[Stage Direction]
On Motions being called:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: May I be permitted to supplement the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister on Saturday regarding legislation yet to be submitted. It has been customary to take a borrowing power by a clause in the Appropriation Act which comes in at the last stage of the session. In view, however, of the large amount of maturing loans, I think it is better we should have a special loan bill, and a bill for that purpose confined entirely to the meeting of the obligations maturing will be introduced.



CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 175 respecting The Canadian Red Cross Society.
He said: This bill merely provides for the consolidation of two or three former acts passed by Parliament to establish a peace-time agency of the Red Cross Society in Canada, together with some amendments to those acts with a view to conforming with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 153 (from the Senate), respecting Notices of Cancellation of Leases of Dominion Lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva Florence Heavens.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dorothy Lillian Jewitt.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Mae Larivey.-Mr. Ryck-man.
Bill No. 158 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Caroline Hilton.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 159 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva McRae.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Warren Garfield Young.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Benjamin Charles Bowman.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ivy Elsie Myron-Smith.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian May Maybee.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of Phoebe Levina Simpson.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 165 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Preece.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 166 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Greenhill.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 167 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hazel May Dillon.-Mr. Mc-Quarrie.
Bill No. 168 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Arthur Parish.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Hayden.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha Plant.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 171 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Murray Johnston.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Leonard Armstrong.- Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 174 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry Hardy Leigh.-Mr. Mc-Murray.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 154 (from the Senate), to incorporate National Casualty Company.- Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 172 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Percival Allen.-Mr. Porter.

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

Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Has the Canadian Government contributed towards the purchase of the submarine cable running from Ireland to Halifax, which is
Questions

stated was acquired by the British Government about a year ago?
2.	If not, has the Canadian Government under consideration the subiect of supplying in conjunction with the British Government, a British 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. MACKENZIE KING:: Stand.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The question has
been standing since May 29. May I ask if it will be possible to have an answer at an early date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I will give my hon. friend an answer to this question to-morrow.


EX-SERVICE MEN
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	How many ex-service men emigrated from Britain to Canada last year?
2.	How many were deported?
3.	How many received relief through the D.S.C.R.?
4.	How many received relief through Government on 50 per cent basis w*th provincial and municipal governments?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	This information is not available as all immigrants are not examined as to whether they have performed military service.
2.	Information not available. The total number of deports can be given, but the records of the Department are not tabulated in such a way as to show how many of the deports have performed military service with the Imperial Forces.
3.	10,452 ex-members of the forces were granted unemployment relief by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment during the fiscal year April 1st, 1921, to March 31st, 1922.
4.	No information.


NICKEL COIN BLANKS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	To whom have contracts been awarded for supply of nickel coin blanks to Ottawa Mint?
2.	What quantities have been purchased, and at what price.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The Mond Nickel Company, Limited, Coniston, Ontario.
2.	50,000 pounds at 82 cents per pound, free delivery at the Mint, duty and sales tax paid.


BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL SERVICE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What annual subsidy is paid by the Post Office Department and the Department of Trade and Commerce to the British Columbia Coastal Service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the service between (a) Victoria and Vancouver, (b) Victoria and the Gulf Islands, and (c) Victoria and the West Coast of Vancouver Island?
2.	What services are rendered in each case for such subsidies?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Subsidy paid to Canadian Pacific Railway Company for mail service between:
(a)	Victoria-Vancouver, $20,000 per annum; (b) Victoria-Gulf Islands, $10,000 per annum; (c) Victoria-West Coast of Vancouver Island, $15,000 per annum.
2.	(a) Victoria-Vancouver, twice daily each way; (b) Victoria-Gulf Islands, four times per week in summer and three times per week in winter, (c) Victoria-West Coast of Vancouver Islands, three times per month each way.


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	How many new rural mail routes have been established since December 1st, last?
2.	How many rural mail routes have been extended during the above period?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	(a) Number of new routes established under instructions of late gover-ment-9.	(b) Number of new routes established under instructions of present Government-none.
2.	38.


GOVERNMENT TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many Government Terminal Elevators are there in Canada and where are they located?
2.	What was the cost of each of said elevators?
3.	Are the erection of any more being considered by the Government?
4.	Have there been any requests for a terminal elevator for the central and western part of Ontario?
5.	If so, (a) who requested same, and (b) will the Government give the matter consideration.
6.	What report has the Grain Commission made on the matter of this proposed elevator?

Questions


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Five, at Port Arthur, Saskatoon, Moose-jaw, Calgary, and Vancouver, respectively.
2.	Capital cost to January 31, 1922: Port Arthur, $1,411,545.47; Saskatoon ,$1,-134,745.73; Moosejaw, $1,322,720.71; Calgary, $834,564.35; Vancouver, 783,264.39.
3.	Not in the immediate future.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Representatives of the Toronto Harbour Commission, the Grain Section of the Toronto Board of Trade, United Farmers' Co-operative Co. Ltd., United Farmers of Ontario, the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, and many Ontario farmers, (b) The Government has given the matter careful consideration.
6.	Unfavourable.


CONNAUGHT RIFLE RANGE
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	Has the Connaught Rifle Range been leased for pasturage or grazing purposes?
2.	If so, to what party or parties has the said rifle range been leased?
3.	What are the terms of said leases and for how long do they run?
4.	Who is in charge of the said rifle range at the present time?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Grazing privileges only have been granted.
2.	The Department of Agriculture for Dominion Central Experimental Farm.
3.	The privilege is for the term of 5 years from May 1, 1920, and the terms are as follows:
(a)	The ranges to be cleared of stock for as long as required for shooting purposes, upon 24 hours' notice in writing from the Department of Militia and Defence.
(b)	Any damages due to their occupation will be chargeable to the Department of Agriculture.
(c)	The rights of existing shore leases to be respected.
(d)	The present caretaker will exercise general supervision over the range, subject to the officers of this department.
4.	Caretaker-Mr. J. A. Holbrook.


RETURNED SOLDIER HIKERS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Were the returned soldiers who hiked to Ottawa given return transportation to Toronto by the Government?
2.	If so. (a) at what cost to the public, and (b) by what authority?
3.	By what railway?
4.	(a) Were they transported by the Canadian National, (b) if not, why?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 247 men at $5.76 each, $1,422.72; (b) by the authority of the Minister of Labour.
3.	Canadian Pacific Railway.
4.	(a) No; (b) 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 earlier 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.


DOMINION NOTES
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	During each of the last ten fiscal years, what rate of interest has been charged, and What amount of interest has been collected from banks on excess circulation of notes issued under S/iS 16. Section 61, Chapter 9, of the Bank Act?
2.	During each fiscal year since August, 1914, what rate of interest has been charged, and what amount of interest has been collected from banks on excess circulation of notes issued under S/S 16, Section 61, Chapter 9, of the Bank Act?
3.	What amount of Dominion notes was advanced to banks during each fiscal year since August, 1914, and what rate of interest was charged thereon, and what amount of interest was collected under S/S A, Section 4, Chapter 3, of the Finance Act, 1914?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1. Rate of interest, 5 per cent per annum.
Amount of interest
Year	Amount
1912-13			$45,479.21
1913-14			 16,485.69
1914-15			 27,023.19
1915-16			 27,846.25
1916-17			 26,633.78
1917-18			 64,823.19
1918-19			 46,392.97
1919-20			 37,705.89
1920-21 			 48,726.88
1921-22 			 34,958.87

Questions

2. Rate of interest, 5 per cent per annum. Amount of interest
Year	Amount
1914-15			$ 4,109.04
1915-16			 12,439.40
1916-17			 31,467.25
1917-18			 50,397.76
1918-19			 35,319.35
1919-20 			 28,189.96
1920-21 			 88,986.29
1921-22 			 Nil
3.
Fiscal year ended Mar. 31	Amount advanced	Amount repaid	Interest1915	$ 14,439,767 55 3,585,000 00 18.356.000	00 90.565.000	00 121.650.000	00 211.990.000	00 253,115,535 75 313,080,248 00	$ 9,047,267 55 7,906,265 00 9,227,235 00 74.100.000	00 69.887.000	0.0 182,851,275 00 276,349,085 75 350,470,360 01	S 211,551 97 62,722 49 105,458 12 754,792 01 2,395,643 02 3,322,952 78 3,568,106 74 2,401,290 641916	1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	
Rate of interest: 5 per cent per annum, with the exception of advances secured by the deposit of Imperial Treasury bills issued to banks as security for loans utilized to purchase Canadian wheat and munitions, upon which the rate of interest was 31 per cent per annum.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: According to a statement on Hansard of last year, the amount of Dominion government notes issued for circulation was, at February 28, 1921, $290,194,519.92.
1.	For what reason was this amount of Dominion notes issued for circulation?
2.	For what purpose?
3.	What security was taken?
4.	Does the Government receive interest?


William Stevens Fielding: 1, 2 and 3. On Dominion notes outstanding at February 28, 1921, $127,079,444.92 were issued against gold under the provisions of the Dominion Notes Act, 1914. Of the balance, namely, $163,115,075, $26,000,000 were issued under chapter 4-5, Geo. V, with security as provided therein; $50,000,000 were issued as advances to the Imperial government for the purpose of assisting in financing its war purchases of Canadian produce, munitions, etc., and were secured by the deposit of Dominion of Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa sterling bonds, and Canadian Pacific Railway debenture stock; and $87,115,075 were issued to banks as advances under the Finance Act, 1914, and secured by the deposit of securities approved by the Treasury Board, including Dominion of Canada bonds and treasury bills, bonds

of the provinces of Canada and Canadian municipalities, British Government treasury bills, Canadian Northern Railway Company notes, certain industrial bonds and stocks, assignments of grain and produce and demand notes of commercial houses endorsed by the banks to the order of the Minister of Finance.
4. Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: On the amount of $290,194,519.92 Dominion Government notes issued for circulation under Orders in Council (confirmed by chapters 4 and 5, George V), ten millions of this amount was put in circulation.
1.	Is this amount still in circulation?
2.	If not, how and when was it withdrawn, and why?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: 1.	What amount of Dominion Government notes has been accepted from the chartered banks in lieu of gold for deposit in the central gold reserve during period 1911-1921 inclusive?
2.	How do the banks become owners of this sum of Dominion notes?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1. Dominion notes in central gold reserves as at December 31:
1911		
1912		
1913			$ 6,400,000
1914			 5,200,000
1915			 11,150,000
1916		
1917			 77,590,000
1918			 122,400,000
1919			 115,300,000
1920			 101,850,000
1921			 57,950,000
2. By the deposit of gold with the Receiver-General or the deposit of securities approved by the Treasury Board, under the provisions of the Dominion Notes and Finance Acts.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- SECURITIES
Edward Joseph Garland: What security was taken for the $10,000,000 loaned or advanced to the Canadian National Railway Company and for the payment advanced to the Grand Trunk Railway (loans confirmed by chapters 4 and 5, George V) ?
1.	Does the Government receive interest on both of these loans?
2.	If so, on what dates was such interest paid, and in what amounts?

Questions


William Stevens Fielding: 
GOLD RESERVE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: 1.	What is the actual amount of gold now in the central gold reserve?
2.	What was the actual amount of gold in the central gold reserve in each yeai from 191119 21 inclusive?
3.	What is the amount of go'.a held by the Dominion Government, and for what purpose?
4.	What amount of Dominion Government notes are in circulation?
5.	What amount of Dominion Government notes were in circulation each year from 1911 to 1921 inclusive?
6.	What is the amount of gold held in reserve by the Dominion Government as security for the Dominion Government notes in circulation?
7.	What was the amount of gold held in reserve by the Dominion Government during each year from 1911-1921 inclusive?
8.	What amount of subsidiary coin, not gold, ish held by the banks, trust componies, etc?
9.	What part of this gold and subsidiary coin is now in Canada and what part elsewhere?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$9,502,533 as at May 31, 1922.
2.	As at December 31;
1911	Nil
1912	Nil
1913		$ 1,197,066
1914		 4,500,000
1915		 6,210,000
1916		 11,960,000
1917		 19,680,000
1918		 8,500,000
1919		 10,500,000
1920		 11,502,533
1921		 10,502,533
3.	$86,685,441.23 as at May 31, 1922; $3,396,356.83 on account of savings bank deposits and $83,289,084.40 for redemption of Dominion notes.
4.	$221,894,062.67 as at May 31, 1922.
5.	As at April 1,
1911		$ 89,994,270.25
1912		 113,443,633.40
1913		 112,101,885.65
1914		 117,795,638.53
1915		 157,056,118.91
202J
1916		. 177,943,131.54
1917		. 183,248,986.79
1918		. 250,798,860.92
1919		. 298,058,697.67
1920 		. 311,932,791.92
1921		. 277,882,884.92
Answered by No. As at April 1,	3.
1911		.$ 74,159,771.40
1912		. 98,892,395.14
1913		. 98,507,112.81
1914		. 101,161,366.18
1915		. 94,644,423.44
1916		. 120,931,622.98
1917		. 118,561,338.50
1918		. 119,941,748.92
1919		. 121,141,122.07
1920 		. 104,399,455.48
1921		. 83,381,036.53
8 and 9. No information.


BANK NOTES
Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River):
1.	What was the greatest or aggregate amount of bank notes in circulation during the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 1921?
2.	What is the amount on deposit in savings banks, chartered banks, trust companies?
3.	What part of this amount is money?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Greatest amount of bank notes in circulation:
1st quarter, 1921.. ..$229,608,213 2nd	"	"	..	..	216,262,9073rd	"	"	..	..	203,134,7774th	"	"	..	..	202,697,4862.	Amount of deposits in chartered banks, Dominion Government and Post Office savings banks as at April 30, 1922; $2,091,129,494. No current record of deposits in trust companies. (Vide Canada Year Book).3.	Deposits made by cheques, notes or coin are deemed to be money.


ADDITIONAL CURRENCY ISSUE
Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River):
1.	What part, if any, of the additional issue of currency provided for under subsection 14, section 61, of the Bank Act was put in circulation and when?
2.	Is this amount still in circulation?
3.	For what purpose was it issued and what was the issue of this amount passed upon?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1. The extent to which the various banks have availed themselves of the provision of subsection 14, section 61 of the Bank Act, is indicated by the returns of chartered banks, published monthly as a supplementary to the Canada Gazette.

Immigra tion-Criminal Code
2.	At this date the provision is not effective.
3.	Presumably to meet demands arising from increased business in the crop-moving season. The second part of the question is not understood.


ROYAL, CANADIAN NAVY-TRAVELLING EXPENSES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the Government pay the travelling expenses home of those members of the Royal Canadian Navy at Halifax and other places, such as the members oif the crew of H.M.C.S. Aurora, and also of the cadets of the Naval College in view of their discharge?
2.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The question of
demobilization is being fully considered by the Government.


CANADIAN PATRIOTIC FUND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
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 and that the result of the cessation of any part of such work would throw upon the public authorities additional 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 required from time to time to enable the said Canadian Patriotic Fund to continue its works, such sums not to exceed $900,000.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called to the following statement made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) on Saturday, as reported on page 3211 of unrevised Hansard of the 17th:
M. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winni-, peg) : When may we expect a report from the special committee appointed to deal with amendments to the Immigration Act and the Criminal Code? These bills were introduced at the very beginning of the session, and we have not yet had any report.

The query was made on Saturday, and although I was in the House that day I was not in the Chamber when these remarks were made at the opening of the sitting. The hon. member was undoubtedly within his right in asking the question, but as chairman of that special committee I feel, on behalf of the members of the committee, that it is my duty to correct certain misleading remarks made by the hon. gentleman. While it is true that these bills were introduced at the beginning of the session, it is also true that the committee was finally appopinted only on the eleventh of May. The next day, the twelfth, we had our first sitting. So many members of that special committee were also members of other important standing special committees, especially the Transportation Committee and the Agricultural Committee, that in order to secure attendance we had first to make a motion to reduce the quorum, and then we had to make a motion to provide that the committee should sit while the House was in session. We had numerous sittings at which practically the whole immigration law and sections of the Criminal Code regarding sedition were thoroughly studied, and when my hon. friend says that no report has yet been made, he makes a misleading statement. If my hon. friend had been in the House last Friday, or if he had taken the trouble to read the Votes and Proceedings of that day, he would have seen that we had made a final report on Bill No. 16. We have already made three reports on both bills and on that day I myself made the final report on the Immigration Bill. The Assistant Clerk read it, and the report was tabled. I only wanted to make this correction in the hope that in the fuure my hon. friend will refrain from making such premature and uncalled for statements, and will possess his soul in patience in the meanwhile.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct
the attention of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) and of the House to an article which appears in the morning papers of Ottawa and Montreal. I quote from the Ottawa Morning Journal:
G.W.V.A. appeal for an inquiry is recommended.

Limitation of Armaments
This is the heading of the article. The part to which I wish particularly to direct the attention of the minister is as follows:
The decision to recommend the appointment of a commission followed two executive meetings of the committee, and a public session at which Colonel J. T. C. Thompson, chairman of the pension hoard, and Mr. MaeNeil stated their cases.
This, I contend, is an incorrect report of what took place. It is true that two meet-' ings of the executive were held on that occasion, but the decision to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission was arrived at before and not after Mr. MaeNeil, and Colonel Thompson on behalf of the Pensions Board, were heard. Furthermore, the statement that the "Great War Veterans' Association appeal for an inquiry is recommended" is misleading, as my interpretation of Mr. MacNeil's desire, indicated in the telegram which was sent broadcast throughout the country, shows. That telegram reads, in part, as follows:
Chairman of the Committee has consented to reopen the question. Impressed by general expressed indignation.
In fact, an inquiry such as this article indicates has not been asked for by the Great War Veterans' Association.


Mr. BELAND:: Does my hon. friend ask a question?


Donald Sutherland: I	was merely
directing the attention of the minister and of the House to an incorrect and misleading article contained in the morning press.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I shall confer with the
chairman of the committee on the subject at the next opportunity.


LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the following treaties, of which copies have been laid before Parliament:-
The treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, for the limitation of naval armament which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two ;
The treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war and to prevent the use in war of noxious gases and chemicals, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two;
The treaty between the United States otf America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Portugal, to stabilize conditions in the Far East, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two ;
The treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Portugal, relating to the Chinese customs tariff, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two ;
The treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, and Japan, for the preservation of the general peace and the maintenance of their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular dominions [DOT]in the region of the Pacific Ocean (and the accompanying Declaration), and the Agreement between the same Powers supplementary thereto, which treaty and agreement were signed at Washington on the thirteenth day af December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, respectively; and that this House do approve of the same. ,
He said: Mr. Speaker, by this resolution the House is asked to express its approval of treaties which were signed at the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments which opened at Washington on Armistice Day of last year and which completed its proceedings on the 6th of February of the present year. The genesis, procedure, proceedings and results of the conference have been so fully, adequately and ably dealt with by Sir Robert Borden, who was Canadian delegate at the conference, in the report of the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments which was presented to this House some weeks ago that it would be superfluous, if not presumptuous, to attempt to add anything to what this report contains. As respects Canadian representation at the conference, I might say, however, that the procedure followed in relation to the other Dominions, and Great Britain was similar in the final arrangements to that which was followed at the Peace Conference at Paris.
It is, perhaps, appropriate that at this moment there should be an expression from this Parliament of appreciation of the great service rendered Canada in common with the other countries of the world by the President of the United States in calling this conference and by the United States government in co-operating	throughout the Conference with
the	several powers in the hearty
manner it did, which co-operation helped so effectively to bring the proceedings to the successful issue to which
[Stage Direction]
Limitation of Armaments
they were brought. I Should also like to say a word of appreciation of the services rendered our country and the other countries associated at the conference by Sir Robert Borden, the Canadian delegate. I am sure the document which Sir Robert Borden has presented, embodying the proceedings of the conference, will remain one of historic interest and ibf the utmolst value to the different countries assembled at that gathering, which has already coma to be regarded as one of the most important in the history of the world.
As intimated, it is unnecessary to attempt to review these treaties in view of the careful, concise and precise manner in which they have been set forth in Sir Robert Borden's report; but it might be of assistance to hon. members of the House, for purposes of future reference, as well possibly to the House in expressing its approval, were I to give a brief statement of the essential features of the different treaties which the House is now called upon to approve. Let me state that the treaties have already been signed by the Canadian delegate; but they will not be ratified by His Majesty on behalf of Canada until after both Houses of Parliament have approved them. It is that approval as respects this House which is being sought at the present moment. There are five treaties in all, two of which are of special interest to Canada, the Treaty on the Limitation of Armaments and what has been described as the Quadruple Pacific Treaty, which relates to matters pertaining to the insular possessions of countries whose territories border upon the Pacific. I shall run briefly over the main features of these treaties and give the House also a short statement as to the others.
The Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments
First of all, as to the treaty for the limitation of naval armaments, it will be seen that the parties to the treaty are the five great naval powers, the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan. Its chief effect has to do with capital ships, which are for aggressive purposes the main naval weapon. In respect of capital ships an agreed ratio of naval strength is established. As between the United States, the British Empire and Japan, the ratio is 5: 5: 3. The ratio assigned to both France and Italy is 1.75. The ratio was worked out by the naval experts as representing approximately the existing naval strength of the powers.

With some variations in the meanwhile, due to the differing ages and efficiency of existing capital -ships, the eventual figures in actual capital ship tonnage are to be as follows:
Tons
United States	 525,000
British Empire	 525,000
Japan	 315,000
Prance	 175,000
Italy	 175,000
In order to	achieve this result there is
also involved in respect of capital ships the renunciation of present building programmes, the actual scrapping of many existing ships and the declaration of a naval construction holiday which will extend over a period of nearly ten years. How extensive and impressive the figures involved in these engagements are, hon. members will have seen from the detailed report.
In respect of aircraft carriers also a limitation upon total -tonnage is self imposed on the five powers corresponding to the ratio of strength already stated.
So far as other auxiliary craft, such as cruisers, flotilla leaders, destroyers, and submarines, are concerned, the proposal to establish a limitation upon numbers and total tonnage in the same ratio failed to command unanimous agreement; and hence the powers remain free to build war vessels of these types. Individual cruisers however are to be limited in -size to 10,000 tons.
Careful rules are laid down to govern the method of scrapping capital ships and to prevent evasions of the intent of the treaty.
What the treaty comes to, so far as building is concerned, is:
(1)	With the exception of the two capital ships that may be laid down immediately, as shown in paragraph 29 (page 18) of Sir Robert Borden's report, the British Empire, or any part of it, cannot lay down new capital ship construction until 1931, and thereafter the new construction must be in accordance with the table in chapter II, part 3, section II of the treaty (page 177 of the report).
(2)	In respect of cruisers, destroyers, submarines and other auxiliary craft the Empire, or any part of it, is free, as the other powers are, to build without restriction upon numbers or total tonnage.
Another point that may be mentioned here concerns the question of imperial cooperation. As the report indicates, the treaty has no effect upon that question (see paragraph 46, page 24).

Limitation of Armaments
A further matter of some direct interest to Canada is Article XIX of the treaty which preserves the status quo in respect of the naval bases and fortifications on certain islands of the Pacific. This arrangement represents an exceedingly valuable feature of the whole agreement, as must be apparent.
The islands adjacent to Canada, however, such as Vancouver island, are not included in the restriction, and we therefore remain free to fortify these as before.
In Articles XXI, XXII, and XXIII provision is made for future conferences to meet new contingencies that may arise in the future.
The treaty is to remain in force in any case until December 31, 1936-i.e. about 15 years-and thereafter unless one of the powers has denounced it.
Finally it may be mentioned that it will probably be necessary at a later date to introduce legislation to render effective certain of the provisions laid down for preventing evasions of the intent of the treaty. This has reference to Articles XV and XVI, which relate to the construction of war vessels for non-contracting powers within the jurisdiction of the contracting powers. It is understood that, in order to place themselves in a position to carry out these undertakings, the British government will shortly introduce legislation giving the Admiralty control over the construction and delivery of war vessels in private shipyards. The matter is under the consideration of the Government and a bill will probably be presented at the next session after an opportunity has been had to examine the British legislation in relation to the existing powers of the Government.
The Treaty to Protect Neutrals and NonCombatants at Sea in time of War and to prevent the use in War of Noxious Gases and Chemicals.
As already seen the Naval Treaty places no restriction whatever upon the construction of submarines. It will be recalled that a proposal made by the British Empire delegation to the effect that, by international agreement, the submarine should be abolished outright was not accepted by the conference. Similarly it was impossible to secure unanimous agreement among the five naval powers upon any proposal to limit either the size of individual submarines or the numbers and total tonnage of submarine fleets. In view however of the improper uses to which this weapon was put in the
late war the conference did take action with regard to the laws of war governing the operation of submarines. The result was the treaty signed between the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan on February 6, 1922, to protect neut-,rals and non-combatants at sea in time of war and to prevent the use in war of noxious gases and chemicals. The purpose of the Treaty is in the first place simply to declare briefly the existing international law concerning the protection of such persons at sea in time of war, and to secure thereto the formal adhesion of all the other civilized Powers, so that there may be a clear public understanding throughout the world of the standards of conduct by which the public opinion of the world is to pass judgment upon future belligerents. In declaring the existing rules for seizure or attack of merchant vessels it is explicitly laid down that submarines are not in any circumstances exempt from the universal laws so stated. So far, therefore, the Treaty involves no change in international law. In order, however, to provide a sanction for these rules it is proposed to introduce a new feature into international law. The five powers agree that any person in the service of any power who shall violate any of the existing rules as declared, whether or not such person if under orders of a governmental superior, shall be deemed to have violated the laws of war and be liable, as for an act of piracy, to trial and punishment by the civil or military authorities of any power within whose jurisdiction he may be found. When this new feature has been accepted by the nations it will avoid the difficulty that confronted the Allied powers when they came to deal with the officers of submarines who had been guilty of inhuman acts uring the late war. It may be mentioned here that it will probably become necessary at a later session to introduce legislation giving power to our Courts to enforce this new provision.
The treaty then proposes to engraft a further amendment and improvement upon the existing laws of war. Recognizing, from the experience of the late war, the practical impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating the rules of international law, the treaty proposes to prohibit such use altogether. Steps are being taken to secure the adhesion to the treaty of all the other powers, so that this new prohibition may be universally adopted into the law of nations. Without waiting however for the
Limitation of Armaments
[Stage Direction]
assent of other nations, the five Powers who concluded the treaty have agreed to accept this prohibition as henceforth binding as between themselves.
The treaty finally deals with the use in war of poisonous gases and other analogous liquids, materials, or devices. Recognizing that such practices have been justly condemned by the civilized world and that their prohibition has been declared in various treaties, the signatory powers declare their assent to such prohibition, agree to he bound thereby as between themselves, and invite all other civilized nations to adhere thereto, to the end that the prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of the law of nations. While it would seem that in this respect the Treaty does no more than to reaffirm existing international law, it may be hoped that this emphatic declaration by the five Powers will not be without effect in strengthening the moral aversion with which the civilized nations should regard such methods of warfare.
The Quadruple Pacific Treaty
It will be convenient at this point to deal briefly with the agreement covered by the last paragraph of the Resolution before the House. This is the treaty between the United States, the British Empire, France, and Japan, for the preservation of the general peace and the maintenance of their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific ocean. It may be referred to briefly as the Quadruple Pacific Treaty. The Supplementary Treaty and Declaration mentioned in the Resolution are wholly dependent upon the main treaty, and the three documents should be read together as constituting one agreement.
While the treaty is brief and simple in structure, its relation to the underlying aims and conclusions of the conference is of great significance. The parties, It will be observed, are those Pacific Naval Powers that have island possessions in the Pacific ocean. Each power agrees to respect the rights of the others in relation to these possessions. If there should develop in the future between any of the parties a controversy, arising from a Pacific question and involving these rights, that is not settled by diplomacy and seems likely to affect their existing harmonious accord, there shall be a joint conference of all the parties to consider and adjust the whole question. Again, if the rights so described are threatened by the aggressive action of any other power, not a party to the treaty, the parties
[Mr. Mackenzie King.!
agree to consult together fully and frankly in order to reach an understanding respecting the situation. The treaty in any case is to exist for ten years and thereafter it is to continue in force unless any iof the parties shall have denounced it. Upon its ratification the Anglo-Japanese Alliance comes to an end.
The Supplementary Declaration, signed on the same day, provides first of all that the treaty shall apply to the mandated islands in the Pacific ocean. The declaration also provides that the controversies referred to in Article I of the Quadruple Treaty are not to be taken to embrace questions which, under international law, lie exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the respective powers; in other words the intention is to exclude from the jurisdiction of future conferences between the parties such questions as those relating to immigration and tariff matters, which are regarded as of a domestic character so far as they are not affected by existing treaties.
The Supplementary Agreement, signed on February 6, 1922, has the effect of excluding the main islands of Japan from the scope of the treaty. This action was taken to meet the desires of both Japan and the United States.
It may be seen from the terms of the document that the Quadruple Pacific treaty dees not constitute what is known as an Alliance. It imposes no military or warlike obligations. The obligation to respect each other's rights seems one which in any event is implicit in membership of the family of civilized nations. Beyond this there is simply the obligation to confer when international relations in these regions become strained or threatening. In other words, the powers will not resort to war without first endeavouring to settle their differences by peaceably meeting together. The principle involved is that which has been embodied in many conciliation and arbitration treaties of recent years. The effect is to employ the conference method of diplomacy as a means of settling international disputes; to give public opinion in the countries concerned and throughout the world time within which to face the issues and consequences and so to make known its reasoned attitude; to promote international co-operation rather than to risk international rivalry in this portion of the world.
The Far Eastern Treaty
The remaining treaties covered by the resolution relate especially to China and the

