you
Special War Revenue

are there. What are you going to do about it?" That question still stands. We are here for a square deal. We came here pledged to back up the Liberal party in the putting into practice of their platform. We have to go back to our people again with a disappointing tale.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I
crave the indulgence of members of this committee at this late hour of the night and of the session in hindering the progress of the debate just for the moment, but I cannot remain silent and allow this resolution to pass, and I am not going to. The Liberal -party, at the last election, went before the people with a programme. We went with that programme-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Where did we go? We went from the Atlantic to the Pacific with that programme, and sent it out in our literature. I have seen that programme, not murdered, in the house of its friends, but not treated with any too great respect or kindness. I have kept my faith, as far as I could, in declarations made by the Finance Minister that his party did not stand for the protective principle, and with that declaration in my ears, I have stood by the party that I have served for a quarter of a century. What is the proposal moved by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) to-night? He proposes to do away with a very absurd enactment. The enactment was that, where it appeared that the Canadian people were getting things too cheaply, the Minister of Customs would have the right to assess what it cost to produce these things, to add what, in his opinion, was a reasonable profit, and then to collect the duty upon the value so assessed. That was a perfect absurdity, as the Minister of Customs has well said. But what is the proposal now? The proposal now is that if goods are coming into Canada at too cheap a rate, the minister, or the Governor in Council, shall have the right to assess the sum that they shall be valued at, and, I suppose, in that task the competing producers in this country will lend a considerable amount of aid. I cannot support a proposition of that sort. I am going to vote against that resolution, although I am a member of this party, and, in so voting, I will stand by Liberal principles, the principles I have advocated, and which have been advocated by the party which I represent and stand for, 
for the last forty years. It is not a pleasant thing to oppose men whom one has been connected with by ties of party affiliation, aye, and affection, for years and years past, but we have to have a showdown in this country, whether the Liberal party is to live up to its principles, or whether we are just a sort of second-rate protectionist party, because for consistency in protection, we will give the palm to the party led by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). But, consider the ingratitude of the protectionist. Here is a proposal made which should fill him with joy. He has no gratitude, not a bit-merely bitter words. I trust that the Minister of Customs will not see fit to press this resolution. It will not help this country. I never cared for the dumping clause. It was passed, I think, about 1904. I never knew why Canadian merchants should be deprived of the advantage to them and the advantage to the country of getting a bargain and bringing that bargain in, and paying duty on that bargain at the price they had to pay. It only occurs now and again, and, I think, it was a law meant to cover the exception, and, on that ground, it was not wise. I trust that the minister will not press this amendment and I trust, if he does press it, that I will not be the only man on this side of the House to vote against it, but if I am the only one I am going to vote against it, just the same.


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: I think there is a misconception. This arrangement is not to affect the ordinary trade of the country, and not intended for that purpose. It is intended to take effect when unusual and unfair conditions occur in trade; where the Canadian producer comes under unfair and unreasonable conditions in trade. Then the minister, or the Governor in Council, may have the opportunity to effect a remedy for that unjust and unfair condition. There is nothing unusual in that. We find it all through our laws. I have an example here. Breadstuffs, grain, flour, and meal of all kinds, when damaged by water, in transportation, or prior to transportation, are subject to a general duty of 25 per cent. What is the purpose of that provision? It is for protection against unfair and unreasonable competition, and that is all that is intended in this amendment, namely, to overcome conditions that do arise at certain times, where there is an unfair condition, a condition that the grower of natural products cannot exist under. That

Special War Revenue
is the intention, and the only intention, as far as the amendment is concerned. I do not agree with the remark of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) although, in a wider sense, it might be considered applicable. If used in a wider sense, I would be with him, but you have to legislate, and this legislation is to help to cure unreasonable and unfair conditions that occur occasionally in the matter of trade, and to protect the producer of natural products in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I did not intend
to speak on this matter, but I feel that I must say a few words. Here we find the Progressive members applauding doctrines of free trade and that sort of thing. I may say that I made an inquiry in connection with the price of apples, and, while the producer in British Columbia was getting from 85 cents to a dollar a box, I found on investigation that the co-operative organizations run by the Progressive party, were charging 60 cents per box for handling the apples. If the people in British Columbia who are in the fruit business do not get some protection, the people in Washington will run them out of business, and they make no bones about it. They say it would be a good thing to have a market like British Columbia for their surplus fruit. As I stated the other night, when I was in the building supply business in Vancouver, brick was selling at $8.50 in Vancouver. That did not pay for the expense of making them. I went over to an American city, where brick was selling at $10.50, but when they found I was from British Columbia, and was going to take the brick back to that province, they were quite willing to sell them for $6 a thousand. How can our manufacturers in British Columbia stand up against that? These people said it was good business to sell at that price, although it was less than cost. They said they wanted to keep the British Columbia market for their surplus, and, as long as they could keep it for their surplus, they could run their yards steadily. We want to be fair and square in this matter. I want to back the Progressive party as long as they do what is right, but we, in British Columbia, must have protection. That province is a part of Canada, and we are paying our share of the taxes, as well as any other part of the Dominion, and we want a square deal.


William John Ward: I should like to reply to what has been said regarding the charges of the co-operative organizations on the
prairies in the handling of apples. I have handled some twenty odd oars of apples for the locals in my constituency, and the most profit that ever was charged was 10 cents a box.


Thomas George McBride: If they want the proof of the statement I have made, Mr. Chairman, I can go upstairs and get it.


Robert Milton Johnson: I do not know what proof the hon. member for Cariboo proposes to bring. I do not know what other people may charge as a profit on apples, but I do know the system on which the biggest co-operative enterprise in Saskatchewan conducts its business, and that is on a strictly competitive basis. Wherever I have had the opportunity of seeing apples sold by this organization, and I have had opportunities in a retail and wholesale way, sixty cents profit is considered abnormal and is not charged. They sell these apples in competition with others who are selling like commodities, irrespective of what the profit may be. They are sold in competition, and the profit is returned to those who buy them on a cooperative basis.


Mr. COOTE:: This dumping clause has always been a very interesting thing to me. I have wondered why it was not carried a little further. When one of the department stores in Ottawa puts on a special fire sale, I consider that that is exactly similar to what our protectionist friend^ call the dumping of goods, but no one suggests that the city of Ottawa protect its bona fide merchants by prohibiting such sales.
The hour is too late for me to enter into a discussion of the dumping clause, but I just wish to say that the amendment proposed by the Minister of Customs would probably be very convenient for this present Government because the minister if he wished to go that far could set the value in each locality to suit the tariff views of tthe cabinet minister representing that particular district.


Arthur Meighen: That is the idea.


