Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I beg to
move, seconded by Mr. Totzke:
That the petition of Sydney James Black praying for an act to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and Minnie Black, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would like to
have some explanation as to what this really means.


Samuel William Jacobs: This is the petition of Sydney James Black praying for an act to dissolve his marriage with Minnie Black, and the motion is that the petition and the report of the clerk of petitions be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does that
mean?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I might explain by reading the report of the clerk of petitions:
Ottawa, June 7, 1929.
The clerk of petitions has the honour to report that he has examined the following petition presented on the 6th instant, and finds that the time for receiving petitions for private bills having expired, it should not be received.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have had
a word with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Gardiner) with respect to the resolution standing in my name, and I gather that if the government will undertake not to sit in the afternoon or evening hon. members will not object to meeting in the forenoon at half past ten instead of eleven o'clock, the understanding being that when we take up estimates if there are any contentious items which it may be desired to hold over until Monday, that will be done.
I think this will meet with the general approval of the house, and with the consent of the house I move the amended motion, as follows:
That on Saturday, the 8th of June instant, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 10.30 o'clock a.m. -and the order of business and procedure shall be the' same as on Fridays.
That means that we will meet at 10.30 o'clock to-morrow morning and adjourn at one o'clock.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: That wholly meets with the approval of those with whom I am associated.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canada Grain Act, and to provide for the salaries of the chief commissioner and other commissioners, and^ for the appointment of four assistant commissioners, and for the payment of transportation expenses and per diem allowance to members of the standards boards attending meetings of the said boards.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Canada Grain Act
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Malcolm thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 359, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first 'ime.
Mr. MALCOLM moved the second reading >f the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister give us some reasonable explanation?


Mr. MALCOLM:: Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee on agriculture have spent the major portion of their time during the last few weeks in the consideration of this matter, and they thoroughly understand all the changes which have been incorporated in this legislation. Other members of the house who have been unable to follow the proceedings of that committee may not realize to the same extent the effect of the changes brought about in this proposed legislation, but I think they can be briefly summarized under two or three headings.
The Brown royal commission sitting in the province of Saskatchewan, brought down certain recommendations making changes in the car order book. The recommendations of that commission in regard to the car order book have been taken as being the result of evidence submitted and of careful consideration given thereto. The majority of the recommendations in that regard have been accepted by the agriculture committee and lave been incorporated in this legislation.
Considerable complaint has been made with [DOT]egard to the lack of uniformity in the out-urn standards of grain from our terminal ilevators and while the inspection board set ligher standards of outturns than the standards of inspection at Winnipeg, on appeal they could not be sustained. It was thought idvisable to provide by statute that the out-:urn standard of all grades of grain from the terminal elevators should be as near the average of the grade as it was possible to obtain. Therefore, in order to give uniformity of grade in the flow of grain to Europe or the orient during any one crop season, the committee decided to adopt the recommendations made by the officers of the western pool, that the outturn standards of the grade from terminal elevators should be 75 per cent of the average of the grade and 25 per cent of the minimum of the grade.
The committee was informed by its witnesses that that outturn standard was accept-
able to the handlers of grain in Canada as being an advisable standard to incorporate in legislation.
Evidence was submitted, also to the committee as to whether or not the existing machinery for the administration of the Canada Grain Act was sufficiently powerful to deal with the ever-increasing problems which arise in the business of handling our western wheat crop. The committee felt that the recommendation made by the Brown commission to increase the number of commissioners *to five instead of three, and to locate the commissioners across the country-one at Vancouver, one at Fort William, and one at each of the three western provinces-was not the best way in which to administer this act. It. took the view that the board should be mobile, mowing from -place to place in order to study problems in the administration of the act; that in place of the commissioners being separated, as they have been in the past, the members of the board should work together. However, in order to carry out the demands and the requirements of western Canada, and to meet the complaints arising in the handling and inspection, of grain, it was felt adivisrible to place permanently an assistant commissioner at Port William, another assistant commissioner in the province of Manitoba, one in the province of Saskatchewan and another in the province of Alberta. The new board would be assisted by four assistant commissioners who, under the act, would be given powers equal to the powers of the commissioners but who would be responsible to the main 'board for their findings and their actions. The opinion wa3 expressed by the committee that the business of handling the grain crop of western Canada is large enough to justify the extension of the personnel of the board and that this being a billion dollar business only men of the very highest calibre should be in charge of the administration of the act. When one realizes the volume of business transacted, the importance of the rulings made, both as to their financial consequence and the spread of that financial consequence among
250.000	farmers, he must agree with the committee that it might be difficult to get the class of men required at the salaries being paid. The committee therefore recommends to the house that there be an increase in the salaries of these commissioners. May I say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the men who understand the grain business are practically all in the employment either of the grain trade or of the western pool. It is not an easy matter to get the type of man required for the administration of this act unless he be