Limitation of Armaments
Far East. Conditions in China have in recent years been abnormal and difficult. The inherent weakness of her internal political position has produced a condition and an atmosphere peculiarly conducive to discord and conflict of interest among the powers both in their relations directly with China and in their relations as between themselves in Chinese matters. One of the main objects of the Washington Conference was to endeavour to secure an improvement in this situation. Considerable progress in this direction was made, hut it must he borne in mind that it was not within the power of the nations represented at Washington to provide the whole remedy. The problem is essentially one for the Chinese people themselves.
The parties to each of the two treaties relating directly to China were the whole nine powers represented in the conference under the treaty signed on February 6th to stabilize conditions in the Far East, to safeguard the rights and interests of China and to promote intercourse between China and the other powers upon the basis of equality of opportunity. The powers agree to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; to provide for China the opportunity to develop for herself a stable government; to promote the principle of equal opportunity in China for the commerce and industry of all nations; to refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China to seek special privileges that would abridge the rights of others, and from countenancing action inimical to the security of other states. By way of carrying out the principle of equality of opportunity in China for the trade and industry of all nations-this is the principle commonly known by the name of the " Open Door ''-certain specific practices are prohibited. It is also agreed that whenever a situation arises involving in the opinion of any one of the powers the application of the treaty and rendering discussion desirable, there shall be full and frank communication between the powers concerned. Steps are to be taken to secure the adhesion to the treaty of all the other powers that have treaty relations with China, in order that these various rules of conduct shall be of universal effect. Many of the principles and policies thus adopted by the nine powers have appeared in various treaties and other international documents drawn up from time to time in the past. This is, however, the first occasion on which they have been
adopted jointly by so large a group of powers, who henceforth will be collectively responsible for preventing their violation.
The Chinese Customs Tariff Treaty
The other treaty affecting China directly is the treaty signed on February 6th between the nine powers relating to the revision of the Chinese customs tariff and cognate matters with a view to increasing the revenues of the Chinese government. In order to secure stable conditions in any country adequate revenues are obviously an important desideratum. In China, however, the problem is rendered difficult by many conflicting factors, some of them grown up as the result of the relations of three-quarters of a century between China and other powers, and others arising from the peculiarities of Chinese civilization and commerce itself. The difficulties and the conditions of the problem are clearly described in Sir Robert Borden's report and it seems unnecessary to go into them at length here. The effect of the Chinese Customs Tariff Treaty is also fully set out in the report. Its main purpose and effect is, first of all, to provide for an immediate revision of the Chinese customs tariff in order to bring the rate of duty up to an effective 5 per cent. The treaty further provides for the creation of a special conference which is to meet in China in the near future with the object of settling the conditions upon which China may be enabled to increase the rate of her customs duties above 5 per cent, in order to secure adequate revenues for the administration and development of the country.
Conclusion
As already indicated, the agreements should in a broad sense be read together. Sir Robert Borden, in concluding his report, has pointed out that the results of the Washington conference " must be estimated as a whole and in their relation to one of the chief purposes for which it was summoned "-namely, the removal of the tension that existed in international relations touching the Far Eastern and Pacific regions. To the same effect is the eloquent speech made by Mr. Balfour at the close of the conference, whose text members will find set out in an Appendix at page 149 of the Report of the Canadian Dele gate. The agreements reached, varied as they are in subject matter and remote as they may appear some of them one f'-om another, cannot profitably be estimated
Limitation of Armaments
[Stage Direction]
piecemeal. Their unity flows from a common aim to preserve the peace in a vast region of the earth; they were interdependent in inception and they should be estimated as they were in fact negotiated, as a whole and together. Through the Naval Treaty the Great Powers for the first time in history have willingly by common consent renounced their freedom of action in a sphere where by tradition nations have been peculiarly sensitive and insistent on complete liberty. So far, that is, as the Pacific region is concerned they have agreed to discard aggressive force as an element in the adjustment of their relationships one with 'another. Here we may recall that for a century on our own continent there has existed, in the Great Lakes Naval Disarmament Agreement and in the understanding in fact observed along the whole Canadian-American boundary, a similar self-denying ordinance and repudiation of force; and it is impossible to doubt the influence of this condition upon the relations between the two countries and upon their unquestioned habit of solving their conflicts of interest by civilized means. In ordinary affairs men commonly avoid force in their relationships and rely upon other impulses; civil communities are conceived and exist on the assumption that on the whole men prefer so to live and can so best, pursue even their own individual interests. With this assumption made at the outset the powers were enabled to approach in free consultation many outstanding questions between them and, through the treaties and resolutions on the Far East, to adjust their various conflicting interests. They did not completely adjust them nor did they legislate for all time; they were not essentially different from other public bodies; but under the Quadruple Pacific Treaty and other provisions, future meetings are ensured should the unsettled problems fail of adjustment by ordinary means or should fresh matters of difference arise. It would be idle to say that the powers were not actuated by self-interest, but insofar as each profited it may fairly be said that it meant no subtraction from the others, that on the contrary the interest of each part was served because the best interest of the whole was served. Certainly the highest interest of all demanded the allaying of the sinister discord that has been threatening this area of the world. Such an appeasement seems now fairly promised as the result of the agreement 
reached, while the perpetuation of the conference method, so successful in this instance, affords the basis of a stable policy to preserve the future peace. It remains for a vigilant and informed public opinion to give reality to the promise.
It is, Mr. Speaker, a great privilege to have the opportunity of moving a resolution, which I am sure will meet with the unanimous support of all parties and of all groups in this House.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Before offering any
remarks, I wish to ask the Prime Minister one question. His explanation covered, as I followed it, four treaties, that is to say, the limitation of naval armaments; the protection of neutrals and non-combatants; the stabilization of the Far Eastern rights; the Chinese customs tariff. As for the treaty relating to the insular possessions of the various powers in the North Pacific, I do not think his explanation made reference to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I referred
to it as the Quadruple Pacific Treaty. Possibly I touched rather on the insular possessions aspect of it, but I think my right hon. friend will find that I made considerable reference to it.


Arthur Meighen: It was treated with the third?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I spoke of it before I dealt with the third and fourth.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I need
not say that I fully approve the motion of my right hon. friend for the
4 p.m. approval of these five treaties, to all of which the British Empire is a party, to all of which Canada due to her place in the British Empire and as between the Empire and the world is a party as well.
It goes without saying as well that these treaties are of such importance as to warrant their being brought before this House in order that the signatures thereto on behalf of this country may be confirmed by Parliament. As all hon. members know, the treaty-making power is inherent in government and may become effective even without confirmation by Parliament; but though such is the case the practice has always been, virtually without exception in the case of any treaty of consequence so far as Canada is concerned, and increas-

Limitation of Armaments
ingly so so far as Britain is concerned, to bring such treaties to Parliament for approval.
The late government pursued this course in the way I have described, and, indeed, in the case of treaties of much less consequence than those enumerated in the present motion the approval of Parliament was sought. Complaint has been made even this session as to the expense incurred by Canada in summoning a special session in 1919 in order that the most consequential treaties resulting from the war might be confirmed. I cannot see how the complaint can be made save on the part of those who do not regard the ratification by this country of a treaty made in the name of the Empire as a fundamental importance. With the development of our constitutional powers as a portion of the Empire it does become of great consequence that Canada's adhesion be obtained.
The Peace treaties were arrived at in the late spring of 1919. They were not reached as early as the people of the world had hoped. Following the armistice on the 11th November very prolonged negotiations took place, and unlooked for difficulties were encountered resulting in weeks and months of delay before the treaties from which Europe and the world were to take a new start could be consummated.
That delay has been one of the greatest misfortunes in the history of mankind. The delay that intervened between the armistice of November and the treaties of the following year was responsible for much of the disruption, for a great share of the chaos, for a tremendous portion of the difficulties that Europe and the world have had to surmount from that day until this. Had it been possible to arrive at these treaties earlier, to get the nations toed to a new line, resting on the new foundation upon which they were to build from that day forward, much of all that has been deplorable in the history of the world since then would have been avoided.
The adhesion of Canada to the treaties, arrived at was an essential factor. The adhesion of Great Britain alone, without that of her Dominions, would have been relatively ineffective, and delay on tjie part of the British Empire, would have been only adding difficulties, only adding to the chaos that existed, only adding to the suffering that had already occurred. Therefore, it was essential that Canada's will should be known, that Canada's position with relation thereto
should at the earliest possible date be disclosed. Consequently, action was immediately taken that we should say where we stood, in order that we might do our part to close the books so far as the British Empire was concerned. For that purpose a special session was called. Had it not been called there would have been five, six or seven months more delay, with all the havoc that such delay involved.
I join heartily, indeed I join gratefully, in the tribute paid to the representative of Canada at the Disarmament conference. Sir Robert Borden was chosen by the late government. It became impossible for me as Prime Minister of the day to attend because of an event transpiring in Canada, namely, the general election. That Sir Robert Borden was able to attend is a matter for congratulation to us all. Indeed. I may suggest with no mock modesty whatever that it was fortunate for Canada that Sir Robert Borden was chosen in place of the Prime Minister at that time. There could not be any Canadian, nor could there be any one anywhere, who in my judgment was so well fitted to represent us, and as well British interests generally, as was Sir Robert Borden. His experiences, commencing in public life twenty-five years before, commencing in their especial importance as relating to Empire and world affairs ten years before, and especially his intimate acquaintance through all the years of the war, and subsequently, with international relations and with interimperial relations, particularly with British Empire and American relations, was so marked and profound that no one could have been chosen so well equipped, so well armed to represent this country at this momentous conference as was he.
And indeed the conference was momentous. The Treaty of Versailles was the outcome of the Peace conference, but the Peace conference itself did not mean more for humanity than did what is known as the Disarmament conference that took place last winter.
I join as well in the tribute to the President and government of the United States for the wisdom they displayed, as well as for the courage they manifested in selecting the opportune moment and in boldly taking the responsibility of calling together the great powers of the world in order to seek to achieve at last that which for centuries the nations had sought in vain to reach, namely, some formulation of principle, some concrete declaration of
Limitation of Armaments

policy, some consortium around which all could gather to reduce the burden of armaments upon the world. The success of the conference is the vindication of the United States government in choosing that period for its meeting. It is the vindication as well of the broad practical proposals that government made. The courage of the United States was equalled, if not excelled, by that of the government of Great Britain in immediately acquiescing in the suggestions of the United States, and in subsequently advancing proposals that in the direction pointed by the United States government went further than the United States itself. We are proud as citizens of the British Empire, as a component part of that Empire, that the palm of credit for seeking to go farther along the path of disarmament, much farther along that path than any other nation present, was taken by the British Empire. Indeed, had the proposals of Britain's representatives been accepted much more would have been achieved than has been achieved, and the weight of responsibility for defence resting upon the Empire now would have been much lighter than it is. That we should have taken the lead in that regard, and that Canada's representative in particular should have taken so prominent, so effective, indeed, so conspicuous a part, in that noble work is a matter for congratulation to every Canadian.
Coming to the treaties themselves, I have little to add to the explanation of each that has been given by the Prime Minister. They, of course, are not of equal importance. The treaty of chief importance to this country-indeed all are of importance save one-is the first, that providing a basis for naval disarmament, or rather, providing a basis along which the naval armament of the principal powers shall proceed, and within the limits of which they shall be confined. That treaty, I say, is undoubtedly of first and greatest moment to us. I do not for a moment think that any hon. member of this House will complain of the provisions of that treaty, in so far as it lays out a measure of defence naval forces which the British Empire may sustain. The relationship between the Empire, on the one hand, and the United States on the other, is fixed as one of equality; as between those two and Japan the relationship is five to three; as between these three and the other signatory powers, Italy and France, the relationship as between Britain or the United 
States and France is five to 1.75; and as between Japan and France, three to 1.75.
These figures appear to have been, roughly speaking, representative of the relative naval strength of those five powers at the time the conference opened. The relationship that should continue to subsist was fixed there, but that was only part of the accomplishment. Relationship as among powers is one thing: the aggregate of naval forces belonging to any single power is another thing, and the treaty went on to provide that while this relationship was maintained, the aggregate tonnage strength in capital ships of even those allowed the highest forces, should not be more than 525,000 tons. Provision is made by which this shall be arrived at; provision is made by which replacements may .take place, to continue until the maximum is reached; and provision is made by which any nation signatory to the treaty may be kept within the limits so defined. That imposes, of course, upon the other powers, similar restrictions corresponding to the ratio that I set out a moment ago. Nothing like this had previously been in force in the world's history. This is the first milestone in the record of our race where the great powers have come together and have joined hands in an agreement that limits the building of destructive forces by themselves. I join with the Prime Minister wholeheartedly in regret that the conference was not able to go further, that a proposal advanced by Great Britain for the complete elimination of the submarine was not accepted by the other powers. So far as the report discloses-and of course we are bound to keep ourselves within the confines of the report-that idea was not acceptable to any other power. I do not know where the chief opposition came from but apparently acquiescence failed to come at all, and Britain stood alone in her championing of the total elimination of the submarine. It is true that relatively the submarine is not of major importance for the purposes of defence; its great importance is for the purposes of aggression in fields where its exercise shocks every dictate of conscience and violates all the laws of war. All that is true, and consequently a tremendous step would have been taken if agreement could have been reached on the proposal to abandon the submarine entirely. But we are all confronted with the fact that it was not reached, that progress in that direction must await some future day; and in the meantime Britain will doubtless find it

Limitation of Armaments
imposed upon her by sheer necessity-while other nations are building and preparing to use if perchance war should come, this detestable weapon-Britain will undoubtedly find herself bound to do the same because emergencies might come involving her very life.
The treaty that follows, to which T adverted a moment ago, has to do with the preservation, or rather with the dedication, in language that hereafter never can be disputed, of the principles of international law as regards the use of noxious gases, submarines and other newer weapons of war. As the Prime Minister points out, it is not pretended, on behalf of the delegates to the conference, that any new principles have been herein established, that any particular, specific legislative advance has been made in the humanizing of war-that only those principles are embedded in this treaty which Britain had advocated before the war and by which she stood during the war and to which she called upon the world to enforce as the war progressed. She has succeeded with the assistance-no doubt with the equal co-operation of the United States and other powers-in obtaining the adhesion of all these other powers to those principles binding themselves to abide by them should war come between themselves, binding themselves as well in facilitating the adhesion of other powers thereto, thereby establishing those principles as a moral guide among nations thus taking all the steps that could be taken to make sure that, those principles will be respected should the day of war arrive.
The third treaty has to do with the stabilization of far eastern conditions. One might think, at first sight, we were not particularly interested in such a matter, but, as has often been remarked in the course of many debates in this House, the world grows smaller year by year, and an area of peril in one part of the universe, though it may be at the very antipodes to ourselves, may in reality threaten our peace as acutely as though it were at the very borders of Canada. The far eastern situation has been fraught with great danger for years. Inchoate disputed rights have been the order of the day in the far Pacific-inchoate as between China and Japan, consequently as between Britain and China, consequently, as well, between the United States and China; disputed as between those eastern powers and western powers; and disputed as between western powers among themselves, and eastern powers among themselves. There has not only been dispute as to rights, but there has been also a too evident tendency toward the invasion of undisputed rights carrying just the dangers that such, invasions, always carried- and as well dragging in its train controversy between parties who were not in the original quarrel at all but who could not avoid its consequences. That situation has been pretty largely cleared up.
At the conference last summer it was felt that the settlement of far eastern questions was itself not only vital to the success of the general disarmament conference, but it was the better opinion, indeed the almost unanimous opinion, that the settlement of far eastern questions was a necessary preliminary to any possible success in the disarmament question itself. However, difficulties which intervened prevented such preliminary discussion of far eastern questions; they were left over till the disarmament conference itself: but by the organization of the conference, along the lines fully explained in the report of Canada's representative, and by the discussion of far eastern questions and the settlement, as will be observed, early in the conference, the same results, or at least nearly the same results, were obtained as could have been hoped for by a preliminary discussion of these subjects. This treaty embodies the results arrived at. One reading it, not familiar with international disputes, might think that very little in the way of a concrete agreement was reached; that very little at least in the way of disputed rights, was settled. That is all true, but the advance made was this: A basis was found upon which, if an acute dispute should in the future arise, there might be a settlement of such dispute by peaceful means rather than by a report to arms. There is the basis that has been found; it is in a word the basis of conference. It is the same basis which has resulted in much of the advance in the international world of recent years-the basis of conference has been successfully substituted for the basis of diplomatic correspondence. That is to say, representatives not of two powers directly affected but of all powers directly and indirectly affected to any important extent get together round a conference table there submitting their various claims to what is virtually an arbitration, resulting in that exposure to the whole world of the relative rights of all that gives the peoples of those countries the opportunity to estimate not
Limitation of Armaments

only the strength of their own arguments hut the strength of the arguments of the other side, and consequently puts the people of those countries into a state of mind where they are less disposed to fly at each others throat.
A basis of conference has been established here, and direct, useful, efficient provisions have been formulated whereby a conference as certain of success as humanly possible will take place should anything in the nature of a crisis occur. That is indeed a great advance; it brings other nations into the settlement besides the British Empire, China and Japan. And may I add that the more nations you bring in to any settlement of that sort, the more minds you bring into one, the more certainty there is of a permanent settlement and the less responsibility attaches to those individually who are parties to it. It is far better that the United States, that France, that Britain, China and Japan should come to settlement in the matter of the Far East than that only Great Britain, Japan and China should be parties to that settlement. It is better for us, because no matter what the results may be, we shall have the co-operation of other powers whose ideals are similar to if not identical with our own; whose world mission is the same as ours-we shall have their co-operation in securing in the future adhesion to such treaties and co-operation in their enforcement.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my right hon. friend allow me a question? With regard to the settlement of the far eastern questions, would my right hon. friend state to the House which Chinese government was represented at Washington-the South or the North Government, the Loyalist or the Republican Government?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A Chinese puzzle.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member could scarcely ask me a more difficult question. As the report very ably and succinctly discloses, the measure of truth in the assertion that China had a government that could represent her in an international conference is a matter of degree. China, of course, had a federal government. Whether it was a government or not may be a question; whether it was federal or not may be a question, but that it was thought by China to be a federal government there can be no question, and it was that government that was represented.


Lucien Cannon: Is it possible, in my right hon. friend's judgment, to settle any
[Mr. Meighen.l
eastern questions without a proper Chinese government being fully represented?


Arthur Meighen: It is possible to help settle them. The only alternative is to leave them with all their frightful possibilities unsettled, to act as brands ready to set the world on fire at any moment. It is not as satisfactory, of course, as if China were federated and had a central authoritative government, carrying not only among her own people but throughout the world the moral authority that governments should carry-not so satisfactory as if that were the case, but it is the most gratifying result that can be obtained at the present time. Indeed, were it not for the inchoate state of China, many of these questions that are to-day a source of anxiety in the Far East would never have been allowed to arise at all.
The fifth treaty mentioned here I shall1 not deal with, -because it is really closely related to the third, and what I have said with regard to the third, may be taken as applying as well to the fifth. The fourth is of the least significance of all so far as we are concerned1, but still of more significance than a mere reading of the title would lead one to understand. One would say at first glance that we are not particularly concerned whether or not the Chinese tariff is on an effective five per cent basis, but as a matter of fact, owing to the very situation that exists in China, we and all the world are concerned in the principles that govern the Chinese tariff. I do not think I need go into this rather complex question here; suffice it to say that once it becomes the concern of the various nations of the world to maintain the principle of the open door in China; and equal rights for all nations there, then you become interested in the Chinese tariff. On account of the very conditions I have described, namely the absence of a central uniform government in China and the consequent necessity of the maintenance of the open door principle by the direct action of other powers-for those very reasons, the other powers become interested in the Chinese tariff. On account of there being various dominions there, not in the nature of provinces of a confederation, as are our provinces here, but in the nature of powers often hostile to each other, they have an utterly indescribable tariff condition under which the utmost discrimination can he exercised, discrimination amounting virtually to exclusion. The utmost discrimination, I say,

Limitation of Armaments
can be embodied in the very tariff itself, and the system so built up has had the effect of virtually giving their trade to certain powers and altogether excluding others. Consequently, we who are trying to build up some Chinese trade had an interest in this matter, and a very considerable part was played by Canada's representatives in arriving at a solution of this vexed question-such solution is in itself not final but it lays down rules and provides machinery that will lead to finality at an early day. Consequently it is of importance that we adhere to this treaty with the others. I whole-heartedly support the motion and commend these treaties to the House, and I commend also to the House approbation on the part of all hon. members and of the people of Canada of the conference itself, concurrence in the results achieved and in the part Canada has taken in it; loyalty to the results achieved, loyalty to the provisions of the treaties, and a determination that Canada shall take her part not only in bringing about this agreement for the betterment of world affairs, but in living up to all the responsibility that that agreement involves.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate that these treaties, which are of very considerable interest to Canada, are being considered in the atmosphere of listlessness that always attends the late sittings of the closing days of the session. I am not offering any criticism of the Government for not having placed them before the House sooner, but these treaties are of considerable consequence to Canada-indeed, to the whole world- and I am very glad to associate myself fully with the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that they be ratified by this House.
The Washington conference marked a new stage in the development of international affairs and in the settlement of international disputes. I very cordially agree with everything that has been said by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. leader of the 'Opposition (Mr. Meig-hen) as respects the credit due to the president of the United States for the initiative displayed by him in calling together the interested powers, that they might sit around a common table, and, like common sense people, discuss these differences with a view to agreeing on some method of settlement. I associate myself fully also, with all that has been said as to the
worthy manner in which Sir Robert Borden represented this Dominion.
This conference marks a great step forward in the settlement of international disputes, and the result achieved at Washington has fully justified expectations that were held concerning it, When the first news was flashed throughout the world that such a conference was to be held. These treaties have been very fully dealt with by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. There are, however, a few thoughts connected with them that I should like to draw to the attention of the House, points that, perhaps, were not touched upon by my right hon. friends who preceded me.
The first treaty, dealing with the limitation of armaments, as the leader of the Opposition has pointed out, fixes the ratio of vessels of war that each of the countries interested shall maintain. That has a very direct bearing even upon Canada; but it has a very direct bearing upon the countries that are more particularly involved. If, by common agreement of the nations, these limitations of armaments can be brought into effect, is it too much to hope that, with the development of this method of settling international disputes, the time will come in the very near future when common agreement can be reached amongst the great nations of the world that they will rid themselves of the burden of maintaining these armaments, excepting what may be necessary for police purposes internationally? I think that time will soon come, and for this reason this is one of the most hopeful things that has been achieved. The conference, while it was called outside of the League of Nations altogether, nevertheless, I think, emphasizes, in a very direct way the great value that attaches to the central idea associated with the League of Nations, the idea of settlement of international disputes by friendly means, by the same means that are adopted in the settlement of disputes between individuals. Why can that not be done? Why can disputes between nations not be settled in the same way as disputes between individuals are settled? The moral conscience of the world can be aroused and brought to bear, to function in this way, and I for one hope,-I am sure we all hope-to live to see the day When these international disputes will be settled in the International Court of Justice which has recently been set up as a result of the formation of the League of Nations.

Limitation of Armaments
The treaty relating to the prevention of the use of poison gases and chemicals in future warfare is one that every person of humanitarian instinct throughout tho world will heartily applaud. Unfortunately, these conventions are often not recognized in the spirit and in the letter as fully as they should be recognized when the horrors of war come upon us. We know that in the great war which ceased a few years ago, conventions formerly agreed to between the nations, seeking to ameliorate and soften the horrors of war, were broken,- broken, it is true, at the instance of Germany. When Germany broke those conventions, they were pretty generally disregarded, and we had all the horrors attendant upon poison gases and all the ingenuities the brain of man could conceive to hurt and destroy his enemy. The success of a treaty of this kind depends not so much on the mere signatures of the nations that are parties to it; it depends in the main on the arousing of the conscience of the world, by this means, making this sort of thing impossible, putting a nation that will resort to this thing beyond the pale of human association, if such were possible.
The next treaty, having to do with the stabilising of conditions in the Far East, is also one that has a very direct interest to Canada. Canada has taken her place, somewhat slowly, but nevertheless in a way that no one can deny, in international affairs. The same ocean that washes the coasts of China and Japan washes the western coast of Canada. The rapid means of transit that we have in the modern world bring these countries very closely together, and we are interested therefore in anything that will stabilize conditions in the Far East. It is well known that the fear has existed that difficulties leading to war might arise in the East owing to the peculiar position that China occupies. This treaty, therefore, has to do mainly with that great country of China, and it lays down several very important conditions, of which the first two in article I, I should like to bring to the attention of the House. This provides that the nations who are parties to this treaty agree:
(1)	To respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China.
(2)	To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government.