George Gibson Coote: In regard to apples, I have never seen on the prairies any forty cent apples, but I have seen apples that were not worth forty cents-yes, and they came from British Columbia. I have nothing whatever to say against British Columbia. I lived there for several years, and some of my best friends live there now, but in all fairness to the people #who live on the prairies, I say they should not be compelled
Special War Revenue

to buy British Columbia fruit if they do not like it. Last year I bought from British Columbia some peaches that were almost as hard as hailstones. This British Columbia co-operative association advertised tree-ripened fruit. They asked us to buy this fruit on the ground that it was ripened on the tree and was really good stuff. When these peaches came to hand, we could not get our teeth into them, and we were compelled to buy Washington peaches, or do without. I think it ill becomes any grower of natural products in Canada to invoke a dumping clause to make the people on the prairies pay more for their fruit than they should pay. If my memory serves me right, a few years ago the government spent considerable money in an advertising campaign to persuade the people to eat more apples, that it would be good for their health. I believe that. I like apples myself, but the hard part of it was this. After they had created an appetite for apples, the government saw fit, at the solicitation, I have no doubt, of their friends in British Columbia, to increase the tariff on apples. That was taking an unfair advantage of the people on the prairies. If they had wanted to put this special tariff on apples they might have had regard enough for these people not to whet their appetite for apples before putting on the tariff. I think it was very unfair and I am protesting against it now because I have never yet heard any public man voice a protest against it. I hope the government did not pay for the advertising every season, because if they did, it is we who have been helping to pay for the advertisement. Then a tariff was put on, making apples harder to get. That seems a very strange procedure. I think the British Columbia fruit men might pay for their own advertisements.
In answer to the hon. member for Yale, so far as I know the Progressive party are not in the apple business, and it is certainly news to me to hear they are able to go into the business and make the handsome profit of 60 cents a box. I am sure that is very enlightening to most of my friends in this corner of the House.
I think it is the duty of the Minister of Customs to withdraw such an outrageous amendment to the Customs Act as the one he now proposes. I do not think there is any use in my moving an amendment, because I do not think this House would support it. We have had sufficient instances of that, but I certainly could not allow the

amendment to pass without voicing a very strong protest against such an outrageous proposal.


Thomas Sales: I should like to know what right this country has to kick about dumping. It has been dumping its goods for years in other countries. Twenty-two years ago when I came to Canada I was able to buy Davies' beef-fed ham in the old country at 12 and 13 cents a pound retail.
I came to Toronto in July of the same year, twenty-two years ago, and went into one of the Davies shops, and they charged me 20 cents a pound for the same article, and I had to pay it too. That is what always happens, and it is always going to happen just as long as you have this accursed thing protection, whereby you bleed the people at home and give the people in some other country the benefit of the increased charges here. I have the proof right in my own room to-night that Davies bacon sold in the Old Country at 23 cents a pound, prime Wiltshire, fifty or fifty-five pound sides. I should like to know where you can buy the same article in this country for 23 cents a pound. It simply means that they are dumping their goods in England, and who is paying for that? The workingman of this country and some time he is going to wake up to the fact, and then there is going to be trouble.
My friends from British Columbia can ask for protection on their apples if they like. That is their business, but whether I buy them or not is my business, and I serve warning on them right now that they are losing the prairie market and they will never regain it. Why? We are planting more rhubarb; we are planting everbearing strawberries, because we can grow them, and gooseberries and currants and citrons and squash. Furthermore, we can do the same as we did twenty-two years ago when British Columbia did not grow enough-we can do without them. In this case the fruit growers will be losing a market because we shall have to do without their products. As I said to this House before, when it costs me 300 pounds of wheat to buy 40 pounds of apples I am going to do without the apples, because that is not a fair basis of exchange. However, that is exactly what happened last October, and it demonstrates that for my hon. friend from British Columbia to ask for protection on their apples will only prove a boomerang.


Arthur Meighen: The discussion has
been very interesting. I have, however, not

Special War Revenue
seen any sign of tears or lamentations no matter in which direction I turn. There is a desire, as usual, for a mild protest, but anything in the way of indignation is not perceptible to me. I do not believe in this amendment at all. I do not believe in giving the Governor in Council this power. I know the need of a dumping clause, particularly in regard to fruit. I do not want to see the large fruit areas of this country a desolation, or driven towards desolation, under any circumstances whatever.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Have you no faith in
the Canadian strawberry?


Arthur Meighen: I have no faith in the
Canadian strawberry maturing as early as the strawberry in the south, nor the Canadian apple; and I venture to think this-with all respect for the member for Brome, and I have a lot more respect for him than I have for many an enthusiastic supporter of this amendment-I venture to think that if he lived in the Okanagan valley and just spent a few weeks there in the season of marketing and if he himself cultivated an area there as a practical fruit grower, he would soon convince himself-he could not escape the conviction-[DOT] that to wipe away a dumping duty on apples, and on fruit generally, would mean desolation to that whole area, one of the gardens of this country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like the
right hon. gentleman to explain to me why apples grown in British Columbia cannot be produced as good and as cheap as those so grown in Washington?


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will explain the matter, although that was not what I rose for. I think I understand the situation although I do not live out there. The production in those States to the south is, first of all, so immense, relatively to the production in that area of Canada we are considering, or in any area of Canada, that a small surplus of it will supply the whole demand. That small surplus will get in before the maturity of our crop, and once it gets in the American growers can afford to sell it for almost nothing because they get a fair price for the apples and the rest of the fruit in their own country. Anything they get beyond that is just that much velvet to them, just that much salvage. When they get into the Canadian west with their surplus and sell it they have destroyed for that year all the Canadian crop, they have destroyed the whole
industry-that is to say in so far as they can do that in one year. Continue that for one, two and three years and there is no industry left. That possibility is inherent in the earlier American production. From that our fruit growers must be saved. We certainly cannot take the chance. We do not intend ''to in this country; it is not the spirit of Canada to do it. But there should never be an unrestrained discretion in the hands of any minister or any government. There should be some principle laid down by this House to which the Government must abide and beyond which they cannot go. That is sound, sensible legislation. That is the protective principle democratically and fairly applied. What is proposed here is the protective principle autocratically, and perhaps unfairly, applied. But where are we? The Government has repealed a moderate measure, a measure that defined a fair, just and practicable principle. The Government has repealed it and we have not got it. At all events if the Government has not repealed that principle I propose to stand and vote for it; but I am not in the position of having to stand and vote for this proposition, or vote in favour of the annihilation of our fruit industry in one part if not in two parts of Canada. While I am between these alternatives I support the measure-


George Gibson Coote: Would the hon. member
explain why it is possible for the British Columbia fruit growers to sell apples in Minneapolis, St. Paul and even in New York. We were told that by I think, Mr. Lanigan in the freight rates committee?


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt those familiar with the industry-and particularly my hon. friend's colleague from the apple country who has just left the House to get his data-could give the details of that better than I. However, I would think it would be owing to this: There would be some special periods of the year, when the apples are at their best, when probably they could get a market there that would pay. There would always be some export. Hon. gentlemen to my left are often very indignant if they are not at all times allowed to say what is best for farming in Canada. Why will they not be good enough to let the fruit farmers say what is best for fruit farming in Canada? The fruit farmers are virtually united on this matter, there is practically no difference of opinion among them at all.
Special War Revenue


John Evans: Can the hon. member say that any organized body of fruit growers have asked for this measure?


Arthur Meighen: They have sent a special representative here who has been round the House since the matter has been under consideration. Does the hon. member think that they would have done that if they were not united?