Canada Grain Act
taken from some occupation of a similar nature, and t'he committee felt that it would be quite in order that the salaries should be raised to the amounts mentioned. Indeed it was said in the committee that it would not be paying too much if the chairman of this board were to receive a salary comparable to that paid to railway presidents, as both the volume of business and the importance of the work were comparable to the duties of such a man. However, the majority ruling of the committee was that the salaries should be increased to the amounts provided in the bill.
I think that covers the views of the committee with regard to the administration of the act. Briefly, they are, that the machinery be increased and that the best men available be secured for the administration of the act.
Another matter on which I might speak briefly is the discussion which took place in the committee with regard to a vexed question for many years in western Canada, that of whether or not our grades of grain should be mixed, one with another. Evidence was submitted by some very competent and well informed witnesses that the mixing of one grade of grain with another is the most logical method of disposing of our crop. Evidence was also submitted that in the mixing of grain, our higher grades are deteriorated by putting therein lower grades which rather lower their milling value and reputation on the markets of the world. After due consideration of all the evidence submitted, and of the problems of handling our crop, the committee felt that the introduction of legislation which would have to take effect within the next sixty or ninety days, and which would disturb the handling methods now practised, would be rather a drastic change. The committee also came to the conclusion that as regards the lower or so-called commercial grades of grain, it was not shown, nor, indeed, could it be shown at the present time, that any damage or ill effects could result from the mixing of those grades. But the committee came to the conclusion that as regards the statutory grades of grain, namely, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 red spring wheat, the grades which are more or less our guiding grades, no good could be done to them by mixing any other type or grade of grain with them. In other words, the committee decided that we could not improve the top grades by mixing; that there might be logic in the argument that the lower grades could be so improved. In regard to this question the committee brought down a recommendation that the 75-25 outturn standard tc which I have referred, should come into1 effect at once, with regard to all grades of. grain; that with regard to the commercialL
grades the general practice of mixing which has been heretofore in use, be continued, but that as regards the statutory grades, the committee advised the prohibition of mixing.
As I mentioned a moment ago, I think it is only fair to those handling grain to explain that probably there will be some change necessary in the system in the terminal elevators in order to bring into effect the recommendation of the committee. It may be that an organization like the pool, which has seven terminal elevators at Fort William, will be able to handle through one of its houses all of Nos. 4, 5 and 6 grades, and mix and treat grain therein. They may devote to the the handling of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 another house where they can bin separately and keep intact the grade as it comes through Winnipeg. All people handling grain, however, are not so fortunately situated. Some line elevator companies have more than one house and can adopt a system of segregation such as I have referred to. Other line companies, however, have only one terminal elevator and arrangements will have to be made in order to segregate within the one house those grades of grain which cannot be mixed and those grades which can be mixed.
Representations were made by our chief inspector that supervision would be necessary in order to enforce the findings of the committee, and that if the recommendation were put into effect immediately, a very much larger staff would be necessary to supervise the binning and see that that the statutory grades were kept intact than would be necessary if we postponed the enforcement of the new mixing regulations for one year, during which time arrangements could be made for handling the statutory grades in separate terminals. In this case all the supervision which would be necessary would be an inspection of the care going in and to see that each of these three grades was put into its proper bin. Therefore, with regard to mixing the committee recommended that the prohibition of mixing in the statutory grades come into effect on August 1, 1930.
I do not want to delay the committee with a discussion on the minor recommendations which can take place as the sections are taken up; and wish only to refer to major recommendations of the committee. That the 75 per cent of the average and 25 per cent of the minimum of a grade passing Winnipeg, be the standard for our grain going to Europe, is most important. This, it is felt, will give a uniformity of standard in the flow of our grain and is most desirable at the beginning of the season when the price s set. I miiight observe to the house that the 'prices set on Canada's grain are largely 6et
Canada Grain Act