That is one of the essential things to the maintenance of peace and conditions of peace in the Far East. The signing of this treaty, the recognition of this fact by all these great nations who are interested in these eastern questions, means the taking of a very long step in advance in preventing, in that part of the world, the development of conditions which might eventually lead to war.
The fourth treaty relates to the Chinese customs tariff. It is interesting to know why Canada should be interested in the Chinese customs tariff; but apparently all the countries of the world, realizing the beneficent influences that flow from trading with their neighbours, desire access to the Chinese market, and in order that no discrimination may be perpetuated, as the leader of the Opposition has well stated, they have come into common agreement that the Chinese customs tariff shall be 5 per cent. I would almost wish that we could have an international conference that would set a customs tariff for Canada on the same basis.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman, I hope, realizes what the agreement does. It raises the Chinese customs tariff from 2i per cent to 5 per cent. I hope that fact will not keep my hon. friend from approving the agreement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: True it provides for
raising the Chinese customs tariff from 21 per cent to 5 per cent. In fact, they decided to increase their tariff by the same amount that the Canadian Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has since decided to reduce the Canadian customs tariff. Nevertheless, this treaty is a recognition by the great powers of the world of the fact that trade is a useful, a beneficent thing. I have no doubt the Chinese would like to have had their tariff higher; in fact, I think their representatives at the conference asked that it be made higher in order that they might get more revenue out of it. They seemed to have the idea of settling their tariff on a moderate revenue basis. That, I think, is a very excellent idea for China at the present time, and it would be a very excellent idea for Canada also at the present time.
Of all these treaties, however, the last one mentioned is, in my judgment, the most important. The one affecting the limitation of armaments is of undoubted importance, as are the others; but this one seems to have a significance, for Canada at any rate, that is greater than that

Limitation of Armaments
attaching to any of the others. It is important to Canada because Canada is a Pacific power, a Pacific power, I mean in the sense that our shores are washed by the Pacific ocean. There are those who predicted after the Great War was concluded, that the next great international struggle would be fought in the Pacific ocean. Anything, then, that leads to a friendly method of settling disputes between the countries interested in that area of the world is of the first importance to Canada. The treaty specifically sets out the means by which disputes between the countries in that particular region of the earth may be settled; and it is not too too much to expect that the conditions laid down in the treaty shall be observed by the nations affected. If they are observed, then it is not too much to hope for, that the way has been found for effectually preventing the outbreak of any great war in the Pacific ocean.
This treaty has another particular significance to Canada, and it is this, that when it is ratified the agreement reached between Great Britain and Japan in 1911 shall cease to be further operative. Now, the British-Japanese treaty was made prior to the great war. It was perhaps a necessary treaty; at any rate, it was considered necessary by these two powers when it was negotiated. But every one in this country, who follows with any degree of interest at all the development of international matters, is aware of the fact that a considerable feeling had grown between the United States, our great neighbour to the south, and the Japanese empire; and that feeling was so acute prior to the Washington conference that there were many who predicted that it would eventually lead to a clash of arms between the United States and Japan. The fact that Great Britain had this treaty with Japan was, I think, an irritating factor in the minds of many of our neighbours to the south, and in that way the Anglo-Japanese Treaty had a direct bearing on Canada; because there is nothing of greater! consequence to this country, there is nothing more necessary to Canada, than the maintenance of the most friendly relations between ourselves and the United States. Because the adoption of this treaty abrogates the British-Japanese treaty, there is therefore removed a possible source of irritation, while there is promoted a more friendly feeling between the United States and Great Britain, and for that reason the interest of peace in
the world at large is promoted. These are the chief considerations, in my opinion, in addition to the reasons very ably set out by the Prime Minister and my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), why this House should unanimously ratify these treaties.
I am sure that will be the sense of the House, and I trust that when the treaties are ratified it not only will be an evidence of the larger place Canada is taking in international affairs, but will be a long step in advance towards the preservation of the peace of the world in the years to come, the maintenance of which is of vital interest to every citizen of the Dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to add a few words to what has been already stated in support of the resolution. I am pleased indeed that Canada should have been represented, and very ably represented, at the Washington Conference. I am glad that, although the Dominions were not invited in the first instance, Britain saw to it that they should foe represented at that conference. I am pleased also that we, as a Parliament, have been given an opportunity to ratify the treaties which were there negotiated and signed. By so doing we are pledging Canadian influence and good-will in the promotion of the interests of peace and good understanding between the nations of the world. As my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said, this conference marks a new stage. It is a step in the direction of settling, or at least of trying to settle, international controversies by way of conference and negotiation instead of by means of war. The Four-Power treaty is to my mind a milestone in the history of the world. Four great powers, having various and sometimes divergent interests in the Pacific, have agreed to respect one another's rights and to try to negotiate any difficulty which may arise among them instead of resorting to war. Heretofore the treaties entered into between nations have been for the purpose of forming alliances, either offensive or defensive, or both. Their aim has been the prosecution of war. In this treaty there is no such object. This treaty has for its object not the prosecution of war but, on the contrary, the preservation of peace; it is a treaty in which the contracting parties have bound themselves to adopt other means than war in settling international disputes. The only obligation on any nation's part is to respect the possessions of the other contracting parties

Limitation of Armaments

in the Pacific, and, in case any difficulty arises, to join in conference to try to adjust that difficulty by way of negotiation or arbitration. And if other nations, not parties to the treaty, threaten any aggressive action against any of the signatories, the other parties also join in conference for the purpose of meeting the situation and of endeavouring to avert war. There is no legal or moral obligation on the part of any of the signatories to take part in a war. There cannot be any doubt as to that, as there was in connection with the Covenant of the League of Nations. When the Treaty of Versailles was discussed in this Parliament I, with others, took a strong stand against Article X. I seconded a motion offered by the member for Shelburne and Queens, now Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), to the effect that our ratification of that treaty should be subject to reservation, that we should not be bound to any military action except after the previous consent of the Canadian Parliament had been obtained. The government of that day said that our fears were not well founded, and our amendment was defeated. Yet we received the information later on that our delegates at the Versailles Peace Conference had opposed Article X of the Covenant; and at the last meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva the representatives of Canada moved that Article X be stricken from the Covenant of the League. I am pleased that they did so. No action was taken on that motion, which was postponed; but I hope that whoever represents Canada at the next meeting of the assembly will see that the motion presented last year by our representative is proceeded with and that Article X shall be eliminated from the covenant. There is in these treaties no such obligation as was imposed in Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. All that is called for now is a combination of the moral forces of the world to promote peace, international good-will and love of justice. The mere fact that such treaties have been signed is an indication that the world is moving forward. It is sometimes said that the peaceful adjustment of difficulties through negotiation or arbitration does not always give full justice to one of the parties concerned. Undoubtedly that is so. But who will contend that war, in other words, force, always promotes the ends of justice? A few days after signing the treaty which recognized the independence of his country, a great American statesman wrote to a friend:

May there be no other war, because there never was a war which was a good war, and there never was a peace which was a bad peace.
One of the great merits of this Four-Power treaty, as my hon. friend from Marquette stated, is that it makes possible the termination of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which was a menace to this country. Article 2 of that treaty between the United Kingdom and Japan reads as follows:
If, by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any power or powers, either high contracting party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this agreement, the other high contracting party will at once go to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement with it.
By that treaty Canada was bound. It is fortunate that it is replaced by this Quadruple Power Treaty.
With regard to the treaty for the limitation of armaments, I am in complete accord with my hon. friend from Marquette and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in believing that this is the most important of all the treaties. The limitation of armaments was made possible by the signing in December of the first treaty, the Four-Power treaty. The limitation of armaments is also a deviation from the old order of things. Five great nations have met together and agreed to reduce their naval armaments, and thereby decrease the burdens of their respective peoples. They have also agreed on a naval holiday for a period of twelve years during which no new ships are to be built except those which may be necessary for replacement purposes.
I hope that world conditions will so adjust themselves as to permit of the reduction of land armaments as well. It is not true that war preparations ensure peace; the contrary is the case. Nations have been precipitated in devastating conflicts on account of having made military preparations. The last great war was the penalty paid by the world for that terrible mistake. I was reading the other day in a publication which is certainly not suspected of socialism or similar opinions-The Round Table, a good imperialist organ, which is described as "a quarterly review of the politics of the British commonwealth*'-an article on the curse of militarism in which the origin of the late war is so well described that I take the liberty of reading a few sentences to the House.

Limitation of Armaments
It may be well, however, to examine a little more closely the manner of the outbreak, for it has great lessons for the future.
As every Continental Power under the prewar system of the balance of power became more highly organized for war, as the whole of every nation was conscribed and put in training down to the last button and the last man, time became an increasingly important factor. Military numbers ceased to be the most important thing. The army which could mobilize quickest and strike an effective blow first would win the war, because it would destroy its opponent's capacity to fight before it was ready for action.
Thus it was, as was pointed out in this review in 1915, that the terrible time-table of the European General Staffs had far more to do with the actual outbreak of the world war than the deliberate decision of any man or government. Europe had become an armed caanp under the impulse of German ambition. The crisis was precipitated by the decision of the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin to take the opportunity afforded by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to attempt by means of a 48-hcur ultimatum to win a diplomatic victory which would mean the establishment of an AustrcnGerman hegemony over Serbia and the Balkans. But it is almost certain that no one, political or general, deliberately decided to start the world war. It was the military timetable itself which swept them, like everybody else, headlong into the struggle once the first button had been pressed.
This was the march of events.
At the same time that the ultimatum was presented in Belgrade the Austro-Hungarian government ordered -the mobilization of the southern part of the Austrian army in order to prove that they meant business in their ultimatum, and would, if necessary, enforce it by occupying Belgrade. 'No sooner did the Austro-Hungarian army mobilize than the Russian General Staff went to the Tsar and pointed out that if Austria-Hungary were allowed a start and a general war grew out of the crisis Russia would start at an immense disadvantage. They insisted, therefore, that there must be a preliminary mobilization of the southern section of the Russian army as a parallel move. Immediately there was the utmost excitement in Berlin. If the Russian army were allowed to mobilize what would happen to the German plan for victory in the event of war? That plan depended entirely upon the capacity of the German army to mobilize a few days faster than the French, and upon its being able to crush the French army before the Russians could take the field in strength.
Hence the frantic telegrams of the Kaiser to the Tsar imploring, almost commanding, him to give orders cancelling .the mobilization. For he knew, and his advisers knew, that if that mobilization continued they would be faced with the alternative between immediate war according to plan and allowing a situation to develop which in their judgment meant certain failure for Germany in a general war. But the Tsar would not countermand unless Austria-Hungary countermanded. And for Vienna to countermand mobilization meant an abject humiliation for the Central Powers far worse than that of Agadir. And so while telegrams flashed and Sir Edward Grey's proposal for conference was on the wires, the fateful minutes passed, one after another the nations mobilized, the situation drifted steadily out of control, until finally the German General Staff insisted on marching through Belgium as the alternative to defeat, and Europe stumbled blindly into a war which killed 10,000,000 men, wounded 30,000,000, and ruined in one way or another as many more, without anybody deliberately setting fire to the train.
And this is the situation which always must arise where national security is based upon competitive armaments. A time will inevitably come when the deliberations of diplomats and statesmen will be rudely broken into by considerations of military necessity and nations will be rushed headlong into war, whether they want it or not.
I think this is a vivid description of what happened in 1914. I am pleased that in this- country public opinion asserts itself in no uncertain tone against heavy armaments. Canadian public men must on every occasion which presents itself use their influence on the side of peace, on the side of negotiation and arbitration rather than on the side of force and armaments. That is why I congratulate the men who have negotiated these treaties at Washington. They may well use the language of M. Hymans, one of the presidents of the Assembly of the League of Nations, "Nous avons donne au monde un grand espoir"-"We have given to the world a great hope." And, as a Canadian representative in this Parliament, I offer them my thanks and the assurance of my support.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
Resolved, That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Protocols of Amendment signed on behalf of Canada at Geneva on May 20, 1922, of which copies have been laid before Parliament, embodying certain proposed amendments to Articles 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 26 of the covenant of the League of Nations, which were adopted by the second assembly of the Leauge at Geneva on October 3rd, 4th and 5th, 1921; and that this House do approve of the same.
Arthur Meighen: Before the
Prime Minister rises, may I suggest that as it has been impossible for many of us to see the documents laid on the Table, perhaps he would agree to postponing consideration of this resolution until a later hour to-day or until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can possibly save the time of the House if I give
League of Nations

a brief explanation of the several protocols which the House is being asked to approve.
As hon. members may have observed from copies of the protocols which have been distributed, they embody resolutions which were passed at the Assembly of the League of Nations in October of last year. For certain reasons it was thought advisable that the various resolutions should take the form of protocols to be submitted to the governments of the different nations represented in the League. For the most part, I may say, the protocols are either consequential or procedural in their nature, and do not in any way vary the spirit of the covenant. For this reason the Government might very well have approved the several protocols and authorized their ratification by His Majesty without coming to Parliament for approval before ratification. It was perhaps unnecessary to bring the protocols to Parliament for approval. Inasmuch, however, as Parliament was in session at the time the protocols were referred to the Government, we thought it was fitting.and proper that hon. members of this House particularly should have the opportunity of approving of them. A step of this kind helps to enforce the principle of publicity in matters of international agreement, and the assertion of the supremacy of Parliament in these all important questions of international relations, particularly the supremacy of the elective Chamber.
As hon. members know, the constitution of the League of Nations provides that there shall be a council and an assembly. The council is a permanent body and convenes four times a year; the assembly meets only once a year. The different nations send their representatives to the assembly for its meeting on the 1st of September.
The effect of the proposed amendments in relation to the articles of the covenant may be set out as follows:
Article IV. The original Article in its first paragraph provides that the assembly may select from time to time in its discretion four members of the league to be represented on the council in addition to the four great Powers. There were, however, no rules fixed for the method of selection, etc. The amendment proposes that the assembly shall fix such rules by a two-thirds majority, particularly such regulations as relate to the term of office and the conditions of re-eligibility of the non-permanent members of the council. This amendment seems well designed to supply

an omission that has caused much difficulty, and there seems every reason why Canada should assent.
Article VI. The original Article in its last paragraph provides that the expenses of the league should be borne by the members in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the Universal Postal Union. This has worked inequitably and has been especially hard on Canada, since it has obliged her to contribute on an equal basis with Great Britain, France, Italy, etc. The amendments to this Article propose a scheme that will materially reduce Canada's contribution. The new allocation is possibly still open to objection on our part, but it is the best we can get for the present. There seems every reason for the signature and ratification of the protocol in this case.
Article XII. Under the original Article the members of the league agree that if there should arise between them a dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by arbitrators or the report by the council. The amendment proposes to add submission to "judicial settlement" as a further alternative to submission to arbitration or to inquiry by the council. This is a purely consequential amendment and is necessary in view of the creation by the first and second assemblies of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Canada, having ratified the scheme of the Permanent Court, should also ratify this amendment.
Article XIII. The amendments here are precisely similar to those in the case of Article XII, and are also consequential on the setting up of the Permanent Court. Here too it would seem the Protocol should be signed and ratified.
Article XV. The amendment here is similar to those in the cases of Articles XII and Article XIII; they are consequential on the setting up of the Permanent Court and are subject to the same considerations.
Article XXVI. The original Article provided for amendments to the Covenant but was indefinite as to the precise procedure to be followed. Confusion and doubt have resulted. The amendment proposes the following procedure for enacting amendments to the Covenant. First of all, amendments must be voted by the assembly on a three-fourths majority, which ma-

League of Nations
jority must include the votes of all the members of the council represented at the meeting. Before amendments so voted can take effect, they must be ratified by all the members whose representatives composed the council when the vote was taken, and by a majority of those whose representatives form the assembly. If sufficient ratifications are not obtained within twenty-two months after the vote the proposed amendments remain without effect. All members are to be notified of the taking effect of an amendment, and any member which has not at that time ratified the amendment is free to signify its refusal to accept it, but in that case it shall cease to be a member of the league. This proposal seems well calculated to overcome the original defect, and there seems no reason why Canada should not sign and ratify it.
In all these cases therefore it would seem advisable to authorize ratification. There are four other Protocols relating to Article XVI. It appears from the Colonial Secretary's despatch of December 31, 1921 (No. 47), that the governments of Great Britain and France have agreed not to ratify these proposed amendments before the meeting of the assembly in 1922. As they are both represented on the council their ratifications are absolutely essential to the taking effect of any amendment. Consequently there would seem to be no point in signing the Protocols relating to Article XVI. Further the correspondence seems to indicate that these amendments were perhaps hastily considered. It would seem therefore just as well to wait until we can see what action the third assembly takes this year.


Arthur Meighen: With reference to Canada's contribution, would the Prime Minister state what is the basis of the new allocation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last
paragraph of the original Article 6 reads as follows:
The expenses of the secretariat shall he borne by the members of the league in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.
Under the proposed amendment the above paragraph is to be struck out and the following two paragraphs are to be inserted:
The expenses of the league shall be borne by the members of the league in the proportion decided by the Assemblv.
The allocation of the expenses of the league set out on Annex 3 shall be applied as from January 1st 1922, until a revised allocation has come in to force after adoption by the Assembly.
Also a third Annex is to be added to the two original annexes to the Covenant; the third Annex being the new provisional allocation of expenses referred to in the last paragraph just quoted. It will be found in the first of the Protocols relating to Article 6.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring about the new allocation of the expenses of the league as between the various members. As already stated the original Article 6 of the Covenant provided that the expenses of the Secretariat should be borne by the members of the league in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the international bureau of the Universal Postal Union. When the Covenant was adopted at the Paris Peace Conference the Universal Postal Union was the only international organization affording a precedent for this purpose, and as it would have been impracticable to work out an elaborate new scheme the scheme of the Postal Union was adopted. In practice, however, the scheme has been subject to much criticism especially on the part of smaller states. For Canada the matter has a direct interest. Under the Universal Postal Union scheme Canada is on the same footing as Great Britain, France, Italy and the other great Powers, and accordingly she has paid the same amount toward the expenses of the League as have these Powers. At both the first and second assemblies the Canadian representatives joined with other representatives in the endeavour to secure a re-allocation. The first assembly appointed a committee to inquire into the matter, and the report of this committee was considered by the second assembly with the result that three amendments to Article 6 are now proposed. In the first place it is proposed to strike out the last paragraph of Article 6 of the covenant and to provide instead that the assembly shall be authorized to fix the allocation of the expenses of the league. The second assembly, in anticipation, attempted to arrive at a new allocation. It was unable to agree upon what should be regarded as a final allocation; but it did arrive at a provisional new allocation to come into force January 1, 1922. This allocation is set out in the table embodied in the proposed third annex of the covenant. Under this table Canada appears
League of Nations

in the third class. For example, France s is responsible for 90 units, China for 65 units and Canada for 35 units. Under the third protocol relating to Article 6 it is provided that the allocation of expenses set out in this table shall he applied as from January 1, 1922 until a revised allocation has come into force after adoption by the assembly. The Canadian representatives at the second assembly reported to the government that they were doubtful as to the ultimate fairness of the new allocation so far as Canada was concerned, but that it was impossible at the moment to secure anything better, and that it would still be possible to make representations in the future.
Hon. members will find the various amounts allocated to the different countries set out in the blue book which has been brought down. As regards Canada, I think our contribution for the first two years was $200,000 a year. Under the present allocation the amount has been reduced to $150,000, that amount is regarded as still too high and it is hoped that, perhaps, at the meeting of the assembly this year Canada's share may be somewhat further reduced.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister observed that the ratio between Canada and Australia is as 35 to 15. I see ho explanation of that; I do not know how that ratio could have been arrived at.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give my right hon. friend that information at the moment.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I think that Australia, under the old regulation, was classified as we were, as a first class postal power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not say at the moment. I think the leader of the Opposition wishes this resolution to stand.


Arthur Meighen: I am not asking that it should stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the resolution is mostly a formal matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would
suggest that before the resolution is passed we make it quite clear that this is not the last word on this feature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the
feature of Canada's proportionate contribution, certainly not.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may appoint a board to be known as the Canadian Wheat Board, hereinafter called "the Board," which shall consist of not more than ten members, one of whom shall be nominated by the Governor in Council as Chairman of the Board, who shall be the chief executive officer,, and another member shall be nominated by the Governor in Council as Assistant Chairman, who shall have and exercise the powers and duties of the Chairman in his absence.
2.	That the Chairman and Assistant Chairman shall be paid such salaries as the Governor in Council may direct, and the other members of the Board shall be paid such allowances for days actually engaged in the duties of the Board as the Governor in Council may direct; also travelling and living expenses while travelling on the business of the Board, but otherwise shall receive no remuneration: Provided that such salaries, allowances or expenses shall be payable only out of proceeds of sales hereinafter authorized.
3.	That the members of the Board shall be a corporation under the corporate name aforesaid.
4.	That the Board may from tim *- to time appoint an executive committee of not less than three of its members of whom the Chairman shall be one, and may assign to such executive committee any duties or powers competent to the Board.
5.	That the Board shall have power throughout Canada to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producer or other person having possession of or being entitled to deliver the same; to sell wheat; to store, transport and market wheat; and moreover the Board may sell any quantity of wheat which it may possess in excess of domestic requirements to purchasers overseas or in foreign countries at such prices as may be obtainable, when advised by the consignor of such wheat or his representative to do so.
6.	That the Board shall have power to receive advances of money for the general purposes of the Board from any province, or from any bank, corporation or individual upon such terms as may be stipulated with the approval of the Governor in Council.
7.	That the Board shall have capacity to receive, have, enjoy and exercise such further powers or rights as may he conferred upon it by the legislature of any Province with relation to any matter connected with the purchase, acquisition, sale or marketing of wheat and within the legislative authority of the Province.
8.	That the Board may at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter, make advances to the purchasers or other .persons delivering wheat to the Board at such rate per bushel according to grade or quality and place of delivery as shall be set out in a schedule or schedules to be prepared by the Board and approved by the Governor in Council or by such other authority as the Governor in Council may prescribe, and may issue to such persons certificates of participation in the proceeds.

Wheat Board
9.. That deliveries of wheat may be taken from, through or by the use of such agents or grain companies or organizations as the Board may see fit, and may be at such points in Canada, at the seaboard or otherwise, as the Board may direct, and the Board may pay to such agents or grain companies or organizations handling wheat, or delivering wheat to the Board, such commissions, storage and other charges as the Board, with the approval of the Governor in Council or other such authority as he may prescribe, may deem proper.
10.	That as soon as the Board shall have received .payment in full for all wheat delivered to the Board during the operations of any season there shall be deducted from the proceeds all moneys disbursed by or on behalf of the Board for expenses or otherwise as payments connected with or incident to the operations of the Board for or during that season, including the remuneration, allowances, travelling and living expenses of the Chairman, Assistant Chairman or other members of the Board as hereinbefore provided; also the salaries, pay or allowances of the clerks, employees or assistants engaged by the Board, and the balance shall be distributed pro rata among all producers and others holding participation certificates.
11.	That the Board, with the arproval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as it deems necessary for the purpose of fully and effectively carrying out the objects and provisions of these resolutions, and, but not so as to restrict in any way the generality of the foregoing terms of this resolution, may make regulations,-
(a)	for appointing representatives in different parts of Canada or overseas, or in any foreign country, for assisting the work of the Board, and for reporting to the Board such information as the regulations may require;
(b)	to authorize the engaging of clerks, employees and assistants and paying their salaries;
(c)	providing for the forms and contents of participation certificates, vouchers or documents of title to be held by producers and others delivering wheat to the Board, for the conditions of negotiability of the same, for the substitution of the same for other vouchers, and generally establishing such system as may in the judgment of the Board be necessary for the security and equitable treatment of all persons concerned in the delivery and sale of wheat and in the carrying out of the Act to be based upon these resolutions;
(d)	fixing dates up to which, and not beyond which the Board will take deliveries at different places in Canada;
(e)	determining the requisites of delivery to the Board.
12.	That it shall be the duty of the Board to use its best endeavours to sell and dispose of the wheat which it may acquire or which may come into its possession for the best price that may be obtainable therefor, and tc realize the proceeds; accurately to keep proper books of account Jshowing quantities and grades <of wheat received, the prices realized therefor, and such other particulars as may be requisite for a full and just accounting and for the equitable distribution of the net proceeds.
13.	That the Government of Canada shall not be responsible for any of the contracts, obligations or liabilities of the Board, or for the payment of any remuneration, salary, allowances or expenses incurred by the Board,
or to which any member of the Board or any other person is or may become entitled.
14.	That the Government of Canada shall not be responsible for any deficits that may occur in the operation of such Board and should a surplus occur it shall be divided among the Provinces or patrons on a pro rata basis.
15.	That operations of the Board under the powers conferred by the Act to be based upon these resolutions shall not extend beyond the
	day of	 1922, except for
the purposes of sale, realization of assets, collections, payments, distribution of proceeds, and generally for the winding-up of the affairs and business of the Board unless on or before the
	day of	the operation of
the said Act for all purposes be extended by order of the Governor in Council for one year from the date first mentioned in this Resolution.
16.	That the said Act shall come into operation upon a day to be named by the Governor in Council after two or more of the Provinces shall have enacted such legislation as the Governor in Council may consider necessary or adequate to enable the Board to have or enjoy such of the powers, rights and privileges which were possessed by the Canadian Wheat Board as constituted by the Orders in Council of 31st July, 1919, and 18th August, 1919, as the Governor in Council considers the Board should possess in order to make its operations comprehensive and effective for the purposes intended.
Arthur Meighen: Does not the minister think this resolution should be in the name of the Minister of Agriculture?


Mr. ROBB:: No. All the previous legislation was put through by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are following the procedure adopted when my right hon. friend was in office. I may inform the committee that we are taking power under the bill to prevent any interference with the selling of seed wheat by one farmer to another, or with the Seed Purchasing Commission of the Department of Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the minister if all in this resolution is really going to be in the bill?


James Alexander Robb: Not exactly. Perhaps we would make more progress by adopting the resolution and taking up the bill. We could discuss the matter more intelligently then.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: When the Wheat Board of 1919 came into existence, some legislation became necessary to protect those who had previously been engaged in the selling and buying of wheat. As hon. gentlemen know, wheat importing countries buy their supplies of wheat months ahead. Grain dealers of Winnipeg are I suppose, selling wheat at the present time for delivery later in the year. These transactions are necessary; they are important; they are lawful. The section
Wheat Board

which covered this point in the Act of 1920 was the following:
Should a hoard be appointed under this act after trading in the wheat crop of 1920 has commenced, the hoard shall have power to adjust and make payments from the funds of the board in respect to actual losses incurred by reason of the bringing into effect of this act; provided that before payments are made such adjustments and payments are approved by the Governor in Council.
There will be uncertainty for some time whether the provinces will supplement this legislation and thereby create a wheat board with certain powers, and the conditions will be more or less chaotic until the decision of the legislature is actually made. As a result, western interests are bound to suffer. But if it is made clear that those engaged in the buying and selling of wheat in the meantime shall be protected by the board, the injury may be minimized. Some suc,h provision should be inserted in the bill, and I rise chiefly to give notice that when the bill is before the committee I will move a clause somewhat after the tenor of the one I read which was a section of the law passed in 1920 to cover similar cases.
I do not feel like letting this opportunity go by without entering my protest against this legislation. I do not believe in it. It is altogether too radical, and it should not be imposed on any people without their first expressing their opinion with regard to it in the form of a plebiscite or something of that nature. We are invoking a principle which I do not believe the people will approve of or support, if they have an opportunity of reflecting upon it. I read some of the evidence given before the committee. I have discussed the matter with many persons who are not in Parliament and with some who are, and I simply state the truth when I say I have not heard anyone express himself as enthusiastic in regard to this legislation. In fact, I do not see how there could be any enthusiasm for it. It is invoking a dangerous principle and it will hurt the very interests that its supporters are trying to serve. The only reason given in the committee in support of the legislation amounted to this: that the agricultural business, particularly in the West, was in a state of depression this season, and that this arrangement might assist in the future. Not a single witness, so far as I can recall-certainly none whose evidence I read-expressed the firm belief that the measure would bring any relief to the people of the West. Some evidence to that effect may have been given, but I have failed to find it, and I have failed to meet any man in this country

who has a firm, strong faith in the wisdom of this legislation and in the possibility of its bringing any advantage to Canada. The remarks delivered by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) should have been answered by somebody. They have not been answered yet, and I doubt very much if they can be answered. The chief reason urged by friends of this measure is that the flow of wheat out of the country can 'be controlled in the early months after the grain is threshed. No Parliament and no producer can ever settle that. That is a question which will be determined by the consumers and they are not in Parliament to speak for themselves; they are not even citizens of Canada. But they are the factor which will determine the speed with which wheat harvested in the coming autumn eventually reaches the European market and gets into the hands of the consumer. The consumer has everything to say in that connection and the producer has very little to say. Furthermore, it was not demonstrated by any evidence given before the committee that farmers' prices suffered or fell by reason of wheat flowing out rapidly in the fall months rather than at any other time during the marketing of any season's crop. That has been proven with mathematical accuracy by the hon. member for Brome in his remarks, and I do not think his contention in that regard can be answered.
The result of this legislation will be endless confusion. No person in Canada will suffer more than the very persons whom the friends of this measure intend to help. It will disrupt the marketing agencies that now exist in the West. The confusion will commence immediately this legislation has passed this Parliament, and it will not end until some time next year. I think, further, it will have a bad effect upon intending immigrants to this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend laughs. I may be wrong and those who laugh may be right; but I should say that it would disastrously affect intending settlers coming into this country, because in all countries of the world you will find men who do not wish to have their business run by governments or by governmental agencies. It is a radical departuretotake out of the long-established and traditional marketing agencies the power of disposing of the products of this country and compulsorily putting that into the hands of somebody else. The people of the western pro-

Wheat Board /
vinces will not long submit to this and I doubt very much if they favour it to-day, if they had an opportunity of speaking upon it. I did not intend to say as much as I did; but having arisen to give notice of my intended amendment, I thought I should give expression to my views upon the matter. I should like very much to see hon. gentlemen opposite me, who are more representative of agricultural interests than any others in this House, request the withdrawal of this legislation. If they did that, they would be suggesting something that would be in the interest of the people whom they represent.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: I did not, nor do I now, intend to debate the general principle of this measure at this time. I rise merely to make a reference to a few remarks by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). He has drawn to the attention of the committee a certain proposal which he suggests he will move when the bill is in committee, and the purport of which is that those people dealing in futures on the grain markets of the Dominion, who have made contracts prior to the bringing into force of this proposed legislation, shall be recompensed if they incur any loss thereby. The hon. gentleman was just a little in error, I think- probably he corrected himself-in stating that this was in effect in 1919 when the first wheat board was established. It was not in the Order in Council of 1919, but in the enabling legislation of July 31, 1920, which never came into effect, never operated. There was in that act a clause to that effect, which always seemed to me as entirely unjust. Why people should be protected in their profits on speculative enterprises has always been a mystery to me. They were purely speculative enterprises and they could not have been anything else. I wish to point out, however, even admitting, for the sake of argument, that there might be something in the hon. gentleman's contention, that conditions under this measure are entirely different from what they were at that time. It is not proposed in the bill, which as I understand the matter will come before the House, that all the wheat of Canada shall be brought under the operation of this board, but merely the wheat in provinces which pass concurrent legislation. It is not anticipated, for instance, that eastern provinces would care to bother with this. Two or three of the provinces-not more than three of them-may pass concurrent
legislation; but until that is done, there is a field for those people who make those contracts to go to in order to secure wheat to fill their contracts. But, provided that the three prairie provinces were shut to them, there is always the wheat board itself to go to in order to secure grain, and anyone who has sold wheat for future delivery, say for the month of October, which is the next option after July, has the wheat board to go to in order to secure his supply. He can get the wheat from the board at the market price, and surely he would expect to pay the market price anyway; he has nothing to lose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The suggested amendment I have, just on that point, reads:
Should a board be appointed under this act, after trading in the wheat crop of 1922 has commenced, the board shall have power to make provision for the carrying out of existing contracts for the sale of wheat in Canada and outstanding when such board has been created.
The amendment really has in mind bona fide sales.