George Gibson Coote: Would the hon. member be willing to consider the opinions of the farmers on the prairies as readily as he does the farmers in British Columbia?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly, and many a tiine I have done so but have received very little credit for it, particularly from the politically organized body of that country. The hon. gentleman will recall that many a measure that he now regards as splendid was made the weapon of castigation of myself at the time it was enacted.


George Gibson Coote: Which particular weapon was that?


Arthur Meighen: I am thinking of the wheat board at the moment. Perhaps I could stop there if my hon. friend would explain that.


George Gibson Coote: I would just like to tell the hon. member that when he first introduced the wheat board I supported it, and I have stood up for it ever since.


Arthur Meighen: I do not remember receiving any communication from the hon. member to that effect, but no doubt if I had gone out to his town or village I would have seen him standing up. I did receive many a communication the other way and the resources of vitriolic literature were almost exhausted in the attacks upon myself. However, that is not the question now and let that all pass. I am glad to see a conversion in any respect.


George Gibson Coote: It is too bad to let it pass so easily.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member does not want to let it pass he can come again; I should have no objection whatsoever.
The question is to-day what is best in the interest of the whole Dominion? In the interest of the whole Dominion we certainly do not want to destroy the fruit industry of this country, we certainly do not want to do that. When I am between the alternative of this resolution and that

result I vote for this resolution. I do not believe in this method of action,
12 m. and I have my opinion of an administration that, denouncing protection, repeals a moderate protective measure and substitutes one far more vicious and far more extreme.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Perhaps I can furnish some information for the hon. member from Macleod (Mr. Coote) that will be a little more authoritative than that which has just come from the leader of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman asked if any organized body of fruit growers had made representations.


George Gibson Coote: I would just like to correct the hon. gentleman. I never asked the question.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: It was asked anyway, and in reply to it I should like to read the following telegram, a copy orf which was sent to me after it was sent by the British Columbia Fruit Growers to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). It reads:
British -Columbia Fruit Growers desire to register most vigorous protest against any change in the act relative to the dumping clause as referred .to in your budget speech. American growers already hold highest priced early Canadian market due to their earlier ripening season. .Surplus American fruit at height of their season is very often thrown on Canadian markets just as the Canadian product is beginning to reach the market in quant, ty, this unrestricted dumping being disastrous to sales of British Columbia fruit. British Columbia growers can supply total demand of home markets and only urge that Americans be not permitted to relieve their own markets by indiscriminate throwing of low priced fruit upon the Canadian markets. The matter is vital to British Columbia growers.
The writer of this, Mr. Barss, secretary of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, gees on to say:
In further explanation I may say that in the latter part of the summer of 1921 the Americans proceeded to throw lower grade pears in on the prairie market at prices far below cost of production. Later, a similar attempt was made with prunes and apples, the whole motive being to relieve their own markets from congestion and consequent serious drop in prices by removing the lower grades entirely from these markets, ship them to Canadian prairies where they will return some money to offset the cost of picking, grading and packing, although not nearly approching the full cost of production. This attempt was successfully blocked by invoking the dumping clause with the effect of which procedure you are entirely familiar.
In addition, you might be interested in knowing that in conversation with the manager of one of the largest fruit packing houses in the State of Washington, the admission was made

Special War Revenue
frankly to me, that their company had the deliberate intention of flooding Canadian markets with their .poor products to save thedr own home markets for the better goods, fully realizing that in so doing they also interfered with the sales of the better Canadian fruit in these Canadian markets.
I may further state that at the recent convention of the Fruit Growers' Association held in Victoria, a resolution was unanimously passed urging the continuance of the dumping clause as put into effect during the past season.


George Gibson Coote: I do not doubt for an
instant that the British Columbia men all want some protection. I will admit that, and I think most of the manufacturers in Canada want protection. To be very fair, if you are going to protect the manufacturer and protect the fruit grower, you should protect the grain grower. My income is every cent of it, derived from the sale of wheat. Will any hon. gentleman in this House tell me that protection in Canada increases the price of my wheat one cent a bushel?


Jacques Bureau: Wheat is a natural product, is it not?


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Well, if the hon. member has any complaint that wheat is being dumped into Canada, let us hear it,


George Gibson Coote: I do not think the minister will hear any such complaint. Nobody is going to dump wheat into Canada-


Jacques Bureau: There is the diiference.


George Gibson Coote: [DOT]-it is always cheap here because we are several thousand miles from a market, I think the furthest from the ultimate market of any grain growing country in the world, and hon. gentlemen ought to realize that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about Australia?


George Gibson Coote: The bulk of Australian wheat is grown close to water, and the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) knows that water transportation is very cheap. I want hon. gentlemen to realize the position that the grower of wheat is in. Protection does not increase his income, but protection certainly gets at his outgo. When I buy my implements, my clothes, my furniture, my food and my building materials, 90 per cent of them have had their cost increased to me by protection. This committee has sat long enough on this item and I am not going to keep it very long.


Mr. BRETHEN:: Hon. members are
getting tired of it.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, but we have toi get equity in this country if you want to keep this country together. We have hon. gentlemen here from British Columbia who are very insistent on a protective tariff on their fruit; but I notice they are not above going to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and asking for the lowering of the tariff on the gasoline that they use.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall not detain the committee for more than a few minutes. I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the discussion. I have had, however, an opportunity to glance over the amendment moved by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), and it is not one that I can support. I take it that the purport of the amendment is to assist the fruit growers of Canada and particularly the apple growers of British Columbia. I have a good deal of sympathy with the position that the apple growers of British Columbia are in. Their difficulties, however, will not be solved by an artificial means of excluding foreign fruit. The great difficulty of the British Columbia fruit grower to-day is the toll that is taken between the man who grows the fruit and the man who eats it. The system of distribution of this commodity is probably more expensive than it is in the case of any other commodity in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Practically all of the producers are co-operative, and they sell directly to the co-operative purchasers. Who gets an unfair profit between those two?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I just wish to say this to my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens). I have seen the prices that the fruit growers in the Okanagan receive for their fruit, and I know what I pay for it in Winnipeg. 1 know the spread indicates a cost of distribution that is probably greater than it is on any other commodity in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the hon. member explain the point that I raise? He cannot escape this, that the producers are practically all, I might say all, within the cooperative system and it is a splendid cooperative system. They sell, as nearly as possible, directly to the consumer. The hon. member may buy retail in Winnipeg; but I am asking him, in common with my hon, friends to my left who are all speaking about co-operative buying and whose arguments are all based on the co-operative buying system: Between the co-operative
Special War Revenue

producer in the Okanagan and the cooperative purchaser on the prairie, who gets the unfair differential?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That point is very
simple? Those on the prairies who are organized to buy co-operatively are only a small part of the consuming population on the prairies. The great consuming population on the prairies is found in the cities, larger towns and villages.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the co-operative purchaser that is complaining.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend does not appear to catch my point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend fails to catch mine too.