on the samples which are submitted at the beginning of the crop season. Prices may fluctuate if the standard of the cargoes improves, but by this method it is felt that the Liverpool corn exchange and the other corn exchanges of Europe will know more definitely what they may expect to get throughout the whole crop year. They will know that the standard they are going to get is above the minimum standard on which the grain was bought, and it is felt that confidence will be established in the European buyer by prodding that the out-turn standard shall be almost the average of the grade.
One other point which was discussed and amended is the question of section 150. Section 150 was recommended by parliament two years ago and the import of it was to give to any producer of grain the right to take his shipment to any country elevator, to put it into storage and, when he had paid his storage charges thereon, to direct that it be transported to any terminal elevator of his selection. In simple language, that was the intention of section 150. Certain difficulties arose in connection with a ticket issued under this section. The grain companies handling grain contended that they had the right to handle grain for those who had a contract to handle the grain for producers and by the use of this ticket they deprived the producer of the right of determining the destination of his grain, claiming the right that they had under a certain contract. The committee has suggested a new wording for this section which, I think the house will agree, clearly and definitely sets out that under no set of circumstances can the rights of the producer be taken away from him.
But the committee has gone further. Under the old Canada Grain Act and under subsequent changes which have been introduced by the agriculture committee and recommended to the house, certain forms of tickets were prescribed by legislation. It was also prescribed by legislation that no other form of ticket should be used. This brings up the question of how the act is to be enforced with regard to providing that in all the thousands of country elevators, no violation of 'the spirit of this section shall take place. In other words, it was, I think, clearly pointed out to the committee that the auditing of all the country elevators in the Dominion of Canada to make sure that no one of them at any time used a ticket tha>t was not in exact conformity with the act, was a task which was colossal in size and would involve a tremendous expenditure. So, inasmuch as the question had been raised that section 150 had
!Mr. Malcolm.]
been violated by the insertion of certain words on the ticket which were not prescribed in the act-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And which had not been approved by the governor in council.


James Malcolm: Quite so-the committee felt that for all time this question could be best settled and expense and laborious auditing saved if they would recommend to the house that it be enacted in legislation that a standard ticket be printed and supplied by the Board of Grain Commissioners to all country elevators, this standard ticket to take the form and appearance of a standard government certificate. The committee are recommending in this bill that the Board of Grain Commissioners do not actually print but supervise the printing of the tickets, and supply them to the elevators, and that no tickets shall be used until they have been supplied by the board. That the use of any other ticket than the ticket supplied by the board shall be illegal. May I observe that this is not going to disturb the printing of tickets ;in western Canada. There are a few large printing houses which are printing these tickets for the board. I believe that the board will see fit to use a standard paper for the printing of these tickets. They will use a standard border in the printing of the tickets, and there will be uniformity of type throughout. The only difference will be in the name of'the grain company printed on the ticket, to supply the needs of the various buyers of grain. The grain ticket which will be used in future in western Canada will be as uniform in appearance as a Canadian government certificate or as a one-dollar bill. It will lead, through standardization of size, to economies of handling and it will I think forever get away from where an operator of a country elevator goes to his local printer and gets a ticket printed which may not be in conformity with the desire of parliament, because the printer has added words thereto, and before the addition of those words is discovered many disputes may arise.
I think I have covered the four or five principal features to be found in this bill. We have dealt with what has been known as the hybrid ticket, and I believe that we have settled that question in the most satisfactory manner possible, by clearly defining the rights of the producer under section 150, and we are providing by having the tickets supplied by the board that no tampering can take place with tickets in the future.
We have recommended a solution for the problem of mixing by asking for the pro-

Canada Grain Act
33S7
hibition of mixing in the statutory grades, leaving mixing legal within the commercial grades. We have tried to settle the question of lack of uniformity in standards by making legal a standard which we think is as near the average of the grade as it is possible to reach. We have tried to settle complaints by providing for more extensive 'machinery for the administration of the act. I think that that is about all the information that I can give the house in a general way on the changes recommended by the committee on agriculture and colonization.