Robert Milton Johnson: That is practically what was in the enabling legislation of 1920 which never came into effect. If they are bona fide sales, the same answer applies-that the wheat is there in the hands of the wheat board for sale at market prices, and such people should expect to pay market prices for the wheat. Without going into a general discussion of the board, there is little else I wish to say at this time. As I understand proceedings, if a bill is introduced based upon this resolution, we shall have ample opportunity of discussing the details when the bill comes into committee, and I do not wish to touch on them just now.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) also stated that this was imposing upon the people a system without their consent. That is not proposed as far as provinces can be interpreted as acting for the people. The last clause in this resolution says that this must come into effect when the provinces have consented to it. While that may not be the wording, it is the substance of it, and as I understand the matter, the legislation will not come into effect until two or more of the provinces, speaking for their people, consent. They will not ask for this unless consent is obtained. There were several other points mentioned to which I wished to refer, but I will let them go for the present. Let me
Wheat Board,

say, however, that after a careful study of the resolutions I think there is one point, most vital to the success of the operations of the board, no matter whether it is voluntary or compulsory, which has been omitted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Suppose a
Canadian miller made a contract for the delivery of, say, a million barrels of flour to-morrow; the Wheat Board is later established and prices are higher then than today's ruling prices. Would the person or the organization that bought the flour from the miller be obliged to pay the higher price? If so, where would the trouble end? There would be a cancellation of contract by the baker, or somebody.


Robert Milton Johnson: If a miller made a contract to-morrow for the sale of certain flour the price must necessarily be based on wheat to be delivered during this fall. Assuming that the man buying the flour is making a bona fide contract, one that is not a mere speculative document, there will be a market price when the flour is delivered, which price will be based on the price of wheat.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But in the meanwhile he is paying for flour on the basis of market quotations to-day.


Robert Milton Johnson: If a man orders flour to be delivered in the future no one knows what the price will be; it will be based on the price of wheat at that time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the usefulness lies in having a fixed price.


Robert Milton Johnson: When the bill comes before the committee I will move as an amendment that a new section be added. I shall read it so that hon. gentlemen may be apprised of its purport beforehand. The proposed amendment, which has been carefully prepared by the law officers of the Crown, at the request of myself and others associated with me, is as follows:
18. 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 Keciion 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.
This is incorporated in order that the province, when they wish to take advantage of the bill, shall have all the powers which the bill proposes to Confer upon them.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictau) :: I do not assent to the proposition that the legislation that is now being submitted to the House is within the purview of Parliament to adopt, or is constitutional. In an earlir discussion on the question, when the matter first came before the House, I pointed out to hon. gentlemen who were discussing it that the decision given by the Privy Council in the Board of Commerce case was of such a nature that the argument that they were making at that time was one which could not be carried into legislative effect by this Parliament. And we had an opinion from the law officers of the Crown that the legislation as originally suggested could not be passed by this House. I do not propose to discuss the details of this measure, but I merely wish to put on record my 'belief that this legislation when passed will not be sustained by the courts of the country, if their interference is invoked.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to do more than to go on record on this question. I have already stated my opinion that the best method was for the Government to put into effect something practicable, something in accord with conditions, something that would actually work and, in my judgment, not do any injustice; that was to establish a board upon a purely voluntary basis, and not to give it any such powers as the province alone could confer upon it, unless with the approval of the Governor in Council. That is a method of procedure that would have actually worked out in practice, and would have given time for the consideration of compulsory powers, such consideration as Parliament must give in order to act wisely, but such as we at this end of the session cannot possibly bestow. If the bill which it is proposed to introduce becomes law I will not attempt to describe what will happen. I cannot, except by the exhaustion of considerable time, undertake to attack the bill at all its vulnerable points. It is vulnerable everywhere; it does not make common sense. With all deference to the minister (Mr. Robb), I think he would 'have been much wiser if he had left its paternity to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) ; he would then have stood better in this House in the future. As the bill is, it resembles more a jumble of jargon than a piece of legislation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176 to provide for the constitution and powers of The Canadian Wheat Board.

Wheat Board


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first and second times, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Canadian Wheat Board to be appointed:
Robert Milton Johnson: How will this board be selected or appointed?


James Alexander Robb: As the provinces will be responsible for any deficits, it would seem reasonable that the members should be appointed subject to the approval of the concurring provinces.


Robert Milton Johnson: As I understand it, this board will be created before the provinces pass their concurrent legislation. How can you thus appoint its members with the approval of the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume the act will have special reference to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I undertake to say that before the Government makes any appointments it will communicate with the premiers of these two provinces and obtain their approval of the personnel of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Salaries, allowances and expenses:
Mr. GOOD:: Could we not leave this over until eight o'clock so that we may have time to read the bill? It has just been distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I would point out at this stage that some gems in the resolution are omitted from this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 6-general powers of board:
Arthur Meighen: The minister should explain to the committee why he left out the provision in the resolution that the board could sell only on the order of the consignor.


James Alexander Robb: I am not able to say, unless it is that we are not giving any compulsory powers.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, that would not be the explanation. It is far nearer compulsory power when they can sell without the order of the consignor than when they can sell with it. It is nearer compulsory power now than it was in the resolution. Really, if the minister cannot explain it,
I think anyone who understands the wheat trade can. It was perfect nonsense to have it in in the first place, most manifest nonsense that a board should be there engaged in a pool business to distribute among its patrons pro rata all the proceeds received, but should only be able to sell on the authority of the owner of the wheat. I never could understand what in the world it was in for, but it was in the resolution. The resolution, I do wish to impress on the House, should really embody what the bill is intended to bring forth. This resolution did not. There is no use having a rule that a resolution respecting trade and commerce shall precede a bill, if the bill is not to be the resolution. We may amend the bill it is true, but in very important respects this bill is not the resolution at all. It is merely playing with the rules to bring in the bill in this form with the resolution the way it was. For example, the Government went to His Excellency the Governor General and presented a resolution which made that board nothing but an agent to take the delivery of grain and sell it as a commission agent. It got the approval of His Excellency to such a resolution for commendation to the House, and now it comes forward with a bill that makes the board something else altogether.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend recommend that that provision should have remained in?


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, but I would recommend after this that when the Government brings in a resolution, they give it a few minutes thought before submitting it to the House.


Mr. CAHILL:: Then it is only a lecture.


Arthur Meighen: That is all, but a very necessary one.


Mr. DUFF:: Just scolding.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Power to receive advances:
Mr. MILLAR:: This provides that the board shall have power to receive advances. I suppose it is implied that they have the power to borrow money.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
On Section 10-Deliveries of wheat, through agents, grain companies or organizations:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to move an amendment. It is to add a subsection, to be known as subsection 2, of section 10. I propose that it shall read as follows:-
Should a board be appointed under this act, after trading in the wheat crop of 1922 has commenced, the board shall have power to make provision for the carrying out of existing contracts for the sale of wheat in Canada and outstanding when such board has been created, and to adjust and make payments from the funds of the board in respect to actual losses incurred by reason of the bringing into effect of this act; provided that before payments are made such adjustments and payments are approved by the Governor in Council.
As I stated this afternoon enabling legislation of this character was passed in 1920, and the purpose of this amendment is to enact a clause of that same nature and for the same purpose. I may say that the suggestion comes to me from persons interested in the grain trade in Winnipeg.


Mr. SALES:: That is what we thought.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: One would
not need much thinking to reach that conclusion.


Thomas Sales: I do not think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The question after all is whether the amendment is a fair one or not. The persons engaged in the grain trade have as much right to be heard in Parliament as anyone else. As I stated this afternoon, if this bill becomes law in its present form the question will arise with those engaged in the grain business, say at Winnipeg, whether or not they shall continue making future sales They must consider that question; they will be obliged to. They have, up to the present moment been making future sales in this country but, after this bill passes Parliament, they will be obliged to consider whether they must not withdraw from that class of business. If there is no way of their implementing any sales or contracts which they enter into, they must withdraw from trading and dealing with wheat on the exchange. I fancy they will have to do that unless there is something in this bill enabling the Wheat Board to carry out these contracts. Now the Wheat Board should be given the power to do that. It will be in the interest of the grain growers of the West that this be done. The selling of grain to-day is a lawful business. It is 
a class of business over which this Parliament has some jurisdiction.


Robert Milton Johnson: If the
Wheat Board undertakes to deliver wheat to those people who have made contracts at the time their wheat is called'for, is that not enabling them to fulfill those contracts?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the
Wheat Board must be given power to take over these contracts and complete them instead of the original parties to the contract.


Mr. BROWN:: Would my hon. friend
suggest that the Wheat Board should be given power to supply wheat at any price that those selling it now should see fit to fix; is that the suggestion?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How is my hon. friend going to meet the situation? By the laws of this country to-day people are permitted to enter into contracts for the future delivery of wheat.


John Livingstone Brown: But my hon. friend must remember that when these men undertake to make such contracts they do it absolutely at their own risk, at the risk of not being able to fill those contracts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That does
not, however, meet the situation. Here are people to-day, lawfully engaged in the business, entering into contracts with people in Europe to deliver wheat at a future date. The legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan may enact legislation which, taken with the bill we are now considering, may prevent those people from fulfilling their contracts.


Frank S. Cahill: Have those people now
got the wheat to deliver that they are contracting to deliver at that time?
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax' :	I do not
think that is important-


Frank S. Cahill: It is all important.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -because everybody knows futures are being dealt in, in handling the wheat crop. This afternoon I put a case to the committee of this kind: Supposing a Canadian miller to-day is asked to quote for the future delivery of a million barrels of flour in London, say in next September. He cannot decide what offer he shall make to those seeking a bid unless he knows what is going to be the price of his wheat. Whenever millers undertake to make large deliveries of flour they buy their wheat first and they enter

Wheat Board,
into a contract with a grain broker in Winnipeg. The grain broker may make a contract for delivery with some man owning wheat in a country elevator; he is assured of the delivery sometime of that wheat at a fixed price from somebody, and upon that basis he is enabled to make a contract for future delivery of flour, say, in a European market. Well, if he cannot do that, if he cannot make a bid for that flour that is all there is to it. Unless you have that method of trading the grain and flour business of this country cannot be carried on; and unless you put a clause such as I suggest in the bill I fear that trading on the exchange will cease between now and the time the measure is put into effect. That is why I am proposing this amendment.


John Millar: I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Under the conditions of which he speaks is it not a fact that someone must take that risk? Even though the miller may buy futures, the man from whom he buys has not yet purchased the wheat, nor has the farmer raised it. There may be a failure between now and then, and somebody has to take that risk even under conditions which are considered normal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, that is quite true, somebody takes the risk, but my hon. friend will see that it is impossible for millers to undertake the future delivery of flour unless they know with certainty that they can buy the wheat with which to fill that contract at a definite and fixed price. In this supposititious case w*hich I present to the committee there are two contracts-there is a contract for the purchase of grain, and their is a contract for the purchase of flour. In each case the delivery is far in the future, but it is necessary to have these two contracts. You must have some certain factors in the case settled before a contract can be quoted, and if these factors are not ascertainable and are not fixed there will be no contract, and there will be the loss of a sale of Canadian flour somewhere.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: The hon. gentleman is presuming that there will be a loss on this supposed contract. Supposing there should be a huge gain would he include in this amendment a provision that such gain should go to the Canada Wheat Board?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know. I do not know what the dealers who were carrying these contracts would say; I daresay they would be very glad to let them take over
the whole thing. In fact, they probably would have to do that. If my hon. friend wants that put in the amendment, and thinks it would be satisfactory-


Archibald M. Carmichael: I think it is very important. There is just as likely to be a gain as a loss.


Thomas Sales: One of the witnesses who appeared before the committee-a witness who was not in favour of the wheat board *-was asked a question as to the volume of wheat sold on these exchanges. This was his answer:
There was evidence given before the United States Committee on Agriculture by officials of the Chicago Board of Trade in reference to certain very large figures which had been circulated in the United States. My memory, I am afraid, does not quite serve me, but I think the returns given showed that the total volume of wheat, that is the future sales in Chicago, had been over nine or eleven times the volume of grain marketed through Chicago.
Does the hon. member propose to settle for all the contracts made on the exchange, which constitute nine or eleven times the amount of wheat sold direct?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have heard for years and years the figures which my hon. friend has given, though, of course they vary a little. He has reference to speculative sales on the exchange. The carrying on of these speculative transactions on the grain exchange may be unfortunate for the country and for all interests involved, but they cannot be avoided. A great many people engage in them, sometimes to their profit, very frequently to their loss; nevertheless, many of the transactions are bona fide transactions. Practically all the marketing of grain in Canada is done through operations of the grain exchange. That has been the system of buying and selling the world over, and you cannot very well get away from it; it is the only thing that makes a market for the producer of grain. If there was no grain exchange, how could a farmer market his grain? I suppose it would be sold, but somebody would be taking tremendous risks and the price would fall 25 or 30 cents a bushel. At any rate, no grain dealer would make very heavy advances on the purchase of' grain in the first instance. Further, if there was no grain exchange there could be very few grain brokers; few men could succeed in getting sufficient capital to carry on the business. So there is no use in my hon. friend attacking the grain exchange. It is a factor in business; it serves a useful purpose, though some fea-
Wheat Board

tures of that business-through the fault not of the grain exchange itself, but of others-leads to speculative trading which is not, perhaps, desirable. But again I say that here is the difficulty; it will probably be a month before the legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan can consider this matter; in the meanwhile are you going to have no grain transactions in western Canada? What about the Manitoba wheat? Whose wheat will be sold if the exchange is closed? It will be American wheat that will go across; probably the price of wheat will rise, and then when the Manitoba product goes on the market, depression will follow. How are we going to meet that situation? I do not pretend to be very well informed upon grain exchange operations, and perhaps I cannot satisfactorily answer every question that is put to me, but I think I understand the general principle which applies. Some of the grain dealers of Winnipeg addressed a letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) on this subject. I have been given a copy of it, and perhaps it will make my point clearer if I read part of it. It says:
We beg to ask your consideration of a matter of considerable importance to the grain trade at Winnipeg that may arise if the Wheat Board is established for the marketing of the crops.
The matter is the fulfilling of the contracts that are now being made for the sale of the wheat and that would be in existence when the wheat board becomes operative.
As you are doubtless aware, overseas buyers and Canadian millers make contracts in the-open market for supplies of wheat for future delivery and at the present time Canadian grain dealers are making such contracts In October wheat and in wheat of other months.


Mr. COOTE:: My hon. friend a while ago said something about trading in futures being bona fide transactions. Is he satisfied in his own mind that it is really a bona fide transaction to sell something that is not in existence? I assure him that the wheat that is being sold for delivery next October is not in existence and a good deal of it never will exist.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is it not possible to enter into a present contract for future goods?


George Gibson Coote: That would be quite legitimate in respect to anything that is manufactured.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I assure my hon. friend that there are in the law reports hundreds of cases of the selling of grain that did not at the time exist-at present contract for future goods.


George Gibson Coote: I do not doubt it at all;
I am simply asking the hon. member for Halifax if he is prepared to say it is a bona fide transaction to sell something that is not in existence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is nothing peculiar about dealing in futures in wheat. Down in my province fish is sold long before it is taken from the water; lumber is frequently sold before the trees are cut. Trade and commerce could not flow unless products were sold before production for future delivery. Does my hon. friend mean to say that the European importing countries should have to wait until the wheat is actually harvested and threshed and in elevators before they buy wheat? He seems to talk as though it were something strange or peculiar or irregular- unlawful, perhaps-to deal in futures in wheat.


Mr. SPENCER:: Can my hon. friend say whether eight or nine times as many fish are brought and sold as are caught?


William Duff: There might be.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I really do not know. I have already stated that there are speculative transactions in grain and many other agricultural productions. My hon. friend is not responsible for it; neither am I. At any rate, practically all the wheat exported from Canada is, I fancy, sold through the grain exchange, which fixes or regulates the prices in co-operation with the foreign wheat exchange.


Mr. SHAW:: If the contract contemplates an actual delivery of goods, it is a perfectly valid contract. That, as I understand it, is the distinction between a mere wagering contract and a valid contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Take the supposed case I mentioned a few moments ago: if a Montreal mill contracts to deliver a million barrels of flour in London in December next, it must buy three or four million bushels of wheat. In all probability that wheat will be bought from a grain dealer in Winnipeg, who protects himself by purchasing from some country elevator. Eventually, that quantity of wheat gets into the Montreal mill, at a price fixed. The price may rise, of course, and somebody may lose on the transaction, but the miller himself is secured; he is able to carry out his contract-a contract which he could never have entered into unless he then knew what the price of the wheat

Wheat Board
to him was to be. Now, let me proceed with this letter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What would happen in that case if the wheat crop were a total failure?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Robert Milton Johnson: If we take it for granted that these contracts are bona fide and that somebody must deliver the wheat, is the wheat not there to be bought at the market price? Can they not go to the Wheat Board and get the wheat? The Wheat Board is going to sell it to those people to fulfil their contracts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In the first place there certainly can be nothing wrong in giving the Wheat Board power to take over these contracts. The Wheat Board ought to have that power; that power ought to be enumerated amongst the other powers given to the board, and they should have that power in very specific terms.


Mr. McCONICA:: It occurs to me that if this amendment means that the Wheat Board is compelled to protect all contracts
that have been made, or that may be made from now on, it will certainly put the Wheat Board out of business. Any man then could contract to sell wheat at any price he saw fit, and when the day of delivery came, he could say to the board: "You settle my business for me; I will unload my obligations upon you." There will be just as much wheat after this board is formed as there will be before, to fill the contracts that have been made or that may be made by those who contract to deliver wheat in the future; that board will have the wheat to sell, and it will be anxious to sell it at the market price. Why do we need to insert in this bill an authority to fill contracts or to sell wheat to men who have contracted for wheat beforehand? That power is inherent in the board; but is it proposed that the board shall assume a loss if there is any? If so, I certainly object to such a provision. The men who are making these contracts or who have made them are bound now to fulfil them and to shoulder any loss if there is any. The appointment of this board does not change their responsibility or their liability in any way; it merely changes the party to whom they must look for the wheat to fulfil their contracts, and that wheat will be in existence if a generous Providence favours us with the crop. If it does not, where are those fellows who are selling wheat going to be? They are taking that chance; they have taken it; they propose to continue to take it; and when settlement day comes, let them walk up to the men who have the wheat to sell and get it, just as they will be compelled to do if we do not appoint this board. I do not see why the board should be responsible. If so, then every Tom, Dick and Harry in western Canada will be selling wheat for future delivery, and holding this board responsible for it. The thing will be a snap; and if we make good to the fellow who sells wheat at too low a price, we shall also have to make good if somebody buys wheat at too high a price, so that the board will catch it both ways. There is no reason why this amendment should be enacted. It does not protect anybody who needs protection. If contracts have been made, they have been made by parties who knew that this legislation was pending. Those parties have taken their chances and they are accustomed to taking those chances. Last year at this time, they were selling our *wheat, and this year they have been selling it before it was sown at $1.80 for
Wheat Board

October delivery. W'hat was their bet? Their bet was that they could buy it from the farmer at less than that figure. They bought it at about 80 cents. Where did the profit go? Not to any wheat board to be distributed amongst any farmers who raised the wheat, but into the pockets of those gentlemen who are now calling upon the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) to take care of them. I hope this amendment will be defeated.


James Alexander Robb: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is apparently based upon the assumption that we are creating a compulsory board. In framing this legislation, the Government have very carefully avoided giving any compulsory rights as regards this Parliament. If, under the powers of the bill, the legislatures of the provinces where the wheat is grown, later on undertake to give compulsory powers to this Wheat Board, I submit that is the proper place for my hon. friend to present his amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall have to go west then.


James Alexander Robb: We cannot accept this amendment because it seeks to introduce into the bill a power that we, as a Government, have very carefully avoided giving; that is, as regards this Parliament, we have avoided giving compulsory powers. We have framed a bill that we hope will go a long way towards satisfying the demands of our western friends who grow wheat. May I say to the committee that we are not-and I frankly admit this- giving the powers that were asked for by the Council of Agriculture when they came to Ottawa. They sought a board with compulsory powers, although at the time they made the request from the Government, they had themselves been advised by the Attorney General of Alberta that this Parliament had no right to give such legislation, and although that statement had again been confirmed by Mr. Gregory, a lawyer of their own selection, legal advisor of the Council of Agriculture, when they met in Regina. It was quite clear that we had not that right; but we have the right to pass such legislation as we are proposing to-night. If the representatives of the Council of Agriculture desire compulsory powers, they will go before their legislatures and under this bill they may obtain such powers. When that is under consideration in the legislatures, I submit that will be the time and place for

the grain dealers and millers of Canada, who consider themselves affected, to seek the rights which they are asking now through the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax, an amendment which,
I regret, we cannot accept.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say that the Government has definitely avoided giving any compulsory powers in this bill?


James Alexander Robb: In so far as powers are given directly from this Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) sitting beside him or, perhaps, it would not be fair to put this question. Does he not admit that the old board had compulsory powers given by this Parliament, which powers this Parliament still has a right to give, aside from the compulsory powers which the provincial legislatures alone have the right to give? Does my hon. friend catch what I mean?


James Alexander Robb: I am not a lawyer, but my recollection is that these powers were subsequently declared illegal; they were ultra vires.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not got my point. It is true that certain compulsory powers given to the .old Wheat Board have been declared to be powers that only the provincial parliaments could give, but that does not apply by any means to all the compulsory powers given to the old Wheat Board. There were compulsory powers vested in the old board which only this Parliament could give either at that time or to-day; for example, directory powers as to transportation, powers of priority as to lake vessels, and compulsory powers in relation to our own system of elevators. All these the late Wheat Board had. Do I understand from the minister that they are exempt from this bill and are carefully avoided by the Government?


James Alexander Robb: Does my right hon. friend contend that those powers are now conferred?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot find them in the bill, but what I say is that the Government undertook to put them in.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. In the report
to which I took exception, but which the Government accepted, an acceptance that was marked by very considerable eulogies from hon. gentlemen to my left, it is pro-

Wheat Board
vided that; all the powers of the old board which this Parliament has the right to give should be conferred upon the new board. The Government accepted that report, but now the minister says they have carefully avoided acting upon it in that respect.


Mr. McMASTER:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. CALDWELL:: There is one point I might refer to.


The CHAIRMAN:: The	member for
Brome has the floor.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hon. members are
quite aware of the view I take of this legislation. It is unfortunate in its inception and will be more unfortunate in its carrying out. The right hon. member who last addressed the House on the other side (Mr. Meighen) is no doubt quite familiar with the phrase of a celebrated American statesman, that the United States could not live half slave and half free; and I believe that the trade in grain in this country cannot live if half of its existence this trading season is to be passed under free conditions, and the other half under coercive or limiting conditions. The grievous unfairness which the refusal to grant this amendment will work upon the grain trade is obvious. Up to the time that compulsory powers are given to the Wheat Board by the prairie provinces, if such be given, the grain traders will have been trading in a free market; and certainly up to the present they have been under the impression that when they came to close out their contracts they would be able to do so under a free market. But that is not going to happen. You are going to create by this legislation a situation in which 85 per cent of the wheat crop will be put into the hands of a few men, instead of there being an open competition between buyers and sellers.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member says there is a difference between selling in a market such as it is proposed to create, and selling in a free market. If this board is put into operation, he contends, buyers will not have a free market. What is the difference between the board holding the wheat and the farmers holding it, as they have a right to do?


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the farmers of
this country desire to hold their wheat and take the chance of having it depreciate in value rather than increase, they have a perfect right to do so, and I am not complaining about that. I am, however, complaining of the state assisting in bringing about what I believe will be a very undesirable consequence not only tc the people of Canada as a whole, but to the very grain-growers themselves. Under present conditions contracts are made day by day on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. When people are dealing in futures they are not dealing in grain, but in contracts for the delivery of grain, and it is quite true that the same grain which is the subject matter of a contract may change hands half a dozen times, sometimes at a higher and sometimes at a lower price. I know that a number of hon. gentlemen regard that as speculation! something akin to gambling. But from my study of the question, to which I have given some care and attention in the last few weeks, my impression is that that very mode of dealing in grain tends to eliminate speculative variations in prices; and I believe that you will get a more constant price by means of this free dealing in grain contracts than if you operate in a market that does not deal in futures. For proof of this proposition I would refer hon. gentlemen to a little book I read, the facts of which are correct," written by an American professor in a western university. He compared dealing in wheat with dealing in barley. The wheat was dealt in a future market, while the barley was not; and the spread was much less in respect of wheat than in respect of barley. The creation of this Wheat Board will mean that 85 per cent of the wheat will be in the hands of two or three men, who will deal with it. Is that fair to people who have been calculating on the assumption that they would have a free market? I do not think it is, and I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). It merely gives the right to the board, where any injustice would occur, to remedy that injustice by taking over existing contracts-. This bill proposes to take away people's business from them and force them to deal in a manner different from that on which their calculations have been based. Is it not a matter of primary justice that if the state does that, the state will see to it that no harm is done to the public interest?