Ernest Lapointe: Reciprocity.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I admit that his point is so far in the mists and clouds and bogs of obscurity that it is impossible to see it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I admit the co-operative system is in the bogs, all right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: While the fruit growers of British Columbia have perfected their marketing organization-and this has only been done in recent years-they still sell to wholesalers who sell to retailers who sell to the consumers. The real remedy for the fruit growers of British Columbia-and I have taken the liberty of suggesting this to some gentlemen who spoke to me about it and with whom I have every sympathy-is to create their own wholesale co-operative association and sell directly to the consumer, in the same way as the orange growers and citrous fruit growers of California have done. My objection to the amendment is that it supports and confirms a principle to which I am entirely opposed. I try to be consistent in the position I take on matters of public policy in this House, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment. Reference was made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meig-hen) to the fact that American fruit was imported into Canada to the detriment of the British Columbia apple growers. I think it is a fact, and I am proud of it, that British Columbia apple growers are exporting their apples to the United States every year, not in odd carload lots, but in hundreds of carloads. And their market in the United States will grow for their fruit, and for a sumple reason. The fruit in Washington and in the United States generally matures earlier than the fruit

in Canada, and if it matures earlier it is also exhausted earlier; and when the United States apple crop is exhausted the Canadian apple grower has an opportunity to g'et into that market.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is my hon. friend aware that last year there was one lot of 200 cars shipped to New York which, if I remember correctly, was practically all lost? My hon. friend says that the American market is growing. Well, it was tried last year and proved practically a failure.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may be wrong in the information I have received, but if I am correct, the market in the United States for British Columbia apples has been increasing every year.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: It has increased during the past year or so because of abnormal conditions. In the first place there was no crop in the eastern states; New York, a great apple producing state, had no crop. Another factor was that while the western states had large crops there was a very marked car shortage in the early part of the season and the crop could not be moved. A third factor was the exchange situation, which during the shipping season about offset the duty. As a matter of fact, what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) says is absolutely correct. We had 400 cars of apples stored in New York on which storage charges had to be paid for months. Some of the apples had to be re-picked and re-packed and the shipment brought practically nothing.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Last year the American apple crop was only 43 per cent of normal. It is in these short years that the Canadian apple growers are able to ship to the United States at a profit, but in the full years the United States growers can dump their surplus into this country to the detriment of local growers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that is correct, then there are far too many apple growers in both the United States and Canada. But I do not believe that is the case. I think my hon. friends from British Columbia are altogether too modest in respect of the splendid quality of British Columbia apples. Why, you can get British Columbia apples in the stores in this city and even in St. John, New Brunswick; and with perfect methods of marketing, it is only a matter of a very few years until British Columbia apples will have the largest market in Can-

Oleomargarine
ada. My hon. friends have nothing to fear in that respect. Now, I am opposed to the amendment on principle, and for that reason I shall vote against it. But I shall be glad to do everything in my power to assist the apple growers of British Columbia to cut out the expense in connection with the cost of distribution, so that they may get their produce to the consumers at reasonable prices.


Arthur Meighen: There is just this to be added beore the debate closes. I well recall when the duty was put on. This is one of the few articles upon which the late government increased the duty. The late government diminished the duty very substantially in respect of many articles of manufacture, but [DOT] it increased the duty on apples. At the time that increase was met with violent opposition from all who were opposed to the government. The government was pictured as stretching out its hand and tearing from the grasp of the child the apple it was about to eat; and no language was too strong in denunciation of that increase. All that has taken place in the interval has been the formulation of a platform demanding the abolition of the duties on the principle articles of food, within which category, one would suppose, fruit is included. The fulfillment we are getting to-night is the enactment of a law which maintains the old duty, as the late government increased it, as a minimum, and gives the power to the Government to increase it further to whatever extent it likes.


John Evans: Last year the British Columbia apple grower got 81 cents a box for his apples, notwithstanding the fact that there is a duty of 30 cents in the way of protection on every box of apples. I should like to know who got the difference between that and $4 a box. I still maintain that the British Columbia apple grower does not benefit by the tariff, and if anyone can show me that the apple industry needs protection when apples are 6i cents in Ottawa to-day I shall be surprised. If the apple grower cannot make the industry pay it is not because he needs protection, but because the cost of living has driven up the cost of production out of all proportion to world prices.
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 122; Nays, 44.


Arthur Meighen: I think that in voting on a protectionist amendment it is hardly fair to count the protectionists first.


Jacques Bureau: It is a precautionary, not a protective amendment.
Resolutions reported.


OLEOMARGARINE
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Oleomargarine Act, chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1919 (first session), and the amending acts, by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in the Dairy Industry Act, 1914, chapter seven of the statutes of 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into Canada shall be permitted until the thirty first day of August, 1923, and the offering for sale, the sale, and the having in possession for sale of oleomargarine shall be permitted until the first day of March, 19,24.
William Richard Motherwell: This resolution is the basis of a bill the purpose of which is to extend for one year the time for the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine. The committee will recall that, five or six weeks ago we had a very full debate on this question, the import of which was an intimation by this House that they desired the legislation to be continued for another year, and it is in compliance with that vote that this resolution is brought forward. The bill upon which it is based is now printed and will be submitted in due course.


Mr. PUTNAM:: When does the present law expire?


William Richard Motherwell: On the 1st September as to manufacture and importation; as to sale, the 1st of March.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the minister intend to make any other changes in the law?


William Richard Motherwell: No, only the extensions.


Mr. JACOBS:: Why is is that we have to have annually an oleomargarine day the same as we have to have the King's birthday? Why cannot we dispose of this matter once for all and allow the manufacture, sale and importation of oleomargarine indefinitely? I understand it costs the country $30,000 per day to keep this House open. We devote two or three days every year to this question, so it costs $90,000 annu-

Oleomargarine

ally. Now, we have had this matter up ever since I have been in the House, and that is for the last five or six years, and we have always arrived at the same conclusion. So why not dispose of it once for all?


William Richard Motherwell: Because to at
least half the members of this House this is a new question. Furthermore, it will be recalled that while the majority in favour of the oleomargarine legislation was quite substantial, nevertheless the vote was taken when something like ninety^five members were either absent or did not express themselves. Consequently we did not feel justified in settling the matter once for all.


Arthur Meighen: I wonder whether the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier is satisfied with that explanation. Would he mind letting us know?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am always glad to give information to the right hon. gentleman. I think this is the sixth session that this matter has come before the House-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: -and there has always been a substantial vote in favour of .permitting oleomargarine to come into the country. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture seems to think that nothing was done until he came into the House, but I can assui^1 him that this matter has been thoroughly threshed out during the last five or six sessions, and always with the same result.


Arthur Meighen: I have just as poor an opinion of the explanation as has the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, for the minister suggests that this is a new question to hon. members here-


William Richard Motherwell: To half of them.


Arthur Meighen: -and therefore the Government does not feel justified' in settling the matter once for all. Well, it is just as new as every other question to the same half. Why do the. Government decide any question? I suppose the minister might answer that they do not-and he would not be very far wrong.