Mr. LADNER:: There are four assistant
commissioners appointed, one at the head of the lakes and one each in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Why is there not an assistant commissioner stationed at Vancouver, where i00,000,000 buhsels of wheat go through the port in a year, and where there is a storage capacity of approximately 13,000,000 bushels?


James Malcolm: These commissioners will have for the major portion of their work the settling of complaints of producers, the supervision of the country elevators, and such work as concerns largely the producer's interests. It was felt that the production of grain in British Columbia was not yet sufficiently large to justify the stationing of a_ commissioner at Vancouver at present, and that the settlement of complaints with regard to the production of grain in British Columbia could be looked after more conveniently and economically from Calgary. So far as the output, of grain from the terminal elevators at Vancouver is concerned, the inspection department can take care of that work admirably.
The decision to place a man at Fort William was largely due to the fact that there is a greater quantity of grain moving through Fort William. The Board of Grain Commissioners have been stationed in the past at Fort William, and a great deal of the work of the commission which deals with European shipments passing through Fort William will have to be continued at that point. Undoubtedly there will be a permanent staff at Fort William for the administration of the act on account of the importance of Fort William- as an all-year shipping point, by rail in the winter and by boat in the summer. It was not found necessary to establish at the moment an assistant commissioner at Vancouver. We took evidence on that point from our own officers, and I can assure my hon. friend that the matter was given very careful consideration. It may be that in the
future when the grain business of Vancouver has increased it will be necessary to have an agent there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The real difficulty to which
attention was directed, namely, the use by the grain trade of a ticket that had not been approved by the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, for which undoubtedly the government must accept full responsibility, has I understand been settled to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
So far as we may be interested, we are only desirous that the great agricultural producing sections of the country should feel that they are deriving the full return for their labours from the sale of their product. As I understand that this committee composed of representatives of all parties, has striven for weeks to arrive at conclusions that would be satisfactory so far as it may be possible to all parties concerned, and that these conclusions are now embodied in the legislation which is submitted to the house, we regard it as our duty to say to you, sir, and to the house that regarding the legislation as being acceptable to all interests after it has been fully considered and canvassed in the committee, we shall do our utmost to expedite its progress through the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Salaries of commissioners.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: I question the wisdom
of raising the salaries of these commissioners as proposed in this section. If we were absolutely certain that we were going to get the very best men there would be no objection, but we have no such guarantee. The minister has stated that the experienced grain men have been secured either by the grain trade or by the pool, and that h is necessary to provide a large salary in order to get proper men. I do not altogether agree with that view. As a matter of fact it is not experienced grain men you need as commissioners; that is the class I would very carefully steer away from. I believe that when you pay a man a very high salary you elevate him so far above the ordinary farmer that he is inclined to lose sympathy with him. I simply register my protest; I do not offer any opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
:i3ss
Canada Grain Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 6-Head office.
Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the city of Fort William which I have the honour to represent is vitally interested in this proposed change. The same question came up in 1925 when the grain act was amended. Then it was proposed to move the headquarters of the board to Winnipeg, but I put forward the arguments that I intend to submit to-day, and the committee was fair-minded enough at that time to acknowledge the justice of my case. I was supported not only by my own party but by members from the prairie provinces on both sides of the house and by two or three members of the government. As a consequence the headquarters of the Board of Grain Commissioners remained in Fort William. I trust that to-day my hon. friends in all parts of the house will regard the proposal as the House of Commons did in 1925.
May I point out to hon. members, particularly those from the prairie provinces, that the headquarters of the Board of Grain Commissioners was established at Fort William by act of parliament in 1912. At that time Sir George Foster, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, asked the people of Fort William to provide a building to house a sample market and the grain commission. I have under my hand the correspondence dealing with the whole matter. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading the various letters, but I may state that the file contains a communication from Sir George Foster asking the people of Fort William to provide the necessary accommodation. It will be recalled by hon. members that the people of Fort William were badly hit by the crash in real estate prices which took place in 1912. But notwithstanding this misfortune they responded promptly to the minister's request and put up $500,000 of their good hard-earned money to erect a suitable building. For a period of about ten or eleven years that money earned' no dividend. I may be permitted to mention a personal incident as an illustration of how the investment depreciated. My father subscribed about $15,000 or $20,000. In 1914 when his estate was being wound up his shares were sold' at fifty cents on the dollar. I put in a little money myself and have the stock yet, but I merely refer to it to show that all the business and (professional men in the city of Fort William provided money for the building. The building w^as laid out for a sample market, but no sample market was ever placed in it. As a result for about ten years there wTas not sufficient revenue to pay any dividend on the 
capital investment, and it is only within the last seven years that dividends ranging from two and a half to five per cent have been paid on that $500,000. Five per cent is the highest return the contributors have ever received. Now, it is proposed by this section to allow the Board of Grain Commissioners to locate the head office of the board at such place as the board may desire. The removal of the board's headquarters from Fort William would probably depreciate the value of the $500,000 investment to about fifty cents on the dollar.
I would point out to the committee that there is a moral obligation on the government in this case. True, the present government was not responsible for the location of the headquarters of the grain commission at Fort W'illiam, but, as I have pointed out, the necessary accommodation for the commission and for a sample market was provided on the request of Sir George Foster when acting as Minister of Trade and Commerce in a Conservative administration. Therefore I submit the obligation is a continuing one on the government of Canada.
If it could be shown that the farmers of the prairie provinces were suffering because the head office of the board is located at Fort William, the people of Fort William, being broadminded, would say:	Well, we will just
have to take our loss. But no national interest is involved. Ever since I came into this house in 1917 there have been attempts made at various times to change the location of the headquarters of this board. I have lived all my life at the head of the lakes, where eighty-five per cent of the grain of the west is handled. I know something about the grain trade, and I have never yet heard it urged that any greater efficiency in the handling of the grain crop of the farmers of the west would result by the moving the headquarters of the board to any other point. If there has been any inefficiency on the part of the board, it has not been because of its being located at Fort William. I submit therefore that there is no national need to justify the proposed change, and I doubt very much that any assistance would be given to the farmers in any manner, shape or form in the better handling of their grain by changing the location of the board head office. Since 1925 one of the commissioners has been at Winnipeg, anyway, and now I notice under this bill it is proposed to appoint four assistant commissioners to occupy offices in different sections of the country.
I have no quarrel with any other portion of this bill. I associate myself wholeheartedly with my leader when he says that our only desire is to see that the farmers of the west