Robert Milton Johnson: If the
object of the hon. member is merely that people shall have the right to buy and sell

Wheat Board

voluntarily, is not that embodied in section 6?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to say a word on the amendment offered by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). In respect of the whole question of speculative trading in wheat, it is very difficult to draw the line and say that here legitimate trading ceases and illegitimate trading begins. It is extremely difficult, in fact it is impossiblei to draw that distinguishing line. It is a fact that the October future has been traded in to some degree in the only grain exchange we have in Canada, namely, in Winnipeg. What volume of trading has taken place in that exchange relating to the new crop that wili be harvested next September and which is at present growing, no one can say. But we are very certain of this fact, that if any person has sold October wheat he has sold it on pure speculation. I do not think that fact can be gainsaid. My hon. friend from Halifax says that the elevator owners are selling this wheat now. I beg to say that he is mistaken, because the elevator owner or operator who attempted to do his business that way could not get his line of credit established at any bank in Canada, for one thing that our banking institutions insist upon, and rightly, is that such speculation be avoided, and any person who to-day will bell wheat for October delivery, not knowing what price he will have to pay for the actual wheat when October comes, is engaging in a pure speculation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But it is a legitimate speculation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not discussing whether it is legitimate or illegitimate; but it is a speculation. I am quite aware of the fact that exporters, for instance, under the methods that have obtained in the business make contract sales of wheat for delivery one, two or even three months ahead,-although to make contracts for delivery three months ahead is rather unusual-and they protect their contracts, if they themselves do not wish to take the speculative risk, by the purchase of grain for delivery in a future month.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the usual
way.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the usual way when the grain is in actual existence and has started to move. But if you take grain not in actual existence, it is a pure
IMr. R. M. Johnson.]
speculation and nothing else on the part of the person who sells it, and my own judgment is that the volume of trading that so far has been engaged in in that way is very limited.
Reference has been made to-night by one of my friends on this side of the House to the volume of wheat dealt with in the exchanges in relation to the actual amount grown, that it is eight and ten and twelve times as great. I think such a statement would be difficult to verify. Undoubtedly years ago-and the same condition may recur-a very large volume of purely speculative trading was indulged in. My opinion is that now the volume of speculative trading is very much restricted, because all legitimate business interests- the bankers, bona fide people in the trade and others frown it down and do not want to see it engaged in. That is an additional reason for my conclusion, based only on my opinion, that up to the present time the volume of trading in our October wheat has been relatively small.
There is one other objection to the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Halifax. If this amendment were passed it would be an encouragement to any person to go out and sell October or December wheat for future delivery. They would have no responsibility in the matter at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am always glad to have my hon. friend from Brome interrupt me.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does not my hon.
friend from Marquette see that this amendment merely gives the board power to honour a contract when of course the board would be satisfied that some injustice had been perpetrated?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very true; reading the amendment that is all it appears to do. But pass this amendment, and the impression in the public mind will be that the board will honour those contracts when claims are presented to it, and you do not discourage this trading, which, I submit, at the present time is purely of a speculative character. For that reason I do not think it is wise to accept this amendment.
But there is another and to my mind even a stronger reason, and that is that under the bill the responsibility for mak-

Wheat Board
ing good any losses that may arise rests upon the provinces that pass the concurrent legislation. This Parliament takes the ground in passing this hill, and I think perhaps very fairly when you bear in min'd that the demand for this legislation comes from a particular section of Canada, that the federal treasury should not be responsible for any losses that may arise from the operations of the board. That being so, what right has this Parliament to insert in the bill a condition that might throw an additional financial loss on the provinces passing the concurrent legislation? That to my mind is the very strongest reason why the amendment is not advisable. The provinces passing the concurrent legislation must assume the financial responsibility, and if in the operations of this board a loss should result instead of a gain, they have to make good that loss. I think when that concurrent legislation is being passed the provinces . might properly be asked to give the board permission to make good losses that might arise under bona fide contracts that may be entered into. I think those contracts at the present time are very few, and in any case with this legislation passing, such contracts will or should cease, because it is fair notice to those making them that they are doing so on their own responsibility.
My hon. friend from Halifax has argued, and I think with a good deal of correctness, that in the past this has been the accepted method of doing business. It is the method that governs after the grain is actually in hand, but up to the time the crop is harvested and assured, those who are selling it for October delivery are simply taking a chance on the market that they will be able to buy at a slightly cheaper price than that at which they are selling and make some money thereby.
Now, I want to make this point clear. There is a widespread impression abroad that these sales are made by grain men and elevator companies, as my hon. friend from Halifax suggested this evening, and by brokers and others. I do not think that is the case. You find far more of the pure grain speculators outside the ranks of the grain business than inside, and I am speaking of brokers and dealers generally. Reference was made on one occasion in the discussions in committee that it was preachers, lawyers, doctors and business men-


Andrew Ross McMaster: And stenographers.
204J


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and possibly stenographers, who having the speculative bug that each of us, Mr. Chairman,
9 p.m. has more or less inherent in our system, took this means of satisfying their curiosity of what the game of chance in the grain market might bring them, and from my experience in the grain trade running over quite a number of years I think there is considerable truth in that statement. The widespread impression that elevator companies and others engaged in the business are responsible for this volume of speculuation is very largely all wrong. The elevator interests that buy grain will not be permitted by their banks if they know it to engage in speculation, and the volume of speculation in the market comes in very largely from outside. It is to-day perhaps the people outside the trade who are selling October wheat in the expectation that they may buy at a cheaper price and make a profit oh the transaction, and they are the persons for whom my hon. friend from Halifax is asking protection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are there not a great many English importers buying futures at this season of the year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There will be after our grain crop is assured.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think so, at any rate to any large degree. From whom are they buying? From the speculator. I think, however, the financial reason I have given- is the strongest reason against the amendment. If any loss arises on the whole transactions of this board, the provinces affected should make it good, and not the federal treasury. Surely you cannot impose the conditions in the amendment without the consent of the provinces that are affected.


William Charles Good: I think it would be desirable if we could get a little more unanimity, and I venture to repeat the question which the hon. member for Brome asked, and which has not yet been answered definitely. As I understood him, he suggested that when the miller came to the Wheat Board for his wheat, as the board had a monopoly of wheat, they would hold him up for a tremendous price, probably exact twice the price that he should pay. I think if that question could be answered satisfactorily, the hon. member would be quite willing to vote with the rest of us.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
On section 15-Limitation on time for operations of board:
James Alexander Robb: I move that there be inserted in the blank for the date the words "the first day of July, 1923".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Act to come into operation after two or more provinces enact necessary legislation:
William Charles Good: Suppose the Governor
in Council considered that the legislation enacted by the provinces was not adequate; what would happen?


James Alexander Robb: That will have to be determined when we take the legislation into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Milton Johnson: I wish to
move that a section be added to the bill to be known as iSection 18. I explained very fully the purpose of this amendment when we were discussing the matter before six o'clock. It is merely for the purpose of rounding out the powers which provinces concurring in this legislation may take, and making them more complete. I now beg to move to add to the bill as section 18 the following:
The hoard 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.


James Alexander Robb: For the same reason that the Government could not accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), we cannot concur in this amendment. The idea of the Government all through, in creating this legislation and bringing it before Parliament, was to avoid compulsory legislation in every way. This proposal, in my judgment interferes with provincial rights. This Government is not disposed to take away from a man in Alberta, or Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, or Ontario any civil rights, which he may enjoy in such province. I submit to my hon. friend that his amendment is contrary to the spirit of the legislation that we have brought down and are considering to-night, and we will not be able to accept it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the provincial governments wished to have such a clause included

in the bill would the minister be in favour of accepting it.


James Alexander Robb: Well, that would be a matter for consideration after we had before us the legislation adopted by the different provincial governments. We cannot anticipate what we will do in advance of the provincial measures coming before us.
Mr, STEWART (Argenteuil): Will the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) explain what he is trying to do by this amendment.


Robert Milton Johnson: The purpose of this amendment is not that this Government or this Parliament shall take away any of the rights enjoyed by any citizen in any province unless those citizens, speaking through their provincial government, express that wish. As I understand, from the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown, the provincial governments have not the power to prohibit the export of grain from any province, nor has this Parliament, nor this Government, authority to delegate its powers to a provincial government. It may, however, delegate them to the Wheat Board if the provincial authorities want that done. That is exactly what the resolution declares. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that two or three days ago we passed legislation here of an exactly parallel nature. In that case the province of Saskatchewan not having the power to prohibit the export of liquor from the liquor houses in question, we passed legislation declaring that when the province asked that such exportation be prohibited this Government would give effect to its wishes. That is exactly what we are asking for here; not that this Government shall interfere at all in any degree whatever, but that when a province asks that the export of wheat from that province, except through the wheat board, be prohibited, that then this Government shall give the board power to carry out the wishes of the provincial executive. I would add, that without this clause the whole bill is practically unworkable; it is absolutely useless to carry out its purpose. Unless this amendment is incorporated in the bill, what is to prevent any man, any speculator from any part of the world, if you like, or from the grain exchanges, advertising all over creating disruption and disorganizing the operations of the Wheat Board itself ? Such men might say, for example: "We cannot go into Alberta and buy your wheat because your provincial law prohibits it;

Wheat Board
but you send us your wheat to Winnipeg, to Fort William, to Montreal, or wherever you like, and we will buy it when it gets there," the result would be to disorganize the whole trade. We would have this state of affairs: Any irresponsible set of people could go into a province and ask the grain growers in outside districts to ship their grain from a station platform. As I have done scores of times, not finding a loading platform, the wheat could be dumped from the waggon into a car at the siding. * What is the result? Nobody knows whether that is wheat, oats, sand, gravel or anything else. It is a carload of something, and until the car is billed out the transportation companies have no responsibility for it. This provision is, I claim, a necessary protection to the shipper himself and should be embodied in the bill, for as the measure now stands it is worse than useless.


Andrew Ross McMaster: When once people Start on wrong economic lines there is no saying where they will end up. What the hon. member for Moosejaw is asking is to restore the condition which prevailed in France before the French Revolution, when grain could not pass freely from one province in France to another. The same sort of thing was done in .Spain. It is reverting back not exactly to the Middle Ages but to the time before the French Revolution. It is to that extreme that these gentlemen, these protagonists of free trade, have gone for the purpose of throttling the grain trade of this country. I stand on the floor of this House to protest against it and I make this prediction-that no one will be sorrier in the future than the men who are asking for this restriction tonight.


Thomas Henry McConica: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, certainly.


Thomas Henry McConica: Did any of the direful consequences which my hon. friend is picturing occur when we had the Wheat Board two or three years ago?	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No. You were moving from a condition of government control to another condition of government control. You were meeting collective buying in Europe by collective selling on this continent; and you had control of prices in the United States. Here you are comparing things absolutely different. I suppose there is no necessity for an easterner, whose only desire is to advance the welfare of this
country, getting warmed up about this thing, but I would implore my hon. friends opposite not to urge such an amendment as this. To my mind you are going to destroy every demand you have made for economic freedom in the past; you are hauling down the flag you have been carrying so bravely heretofore for years past; and if you persist no one will be sorrier than yourselves. I trust that this amendment will not be accepted by the Government, and that in the calm light of sober reason my hon. friends will not press it.


George Gibson Coote: May I point out that in the second clause of the report of the select Standing Committee on Agriculture it was recommended that there be given to this board all the powers possessed by the Wheat Board of 1919, "as are within the jurisdiction of Parliament to grant excepting as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products." Now we understood that we had the promise of the Prime Minister that if that report was adopted by the House, the bill to be brought in would give the board all the powers that are set forth in that report. I think it is the duty of the Government to see that all such powers given to the old Wheat; Board included in this bill.
Mr- STEWART (Argenteuil) : The amendment is new to me. I thought we were giving the board all the powers it was possible to confer upon it for federal authority. The federal Government is proposing a voluntary board that can be -made compulsory by the action of the provincial governments. The provincial governments, if they take the necessary action, will add the compulsory feature, and I cannot understand why this amendment is necessary. It seems to me simply to add the power to withhold the exportation of wheat, and if I understand the desire of my hon. friends it is that the wheat shall move freely; that a pool shall foe formed and that every one within its boundaries shall be forced to sell his grain in it. I do not think it would affect the grain trade as stated by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) to-night.


Robert Milton Johnson: Does the minister object to the provinces exercising that compulsory power, provided they pass the necessary legislation?
Mr. -STEWART (Argenteuil):	Not at
all.
Wheat Board


Robert Milton Johnson: But if you do not accept this amendment you curtail their power to enforce compulsion.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: I do not want to be certain about this, because the matter is entirely new to me; but I understood the law officers of the Crown to intimate that all the necessary powers were contained in the act itself. But this pro* posed amendment seems to me to permit the province to store grain and hold it- that is, to order the board to store grain and hold it, and I do not think that is a power they require at all.


Arthur Meighen: The matter is not
nearly so simple as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) seems to think. The members of the Government have merely scratched the surface of this question. They have brought in an undigested bill, a bill that I described in the first place as unworthy the name of legislation. They seem to have proceeded on the idea that all the powers this Parliament had could be described in one word, "voluntary", and that all powers that were compulsory were provincial. There is not a lawyer in this House who does not know that such is not the case. Certain compulsory powers are ours; certain are not. It would not be suggested that the province has power to forbid export from that province without accessory legislation from this Parliament *-and this is the accessory legislation. The Government accepted a report, against warning which I expressed and which -I sought to impress upon them in a fair way-a report that I knew they could not live up to. And they are not living up to it; they cannot live up to it. This 'legislation is not a reflection of the report; hon. gentlemen to my left now see that. But this is only one respect in which the legislation is by no means the outgrowth or fulfilment of the report. It is only one of many; we will come to others later. That report bound the Government to embody in the powers they vested in the Wheat Board all the powers that the old board had that this Parliament could bestow. The power dealt with in the amendment is one they have withheld; there are many others. I named a few of them a little while ago-not embodied here at all-and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) stood up and said: "We carefully avoided putting those in." Carefully avoided it, though they had given their word to Parliament that everything asked for in the report of the committee 
on agriculture would find its way into this legislation. Furthermore, the report of the committee on agriculture said this- indeed, this was the very essence to which I took exception: " Two legislatures must vest this board with all the powers they can give to it that the old board had. They must do that, and all that, then and only then the Governor in Council was to have power to call this new act into effect." Have they followed that? No, they have not. I am glad to see they took my warning, but they would have been more frank with Parliament-and it would have been a little fairer to this House-if they had said: "Yes, that is correct; we cannot follow the report in that regard." Instead of that the Prime Minister rose and said: "We are ready to bring legislation into the House to fulfil this report." He has not done it. This legislation does not provide that the legislatures shall give all the compulsory powers they can give before the act goes into effect; it says that when they do confer compulsory powers the Government will pass on those powers, and if they suit them the act will go into effect. That is along the line I suggested in that respect, but it is precisely the opposite of what the Prime Minister bound himself to do, and for which he received the overflowing gratitude of the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) , who described the Prime Minister as having, in this respect anyway, lived up to his policy as enunciated to the electors. Well, he had a great advantage in living up to his policy on this subject, because he had none; he never pronounced any to the electorate. It was very easy to live up to nothing. I must admit that he was in a better position when he had no policy than he is now when he has this bill. The amendment of the hon. member for Moosejaw is necessary he says to give teeth to this legislation. That is correct; the legislation is next to worthless without it. But after you give teeth to the legislation in the shape it is in, you have put teeth in the mouth of a deformed, famished monstrosity, and it is doubtful whether to do so is not more dangerous than disuseful.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the present bill falls short in any respect of the statement I made in the House the other day, I should certainly be the first to ask that the Government have opportunity to implement any pledge I have made here or elsewhere. I am unable at the moment to say just how far the amendment would go,

Wheat Board
but I would like to have opportunity to have it looked into from a legal point of view and in other respects. I suggest, therefore, that the amendment be allowed to stand and that the committee at this stage rise and report progress, so that the Government may have an opportunity to consider the effect that the proposed amendment would have. My right hon. friend need not be alarmed in the least that the Government will not carry out in the fullest measure possible the report made to this House by the committee, and which I said would be carried out in accordance with the terms of that report.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the significance of the word "possible" in that promise?


Ernest Lapointe: Go to school.


George Perry Graham: In Webster's unabridged you will find it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Before the committee
rises, I should like to say a word. I have not had an opportunity to study carefully the full significance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson). As I understand it now, it simply seeks to clothe the provinces concurring with the necessary power to control the export of wheat to the places in which the board may seek to sell it. In that respect I do not know that the power could do any harm. It is a matter concerning the provinces themselves; they have the financial liability if there is any loss, and they share in the gain if there is any. It seems to me to be a matter very largely of local consequence. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but if the people of those provinces want to make the experiment of handling their grain in this way, I do not know that it is a matter of very great concern to the rest of the Dominion. I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I do not know-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I wish you had the saving faith in them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know that the case is quite analogous; but we need not discuss that now. As to the doleful pessimism of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) it has really surpassed the pessimism of his views on some other legislation that has come before this House. I think this proposition can work out in the manner in which the people interested
wish it to work out. Let them have the experiment; let them try it, and experience will determine whether the thing is good or bad.


Arthur Meighen: That will depend upon the changes that are made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend is
altogether wrong in that.


Arthur Meighen: Quite a few have already been made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is, perhaps, a testimony to the foresight and wisdom of my right hon. friend who suggested them; but I think the bill, as proposed in this House with the concurrent legislation of the provinces, gives a fair opportunity to try out this experiment. There is no doubt that the people of western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta desire to have this experiment in marketing their grain. At first hand, I see no reason why the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) should not receive favourable consideration. I say that subject to this reservation, that I have not had an opportunity of studying it thoroughly. The matter is one that concerns these provinces and if they wish to control absolutely the export of grain from those provinces as they wish to control absolutely the export of liquor, I do not know that it will greatly injure any other part of the Dominion should they have this power.
Amendment stands.
Progress reported.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 142, to amend the Indian Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
On clause 2-Title for common lands of band may be granted on land acquired for Indian settler. Such lands may be security for advances as under Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, but only individual Indian interest is acquired.
Mr. LADNER:: Is it the intention of the Government to give certain concessions to the Indians with respect to the Potlach institution, an ancient right or custom of the Indians, where they gather together, in dealing with their personal and real property, in celebrating marriages and in carrying on certain dances and matters of
Indian Act Amendment

that kind of a social nature? The law has been on the statute book since 1884, but it is only since about 1918 that it has been enforced. Amendments have been made, and the law is now being enforced to the extent that thousands and thousands of dollars of Indian property are being forcibly taken from them and some twenty-three have been sent to jail, of whom a number have been liberated, for infractions of the act in respect to carrying on a Pot-lach. I have reliable information that an aged woman, a grandmother, in fact, was sent to jail. The only reason why the Indians carry on this practice is because they thoroughly believe in their ancient customs and they think the honour of their family is not maintained unless certain celebrations take place according to the Potlach institution. I have had some communications with the department, and I should like the minister to give the committee some information whether any remedy will be .applied as regards this matter, and whether the Indians will-be released from jail and the restrictions lessened.


Charles A. Stewart: I think this ceremony is confined very largely, if not practically altogether, to the province of British Columbia. It is true, from what I can gather, that no action was taken until very recent times with respect to the ceremonies incidental to the Potlach. Perhaps there is not very much to be complained about so long as it is confined to the ceremony; but unfortunately-I am speaking not from actual knowledge, but from information gleaned from the department itself-they are in the habit of giving away their entire belongings and impoverishing themselves at these feasts. It is the desire of the department to stop this practice and not particularly celebrations or other matters incidental to the ceremony. The fact is that they do, under excitement, give away practically their entire belongings. It must be remembered that I am speaking only from information; I do not know about this at first hand. Inasmuch, however, as I intend to visit British Columbia, either next month or in August, and shall meet the Indians in British Columbia, I shall he very glad to make a personal inquiry into this matter. I can hardly conceive that a magistrate would be so severe as to convict and send to jail those Indians who no doubt have a certain amount of reverence for institutions and customs that have been handed down to them by their forefathers. Some 
action, however, should he taken to prevent them from impoverishing themselves sometimes with winter approaching and without any provision being made for them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As regards giving away articles, people in authority, of course, know that these articles are not given away. The custom is in the nature of making Christmas gifts, where one man will take a turn at giving away a number of articles of value, and on the next occasion another man will take his turn and give them back and so the thing goes around in a circle. Has the matter not been investigated, at the instance of the department, by the Anthropological Society which has made a report favourable to the lessening of these restrictions and giving back to the Indians some of their rights? I believe this whole matter has been gone into, carefully studied and a report made to the department. Has a report been filed and what is the nature of its contents?


Charles A. Stewart: If a
report is in the department, it has not been brought to my attention; but in connection with the Indians of British Columbia particularly, there are many matters awaiting my attention. I would not say that the report is not in the department; but if it is, I have not seen it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the report be
available for the members?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no objection, if it is in the department.


Arthur Meighen: As regards the question of compulsory enfranchisement, I really fear the minister has not given the matter full enough consideration. The principle of compulsory enfranchisement 'was accepted by the last Parliament, the idea being the same as has underlain our whole Indian law and administration, namely, that we should seek to bring the Indians gradually, by slow but sure degrees, out of the state of wardship and into the status of citizenship. Now, there are certain advantages that accrue to the condition of wardship; there are certain advantages that even those Indians quite capable of citizenship are loth to give up. And now, if the minister -takes this step and gives the ground that he is giving, under, I fear, a certain measure of coercion from certain bands of Indians themselves, then we may just as well abandon all hope of the day when we shall ever have any substantial enfranchisement of the

Indian Act Amendment
Indians of this country. The old law provided, not for compulsory enfranchisement in its naked and forbidding sense at all; but, after the most careful examination, under all sorts of restrictions and under proper supervision, it provided that the Indians who were felt to be wholly capable of looking after themselves should take their share of the property that belonged to them and administer it themselves. Those who had shown themselves capable of this, after years of supervision, and who had passed the probationary-stage, it was provided, should be declared to be citizens. This, on the one hand, released the state from the obligation of supervision and, on the other hand, released the Indian from that state of subserviency that keeps down the development of his manhood and his sense of independence. Once the department takes the position now proposed and goes back at the behest of these tribes, I do not believe we are ever going to get the Indians in this country into the rank of citizenship. They will not get into that rank of their own accord; it is not in human nature for them to do so. This country does its duty by the Indian when it takes care of him, while he is yet undeveloped, is not equal to the rest of the people, and cannot take care of himself. When he passes that stage and attains an equality with others in ability to care for himself, then we have no more obligation to him, further than to give him his civil rights, the rights of citizenship, and the property that belongs to him. We have discharged our whole obligation and should not be asked to go further. But the minister does not take that view. He says that though the Indian be thoroughly capable, though, indeed, the heads of his own tribe consider him so, though years have shown him to be so, nevertheless, unless he elects himself to come out of the rank of wardship into the rank of citizenship we will not place him there. Experience showed the department and I know that the deputy minister was firmly convinced of it in my time-that we ourselves had positively to take the step, or it was not going to be taken. I know that the minister will meet with difficulties; I have no doubt he will receive threats. Agitators among the Indians centered on this point with particular force, and these obstacles were bound to confront the minister. But he should have sternly faced them and surmounted them; because, once you yield, these same forces
will come back later with redoubled strength, with a courage born of past success, and no minister in the future will be likely to get to the point we reached in the last Parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with some part of what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has said, but not with all of it. So far as I can ascertain, no Indian has been enfranchised under the Compulsory Enfranchisement Act passed last session. Why? Because the Indians were up in arms about it; they resented being made to give up their property under compulsion. They argued1 that the deputy superintendent or the superintendent general could name any Indian and enfranchise him willy nilly, have him take his share of the band money and his share of land and place him in a position where he might sell the land subsequently to a white man if he so desired, thereby breaking up the reserve. The Indians had very serious objection to this. I agree thoroughly as to the character of the Indians who should be enfranchised. We are trying to educate the Indians, and my right hon. friend will agree that this has been the object of the department. Once the Indian is able to assume the status of citizenship and is desirous of being enfranchised, then I think he should be enfranchised and be given his share of the band money; and so far as I have been able to ascertain, whenever this is done he invariably leaves the area in which he has lived. It seems to me that you will make far greater progress with these wards of the Government if you try to instil in them the real essence of their manhood, allowing them to take upon themselves the responsibility that is theirs, rather than forcing it upon them. The same thing prevailed with respect to the soldiers' settlement. Up to date no Indian has been enfranchised who has not expressed the desire for citizenship. The attempt to enfranchise the Indian whether he wanted to be enfranchised or not if in the opinion of the superintendent genera] he was a fit and proper subject to be enfranchised, has been strenuously opposed by the Indians, who are fighting the question very vigorously upon the reserves. I think that if we are to succeed with the Indians we shall do so by educating them and inculcating in them a desire for the franchise, rather than by forcing it upon them. I may be mistaken, but that is the opinion I have formed in the short time I have had to deal with the matter. The one outstanding difficulty is that the franchise
Indian Act Amendment

carries with it, in their minds,-as it does in fact-a certain share of the land that constitutes the reserve, and in many cases the reserves are accordingly becoming restricted; and unless these men are taught to cultivate their lands in these areas a greater burden will have to be assumed by the people with respect to them. My belief is that we shall succeed better with the Indians by going to them and getting a candid agreement with them to do certain things rather than by attempting by force to make them do things that they feel to be repulsive. I might refer to one experience. I know an area of land held by Indians in this country, of which the portion I saw was farmed, in my opinion, as well as any land I have seen in Ontario. I think these Indians are to be congratulated on the way they are carrying on. But they are the most dissatisfied lot of people I ever went amongst, and I cannot understand why that should be. It does seem to me, however, that we can do more with them by encouragement, by endeavouring to get them to do what is in their own best interests, instead of by legislative action that has a spirit of compulsion about it. That is my firm belief.


Arthur Meighen: The difficulty mentioned oy the minister, that the Indian on being enfranchised would own land in the reserve of his own right which he could sell to any white man, is just as present in the case of voluntary as in the case of compulsory enfranchisement. It could be overcome by some provision for exchange which I would think could easily be made fair; that is to say, if it is a difficulty of such magnitude as to warrant such a step.
As to the fact that no Indians have been enfranchised, the act has only been in force a few months, and naturally until the Indian had it instilled in his mind that it was for his own benefit, the department would be loth to proceed with the enfranchisement; but I do think that during that period it would have been better to have pursued an educational policy designed to bring the Indian to agree with the act, rather than submit to the defiance of these agitators and thereby postpone forever the possibility of this reform.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 133 to regulate the sale and inspection of root

vegetables (as amended), Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 3-Potato grades.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: When this bill was in committee last Saturday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) requested that it stand over until to-morrow because of certain features of this section. I think therefore we should pass over this section to-night and take up the other sections.
Section stands.
On section 4-Onion grades; definitions.


George Newcombe Gordon: This section was
amended in the special committee by striking out the words, "grown in Canada" and substituting therefor the word "offered".


Mr. SPENCE:: I understood the whole bill was to stand over until Tuesday.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought the hon. member was interested only in clause 3, which has been allowed to stand.


David Spence: I am interested in the whole bill, and I wish you would be good enough to let it stand until to-morrow. That is what you assured me you would do.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought I was complying with the hon. gentleman's request in asking the committee to let section 3 stand. However, I shall be happy to comply with his request. I therefore propose that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


SALE OF AGRICULTURAL FERTILIZERS
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 149 to regulate the sale of agricultural fertilizers (as amended), Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 7-Application of act.
George Newcombe Gordon: Clause 7 is amended by striking out the whole of sub-clause (a). The clause reads now:
This act shall not apply to the selling or offering for sale of fertilizers for manufacturing purposes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is right. That is what was agreed to by the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: In my copy the whole of section 7 is struck out and another section is substituted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The section substituted would be the first line and the last line and a half of that section.