Samuel William Jacobs: I might point out to the right hon. gentleman that he was himself in charge of the Government for four or five years, but still he introduced resolutions of this kind each session. Therefore it is not for him to complain of the Government's action to-day.


Arthur Meighen: No. There was one resolution introduced to extend the time for a year-rather, it was not for a year, but indefinitely, and so place the matter on a permanent basis., The Government took its stand there, but we were within two days of the end of the session-I have the debate before me-and in order to get through, as it was essential for me to go overseas, we yielded the point and amended the resolution to make the extension read for a year. That was a year ago. But what happened? Hon. members1 one after the other denounced the government even under those circumstances for not dealing with this matter permanently. I do not doubt that the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier was one of those who protested.
Mr. JACOB'S: No.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps he was not. I have not the slightest do'ulbt, though, that if the present Minister of Agriculture had been in, the House at that time he would have been the loudest of them all in protesting. I propose to read a short extract from the speech delivered by the present Minister of Finance who now supports this resolution of the Minister of Agriculture. He said:
It is much to be regretted that the government has spoiled a good bill by encouraging this amendment. There is no reason in the world why we should shilly-shally with this thing from year to year. If oleomargarine is a bad thing, let us put the ban on and stop it: but this .bringing in a bill, as the minister has done this year, to provide that oleomargarine shall be treated like any other article of commerce, and now because the bill has met with a little criticism to postpone, as he is doing, a final decision for another year, is not wise politics ; it is not good statesmanship; it is not commonsense. Let us settle the thing and be done with it. and not go on in this way for another year.
And then he repeatedly, time after time, used language of a similar character. He said further on-
Let the question be dealt with to-day without any further shilly-shallying. Let the government deal with it as they would deal with anything else.
I can give the explanation, I think, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) failed to give, and I wiill oblige the hon. member from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) by doing so. It is because the Government does not know its own mind on the question. This House has debated the question, and this House has decided. The Minister of Agriculture is against this measure, but he comes here introducing it. Perhaps, I should not have

Oleomargarine
said that, but he was against this measure about a month ago. Perhaps, a month ago he did not make his last will and testament on that subject. He may have made another since. He was against the adimission of oleomargarine a month ago. Unless he has changed his mind since, he is against the bill he is introducing. Other ministers are in favour of the admission of oleomargarine and its manufacture. The Government has no information on the subject, but they cannot conform to constitutional practice in this matte'r. If they did it would mean that one of them would lose his salary, and everything in constitutional practice must bow to that consideration. The Minister of Agriculture introduces a bill with which he has no sympathy at all, against the whole principle he has declared himself in tha most emphatic language. He comes here as the sponsor of the measure in the House, rathe'r than taking the ordinary course of resigning from the Administration, which is the usual course in every government, according to constitutional practice.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member would not think he would resign on oleomargarine?


Arthur Meighen: I would not think it, no. The Minister of Agriculture, after the speeches he made in the campaign, on the wheat board, on the tariff, and everything else, is ready to abide by the Government that follows the late administration that he denounced, steps in its footprints every time he can, and then, if it steps out, it comes back, just as soon as the voice of criticism is lifted. Any minister that will remain in the ministry after these declarations will never be bothered about oleomargarine. This is the spectacle we have witnessed, and will witness, as long as this Government adorns the government benches- in this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not understand why the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) should work himself up to this state of mind, in view of what took place when this question was discussed previously. I think I said that the members of the Government were not all of one mind on this question. We were quite prepared to hear the House discuss it, to have it debated, and to be guided by such action as the House might take on the resolution before it. A day was set apart for it, the debate lasted the day, and the resolution was carried. It is perfectly true there was
219J
not a very full attendance of the House at the time. Under the circumstances, the Government does not think it wise to extend the act beyond the period of one year, but we feel, in going that far, we are implementing the promise we made to be guided by the views of hon. members in the House, and doing it in a manner which, in the end, we think will work out all right


Arthur Meighen: The explanation of
the shilly-shallying policy is about as good as the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture. The attendance during the oleomargarine debate was just as good as the average attendance during any debate this session, The Government pledged itself to be bound by the opinion of the House. The Government now says we must be bound, not by the opinion of the House, but by some who did not express an opinion, who were not here. That is what follows when a government tries to shirk a responsibility that belongs to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How can the hon. member say that, in view of the fact that we are asking to put through this act at the present time?


Arthur Meighen: A shilly-shallying act, to use the language of his own Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend can move to amend it.


An hon. MEMBER:: And stop the shillyshallying.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, stop the shillyshallying, and have the Government come down with a policy they believe in, and on which they unite. This method of action is always going to follow, if the Government shirks its responsibility, saying "We have no opinion, or we have two opinions, or ten opinions, and cannot get together, and, therefore, we will wash our hands of the whole thing, and whatever parliament says we will do". If that is the attitude, then we are going to have shilly shallying. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) pounds his desk in applause at the assertion that the Government has no opinion on the question. What are we coming to in this country?


Ernest Lapointe: No more autocracy.


Arthur Meighen: There is just as much reason in everything they do as there is in their action in regard to oleomargarine. Why did we not have the Government
OleoTnargarine

coining to Parliament and saying "We dc not know what to do about the tariff, we have no opinion on that". Really they had not any, but they thought they had, and they came here with two or three tariffs. They should have said "We have no opinion on that, so we will just throw the whole thing into the air and everybody can say what he likes and vote as he likes, and after it is done we will act as clerks and put it into the act". That is the administration we have-afraid to face its responsibilities or to discharge them, and the country suffers in consequence, and is going to suffer in future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's argument would be for the abolition of Parliament, and for the establishment of autocracy.


Arthur Meighen: No. The function of
Parliament is to pass on the Government's proposals, after the Government makes them, and the duty of the Government is to come to Parliament with its proposals upon which it can unite. If it cannot unite, then it is for those who cannot come to a conclusion to leave the Government. The function of. the Government is to come to Parliament with definite proposals on public questions, submit them to Parliament, and ask for its judgment upon them. That has been the practice in the world, and in this country, until we had the present phantom of a government in office.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman,
the committee must not take my right hon. friend too seriously. He is just having one or more of his political catfits. The policy of the Government is embodied in this bill and in this resolution. A mandate was given by this House, and I am coming here with this bill obeying the mandate. What other course could I take' Absolutely, no other course. It does not matter whether I believe it or not. I am obeying in a democratic way the mandate of this House. A vote was taken in the House where 95 members did not express themselves; it was on a Monday, when a large i.umber of members were away. There are limitations to that mandate, and we have put limitations in this resolution by putting it in force for only one year. Even my hon. friend should be able to see that and, what is more, I am satisfied that if we had a reasonably full House, or if the vote were taken on any other day than Friday or Monday, there would be a different result.


An hon. MEMBER:: Can you prove that?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I cannot prove that. That is another reason why there is a limitation in the bill, and what is more, this is a new kind of House. There are 133 new members here, more than half the House. We had some general knowledge of oleomargarine, but we had not discussed it as we discussed it here. We had not taken the responsibility of action that we did here. We did it in a hurry. We had not more than five months to consider the question. We are simply doing now what my hon. friends did last year, after a longer time to consider, and extending it for one more year. It has been done before, but done without these 133 new members expessing their views. They have a right to give the matter consideration, just as did the Parliament that preceded this. It considered it two or three times, and more. Now they want to rush 133 new members into a decision in five months.


Arthur Meighen: Pretty quick.


William Richard Motherwell: We refuse to be rushed. It is too important a question. Furthermore, the dairying interests are becoming more extensive and more important every day in this country, and as long as the charge of those interests reposes in my hands, I am going to protect those interests. I am going to defend them. I believe those interests are jeopardized by the suspension of that law that was in existence in this country for a quarter of a century. On the other hand in order to give hon. members of this House an opportunity to express their views, we are bringing this bill down to-day in good faith, restricting importation to one year, which was the restriction imposed by Parliament last year.


Arthur Meighen: I hardly know at what end of the tangled scheme to begin, to bring some gleam of light from the conglomeration of adjectives and nonsense to which the hon. minister has just given vent. The minister, among his other defects as a public man, cannot apparently distinguish between impertinence and argument. To describe his course on this subject or any other is really some task. To picture the grotesque position he is in, particularly in his own constituency and throughout western Canada, would really demand some powers of invective as well as a command of adjectives. I do not think I should attempt the task. Sometimes the claims of mercy are really stronger than the demands of justice.

Oleomargarine


Jacques Bureau: You ignore those claims very often.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think that this is a case for mercy?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the Minister of Agriculture trying to say to Parliament to-night? He says: We are carrying out here the mandate of Parliament, but the reason that Parliament mandated us to do this was that Parliament was not here, and if Parliament had all been here, they would have mandated us to do the opposite. One only needs to state that to expose it. Nobody except the Minister of Agriculture can utter such a fallacy with a straight face in Parliament.
Then he says: We have another reason. We are doing this because there is nothing else for us to do after that vote. Why, of course, but why did he not come down to Parliament with his policy before the vote? Why did he not follow the course that governments worthy of the name always follow? That is what I ask. Then he says: I won't make this legislation permanent. Why? Because these suspensions are damaging to the dairying industry of Canada, and as long as I am here, I am going to protect that industry. Really, I was sorry for the minister that he could not think of a better word than "protect." He usually manages to avoid that, but it slipped from his lips to-night. I am going to protect that industry, he says, and this suspension is damaging to the industry. Here we have the sponsor of the legislation saying: The bill I am bringing down here is damaging to the interests I am going to protect. That is the position he is in, but it is not anything more ignominious than the position he is in with respect to every other question of consequence that has come before this Parliament.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. member who represents the constituency of Leeds, which is one of the best dairying counties in the Dominion, favour a permanent oleomargarine measure?


Arthur Meighen: I would favour the Government declaring its course. I declared my opinion on this when we brought in our legislation, and I declared it in a constitutional way. I came to Parliament with the Government's proposal and asked the judgment of Parliament upon it. By my opinion then I stand now.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the Government would have been well advised in this matter if they had brought in a bill that would have been permanent in its character. This question has been up before this and preceding parliaments on successive occasions, and the judgment of Parliament always was that the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine under proper restrictions and regulations as to the purity of the product in its food value should be permitted. There is no doubt that if this Parliament is sitting again next session, the Government will be obliged to bring down a further measure providing for the importation and manufacture of this article. Oleomargarine is a healthful and good food, and as such public opinion throughout the country is steadily developing in favour of it. I think the Government would have been well advised if they had made their measure permanent, instead of for a year. I do not hold quite the same view that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition does in his criticism of the Government for failing to accept full responsibility and bring down its measure. I think the position taken by the Government in asking the judgment of the House on this question, as it did a few weeks ago, was a fair and a very defensible position. If that were done a little more frequently in Parliament-


Arthur Meighen: We would get into this mess more frequently, would we not?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I do not think so at all. I think we would have better results. My criticism of the Government in this case is that once the judgment of Parliament was taken they did not implement that judgment to the full, and make this measure permanent.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not just because they did not come to a judgment on it before?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not necessarily so at all. There is nothing wrong, in fact, the Government is to be commended a great deal for seeking the opinion of Parliament on measures that come before it.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, but the
measure must come before Parliament. They asked the opinion of Parliament before the measure was brought down.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is all very well, but if the view of my hon. friend is held to the letter, it simply means that a dozen gentle-
Oleomargarine

men composing the Government of this country will decide in Cabinet Council what is good for the country, and then come to Parliament and say; you must take this or turn us out.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Toryism.


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend says that is right. That certainly is the essence of Toryism.


Arthur Meighen: It is the essence of Gladstonian Liberalism, too.


Ernest Lapointe: Never; Gladstone consulted Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: After he brought in his measure.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When my hon. friends have completed their exchange across the floor, I shall be glad to resume. I say that that is the spirit of Toryism in the real sense of the word. Now in matters of government the world is advancing. I sometimes think that one of the great defects of my right hon. friend is that he does not realize that the world is advancing.


Arthur Meighen: I am living in Canada where we have a Government that does not advance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now, I submit that it is a perfectly proper thing for the Government to seek the judgment of Parliament. If a government-let me repeat- in Cabinet Council relying on its own judgment-no matter how good that judgment may be-decides on a measure that it thinks is for the good of the country and comes to Parliament and says, " You must put this measure through or we will have a general election," I certainly cannot endorse that doctrine in the manner in which my right hon. friend does.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend
says he did not say that. But if the Government to-day , in power follows that method, if it brings down a measure and says to Parliament, " This measure must go through as we present it to you," what position does it put the members of this House in, or what position does it put its own supporters in?


Arthur Meighen: Just where they ought to be.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend
says, " Just the position they ought to be in." Then there is only one conclusion I can come to and that is that then the need of having 235 representatives in this Parliament disappears. We had better send them all home, elect an executive of twelve or fifteen members, and say to them, " You run this country's business just as you think fit."


Ernest Lapointe: He is a middle-aged reactionary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure that my right hon. friend when he reflects on this will see that there is nothing improper in the opinion of Parliament being secured on a question of this kind. What is the purpose for which we are sent here? We are sent here as representatives of the people, to consider legislation as a Parliament and not to engage mainly in party combats across the floor of the Chamber- often to the detriment of the country. And, Sir, I think this: That if on questions of this kind-let me repeat again- the opinion of Parliament was secured and legislation brought down expressing that opinion it would be a great deal better for this country.


George Arthur Brethen: I would just like to say that I agree with this resolution as brought down by the Minister of Agriculture and for this reason: In talking with many members of the House I find that there is the desire that this oleomargarine business be restricted in some way, and as this measure is brought in at this time without any arrangement whereby that restriction can be effected, I think it is quite proper that the matter shall go over for a year, and in the meantime that we take the opportunity to consider the question carefully.