Quebec Harbour


William Richard Motherwell: Whatever change is in your copy, Mr. Chairman, is intended to carry.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 78, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 2-$1,500,000 may be advanced to Harbour Commissioners for terminal facilities:
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Ernest Lapointe: I think this bill was explained pretty fully when the resolution was under consideration. I am still of the view that its provisions are necessary, and there is no other way in which the money can be advanced for the necessary work to be done. My hon. friend cannot suggest any other way, because there is no other way. This is the way it was done in his time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is perfectly true that advances running up into millions have been made and exhausted. It is perfectly true that when business was still being carried on, not only was there no return to the government of the advances, but the business was done at a loss. We were approached for further sums of money, and we came to the conclusion that there was an end to everything, and that the end in this case had been reached, and we did not give way to the importunities of the commission. I do not know what the minister's ultimate
idea with regard to these properties may be, but surely something ought to be done. Surely he should give us some idea of what he is going to do. Does he think we should go on indefinitely making advances to harbour properties that do not give us any returns but, on the other hand, show substantial losses? Surely he must have some idea as to what is to be done in the future.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that we are getting some return from these advances, even if they have not paid interest so far. I gave the committee all the figures when the resolution was under consideration. I think that the sums expended on the port of Quebec compare favourably with those expended on all the other ports of the country. It is true that no interest is being paid, but may I point out that on the port of Halifax the sum of $16,738,965 has been spent and that no interest of any kind whatever is paid. On the harbour of St. John, a total of $14,746,220 has been expended and no interest is being paid there either. Those are national expenditures, they are necessary expenditure. In Montreal the harbour is paying its own way. The revenues are so large that the commissioners are able to pay interest on all sums that have been lent to them by the federal government. In Toronto, $8,806,345 has been spent by this government without any interest whatever being paid, and surely the port of Toronto cannot be compared with the port of Quebec as far as traffic is concerned. On the harbour of Vancouver the sum of $7,056,256.70 has been expended. There the revenues exceed the expenditure, and the Government hopes that the interest will be paid on the various loans made. As I stated before, these expenditures are necessary for the purpose of keeping up work that has already been done. They are necessary in order that the harbour works may be used to advantage, and they are necessary for the navigation of the St. Lawrence river. I hope that in the future the expansion of trade at Quebec will permit the harbour commissioners there to pay interest on these advances.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Will this money be expended on new work or in repairing work that has already been constructed?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to complete work which has been started and to repair works which need repair.
Quebec Harbour


Thomas George McBride: Well, has the money which has been spent in Halifax, St. John and Vancouver been for the construction of new work or for the repair of old work?


Ernest Lapointe: New work.


Thomas George McBride: Does the minister think it is a good policy for this Parliament to vote money for repairing old work? Ought not that expenditure be charged up to general account and not to capital account?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my hon. friend can suggest any other way of doing it. If he can I am quite willing to accept it. This is the only way in which it can be done. The work needed in Quebec is done by the harbour commission just as the work in other ports is done by their harbour commission. Otherwise the Department of Public Works would have to do the work.


Thomas George McBride: I quite understand this work is done by the harbour commission, but does the minister think it is sound policy to borrow capital to repair work that already exists?


Ernest Lapointe: When it is necessary. If the Government was doing the work itself the expenditure would certainly be charged to capital account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. member to my left has put his finger on the whole trouble. There is not a bit of good referring to what has been done other places because the minister will not find -I know he will correct me if I am wrong-that as regards other places debentures are being issued to pay for current repairs. I do not think he will find that debentures are being issued anywhere else for repaving approaches or repainting woodwork such as we have here.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It will not be found anywhere else. Nor does it help very much to refer to other ports unless we refer to ports that are administered in the same way. It does not help the case at all to refer for example, to Toronto. It is quite true that the sum of $8,000,000 has been spent in the port of Toronto but it is also true that the commissioners there have spent a great deal more than $8,000,000 and they administer the port themselves and pay-


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


Ernest Lapointe: The only reason I referred to the other ports is because it is charged against the port of Quebec that it is not paying interest on the sums spent there. I only want to show my hon. friend that the same thing exists in all the ports of Canada except the port of Montreal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had not
quite finished following jup my line of thought but the minister's argument makes my point very apparent. I say there is not much use talking about the port of Toronto, because the Toronto people finance the greater part of the capital themselves and pay their own deficits when they have them. Can my hon. friend point to one other port-,if he will just mention one I will be satisfied-where we are issuing debentures to pay for current repairs? I do not know of any; I may be wrong and I will be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong. We have these separate Boards of Commissioners working under guarantee at different places; we have them working at Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver. I do not remember another port-if I am wrong my hon. friend will correct me, because it is in his department and he knows all about it-but I only remember those three places. Montreal pays its interest, and the minister says the receipts in Vancouver are greater than the expenses so that it will also pay. So that, so far as this particular^ class of port is concerned, Quebec is the only one that is not paying interest?


Ernest Lapointe: What about St. John
and Halifax?
(Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	But my hon.
friend knows very well that there is no Harbour Commission there?


Ernest Lapointe: What is the difference?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend knows very well that these ports are not so administered. He knows that in the cases mentioned the port is a city port. On the other hand this is Dominion property, this is something for the administration of which we are responsible, and we have two other ports where we have the same condition. Now I want to find out from my hon. friend, as the minister in charge, what he thinks of a Dominion government property being so administered that, as I have already pointed out, we have to issue debentures to pay for current upkeep. The idea of this advance is two-fold; it is further to enlarge the facilities not

Quebec Harbour
now used to anything like the capacity, and it is also to make repairs. Well if we have to issue debentures can they not be kept down to at least repairs so that we would not be enlarging the basis of our loans. This bill is drawn in a very misleading manner because our investment in this port is infinitely greater than appears.


Ernest Lapointe: Why say that? This
bill has been drawn in exactly the same manner as the bills presented by my predecessors, Mr. Hazen and Mr. Ballantyne. Why say this is a misleading draught?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask a question? A supplementary estimate was brought down to the House on June 4 last year for $60,000 to pay for the expropriation of land in connection with the Quebec Harbour. Can the minister tell me whether any part of this vote is to go to pay that $60,000?


Ernest Lapointe: I hope not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the $60,000 been
paid since last June?
. Mr. LAPOINTE:	I do not think it has.
If so it has been paid by the Commission, but I do not think so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It has not been raid
by the Government.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It could not have been
paid because the money was not voted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just there, I dislike to differ with my hon. friend for I very often find myself in perfect accord with him, but there is this thing which has disturbed me somewhat during the present session. We spend day after day here trying to pare down estimates and be economical. Yet we came to the House this year and we find, I think, in the neighbourhood, of $10,000,000 in supplementary estimates for money that had not been voted by parliament but had been expended under Governor General's warrant. I will therefore have to differ with my hon. friend opposite when he says that in this particular case the money could not have been paid because it was not voted, because we had nearly $10,000,000 paid that was not voted by Parliament last year. But what I would like to ask is this: Has any claim been put into the Government for the $60,000 since last June?


Ernest Lapointe: Not to the Government, but there is a judgment against the
harbour commissioners for that amount, on which they are paying interest. I do not know what they will really do, but there is nothing to be gained by perpetuating the thing.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I ask the question
because a very serious charge was made when the supplementary estimates were brought down last year. It was alleged that this $60,000 was not to pay for the expropriation of land by the Quebec Harbour Commission, but to cover election expenses on the occasion of the by-election in the county of Yamaska. The supplementary estimate was introduced by the then Minister of Justice and was strongly supported by the then Prime Minister, but the charge that was made seemed to scare them as a coon is scared out of a tree; they withdrew the item without even letting it come to a vote. That would make it appear as though there was something in the charge, and I think the minister should investigate the matter and find out if it has been the practice of governments, either past or present, to pass supplementary estimates with which to pay election expenses. I think he should also inquire how the Yamaska election expenses were paid last year if not by the Department of Marine. I know that if I had been in charge of that estimate and knew the allegation to be false, I certainly should have demanded a vote of the House on it and would have gone into the matter to the bottom. I would not have let it stand for a year and then come into the House and be a dummy about it; I would have investigated it thoroughly.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be sure that if there is a way of abstaining from payment of the amount, the commissioners will take that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree entirely with the conclusion arrived at by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), though my reasoning differs from his and I do not start from the same premises.	In the first place, his premises were incorrect, and it is not necessary to say anything about the reasoning, because if you start on wrong premises your reasoning is apt to be wrong. The item was held up under such circumstances that I think the hon. member is quite right in saying that this Government ought to investigate the matter and find out just how it stands. That is what we wanted to have done. The item was

Quebec Harbour
brought down, as the hon. member says, in the supplementary estimates last year and was objected to by the then member for Gaspe. He charged among other things, as I recollect it, that there had been collusion in connection with the arbitration. It was the first the government had heard of it, and the stand they took-and I think it was a proper one- was that if these commissioners had been guilty of fraud, if there had been collusion, the amount ought not to be paid; it was something that ought to be considered. The government, therefore, with a view to ascertaining the facts, shortly after Parliament prorogued passed an Order in Council providing for an investigation under the Inquiries Act so that evidence could be taken under oath. But the inquiry did not go on. The challenger did not like to appear before the judge, saying that he had intended that the investigation should be carried on by this Parliament. Well, this is the first Parliament that has since met. We are not in charge of it; we could not go on with the investigation here as suggested by the hon. member for Carle ton. It seems to me that the matter is entirely one for the minister. There is a judgment, as the minister says, against the commissioners. If that judgment was obtained as the result of fraud, as charged at the last session, this House and the country have a right to know it; the matter should not be allowed to stand. We could not get an unwilling prosecutor to come forward and prosecute, and we cannot now act, so that it is a matter which, I submit, ought to receive the attention of the present minister.


Thomas George McBride: What amount of this money is to be used in the construction of new works and what amount on old work?


Ernest Lapointe: The details are already on Hansard; I gave them when the resolution was discussed. The largest part of the amount is for new work.


Thomas George McBride: I understood the minister to say it would take five years to carry this work out.


Ernest Lapointe: I see by the notes 1 have that it will take three years for some of the items-the dredging and two others.


Thomas George McBride: Why should we vote money here for three years ahead? Is it not sufficient to vote money for each year's work?
LSir Henry Drayton. ]


Ernest Lapointe: This is not an appropriation as appropriations are made for public works generally. The moneys are advanced in the form of loans; it has always been done in that way in the case of harbour commissions. It obviates the necessity of their coming here from year to year and asking for advances.


Thomas George McBride: I want to be quite clear on this thing. It has been my impression that this Government have never received anything in the way of interest on these advances, neither has the capital been repaid. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be corrected.


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that the interest has not been paid, except to the extent of a small amount-about a million and half.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the figures, but I understand that the arrears are very great; both principal and interest are uncollectable, as my hon. friend (Mr. McBride) points out. What information can the minister give as to the necessity of spending the money on dredging just now? As I understand it, you now have a standard depth for the grain berth of 30 feet which it is desired to increase to 35 feet, though the ocean vessels that have 'been loading grain at that port have not, as a rule, exceeded a draft of 27 to 29 feet. Is that correct?


Ernest Lapointe: We have to maintain a standard depth of 35 feet at low tide at Quebec. My hon. friend must remember that Quebec is the port of call for the big vessels. Big ships, such as the liners of the Canadian Pacific, cannot go further than Quebec; they have to stop at that port, and it is necessary that the depth shall be maintained there. This is for the purpose of maintaining a depth of thirty-five feet. Otherwise, those ships would go to Boston or New York, and we would have trade and truck with the Yankees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do any of
the Canadian Pacific boats go to the grain berth?


Ernest Lapointe: No, not usually, though officials of the steamship service of the Canadian Pacific want to load grain in Quebec on their liners. They have approached me on that point.


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

Lake of the Woods

[Stage Direction]
On motion of ,Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 80, to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that, in this case also, this is for new capital expenditure?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know they have made arrangements, so that this is further capital on which we shall receive interest in the future.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General), Bill No. 141, to repeal the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Act repealed, and property rights and authority over work mentioned in act.
Mr. HUDSON:: This bill is one which affects the people of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba in a very material way. The position of the matter is that the city of Winnipeg and the eastern portion of the province of Manitoba is supplied with its hydro-electric power from the Winnipeg river. The waters of the Winnipeg river flow from the Lake of the Woods at Kenora and also from the English river at Lac Seul from the northeast. The waters of the Lake of the Woods are regulated under an arrangement with the United States the arrangement being made through the International Joint Commission. Under a regulation of that commission the waters must be maintained between certain levels. They can be maintained between those levels only by a dam at the point where the waters of the lake run into the Winnipeg river at Norman. That dam is owned by a private company. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to control that dam in order to fulfil its international
obligations. Moreover, that dam is necessary to regulate the waters which flow into the river and which are utilised lower down the river for power purposes. The regulation of the flow for those power purposes is recognised by everybody, by Ontario as well as by Manitoba, as being necessary and proper. The result of the recognition of this condition was an arrangement made between the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada some years ago and implemented by an Order in Council, by which a board was created to control the flow of those waters. It soon became apparent that it was necessary to have some body with effective powers. A body created by Order in Council had only directory powers; it had no controlling powers whatever. In the autumn of 1920, the Ontario government disposed of a number of water powers on the English river and a large area of timber lands to be used for pulp purposes. They were disposed of to an American citizen, who also controlled the dam at Norman. By means of his control of this dam and his control of the powers of the English river he had absolute command of the flow of the waters and the powers within the province of Manitoba. These circumstances came to the knowledge of the people of Manitoba, arid as the people of the province, the city of Winnipeg particularly, were dedependent on the proper control of these powers they made a request of the government at Ottawa and the government of Ontario to appoint a 'body with legal powers to exercise the proper control of these dams and the proposed power works. The result of that request was that the government of Ontario, represented by its premier, the government of Canada, represented by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and other members of the government, and representatives of the Manitoba government got together in Ottawa and agreed upon a bill for the creation of a board with the necessary powers. The premier of Ontario undertook to have that bill passed in the Ontario legislature, the Dominion government undertaking to have the same bill carried through this House. It was passed in this House and duly carried through the Senate, thereafter coming into force. But the bill was not passed in the Ontario legislature. It was introduced there, but was allowed to dfcag on until the dying days of the session when it was withdrawn by the premier. Immediately on that situation being brought to the attention of the authorities in
Lake of the Woods

Manitoba they requested the Dominion government to take the necessary steps to protect their interests, by doing two things: first, by expropriating the dam at Norman, which was really the controlling factor of the waters coming from the south; and secondly, by declaring the works created or to be created in the future to be works for the general advantage of Canada, under section 92, subsection 10 (c) of the British North America Act. In response to their request the act which it is now proposed to repeal was passed. Now, the only purpose to be served by the passing of the bill now before this House is to repeal the section declaring these works to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and to the repeal of that section the people of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba object. The act which was originally passed and agreed to bet-tween Ontario and the Dominion was not a wholly satisfactory act, but it was agreed to as the best that could be got. It was Hobson's choice; we took the only thing we could get. It was defective in one important respect, and that is the fact that there was no finality; no one was given the final voice in case of dispute among the members of the board. We endeavoured to have such a clause inserted in the bill but we were not able to achieve that end.


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear what it was the hon. member said they were not able to get.


Albert Blellock Hudson: We wanted a clause put in giving some one a casting vote. A balanced board was created; there were two representatives from Ontario and two from the Dominion, but there was no provision in the bill giving any one the last word. Nor was there any provision as to what should constitute a quorum. That was left to be subsequently agreed upon. The whole purpose of the control was to vest in somebody, having ample authority, the ability to act quickly and definitely; because the damage, if any were done in connection with the control of the waters, might be irreparable if it were not remedied almost instantaneously. The original bill was very defective in that respect, and for that reason it seemed to us that the bill which was subsequently passed provided a more ample and proper safeguard. Now, the objection which has been and which may be raised to this bill is that it is an infringement of provincial rights. That was considered at the time the request was made by the province of

Manitoba, and the view was then taken that it was not an unreasonable infringement of such rights. In the first place, the waters in question are interprovincial streams; in the second place, the waters of the Winnipeg river coming from the Lake of the Woods are international waters, and the Dominion itself is under international obligations; in the third place, the Dominion itself has a direct interest in the lower water powers of the river within the province of Manitoba, because that province does not own or control its natural resources. In addition to that, the Dominion had spent large sums of money in making surveys and improving the water powers of this river. The Dominion had a direct interest; it had, incidentally, interests in connection with navigation. These things, all taken together, took the case outside of what might be ordinarily regarded as an infringement of provincial rights. The Dominion has acted in the same way in regard to another river, the Ottawa river. As far back as 1870 an act was passed, not unlike the present act, declaring the works of the Ottawa river to be works for the general advantage of Canada. For that reason we felt that we were not asking the Dominion to do anything that was either unreasonable or unprecedented, and besides it was necessary in the interests not merely of Manitoba but of the Dominion as a whole. There is one respect in which the bill which it is sought to repeal perhaps infringed somewhat on what might be claimed to be a purely provincial situation, and that is in regard to the water powers on the English rivers within the province of Ontario itself. It seems to me that in that respect there might very well be negotiations and consultation between the province of Ontario and the Dominion. But in the meantime I submit that this bill should not be proceeded with in regard to the section repealing the clause as to the works for the general advantage of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, had I been in the House at the moment I would have opposed the second reading of this bill, and I take the opportunity now to state my position in regard thereto. My position coincides with that taken by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) in so far as opposition to the bill is concerned. I would not like to identify myself exactly with his words as expressed in the last two sentences relative to

Lake of the Woods
negotiations as to the waters of English river. That, however, is a mere detail.
The effect of the bill is as the hon. member describes it. It repeals chapter 38 of the statutes of last session. By repealing that act it revokes a declaration by this House-if Parliament has power to do so-that certain works are for the general advantage of Canada. Personally, I am by no means convinced that once Parliament acts under the provisions of the British North America Act and declares works to be for the general advantage of Canada, it can afterwards degrade those works and make them purely provincial. However, assuming that it can-which this bill assumes-I think we are taking a retrograde step in passing the legislation. It is true that by the proposed coneurrenl acts, of which ours is chapter 10 of the statutes of last year, we did agree, providing the province of Ontario carried out its part of the agreement, to place the control of these waters, subject to the directions contained in that act, in a joint board; and we even surrendered that finality of control that we before had exercised on the part of the chairman of that board; we provided that the control should be in a joint board and that each section should act in conformity with the final decision of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of Ontario in the one case or the Governor in Council of Canada in the other. The province of Ontario failed to live up to its agreement. The Premier of that province withdrew the legislation because certain criticism was offered and did not even put his legislation to the test of a vote, indeed, never carried it to second reading at all. The distinct understanding was that he should do so and conduct it as a government measure through the provincial legislature. Because he so undertook we yielded what we did yield and came to agreement with him.
Upon his failure something had to be done by this House. The whole matter was reviewed again and this Parliament then passed chapter 38 of the statutes of last year. By that act we provided a hoard to control these waters in'relation to the whole level of the lake of the Woods, which is purely a federal matter, being international in character and having to do with navigation-federal therefore for both these reasons; and to control them with regard to the supervision of construction of water-powers and the management of those water-powers thereafter. From a
certain phase that is provincial in that the power is within the province; but from another angle it is federal, because the waters that themselves make the power are interprovincial streams, and only by some control that has as much concern for the rights of the one province as the other can the best results |be obtained. Therefore we provided a board appointed federally. But I ask Parliament to note this, that in making the appointments we chose the men who had acted before on our part, and we also chose the two men who previously had acted for the Ontario government, and we asked the Ontario government to consent to those men still acting on the board. That consent, if I remember rightly, they declined to give.
However, having regard to the fact that these waters are interprovincial, we declared the works constructed in them to be works for the general advantage of Canada. The British North America Act provides that this Parliament may so declare wherever it is felt in the public interest to make such a declaration, and it contains no restriction whatever on this Parliament in determining what is proper in this regard. Nevertheless we should be guided by certain principles.
Now, what is a principle that may govern us? I submit that if the works are such that control over them by one province may be operated to the disadvantage of another, then it would be fair and right that they should be declared federal. It must not be presumed that any federal authority is going to control works in any province inimically to the interests of the people generally. We are here as trustees, not for one province but for all; we are equally concerned with Ontario rights and Manitoba rights. Here is a structure, say the Norman dam, because that is the chief one as emphasized by the hon. member for south Winnipeg, the proper control 'of which affects very large interests in the province of Manitoba, indeed, affects as well interests in the province of Ontario. Consequently this structure is eminently what this Parliament may declare to be for the general advantage of Canada, thereby vesting in this Parliament federal control in relation thereto, that control, as regards civil rights, circling around a structure that otherwise would be provincial. The act of last session asserted that and other works to be for the genreal advantage of Canada. If we repeal chapter 38, then we have done everything in our power to take those works out of the category of

Lake of the Woods

federal works and make them provincial again, and to place in the power of a board, half of whose members only we appoint, and over which there is no veto power whatever on the part of this Parliament, the ability to use those structures disadvantageously and unfairly as respects one of the provinces of Canada.
There is another reason why this statute should not be repealed. On the faith of this statute-which, by the way, contained a provision that the rest of it might be repealed when Ontario lived up to its agreement, but not this section-large investments have been made in the province of Manitoba. The great power development on the Winnipeg river-I forget the name of the falls-now financed by the Winnipeg Street Railway in which the whole of Manitoba is interested and deeply concerned has been financed on the faith in some substantial measure of the statute of this Parliament, because the investors in the bonds of that company believed that a statute passed by this Parliament placing those structures in the category of works for the general advantage of Canada was a statute upon which they could rely, and they knew that while they were works for the general advantage of Canada they would be administered for that general advantage and not specially for the advantage of any province. For the reason, first of all that they are eminently works that ought to be declared for the general advantage of Canada, for the reason, secondly, that having been so declared, investments have been made on the faith thereof, and developments have taken place on the faith thereof; for these two reasons I submit that that declaration ought not to be revoked. Let the Government act, if it chooses, upon the provision of Chapter 38, which enables them to revoke my Order in Council the rest of the act, but let them leave intact this, the corner stone of the structure, which is relied on to-day by the province of Manitoba generally, and by those who invested money in the enterprise particularly. No harm can be done by leaving it intact; no injustice can be done to any province. There can be no desire on the part of the province of Ontario to have that wiped away, save the desire to utilize those works unfairly to the other provinces, and to the undue and improper advantage of the province of Ontario, or possibly, to the advantage of private interests, but not to the advantage of either province at all. I submit to the Solicitor
[Mr. Meighen.f
General that he had better withdraw this bill. It is not a bill in the public interest. There is going to be no harm done to those works by leaving the ultimate, final control where it ought to be, and at the same time placing the immediate administrative power in the hands of a joint body, where it will rest if this legislation does not pass.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The facts of the case as stated by the right hon. leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) do not seem to differ very much from the facts of the case as related by myself. I think hon. gentlemen will all agree that we should live up to a bargain as closely as possible, whether it be national, international or interprovincial. This particular bargain was made in the latter part of 1921 between the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada. The province of Ontario was represented by the Premier, the Hon. Mr. Drury, and by its officials, and the Dominion government by the Prime Minister, now the right hon. leader of the Opposition. Although the province of Manitoba does not seem to appear very conspicuously in the bargain, I think they had something to do with it too, but they do not appear in the agreement. All that we want so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, is to put them back exactly where they were when they made that agreement.
On the 28th of April, 1921, the Premier of Ontario sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of Canada, reading as follows:
In view of the fact that the Lake of the Woods Control Bill was opposed last night in the House by the Liberal Opposition and the Conservative Opposition as well as from the Government side, it was foun'd inadvisable to press second reading under circumstances that pointed to the probable defeat of the measure, and in withdrawing the bill I made the announcement that if then desired it would be reintroduced next session. I respectfully urge that in the meantime the present control arrangements be continued and assure you of the thorough co-operation of this Government to ensure the best results for all the interests involved.
That was the telegram sent by Premier Drury when he found the bill so strenuously opposed in the Ontario House that there was no prospect of getting it through. That bill was the twin brother of the bill which my right hon. friend undertook to put through the House here, and did put through, namely, Chapter 10 of the Acts of 1921. The two bills were prepared by the same officers; at all events, the officers

Lake of the Woods
were agreed upon them, and the bills were identically the same. The right hon. leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, put his bill through this Parliament, and the Premier of Ontario undertook to put his bill through the Ontario House. One succeeded, and the other failed, and when Premier Drury found he was not able on the spur of the moment to carry out the agreement, he sent the telegram I have read asking for a stay of proceedings until he could go on with the agreement which they had arrived at.
In reply to that telegram the following communication-it does not show exactly whether it was a telegram or a letter, but I think it was a letter-was sent to Premier Drury, dated from the Prime Minister's office on the 29th of April, that is, the next day:
I have your telegram of yesterday. I regret very much indeed that the Lake of the Woods Control bill is not to be passed by the Ontario legislature this session. It has already passed both Houses of the federal Parliament. I will take up the matter of continuing the present Control Board with the Minister of the Interior and can assure you that we will endeavour to do so if same can be effectively done.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd) Arthur Meighen.
. So at that stage my right hon. friend appeared to be quite willing to fall in line with the idea of continuing matters as they were, and it must not be forgotten that they had continued in that way for years and years under orders in council; but at some time in 1921 both parties got together, and they must have reasoned somewhat like this. The Ontario government says: The province of Ontario has a vast and valuable property around this Norman dam, in this lake and in this stream. The Dominion government says:	We have
navigable control. We have such control as comes to us by reason of this being an interprovincial stream, and being also, as I understand, to some extent international waters. The Prime Minister might very well have said: Representing the Dominion, I have these powers under the British North America Act. So he says to Mr. Drury:	We certainly do not question your
rights, and the proper thing is for us to keep together and make this agreement. The act itself that was passed by this Parliament, Chapter 10 of the Acts of 1921, recites the agreement in the preamble:
Whereas it has been agreed by and between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and
205i
the government of the province of Ontario that the powers hereinafter mentioned Ishall be vested in a Board consisting of four members, two to be appointed by the Governor General in Council and two by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and that the necessary legislation to authorize the -same shall be enacted by the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of Ontario respectively; Therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
So you will see, Mr. Chairman, that in order that there should be no mistake as to the purpose of the act, the agreement was cited in the preamble. That act passed this Parliament, and was intituled The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act of 1921. Now for some reason or another the Prime Minister of that day had occasion to write a letter, dated March 17, 1921, to the Premier of Ontario in which he recapitulated all the letters and telegrams that had passed between them in connection with this matter up to date and in the same communication makes this statement:
rhe Lake of the Woods Control Bill has been introduced into the Dominion Parliament pursuant to agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and this government such agreement being arrived after a conference between the two governments at which you as Z5li *s 1 were Present, and at which officers of each government having special knowledge of he surrounding facts and various public inliZri f We>le a'S0 present Ttle agreement provided for the concurrent introduction of exactly
by your government in the
leg'sla'ture- seems to me to follow fr"m,tb.s state of facts that each government should proceed with its legislation unl^s Subsequent facts were adduced or reuses ad vanced so affecting the public interests as to carry the judgment of both governments.
That is as nearly as possible the same idea that we find in the preamble of the bill so that there can be no question as to what the agreement was. Some time before the introduction of the act known as Chapter 10 into this Parliament in 1921 the Ontario government and the Dominion government had come together, absolutely and clearly, as to what had to be done. The Ontario government then finds there is opposition to the scheme in the provincial .egislature, whereupon the Prime Minister of that province writes to the Prime Minister of Canada, as I have already quoted, saying in elfect: "You had better stay your hand, I am not able to keep up my end of the bargain just now." Nothing was said to warn the Premier of Ontario that the proposition he made would not be carried out. The next thing the government of
Lake of the Woods

Ontario found out was that a new act-of which they had never heard, in respect to which there was no negotiation, and in respect to which there was no assemblage of officials or representatives such as occurred before-was put through.	That would appear to me to be a most arbitrary proceeding. That act, Chapter 38, contained a proviso that property of the province of Ontario, amounting to perhaps up in the millions, should be taken out of its control and put under the control of this government and this Parliament. That was done without any notice whatever to the province of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong, but I would just ask him one question: What was this property worth millions that the province of Ontario owned that was taken out of its control?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It consists of water-powers, and the beds of rivers and lakes. That is what I am told it consists of.


Arthur Meighen: What is the waterpower that the province owned that has been alienated?