Arthur Meighen: I just wish to say a word or two as to the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). The subject that he brings up is wel! worth discussing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I agree with you.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt at all that his mind leans in the direction that he has expressed here. He must remember, however, that this subject has been discussed by the highest authorities in political economy and government the world over, and I do not think he will find any authority on British history and British constitutional government, who

Oleomargarine
will ratify the idea that he seeks to convey tonight, or say that it is practicable under our system of government.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Can my hon. friend give me any writer, or any authority, that ha? dealt with the question of cabinet solidarity in a House constituted as this House is with the government in the minority?


Arthur Meighen: No. Most governments in a minority are not governments at all; we have very much that spectacle here.


Robert Alexander Hoey: They have to be in this case.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that they have to be. If a government is in a minority, or feels that it is in a minority and has not the confidence of the House, it is the business of that government to resign. Then it is the business of the Governor General or the King, as the case may be, to call upon that one next entitled to be called to see if a new government can be formed. If we do not pursue that course here, we depart from a principle without which we cannot obtain constitutional government at all.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Who would His Excellency call on in this case?


Arthur Meighen: It is not my part to suggest that. I wish to keep within my own functions, and I would like the government to keep within theirs and not run away.


Jacques Bureau: Would you like to suggest an election?


Arthur Meighen: The Government is virtually standing up and asserting "We are so helpless, we are so powerless, that we ask that the ordinary constitutional principles be abandoned. We ask that we be mere clerks of the House of Commons; we ask that we do not have the responsibilities of government at all; we ask that we be allowed to sit here and ask Parliament, by a vote, to decide what we ought to do as a government. We will be good enough to take that down, and we will be good enough to carry it out and draw $10,000 a year each to do it." You cannot carry on government that way and no one knows it better than the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) ; you cannot maintain the authority of government throughout the country that way. Parliament has its functions of course. Has the British parliament for the last five centuries had no functions? Has it none to-day? It is merely an automaton? The minister knows better. Parliament's function comes after the government has declared its course on matters of government policy. Parliament has ito functions to review this. It may not be that on matters of no great consequence hon. members will feel that they do their duty by adhering to the government plan as brought down, although they may differ from it in detail and though they may consider it a matter of no great consequence, and may think it would be better to support it rather than to vote the other way. It may be that will result; that has always resulted; that has in no way been a weak feature of the British constitution; but it will be a disastrous thing if governments are to be relieved of responsibility for coming forward with definite principles as to government policy, submitting those principles to parliament for parliament's approval or disapproval, and taking the constitutional consequences of their own action. If the hon. member Mr. Crerar) looks with sympathy, or looks with leniency, upon the present course then he just absolves the government from all constitutional consequences and he will get just the kind of government that that action merits. Does he not want to keep responsible government? Surely responsible government is something that is worth preserving.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not propose to take up the time of the House. The discussion is really out of order, but it deals with a fundamental question. My right hon. friend has made his appeal to political economy, constitutional history and constitutional law. I do not think that political economy has anything to do with the matter but I would say this: The whole evolution of constitutional government has been that it is gradually subjecting the executive to the will of Parliament and there is an effort to make Parliament more and more an expression of the will of the people. I contend that is exactly what we are attempting to do to-day and if it means further evolution in giving expression to the constitutional rights of the people we will continue to do all that we can to develop that evolution.


Arthur Meighen: I will not let the Prime Minister put me in the position of saying that a government is not answerable or subject to the will of parliament. Undoubtedly it is subject to the will of parliament expressed at the proper time.
Ole omar garble


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How do you know the will of parliament if you do not listen to it?


Arthur Meighen: After the government has brought down its proposals to Parliament it can listen to the will of Parliament. Governments run in a constitutional manner have always done that.
1 a.m. I would like the Prime Minister to give me an instance in British constitutional history where any government on a matter of governmental policy-fails to come to parliament with its proposals but instead comes and says "We ask you to discuss it and tell us what to do" and then submits its proposals to parliament. I do not think he will get an instance of that ever being done. How can it be done? If it is you will get just what we are getting now: A minister rising in his place and sponsoring a measure with which he has declared himself to be not in sympathy, and which he declares to be damaging to interests that he is bound to protect. Surely that is not in the interest of constitutional government. It cannot proceed, and I want to warn the Government that it cannot proceed. The spirit of the country will not permit it to proced. Certainly the government is subject to the will of Parliament, but the will of Parliament is expressed after the government performs its constitutional function.


William Richard Motherwell: It was not the Government or any member of the Government that brought this matter before the House in the first instance; it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), a member of the Progressive party, and I supported it just as heartily and as strongly as I knew how. The whips were off; the vote was a "free-for-all", and everybody took his course. We are now carrying out the wish of this Parliament as expressed by that vote; there is no other course to take. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is expressing anxiety about my so-called lamentable condition in changing my attitude. The only offence I have committed that I know of, that is unpardonable, is that I was found on the same platform with my right hon. friend on the matter of the Wheat Board.


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that.


William Richard Motherwell: I was charged with a grievous offence, and I think the term "voluntary wheat board" will be an offensive term for many a year because of

my hon. friend's advocacy of it, spoiling it for anybody else to carry out such a proposition. There is only one thing to do. I may say further, with regard to the question why we did not bring down a permanent bill, that every member of the Government has been as busy as nails during the past five months, and we have not had time to bring down a proper oleomargarine bill. We are just extending the period provided for by the old bill. If there is to be permanent legislation, I want first of all to acquaint myself with a proper analysis of oleomargarine as we have it in this country. We have had before this House evidence indicating that it was more nutritious and also evidence indicating that it was less nutritious than butter. I want to know which is the fact and other conditions in connection with oleomargarine before a permanent bill is brought down if that is found to be desirable. I want time during the recess to find out if it is desirable to bring down a bill, and, in that event, to know exactly what I am doing. That I could not know at the short time at my disposal. Hence, I bring down this rotten old bill that my hon. friends have passed on three or four occasions.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I am glad that I am in no way responsible for the present situation. For a minister to get up and advocate the adoption of a measure when he knows it is a rotten old bill, I can only attribute that to the effect of this nut oil that has been coming into this country during the past two years to be mixed up with this stuff. Undoubtedly we have a peculiar situation in this country at the present time, and it must be due to some influence that we have had in years gone by. Only a few minutes ago we were putting through budget resolutions exempting materials which are imported from the United States for the manufacture of this article. These things are exempted from any tax, and practically all things that go into this article come from the United States. This is my chief objection. Personally, I am not opposed to the importation or the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country, and I never have been. I have always made that quite clear; but I want that to be put on the same basis as that on which other commodities are placed. It is quite true that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), after a good deal of pressure and urging has been brought to bear upon him, has consented to exempt dairying products in the form