Mr McKENZIE:: There must have been some waterpower because my right hon. friend, who is a keen bargainer had a statute passed saying that the federal government on one side and the government of Ontario on the other would always have the control of it. It must have been something worth while or this Parliament would not be put into motion to pass legislation appointing.a board to deal with it as joint property. I am taking for granted that it was a valuable property; and furthermore there is the fact that the leader of the Opposition has told us to-night that millions of money-large amounts of money at all events-are being invested in the province of Manitoba on account of some turn of management in connection with this property. So if all this is true this property must be very valuable and it must be property the province of Ontario regards seriously and thinks should be under its control. All I say is this: It is not for hon. gentlemen here to trouble their minds about going behind the agreement that is cited in the statutes of 1921. I am satisfied for one, and I expect hon. gentlemen to be satisfied that a proper agreement was made in that year, and we find that agreement crystallized in the shape of a statute. I am not asking anybody to go behind that agreement, because I am satisfied that the

several parties concerned came together with respect to it. All that I am saying is that we should put them back where they were, start anew, and carry out the arrangement upon which they all absolutely agreed, an agreement in which the property rights of the respective governments were absolutely safeguarded and as to which nobody was finding fault. In Chapter 38, which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) caused to be passed in 1921 there is a proviso in which he recommends that this act itself should be repealed. Now if Chapter 10 and the agreement upon which it is based, were not proper, why did the right hon. gentleman provide that Chapter 38 should be repealed and Chapter 10 come into force? That is all that we are now asking with this exception:	We want the
parties to be put where they were before, and if there is any new bargaining to be made let it be made between the province of Ontario and the Dominion government and, if you like, the province of Manitoba. I say it was not fair to Premier Drury and the province of Ontario that this property should be taken out of their hands without telling them a word about it. It seems to me that when it was found that Premier Drury could not get his legislation through, the least that could have been done was to have asked him to come down to Ottawa and point out to him "Matters are urgent, we cannot wait for your legislation; we are going to put through another bill. Let us sit down together and try to agree upon the terms of that bill so that if your province has a right to be safeguarded you will have an opportunity of presenting your views to this Parliament." No such course was taken. Premier Drury was never asked to come down and submit a basis for chapter 38, and this vast property -I think it must be valuable property or there would not have been such trouble taken about it-was placed beyond the control of the province of Ontario and vested entirely in another body in which it had no say.
Let me point out that any provincial government we have dealt with has always been jealous in the matter of provincial rights, and there could not have been a more violent intrusion upon provincial rights than has taken place here in the case of the province of Ontario. It is acknowledged that the lake of the Woods is part of the Winnipeg river and of the English river and of the other waters in that vicinity; some of these are within the jurisdiction of Ontario and "should not be

Lake of the Woods
swept from the control of that province by an act of this Parliament without their having an opportunity of presenting their case along the line of the agreement which they had made some time before. As I understand my right hon. friend's argument, he says that this property belonging to Ontario was by chapter 38 of the statutes of 1921 taken out of the control of that province and placed under the jurisdiction of this Parliament and that since that has been done, the matter cannot be put right. I do not accept that proposition as sound. If this property had been owned or controlled by the Dominion government, will anybody say they could not hand over that ownership or control to the local government? Could that right be not transferred to the province? Surely it cannot be said, then, that in this case we are functus officio as a parliament simply because we once declared that a certain right is in the Dominion. If there is any doubt about that, it is a matter of law-possibly of constitutional law- which can be settled by the courts, if there is anything to settle. My own belief is

and I have other authority to support me -that there is no doubt about the matter; we have the right to put this property back where it was before so that the Dominion, Manitoba and everybody else concerned may start afresh. I am sure that nothing is moving any of us in this matter but absolute honesty and the desire to protect the respective rights of the province and of the Dominion, and if it is later found that anyone suffers by reason of any control exercised by Ontario, there will be plenty of time to put it right. I am informed and believe that the Premier and the government of Ontario take the view that the province was imposed upon by the passing of chapter 38 of the acts of 1921 and that that measure was passed in the face of the strongest protest that they could put up. At this session of the Ontario legislature the legislation which Mr. Drury feared to press to a vote in 1921 has been introduced and passed, and the old agreement is now ready to be carried out. I am simply asking, therefore, that Parliament assist Premier Drury in carrying out the old agreement, without the slightest change. Now, this is the provision, which, on account of some conscientious scruples, I believe, the right hon. gentleman felt called upon to insert in his act of 1921. It is the last section:
If the necessary legislation of Ontario referred to in the preamble of the Lake of the Woods Control Board' Act, 1921. be enacted by the legislature-
It is enacted now.
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, repeal or suspend this act and the regulations made thereunder at any time when or after the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, shall come into force.
That is all right as far as it goes, but this is the part which we think is wrong:
Provided that notwithstanding any repeal or suspension of this act in the matter provided by this section the works and each of them hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada shall remain and continue to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
That means that everything should go back except the property, the only thing that Ontario was really interested in. In other words, my right hon. friend provides that all that is no good shall go back, but that the property, the thing really worth while, shall remain in the Dominion government. We say that the property and everything else must go back, and that everything must be as it was before any act at all was passed. This bill is the only means whereby the parties concerned can be restored to their original respective positions, and start afresh without interfering in the slightest degree with any interest. The purpose, then is, first, to carry out the original pact between the parties, and, second, to restore to Ontario rights which were taken away from that province without their consent.


Mr. McMURRAY:: Mr. Chairman, I find myself reluctantly compelled to take a stand in opposition to that of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie). The question at issue here involves the interests of Manitoba. It involves a large investment of money in the development of power on the Winnipeg river lying within the area of that province. It involves the interests of a large and populous city that is making use of this power now and wili make a great deal more use of it in the future. It involves the interest of the entire population of Manitoba, where this power is being gradually sent out to the rural districts and through the surrounding towns and cities. The people of Manitoba are apprehensive of the rights that have been obtained by one Backus on the Winnipeg and English rivers. Rightly or wrongly-altogether rightly, I submit- they are afraid of this man Backus. They feel that in Backus they have a man
Lake of the Woods

who will not hesitate to take advantage to the full in an absolutely selfish manner of any possible opportunity that he may have by reason of the interest that he may have secured upon these streams. We already have an instance of this in the proposition that he made to the city of Winnipeg, so I am advised, in connection with the Norman dam. He secured this dam for some $147,000 and he submitted an offer of it to the city of Winnipeg for $1,500,000. The danger is this. These are both large streams carrying vast volumes of water. By the use of dams on either the English river or the Winnipeg river, it is possible for the person in possession of those dams, Backus in this instance, to interfere with the flow and in such a way control the supply and creation of electricity in the water-powers where the city of Winnipeg and other interests have placed their works. We have at the present time on the statute books, placed there by the late government, an act which I must commend fully, which protects the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg. In the interest of the people of Manitoba, it is my duty to protest against anything that will remove their protection and the interest that they have obtained in that way. This is an interprovincial stream; it is more; it is in many ways an international stream. It is, therefore, right and proper that the Dominion Government should have power there. I believe it may be a debatable question, and I submit it is a debatable question whether the Dominion Government, as a matter of pure legality is not entitled in the eyes of the law to have some interest, some advantage, as the word was used in the Act, in those works. If there is any debate about the question at all, it is the duty of this Parliament to preserve the interest by the act which the late government passed, and for that reason, because the question is debatable, because the interests of the people of Manitoba are left at the mercy of an individual, I am obliged to oppose this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are two points of view from which the committee might well consider the legislation that is before it, the one, as to whether or not the works in question are or are not to be considered works for the general advantage of Canada; the other, as to the value that is to be attached to agreements made between governments. As to the first, whether the particular works are or are

not to be considered works for the general advantage of Canada, that, I think, is a subject that might well be argued at any time in this House; but I do not think it comes appropriately at this moment in connection with the repeal being sought of a particular measure. I say that for a reason which I shall give in a moment. To the remarks of my hon. friends from Winnipeg, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I take no exception whatever. There may be a great deal to be said for the point of view which they have presented. I do not wish to enter into that to-night, because I think that subject may well at some more appropriate time be discussed upon its merits. The point of view which I wish to place before the committee to-night, is, as I have intimated, the value to be attached to agreements between governments in matters of legislation.
Last session we had introduced into this House a bill known as the Lake of the Woods Control Bill. When that bill was introduced, it was stated by the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), that, if the Ontario Government passed a similar act, the two acts would stand on the statute books and their provisions would govern the control of the waters in question. Nothing was said at the time the first bill was introduced about the works being declared works for the general advantage of Canada. There never was any discussion of that question between the then Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario. If there was, we were told nothing of it. Indeed, we have been told by the premier of Ontario that the subject was never discussed. For reasons which need not be a matter of consideration here, Mr. Drury found it impossible to pass, at the last session, legislation along lines similar to that which was introduced into this House. As a consequence, the then Prime Minister introduced a second bill which was known as the Lake of the Woods Regulation Bill. When my right hon. friend introduced that bill into the House, I drew his attention to the previous enactment and asked him what was the necessity of introducing that particular measure. This is the reply made by my right hon. friend. It will be found in Hansard of May 26, 1921, at page 3903: Mr. Meighen: The previous bill, already passed, was intended to he concurrent with legislation by the province of Ontario which did not go through, so our former bill is valueless. The present measure is designed to hold the situation in the meantime, until, if it should come to pass, the Ontario legislature enacts the concurrent legislation contemplated.

Lake of the Woods
Now the Ontario Legislature has enacted the concurrent legislation contemplated, and what we say is that this Government is in duty and honour bound to repeal that second piece of legislation which was made to hold the situation in the interval, to use the words of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend went further than that. On the 2nd reading of the bill, he made this further statement which will be found on Hansard of May 31, 1921:
That is to say this legislation is intended to take care of responsibilities ipenaing the concurrence of Ontario in the principle of joint control.
The province of Ontario has now concurred in the principle of joint control. It has passed at the session just concluded an act literatim et verbatim of the act known as the Lake of the Woods Control Act which is on our statutes. We say, therefore, that the second act which, according to the statement of my right hon. friend, was put on the statutes to take care of. responsibilities pending the concurrence of Ontario in the principle of joint control, should now be wiped off the slate completely, as at the time it was introduced it was understood it would be. My right hon. friend made this further statement in the course of his remarks:
It is only because, through no fault of ours, but entirely through the fault of the government or the legislature of Ontario-I do not care where the blame is placed-but I think it is chiefly on the shoulders of the Premier of Ontario by reason of his failure to carry through the joint legislation-we are compelled to take the position which we are taking now to ask that Parliament vest us with authority to serve the interests of both provinces and the whole country until we are able to effect the joint legislation for which we strove in the first place.
We are now in a position to effect that joint legislation. It has been effected. The Ontario government has passed its act in words, as I have said, identical with those in the statute, known as the Lake of the Woods Control Act. For that reason, we think the second bill should be repealed in its entirety.
I may say to hon. members of the House who were not present when the second bill was introduced, that those of us who sat in opposition at that time were amazed at my right hon. friend adding to the second bill this clause:
Provided that notwithstanding any repeal or suspension of this act in the manner provided by this section the works and each of them hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada shall remain and continue to be works for the general advantage of Canada
That clause was put in by my right hon. friend or his friends without any consultation with the province of Ontario, in direct violation of the understanding and agreement made between his government and the government of Ontario. I suggest that it was a piece of sharp practice on his part, and that it stands on the statutes to-day as a record of deception and as such is a blot upon the statutes, which blot we desire to remove.


Arthur Meighen: The debate up to this time had been conducted in language worthy of this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose we shall get something now that is not.


Arthur Meighen: We have got something that is not and of all the outbursts of the Prime Minister, I think this is the one that least becomes the position that he now holds.


William Duff: That is too bad.


Arthur Meighen: It will not be difficult, however, for me to discuss the matter with some regard for reason and decency notwithstanding the remarks which the right hon. gentleman has just uttered. Certainly the statute of last session was a statute to hold the situation and to hold the situation until the government of Ontario should carry out its end of the agreement reached. That agreement covered certain matters and provided a joint method of supervision and control of these works. By that agreement we were prepared then to abide; and so far as I am concerned I am prepared now to stand by it to the extent it went and within its purview. The Prime Minister of Ontario failed to carry out his agreement with the government of Canada, and no one is better aware of that than the member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) who, representing the province of Manitoba, was a party to the arrangement. Premier Drury gave as his reason that circumstances had developed that pointed to the defeat of the bill. I submit that under the arrangement made it was the duty of Premier Drury to have laid his bill before the House and taken the judgment of the legislature upon it as a government measure. He did not merely agree to introduce the bill and then guess at what might happen, and after that do what he liked. That was not his agreement. He undertook to do what the government of Canada agreed to
Lake of the Woods

do, namely, to take the bill to Parliament as government legislation, have the opinion of Parliament upon it and, if that opinion were favourable, have it passed. Of course, had he failed after doing everything in his power then no more could be asked of him or of any man; but he did not do everything in his power. He brought the bill to Parliament and withdrew it from Parliament; he became himself the judge of what would happen, never taking the judgment of the legislature upon the question at all. However, that is one matter. If Premier Drury had taken the judgment of the legislature and the bill had passed, then the agreement would have carried. But that does not say that this Parliament would have been robbed of any of its powers as to the future in regard to any matter not covered by the agreement. This Parliament would have been perfectly at liberty after that, at any time it felt it to be in the public interest, to declare the works for the general advantage of Canada. We would have been entirely free to do that, unhampered by any terms of the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, my hon.
friend says. Well, just consider where that remark brings him. Now, certain occurrences took place in the province of Ontario in the meantime. I am not sure just when the Norman dam was alienated, but it was about that time. But there were other occurrences that seriously alarmed the province of Manitoba, besides the fact that the Prime Minister of Ontario had not gone on with his legislation. I should have liked to have held the situation without legislation in the meantime if it had been possible. I consulted with the Department of the Interior, particularly with Mr. Challies, the head of the Water Power branch of that department, and I am pretty sure, although I speak only from memory, that he conferred with the Prime Minister of Ontario and the officers of that government as respects what ought to be done by this Parliament in the meantime. I ascertained that there were large developments pending in the province of Ontario, developments that could not be ascertained, and that fact was urged upon me strongly from that province, and by none more urgently than the government of Manitoba. This very legislation that we passed was urged by that government upon the government of

which I was Prime Minister-legislation described, in the flippant language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as sharp practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did my right hon. friend, in his discussions with the government of Ontario, take up the question whether or not these works were to be declared for the general advantage of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: No, he did not


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that is just where the sharp practice came in.


Arthur Meighen: -because the government of Ontario had nothing to say on the question as to what we should declare to be works for the general advantage of Canada. The Prime Minister knows that bills come before this Parliament session after session declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada. Does he suggest that this Government always takes up the question with the province in which such works are to be carried out? I never knew that to be done myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This whole
matter is one of agreement betwen two governments, and anything done outside of the knowledge of either party was sharp practice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen are welcome to any gratification they may obtain in the circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER:: Thank you, very much.


Arthur Meighen: There was no agreement whatsoever between the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada as to the question of the works being declared for the general advantage of the country. There was no agreement whatsoever. The Prime Minister confirmed my word only a few moments ago that notwithstanding anything agreed to we were at perfect liberty to declare them for the general advantage of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly my right hon. friend was free at that time and he is free to-day to have any works declared for the general advantage of Canada. But when he was negotiating with . another government on that subject he was in honour bound to discuss that phase of the question if he intended to incorporate it into a bill relating to the subject.

Lake of the Woods


Arthur Meighen: So far as I can recall that question was not discussed between Premier Drury, the member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) and myself at the time the original bill was under consideration. That was not the subject in our minds at all. But it was quite consistent with the agreement; it was wholly consistent. If it were not consistent with the agreement would it be possible for us afterwards to declare the works to be for the general advantage of Canada? How could we be free to do so? We were by no means restrained by the agreement in any respect whatsoever in that regard. That is something which this Parliament decides altogether in the light of the view that Parliament itself takes of the public interest of Canada.
Now, as I said, there were circumstances that developed in the meantime, after that arrangement was made, that made it clear that it was in the public interest of Canada to have those works so declared; and in the full face of the facts this Parliament so declared them, which declaration was supported by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and by many hon. members on the side of my right hon. friend who knew the facts just as I did and just as hon. gentlemen on our side of the House did. Now, I ask hon. members of this House to be good enough to suppress any feelings of partisan favour they may have in this regard as to what view they take of the language of the Prime Minister. I have stated that that act was intended to hold the situation in the meantime; otherwise there could be no board. This was the only way there could be supervision exercised over the actual works. We provided a method in the meantime which did not violate the original agreement but was in the general interest of the country. If ever there were works that should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, these are the works; and for the reasons advanced by the two hon. members for Winnipeg who have spoken, these are works as respects which the will and final disposition of any one province is not in the general interest or likely to be fair to all the provinces of the Dominion. I am quite content that a board shall sit in actual exercise of jurisdiction and authority over them; but I am not prepared that there shall rest in the hands of any board, no matter how appointed, aside from the control of this Parliament, the final jurisdiction and say in respect of the disposition of works in which two provinces are vitally concerned, one just as much as the other. The province of Manitoba is concerned to-day in these works to a degree equal at least to the province of Ontario, if not indeed to a greater extent; because the province of Manitoba has within its boundaries, in the Winnipeg river, horse power many times the value of that within the confines of Ontario. It would not, in my judgment, be right or proper for this Parliament to recede from the position it has taken, a position which, I repeat, does not in the least come in discord with any arrangement arrived at in 1921, even had that arrangement been lived up to, as it was not; and when that arrangement was broken it restored all rights to this Parliament and to the government of Canada. That arrangement, once broken, put us in the same position as if it had never been made. But we did not take that position, although we could have taken it without incurring the just displeasure of any reasonable man. On the contrary, we gave the legislature of Ontario still time to carry out its end of the agreement, and we did not impair the effectiveness of that agreement for all fair and reasonable purposes in contemplation when it was made.


Mr. HALBERT:: Were not the works in Manitoba which the right hon. gentleman speaks of as so important already there a year ago when the waters were under the control which we are seeking now to repeal?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how far they had progressed-the hon. member for South Winnipeg knows; but they had not progressed to the point they are at today. I know that the Manitoba Power Company's bonds have been sold within the last few months on the faith, doubtless, in part, of the legislaton we passed. Let not hon. members 'be under any misapprehension : the declaring of works to be for the general advantage of Canada does !not change the ownership of those works. One would think to listen to the hon. Solicitor General that we jumped into the treasure house of the province of Ontario and grabbed millions of dollars' worth of property. That is not the effect of the declaration. A railway, we will say, is built by provincial subsidy or under provincial guarantee, and therefore the province has a financial interest in it. Well, this Parliament is frequently approached to declare such a railway for the general advantage

Lake of the Woods
of Canada; in fact is very often urged to do so by the province, although I could not give a specific case at the moment where the province has made such a request. Declaring a work to be for the general advantage of Canada merely makes that work of the character that certain provisions of the British North America Act apply to it that otherwise would not apply. I have not looked up the provisions of the act lately to be able to say just what their effect is, but the hon. member for the city cf Winnipeg has given more close study to the subject than I have, and no doubt could enlighten the House.
But let me again impress on hon. members that by such a declaration there is no removal of provincial ownership whatsoever, there is no filching of rights by the Dominion, there is merely the making of the works come within certain provisions of the British North America Act. This declaration has in the past been applied to cases where the works were such that other provinces were interested therein. Here is a work in which other provinces are not only interested, but where the interest of the province beyond the immediate structure is more vital than, or at least as vital as, the interest of the province within which it rests.
Let me add further, that it is not the flow of the water that ig made a work for the general advantage of Canada. The statute reads:
All <Jams, structures and other works of whatsoever description which appear to have been or may hereafter be constructed.
The dams and structures if they affect or impede or interfere with the natural flow of the stream are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. Is it, or is it not, right and proper that they should be so declared? I need not ask the other question: Is it not wholly and absolutely aside from the terms of any agreement as to concurrent legislation? The concurrent legislation goes into effect just the same whether the declaration is maintained or not.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister stated that there were two points for consideration in this matter:	first
whether the clause as to the works being for the general advantage of Canada was, or was not, a good thing; secondly, had, or bad there not, been a breach of contract. There was a contract made between Ontario and the Dominion, and that contract was broken by Ontario. The contract was

to have been carried out at the then session of the Ontario legislature. By a failure to do so, the contract was discharged. Hon. members who are lawyers all know that when one party fails to carry out his contract the other party is discharged; and that is true between governments as between individuals.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As a good lawyer, my hon. friend will observe that when contracts are broken, reasons are given by the other side to show that they are regarded as broken. There were not the grounds taken by the than Prime Minister. He never said the contract was no good.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. What does the hon. Solicitor General mean by saying that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He continued the contract in existence by saying: whenever you put through your end we are at your disposal as before. Those are the terms of his act.


Albert Blellock Hudson: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman that the position is this: they accepted the contract as having been broken, and they made a new offer. They said: we will carry out what we did before, but if we do, and you do, too, it is going to be subject to the condition that these works are for the general advantage of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Precisely.


Albert Blellock Hudson: That is the situation. I am not concerned with what was said in this House when the other act was passed, and I do not think any member should now be concerned with that. The only thing we are concerned with is whether or not it is a good thing that these works should be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada or not, and that, I submit, is the only question which should be decided by this House. Tnere has not been anything offered by way of argument in the opposite direction, nothing has been said to show that these should not be declared works for the general advantage of Canada. That being so, there is no reason why this act should be repealed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to what my hon. friend has said about considerations of contract, I should mention that the right hon. leader of the Opposition received a wire dated April 28th, in which Mr Drury intimated that in with-

Lake of the Woods
drawing his bill then before the legislature he had made the announcement that it would likely be re-introduced at the next session, which was the session of the On. tario legislature just ended. It was on the 26th May that my right hon. friend said: "the present measure is designed to hold the situation in the meantime until it should come to pass that the Ontario legislature enact the concurrent legislation contemplated." It was made apparent in half a dozen different statements by my right hon. friend that he fully expected the Ontario legislature at this session to enact concurrent legislation, and he stated emphatically to this House that when that concurrent legislation was enacted the bill which he was then introducing would be repealed. That is all we are asking, that the act shall be repealed.


Arthur Meighen: I stated nothing of the sort about the repeal of the bill. The bill itself contains a clause for its revocation save for section 2.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I leave it to the House to reach its own conclusion from the remarks of my right hon. hon. friend. He states now that he said nothing about the repeal of the bill, and yet he says that the statute contains a clause for its repeal. It would, I think, have been very difficult for my hon. friend to have put through that legislation without referring to the possibility of its repeal.


Arthur Meighen: Save section 2.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This proviso was slipped in at the end and nothing was said about it to anyone except to those in the secret councils of my right hon. friend. That is the clause to which we took such strong exception at the last session, as being in direct violation of the agreement reached with Mr. Drury. Mr. Drury at the time also stated most emphatically that he had no knowledge whatever that the then leader of the government intended putting any such clause into the legislation dealing with the lake of the Woods control bill. If this matter is of sufficient importance, and if at some subsequent time any member wishes to introduce a bill declaring these works to be for the general advantage of Canada, we can then properly discuss such a measure, and I shall be prepared to argue and accept the proposition on its merits. But at this time we are trying to implement a pledge made between governments in order to maintain faith in governments in their dealings with each other.


Arthur Meighen: My words speak for themselves. It was to hold the situation until Mr. Drury would pass the bill which he had agreed to pass-not at the succeeding session but at that particular session; but it was to hold the situation subject to the condition embodied in the bill and emphasized by myself over and over again that the repeal now would be a repeal of the bill, the revocation by proclamation of all except section 2. That is contained in the minutes.


Robert Henry Halbert: Is section 2 not part of that bill?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Robert Henry Halbert: It does not exclude it.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it does. If my hon. friend will read the last clause of the act he will see that it provides that it may be revoked by proclamation by the Governor in Council, all except clause 2. That .was reserved in case of a term of the agreement being left over.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54 to amend the Criminal Code.
Arthur Meighen: I think it would be better that what I have to say on this bill be said on the second reading. I am not rising to discuss the merits of the bill. I am not very much concerned as to whether the bill passes or not, but I do wish to say something as to the amendment to the code which it seeks to repeal, the circumstances of its introduction, of its passing, and something of its political history since.
I may say for my own part I never heard of the amendment, because even as Prime Minister one finds it impossible to follow all legislation, particularly the details of legislation applying to departments over which he does not preside, and consequently this amendment being one of several embodied in a bill amending the Code, particularly as it was a bill introduced in the Senate, and finally assented to in the House of Commons, the matter never came to my personal attention. I do not say that with any idea of evading in the slightest degree responsibility for it. I wish to assume that just the same as if the bill had been introduced in Parliament by myself, and had passed this House and the Senate pursuant thereto. The first I became aware
321?
Half-Breed Scrip

of it was some time after my return from Great Britain last summer, when I found it had become the subject of considerable political agitation, particularly in the province of Alberta. My attention was drawn to newspapers articles dealing therewith.
At this point it is necessary to describe what the legislation was. While a bill of the Minister of Justice amending several sections of the Criminal Code was before the Senate, this amendment among others was introduced and passed. This amendment provided for the addition to the proscription section of the statute of a proscription of, I think it was, three years to apply to the offense of fraud in connection with the procuring of scrip, that is, of halfbreed land scrip. The section made it law that there should be no prosecution for any such fraud unless brought within three years after the offense. The law of proscription has been part of the law of Canada and of England, as every hon. member knows, well, for generations, and I have no doubt for centuries. The law of proscription is not founded upon any desire to protect guilty individuals. It is founded upon the belief that after a certain period of time from the commission of the offense there is more danger to be apprehended from the commission of prosecution than from the failure to punish. That danger consists in this, that after a number of years from the commission of the offense there is very great likelihood that the evidence on one side or the other may have disappeared, very great likelihood that one side would be able to come to trial with his evidence practically intact while the other side through the progress of time has lost its evidence. Therefore, there would be great danger of injustice and of wrong. As a consequence, there has been proscription in our law for generati-ns. For some reason or other it had not been attempted t' apply it to this particular offense, and wher the suggestion was made to Sir James Lougheed, who was leading the Senate, that it should be made apply to this offense he inserted the amendment, and stated on inserting it, as I find by reference to Hansard, that one or two cases had developed that had brought the matter to the attention of the Government where the offense had been committed many years before, and in one case he mentioned, prosecution had been entered where the offense had been committed twenty years before. Therefore, this amendment was introduced and passed the Senate. It came back to the Commons and passed the Commons. Now it de-

veloped that there had been a prosecution entered in the city of Edmonton, or at least in the province of Alberta-and I am glad the former prime minister of that province is here, now Minister of the In- . terior (Mr. Stewart)-against a man in that city, reputed to be very wealthy, a Mr. Secord. He had been committed for trial, and this legislation went through after the commitment, I am informed, and before the final trial, and because it did, the report went broadcast through Alberta and all through the West that the government of the day had introduced legislation exculpating this wealthy man and relieving him of punishment for his offense.
I want to say, first of all, that the government of the day had not the slightest intention of exculpating anybody. Most of the members of the government, no doubt, like myself had no knowledge of the case at all. I had not, and thire were others who did not even know about the amendment. But they had no knowledge of the case, and even the minister who had mentioned that one or two cases had arisen, had not the slightest intention of the amendment applying to that particular case. If he had had, the amendment would have had to be made retroactive. That case had merely brought the condition of the law to his attention. That was all the fact, and that was all he said. It is a fact of law which I do not need to suggest to hon. members who are lawyers, for I am sure every lawyer -ill agree at once, that any amendment to legislation to be a proscription of an offence has no application whatever to offenses in respect of which prosecutions have been entered unless the legislation has been made retroactb This legislation was not made retroactive, consequently there was no proscription upon Mr. Secord's alleged offence at all; it had no application to it in the world. Now I am informed-I may be wrong- that the government of Alberta, after the passing of this legislation, withdrew the prosecution-entered a nolle prosequi, or took some step to terminate the prosecution of Mr. Secord. Well, if the province of Alberta did so, it took the responsibility for that action. I cannot really think that the government of Alberta of that day was advised by its Attorney General that this legislation exculpated Mr. Secord, or relieved him of punishment if he were guilty. I do not think any Attorney General would so advise; I know the Justice Department of Canada would not so ad-

Half-Breed, Scrip
vise, I know that when I was Prime Minister correspondence took place with the Justice Department and the Justice Department immediately replied that this legislation had no operation whatever in respect of that case, and that if they wanted to go on with the prosecution they were perfectly free so far as the legislation was concerned; and that is not only the opinion of the Justice Department but of every lawyer worthy of the name. Consequently the legislation now before Parliament is not at all necessary in so far as the Secord case is concerned. The Secord case exists to-day just as it existed when the legislation passed, unless its position has been altered by the government of that province. Now if the government of that province saw fit to withdraw the prosecution that was their responsibility; I am not criticizing it, I am not approving it, I have nothing to say about it-that was the responsibility of that government but it could never base its action upon any legislation passed by this House, and never could seek shelter behind it.
Now I thought it worth while to make this statement. Probably it will be an illustration to hon. members of what injustice can be done any administration by the circulation of unfounded information based on a wrong apprehension of law, seeking to implant in the public mind the idea that all the government intends to do is to stand and help the rich and oppress the poor, seeking to appeal to base, low prejudice when no ground for that feeling exists at all. I do not know whether this Parliament considers it wise that there should be a proscription in respect of this offence or not. If it does, let the legislation pass. For myself, I know of no reason why there should be proscription in respect of many offences-even treason, even rape, even far more vicious offences than this and no proscription as respects this. It may be that three years is considered too short. Three years applies to graver offences than this, but if three years is considered too short all right-make it more; but we should never favour the enactment of legislation designed for the benefit of any individual, or retroactive legislation. As to criminal law, such legislation was not passed, therefore such legislation does not need to be repealed. Therefore, all that is before this House is the question as to what is best in the public interest-whether proscription should apply to subornation of perjury for the purpose of getting scrip or whether
in general it should apply. The question as to any particular case is not, and was not, before Parliament at all.