Oleomargarine
of condensed milk and cream and powdered milk from the effect of the sales tax. Why should this oleomargarine and all the ingredients that are imported from the United States be permitted to come into this country free from duty and free from a sales tax? It may he somewhat interesting in view of the tariff which has been enacted against our exports into the United States to know that practically all the ingredients that go into this stuff come from the United States. I know that some hon. member will say that this affords a splendid market for our oleo oil and things of that kind. The percentage of Canadian oleo oil has never yet been given in this House; but I will point out the quantity that was imported from the United States during eleven months of the past year.
Pounds
Lard, compound	 335,161
Oleo oil	 1,731,005
Cottonseed oil	 348,583
Cocoanut oil	  219,132
This is where the troublesome feature of the disturbing element comes from today:
Pounds
Peanut oil	 125.889
Butter oil	 823,558
'Salt	 279,634
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) consents to imposing a duty of 71 cents per hundred pounds on importations of the salt, that the dairyman uses in this country. Yet this article was exempted from taxation and last year 279,634 pounds of salt were imported free of duty. This makes a total of 3,862,962 pounds. It is true a duty was collected on these articles when they came in, but 99 per cent of it was rebated. Last year, as the minister himself so eloquently put the matter at the meeting of the Livestock Association at Toronto, the Canadian dairy cow could not compete with the packing company. Last year two of these packing companies, on the ingredients upon which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) refuses to impose a sales tax, received a rebate in the customs duty of $180,944 that should have gone into the Canadian treasury. I would ask the minister if he considers this is fair treatment to a legitimate and old-established industry in this country. Dairying has been carrying on under great difficulties, and at no other time has it been carried on under greater difficulties than exist to-day. Yet all these favours are being shown to these substitutes for butter, and we find even under those conditions,
during the past year, there was imported into this country from Great Britain 2,036,471 pounds of butter. This all came in free of any sales tax. From the United States, we imported 1,332,210 pounds of butter without any sales tax imposed on it. The United States have put up an absolutely prohibitive tariff against our dairy products going into that country. I wonder why an industry such as the dairying industry should be selected to be compelled to compete in this way under this unfair treatment which is being meted out by the Government. I fail to understand why this should be the case in view of the complaints that are being received from every part of the country that we cannot keep on the farm the boys or the people who have been brought up in the rural districts. Is it any wonder that that should be the case, when you find that the industry in which they are engaged is singled out in this way and receives such scant consideration at the hands of the Government?


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. gentleman know any mode by which we can, prevent the recurrence of an annual debate on this question?


Donald Sutherland: Yes, it could easily be prevented if the Government had backbone and courage enough to take a stand and either make the law permanent or abolish it entirely.


Harold Putnam: Do you stake your word as a responsible man that that would necessarily do away with an annual discussion, on this question?


Donald Sutherland: An annual discussion will be inevitable so long as the conditions to which I have referred exist. This Parliament is responsible for the exemptions I have mentioned. All the ingredients that go into the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada are exempt from inland) revenue tax and the sales tax, which are imposed on all other articles. In addition to that they are free from customs duties.


Harold Putnam: What does the hon.. gentleman propose as a means of obviating this annual discussion?


Donald Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman wants to have a discussion on the question at any session there is nothing to prevent him.


Harold Putnam: Well, that is my point. What are you wasting time for, then?
Oleomargarine


Donald Sutherland: I am registering my protest as a free citizen. I represent people engaged in a legitimate industry who are being subjected by the Government to a most contemptible and unfair competition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Harold Putnam: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member, but-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marti!) :: Order. The hon. metnber may not interrupt the member who has the floor.


Jacques Bureau: Put your question later. The hon. gentleman will cool off in the interval.


Harold Putnam: The hon. member complained that this was a shilly-shally policy and that the discussion would be provoked again one year hence. I want to find out from him if he has any proposal by which we can prevent an annual discussion on the subject, on which the opinion of the country is sharply divided.
Mr. [SUTHERLAND:	The discussion
could very well be avoided if this industry were put on a reasonable footing.


Jacques Bureau: Oleo has no feet.


Donald Sutherland: Hon. members
may try to be funny, but this is a serious subject. This industry ought to be made subject to the same taxes that other industries, legitimate and native have to pay. But do not single it out and give it a preference over a natural industry, as las been done in the past.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. member think that an annual discussion of this question would he avoided if we had a unanimous opinion in the House on the subject?


Donald Sutherland: There is no need for the hon. member to ask that question. If he wants a discussion at any time he can have it.


Harold Putnam: Do you think your side would be unanimous?


Donald Sutherland: Let me state
some of the things that are exempt from the sales tax.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Sutherland: Hon. gentlemen
say that the Government are anxious to get revenue. Yet, in the face of that, we find this condition existing in the past

year: There was imported last year into this country the following materials: Butter, 3,741,000 pounds; lard, 11,493,000 pounds; lard compounds, 3,245,000 pounds; oleomargarine, 4,630,000 pounds; grease in the rough, 1,431,000 pounds; oleo raw material, free of duty, 3,668,000 pounds, or a total of some 41,102,000 pounds of these articles which were brought in free of sales tax and most of them free of customs tariff. These are the things that I object to, and so long as such a state of things exist you may rest assured that this question will come before Parliament. Apparently the Government is ashamed of the measure.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no; we are not a bit ashamed.


Donald Sutherland: I hear some one say, " Oh, no." No member of the Government can inform us what constitutes oleomargarine and yet they tell us it is wholesome. How do they know it is?


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know it is not?


Donald Sutherland: Not a member of the Government can tell us what this stuff is made of, but they say it is wholesome.


Jacques Bureau: We eat it.


Donald Sutherland: One thing is certain, and that is that it has kept down the price of butter. Hon. gentlemen say it is to help the poor. Yes; the poor may use some of it inadvertently, but it will do them more injury than good. We have a Minister of Health in this country. Why does he not analyse this commodity and let us know whether it is really wholesome? Now, I am not going to take up more time, as the hour is late, but just so long as this unfair competition prevails, so long will I oppose this legislation. I would advise the Government if they want to establish the industry permanently to put it on a fair basis in comparison with other legitimate industries. Let them remove the preference which it has over the old established industry. Do not attempt, as the Minister of Agriculture stated in Toronto at a live stock meeting, to make the dairy cow compete with the packing companies; and that is what you are doing when you permit all this material to come in at a preference over everything else.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Lake of the Woods
Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 194 to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall this bill
be read the second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Donald Sutherland: Before the bill
is read the second time the House ought to have an opportunity of studying its contents. I really think the second reading should be deferred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill is an exact replica of the resolution, but if the hon. member feels that time should be given for its perusal, the Government will not press the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Donald Sutherland: The matter is an important one and should not be disposed of lightly. It is much more objectionable than formerly.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the
House.


LAKE OF THE WOODS REGULATION ACT, 1921
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) Bill No. 141 to repeal the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921, was read the third time.
Hewitt Bostock: Shall the bill now pass and the title be as on the Order Paper?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. I am opposed to this measure as I stated when the bill was up for second reading; I am opposed to it still and-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was read a third time. You were asking if it should pass and the title be as on the Order Paper when the right hon. gentleman spoke.


Arthur Meighen: I challenge a division upon this motion. I intended to oppose the third reading.


Samuel William Jacobs: I	was paired with the
hon. member for	Centre Toronto, (Mr. Bristol). Had I voted, I would have voted	
for the motion.


Charles Gavan Power: I	was paired with the
hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mew-burn). Had I voted, I would have voted	
for the motion.	
Lake of the Woods


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McKILLOP:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Clifford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ETHIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STANSELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Blackad-der). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 23, 1922