Mr. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: The right hon. gentleman has given this House certain information in connection with this matter and the reasons why this bill has been introduced. However, there are some things which he has omitted from his re-viey. I do not see how the right hon. gentleman can forget an interview which he had in Edmonton with two half breeds from the north country-about seven hundred miles north of Edmonton-when he was Prime Minister of Canada. At that time he was making a tour of the West. The interview in question took place on November 11, 1920. On that day he met, in the Macdonald hotel in Edmonton, two halfbreeds, Philip Atkinson and Alexis Lafferty. They were introduced to him by Mr. J. C. Calhoun, of Edmonton, and they presented to him the following petition:
To the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen,
Prime Minister of Canada.
The Petition of Philip Atkinson and Alexis Lafferty humbly sheweth:-
X. That your petitioners are persons of-mixed white and Indian blood, residing at or near Port Resolution, in the North-west Territories, and that your petitioners have been delegated by a number of persons of mixed white and Indian blood residing in the environments of Port Resolution, Port. Smith and Port Chippewyan, seeking redress for what they believe to be a real grievance and to ask that justice be done.
2.	That during the years 1900 to 1903 His Majesty as represented by the Minister of the Interior for Canada caused to be allotted and issued to persons of mixed white and Indian blood, certificates entitling the person named in such certificate to select, fyle upon and become the registered owner of two hundred and forty acres of land, the property of the Rominion of Canada, and situated in the North-West Territory and open for homestead entry, which said certificates are known as half-breed script.
3.	That unscripulous speculators followed in the wake of the commission entrusted by the Honourable the Minister of the Interior with delivery of such certificates of half-breed script, and taking shameful if not even criminal advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the half-breed, purchased such script from the holders, paying therefor a proportion of the agreed purchase price, and agreeing to pay the balance, together with the expenses of the vendor in traveling to and from the Land Office at such time as the vendor might be called upon by the purchaser to come to a Rominion Land Office and fyle upon the parcel of land located and selected by the purchaser.
4.	Many of the unscruptulous purchasers instead of bringing the vendor to the Land Office and paying him or her the expenses of such a trip together with the balance of the agreed purchase price, by fraud, perjury, subornation
Half-Breed Scrip

of perjury and forgery procured other persons to appear at the Land Office and represent themselves to foe the persons named in the script, and to fyle upon the lands selected or located by the purchaser, and to forge the name of the real vendor to transfers and other documents in connection therewith, thereby committing a fraud on His Majesty's government, and a fraud upon the vendor.
5.	That in the North Country in the neighbourhood of Ports Resolution, Smith and Chip-pewyan there are^everal hundred half-breeds who have been defrauded and with respect to whose scripts His Majesty's government has been defrauded.
6.	And your [Petitioners pray that a commission be appointed to enquire into and report upon all fylings upon government lands by means of half-breed script, and to cause to be punished all persons who may De found to be guilty of fraud or criminal conspiracy, or any other offence, with respect to such fyling and to procure compensation and refit ess for those of His Majesty's subjects of mixed white and Indian blood who may have been the victims of such frauds and conspiracies
And your petitioners will every pray.
This petition was promised consideration by the Premier of Canada and upon returning to Ottawa he apparently referred the matter to the Minister of Interior. A letter was sent to these parties-in care of Mr. Calhoun, King Edward hotel, Edmonton- by Mr. Cote, of the Department of the Interior, with reference to this matter. The letter, which is dated December 17, 1920, reads in part as follows:
In further reference to the minister's letter to you of the 30th, ultimo, respecting your petition, referred to him by the Prime Minister, in which you state that you have been delegated by a number of persons of white and Indian blood residing in the environment oif Fort Resolution, Fort Smith and Fort Ohippewyan to seek redress in connection with the location of half-breed land scrip, I beg to state as you have been advised, that this matter has already received -the attention of the department and it has been decided, after very careful consideration. that applications to have half-breed land scrip locations, claimed to have been made fraudulently, investigated by the department, could not be entertained.
This question has been before the department on several occasions in the past, and in view of your petition has again been considered. No reason, however, has been found which, in the opinion of the department would justify altering a decision already arrived at sr.d it is not possible, therefore, to grant your petition.
Since the beginning of 1900 about 4,S00 claims have been satisfied by the issue of land scrip calling for some 1,153,092 acres nearly all of which have been located and patents therefor issued either to the grantees of the scrip themselves or to their assignees. Many of these patents covering thousands of acres were issued nearly 20 years ago, the titles passing through many hands, and to question such titles now would, in the opinion of the department, be very injudicious and could result in no benefit.
Moreover many of the original grantees and witnesses are dead and it would be impossible, at this date, to locate many of the others or

obtain satisfaction or reliable evidence relating to these transactions which took place so many years ago.
The scrip certificates issued in satisfaction of half-breed claims and the scrip notes issued by the department were delivered to the grantees personally and it is not considered that the department can be held responsible for subsequent action taken in connection with the location of the scrip, and if there were any fraud perpetrated in connection therewith It was open to them to take the ordinary proceedings before the proper court.
Now, in connection with what the right hon. gentleman has said, that the Secord case in Edmonton was the one that directed the attention of the department to this matter, I would like the House to take note of the fact that, as appears from this letter, the question had heen before the department on several occasions in the past. It says: "And in view of your petition has again been considered." But the advice of the department was to take proceedings before the proper court in the ordinary way. A certain half-breed a returned soldier, John Graham, on the fifth of April, 1921, laid information before Lieut.-Colonel George B. McLeod, police magistrate in the city of Edmonton charging a certain Edmonton millionaire, the same Richard Secord, with the uttering of a forged document and the procuring of a certain portion of land under land scrip. The department had taken the position that all the evidence in connection with most of these matters would long ago have disappeared, but in this very first case in which a definite information was laid, the Edmonton millionaire to whom I have referred was committed for trial at the first court of competent jurisdiction. So I cannot see how the contention of the department or of the minister, or whoever is responsible for that opinion can be upheld, namely, that evidence could not be obtained and that it was not the duty of the department in any way to interfere with) or to investigate the claims made by these northern half-breeds. That is the reason why we want this amendment repealed. I had a resolution on the Order Paper asking for an investigation into this matter, but it has not been reached. I still believe that is the duty of the Government to appoint a commission-I do not care whether it is a royal commission or what you call it, so long as it will investigate the claims of these northern half-breeds. The information that was laid by Mr. Graham before Lieut.-Colonel George B. McLeod of Edmonton was that the accused had bribed a half-breed woman with $10 and a grey

Half-Breed Scrip
shawl to go with him to the Dominion land office and there represent herself to be the holder of the paticular scrip certificate in question and to make her mark on behalf of the person named in the scrip, who was then living at Fort Rae. The owner of the scrip was living 600 miles northeast of Edmonton at the time. This bears out the contention of the petition that at least one scrip had been filed by the method complained of.
With the political purposes served by this particular case I have no concern. I referred to it during my campaign; I cannot say whether it got me any votes or not. But I certainly am opposed to this kind of legislation. Fifty-eight days after Richard Secord was committed for trial in the city of Edmonton this bill was introduced in the Senate, piloted through, evidently by the Minister of the Interior and was then introduced and passed in the House of Commons as a "constructive amendment" to the Criminal Code.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the hon. gentleman see that this bill does not affect the Secord case at all? That is what I sought to impress upon him.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The
Secord case is only an incident.


Arthur Meighen: Very good; but there was nothing to hinder the Secord case from being continued-nothing in the world.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The point is that the Secord case was started in order to uphold the contention of those halfbreeds that appeared before the Prime Minister in Edmonton, and they showed that there was real reason why the Department of the Interior-


Arthur Meighen: Maybe; that is another question.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -should hold an investigation. As long as this amendment stands on the statute book, what is the use of starting an investigation? We want the law repealed and we want an investigation held with a view to seeing whether the contention of these halfbreeds is justified. It would seem from the records in connection with this case that they were justified and that they had a real reason for appearing and presenting their objection on that occasion.
It is also maintained by the department that most of the scrips issued to half-breeds north of Edmonton were money scrips; that only a few were land scrips. Well, I do not see that that has much to do with it,
for the simple reason that there are halfbreeds from all over the Northwest Territories north of Edmonton. As settlement has pushed on westward over the prairies the tendency has been for the half-breeds to move back into those sections of the country where they can carry on hunting and can make their living by the work to which they are accustomed. You can find half-breeds north of Edmonton from all over Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I think it is the duty of this House to repeal this legislation, and it is the duty of the Government to grant an investigation into these claims. We have taken this country away from the Indians and the half-breeds and it is our duty as a people to try to teach them something of our civilization. If we say that we cannot grant this investigation because of an amendment to a certain section of the Criminal Code which says that such an investigation cannot be started after three years-well, they cannot understand it. That has no more meaning to the half-breed than if you told him that the investigation could not be started because of the presence in Ottawa in 1921 of Barnum and Bailey's circus.


Arthur Meighen: The statute does not say that at all. You can start all the investigation you like. You cannot prosecute if the statute stays, but you can investigate.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the use of investigating if you cannot prosecute?


Andrew Ross McMaster: An investigation leading to action is an investigation.


Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting to the repeal, anyway, if it is for the purpose of investigating. What I wanted to make clear to the hon. member was that this legislation did not affect the Secord case in the least. That is all, and I think he ought to be fair enough now to acknowledge it, unless he disputes the law.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There
was a good deal of dispute among legal men whether it did or not.


Mr. HANSON:: There should not be.


Mr. BAXTER:: Would my hon. friend tell the House what was the result of the Secord case?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are we to have all the members of the Opposition on their feet at once? I know there is a good deal of dispute in the matter. The then Minister of Justice, Mr. R. B. Bennett,
Half-Breed Scrip

took the position that it did not affect the Secord case. But we are not so much interested in the Secord case; we are interested in the petition that was presented to the Prime Minister by the half-breeds asking for an investigation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? What was the outcome of the Secord case?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I could not tell my hon. friend.


Mr. KELLNER:: I would ask the right hon. gentleman where the demand came from for this amendment to the Criminal Code. It must have come from somewhere or it would not have been made. Where did that demand come from?


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend is asking that question of me, I am sorry I cannot answer of my own knowledge because what I stated before is perfectly correct. I did not know about it until after; I am responsible all the same. I have asked Sir James Lougheed about it; judging from what he stated to the Senate and what he told me himself, the case was doubtless brought to his attention in the department as Minister of the Interior; the fact that there was no proscription in connection with this was also brought to his attention, and he felt that there ought to be. But it was never intended to be retroactive; he never said so and he never intended that it should be. The law, moreover, does not make it retroactive. I have no doubt at all that the case itself had come-in fact he so informed me-to his attention, and the departmental officials, doubtless with his concurrence, felt that it would be unfair to keep open the possibility of prosecutions generally. But no one had the slightest intention that it should apply to any prosecution already entered, and it never did so apply.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think the right hon. gentleman is a little wrong there. The attorney general in the province of Alberta claimed that it did apply in the Secord case.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry for the attorney general. I will leave the matter to the Minister of Justice of to-day (Sir Lomer Gouin).


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think I need not say anything more with regard to this matter. Possibly we understand one another and I believe the House will be willing to pass this bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I propose to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy), and I wish to remove a misunderstanding from the mind of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). He has said that there is no reason for this bill at all.


Arthur Meighen: In so far as the Secord case is concerned.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly, that we were free to go ahead with it; that the legislation was not retroactive, and that he did not believe in bills being retroactive that affected the Criminal Code.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Immediately upon the passing of the amendment, counsel for Mr. Secord, the defendant in the case, at once advised the attorney general that, in his opinion, the case could not be continued, the first reason being the staleness of the charge, and the second that the amendment was retroactive in effect and applied to this case. Following that a conference took place between Mr. McDonald, K.C., acting for the private prosecutor; Mr. Cogswell, K.C., crown prosecutor, and Mr. Browning, Deputy Attorney General, with the result that a letter appears on the file from the crown prosecutor, the last paragraph of which letter reads:
I have had a talk with Mr. McDonald, solicitor for the complainant, and he is now of our opinion that the amendment is retrospective in Character and cuts out the right to proceed further.


Arthur Meighen: That was the opinion of the solicitor for the plaintiff?


Edward Joseph Garland: That was the opinion of the conference that was held. Subsequently, a letter was written by the deputy attorney general on July 11 instructing the crown prosecutor not to prefer a formal charge. Since that time, no action was taken. I had the privilege of taking this matter up with the present attorney general of the province, and he has given it that, in his opinion, he or the department cannot proceed with this case at this time as that amendment is retroactive in effect. Therefore, I beg to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for west Edmonton. I think the amendment should be repealed and an opportunity given to the attorney general or the crown prosecutor in Alberta to proceed with this case. Justice demands that.

Half-Breed Scrip


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add anything unnecessarily to this debate. I do not care whether there are any limitations to prosecutions of this character or not. It is true, if you want to prosecute a man for treason, you have to do so within three years. To prosecute for a fraud of this kind, some people apparently think you should have all the rest of a man's life and possibly a little longer. I do not care; there are no frauds that I want to cover up or to see covered up. But the extraordinary thing, to my mind, is: What possible good will the defrauded Indians or whoever have been defrauded get out of a prosecution? Somebody will be punished ultimately, possibly; but as regards restoring any rights to the defrauded people, the prosecution will not accomplish that.
I want to make one observation on the very excellent order of legal acumen that has been displayed in this province. It would have required some extraordinary research, I admit; it would simply have required opening Crankshaw's Criminal law at the right page to have found a long collection, a bead-roll of English cases, showing that what is put forward here as being the opinion of the law officers and what must surely be an error is not an opinion worthy of the name, and showing, by Canadian decisions themselves, that the statute is not retroactive; that an information having once been laid, this act would not stop its going to its final conclusion. I can well understand that, after the extraordinary performance which has been described, the prosecution having dropped, it cannot now be recommenced because of this statutory barrier; but there was nothing in the world ever to prevent the Secord case from being prosecuted to a conclusion, except something that I suspect, that when the gentlemen got together, they found, the thing being so remote, they did not have the evidence. That is the most likely feature in the case. We can get no assurance as to what the facts are; but I am not here to protect any Secord or any fraud. I am quite willing that this shall be repealed. I only want to point out that it is scarcely fair to have laid this blame at the door of the former government or any member of it when the blame ought to have been laid at the doors of those ignorant professional gentlemen who were either too ignorant or too lazy to resort to a simple well-206
known book which would have given them all the authority that it was necessary to give the prosecution.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to justice being done? I ask the question because the hon. member would lead me to believe that, because no benefit could accrue to the murdered man, the murderer should not be punished.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I did not catch the last observation about the murdered man. Would the hon. member kindly repeat it? I have been informed since what it was. I will inform my hon. friend that I have not now, I never have had and I hope I never shall have any objection to justice being done. My objection, on the contrary, is very strong to injustice being done, and I realize that my hon. friend who has interrogated me and a number of others in concert with him, have been doing either very ignorantly or very wilfully injustice to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), who sits on this side of the House. That is my sole reason for intervening in this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-section repealed, providing that prosecution not to be taken after three years for any offence respecting the location of land paid for by scrip issued to half breeds.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I admit I am somewhat surprised that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Baxter) are so very pronounced on this question of law. There is a question as to whether this amendment is a matter of procedure or of substantive law. I rather think it is one of procedure: and while I do not vouch for the correctness of the theory, there i: a well known theory that a matter of procedure is retroactive. There is a well founded English theory that legislation, that is merely in the nature of procedure is retroactive. I do not think my hon. friend should be very severe in his criticism. Section 20 of Chap. 25 of the Acts of 1911 reads:
Any offence relating to or arising out of the location of land which was paid for in whole or in part by scrip, or was granted upon certificates issued to half-breeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title.
Now, it seems to me most extraordinary that the criminal code having been in force since the year 1892, and containing

Half-Breed Scrip
as it does a long list of exceptions, it should have been thought necessary in 1921 to hunt up a peculiar subject like this and give it the benefit of the statute of limitations. I do not know who was responsible for it, but it strikes me as strange. I have no axe to grind, but I am merely pointing out that the amendment is quite peculiar.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I speak subject to correction, but II think the amendment is couched in -the words which the Code uses in constituting the offence, and therefore they would seem to be very apt words. I can hardly agree with the Solicitor-General (Mr. McKenzie) in the doubt he throws on the law I have expounded. I am afraid I shall not be able to differentiate betwer my legal brethren of the West and one of my legal brethren from the East. I almost think that for the sake of his reputation, a good reputation, my hon. friend the Solicitor-General had . better not have tried to add to the wealth of legal erudition upon (Ms subject to-night. It might almost have been better for him to have opened Crank shaw at least, or referred to some legal authority, before taking up the subject.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have opened Crankshaw a great many times.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wonder whether my
hon. friend has held it upside down or read it in the normal way. I confess I am somewhat in doubt because of his peculiar references. He seems to have delved into Maxwell on Statutes; he has read much that is applicable to civil procedure, but he has got far away from criminal procedure. I want to Shed more light this evening for the benefit of my hon. friend. If he had only taken the precaution to look, not before he leaped, but before he spoke, he would have consulted-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend will understand I offered no positive opinion. I simply stated that there was a well-known theory that when it was a matter of procedure it was retroactive. I did not draw any sharp line between criminal and civil procedure.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I pity my hon. friend
still more. I want to inform him that it is not yet too late for him to receive instruction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I care little for my
hon. friend's instruction.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend is sensitive and is apt to resent even the mildest

and most gentle criticism, but I want to tell him that at any age, in any of the provinces that compose this Dominion, a man may be admitted to study law. And when he begins that study it is well for him to understand definitely that law is a science-It is not a political platform; it is not something that varies with the atmosphere or with the latitude or longitude of the vicinity in which one studies. There are certain fixed principles inherent in the science, which a man cannot throw overboard as he would his political convictions.
I know that my hon. friend has refrained from any positive opinion, other than the mere tenuity of an idea; but he did imply that there was enough uncertainty about the subject to justify my western brethren in doubting. Now apparently he shares the possibility of doubt, coming about as near, I suppose, to a scintilla juris as he is likely to get. Now, I would like to ask him to follow me. He can look up the fourth edition of Crankshaw, printed in 1915, at page 1191. And this is no extraordinary authority delivered in a Nova Scotia court by a celebrated judge on an election petition. This is real law. He will find in the notes to section 1140, which deals with the prescription of offences, the following notes which I have extracted. He will find in a case upon the repealed statutes relating to coin that it was held that the information and proceedings before the magistrate upon the defendant being taken was to be deemed the "Commencement of the Prosecution within the meaning of those Acts". He will find sound English authority cited in support of that. He will find in a case based upon the repealed statutes relating to coin that it was held that the information and proceedings before the magistrate upon the defendant being taken was to be deemed the "commencement of the prosecution within the meaning of those acts." He will find sound English authority cited in support of that. He will find also another case where a warrant of commitment for the offences issued within the time limited was held sufficient, although the indictment was not drawn until a later date. And that would be exactly parallel with the Secord case referred to to-night. My hon. friend will also find, if he can by any chance run across the Nova Beotia authorities, in the 23rd Nova Scotian decisions, at pages 21 and 22 of that interesting volume, that bringing the prosecution is not the hearing or trial, but it is the initiation of the proceedings by

Half-Breed, Scrip
the prosecutor. It refers entirely to the preliminary act. Now, he will also find in Maxwell on statutes at page 308, 3rd tdition, the following:
In general, where the law is altered pending an action, the rights of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed when the action was begun unless the new statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights. Thus the Medical Act which enacts that no person shall, after the 1st January, 1859, recover any charge for medical treatment "unless he shall prove at the trial" that he was on the Medical Register, was held not to apply to an action for medical services begun before that date but tried after it.
He will find two very excellent English cases upon that subject. I fortified myself with these citations because I thought somebody would get up here-I did not expect the Solicitor General-and deny the most axiomatic principles of law relevant to this point. I am sorry it had to come from the Solicitor General, because when we are sometimes bombarded in the committees with the weight of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown I should like sometimes to he able to accept the opinion, even if contrary to that which I have formed myself; but if an opinion is cited, the example of the Solicitor General rushing blindly in and disregarding precedents and stating absolutely bad law to this committee will I fear, force me to decline to follow afterwards such opinion unless I have ascertained which law officer is responsible for it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not surprised at my hon. friend being familiar, with when an action can be and cannot be brought, and why it should be and should not be brought, because there is no form of political shortcoming that he has not been called upon to defend in some shape or another Consequently there is no trick or form in criminal law which he has not traversed from Dan to Beersheba. If a man robs a hen coop he is particularly anxious to know when the statute of limitations begins to run, and I have no doubt my hon. friend has been often called upon to advise hen stealers down in his country. Now, this voluminous, delightful, Gladston-:an law that my hon. friend has been able to give us-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Gladstonian law!


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Of course,what I meant was Blaclcstonian law. But I am now addressing the hon. member for St. John, and if is no use dealing with him in ordinary language. For the most of us Blackstone would be good enough, but I had to come
down a few generations and mention Gladstone for the benefit of my hon. friend. But he will probably recognize that name when possibly he never heard of Blackstone. I heard nothing from my hon. friend that throws any further light on the law. He tells us as to what is the commencement of an action. There is not a magistrate of the meanest intelligence in any part of the maritime provinces but knows that the laying of the action is the commencement of the action and not the hearing. But my hon. friend, with all the wisdom of a Solomon, comes before this House and tells us as it was decided years ago that the laying of the action is the commencement of the action. It is noble to seek truth; it is beautiful to find it. I leave my hon. friend to rejoice in his impressive knowledge of criminal law. He reminds me of the old man who had a cow with a record. He was trying to sell the cow, and in doing so continually pointed to her record. "I will na buy your coo," said a bystander. "But look at her record," exclaimed her owner. "Well," was the rejoinder, "she needs it." If my hon. friend has a profound knowledge of the criminal law, he needs it.


Arthur Meighen: With the Minister of Justice in his seat I think it is only fair that he should state what is the fact about this matter. The Minister of Justice knows that his officers have passed on this question without the least hesitation, have no more doubt about their opinions than they have about the multiplication table, and the Minister of Justice I know has no doubt either. Although I do not usually ask across the House for the judgment of the Justice Department, I think in this case undoubtedly a grave injustice has been done, I know unmeaningly, by hon, members and citizens of this country; nevertheless it has been done, and I think the Minister of Justice owes it to the House to make a statement as to what the effect of that legislation was as regards the existing case in which the accused had already been committed for trial.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: I have looked
over the record regarding this matter. The question was put to the officers of my department, and over their signatures they have given it as their opinion that they believe the statute of 1921 had no retroactive effect. That is also my opinion. A? to the Secord case which was mentioned, it was commenced before the bill was introduced, passed and sanctioned. I would con-

Half-Breed Scrip
sider that this amendment would not affect that case. As to the merits of this bill, if the House is of opinion that it should pass for my part I have no objection to it.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to thank the Minister of Justice for his frank and clear statement, and I have no objection to the bill now. The bill is not necessary by reason of any action of this Parliament last session or any other session, it may be necessary by reason of the blunder of the Attorney General of Alberta.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While the
bill may not apply to the Secord case, there are a number of other cases to which it may very aptly apply, and therefore there is reason why it should pass.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We are not particularly interested in the Secord case. It was started to show that there was something in the charges contained in the petition of the half-breeds. It is only an incident in the whole question.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. That is the incident which swept the West like a prairie fire and was thundered in the press day after day as the reason for the legislation-in order to absolve this rich man. Is the hon. member not fair enough to admit that that is a great injustice to the government responsible for the legislation? This bill is necessary for the Secord case in this respect and because of the error of the Alberta government: the prosecution having been discontinued then, it could only be revised by a new prosecution; the new prosecution now would of course be subject to the terms of the legislation; abolish the legislation and that impediment does not exist. It is necessary for that reason-a reason traceable wholly to the error of the Alberta government.
I want to refer to what the hon. member said about the petition of the halfbreeds. I do not dispute that that petition was presented to me. The fact is, I must admit, that I have not the least recollection of it, but there will be many others in the same position. If the hon. member is ever a minister of the Crown, much more so if he is Prime Minister, he will find cases by the score in which incidents like that occur, but of which he cannot possibly keep the records in his mind. What I would do in a case of that kind would be this: I would transmit it through my secretary to the Minister of the Interior, in whose charge it was, and he

would take it up with his officers, and I would know no more about it after I had transmitted the letter. This matter has been reviewed by the officers of the Interior Department, no doubt, over and over again. The gentleman who wrote that letter, Mr. Cote, have been an officer of that department for I would think thirty-five or forty years, or more. He is intimately acquainted with this whole controversy over the granting of scrip. He is an eminently fair and able officer, and would have the whole history of the matter at his finger-ends, and I would place great confidence in a judgment arrived at by him in a letter. I was no party to the refusal of the investigation. I feel that if I had gone into it the officers would likely have persuaded me that their view was right. I have not the slightest objection to an investigation. Let the hon. member press it on the Minister of the Interior on its merits, and if he makes out a case, I hope it is granted, but I venture to say that if he goes into it from the standpoint of the department as well as from the standpoint that has been urged upon him, he will come to grave doubts whether it is the part of wisdom or not. I only rose to explain that there was no failure on my part to carry out anything with respect to the two halfbreeds who through Mr. Cahoon waited upon me, nothing at all in the whole incident to militate or reflect in the least upon the statement of the whole circumstances as well as of the law that I gave to the House a little while ago.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not intend to take any part in this discussion except to say this: I only knew incidentally of the Secord case. My hon. friend has made the statement that the Attorney General of Alberta was lacking in legal knowledge when he dropped the case against Mr. Secord. So far as I know, the Attorney General of Alberta had very little to do with the case. He may have been consulted, but it was in the hands of the Deputy Attorney General. I was not consulted about the matter at all. Mr. Cogswell bears, I think, a fair reputation as a criminal lawyer, and I can hardly think that all the criticism offered of the Alberta law officers is warranted. I do not know the exact circumstances under which this case happened to be dropped, but I may say to my hon. friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Baxter) that the Deputy Attorney General is a native of his pro-

Privilege-Mr. Gauvreau
vince, so surely his legal training must be fair.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister took the trouble to get down to the facts, I think he would probably find that what really happened was that after the lapse of years they could not get the evidence, and that that is the real reason why they dropped the case, but it was stated boldly here in the House to-night by my hon. friends as the determined, settled opinion of the law officers of Alberta. Personally, without having any kowledge of the case, I very much doubt if that was the settled opinion of any law officer worthy of the name.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, House adjourned at 1.08 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, June 20, 1922