Canada Grain Act
get the best return they can from their grain.
I am convinced that with the appointment of these four assistant commissioners to act with the three commissioners, the farmers of the west will get that efficient administration of the grain act which they may have failed to get in the past. The board must have some pla-ce in which to keep their records, and that is about all their headquarters amount to, because this should be a travelling board. I think the farmers will agree that this board should be, as my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland') once expressed it, an itinerant board1. In fact to my mind there is no reason why the board should not have a private car just as the Board of Railway Commissioners has.
May I point out in this connection that the railway commission is located at Ottawa, which is a long distance from the centre of the Dominion. Most of its business is done in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax and in -other cities of this country. But there has been no complaint of inefficiency on the part of the Board of Railway Commissioners because its headquarters is at Ottawa, a point much further east than Fort William. I submit that the Board of Grain Commissioners in being located at Fort William is much closer to the centre of Canada than the Board of Railway Commissioners located in Ottawa.
I notice that in his statement Mr. Boyd did not give any reason why the headquarters of the board should be moved to Winnipeg, but he did say it is an eight hundred mile trip. It is if you count the distance both ways. He said the trip meant a day lost; it is only a night lost. A train leaves Fort William at night and gets into Winnipeg about nine o'clock in the morning; a train leaves Winnipeg at night and gets into Fort William about the same time next morning.
Most of the cases that come before the grain commissioners are not decided in an hour or a day; they have to be discussed just as have cases that come before any other court. Therefore I think the headquarters of the board might very well remain at Fort William. The board has to travel east and west to -hold sit. tings at various points. Mr. Boyd suggests Winnipeg, but Winnipeg is merely an inspection and trading point for the wheat. I do not need to mention that fact to hon. members who are farmers, but there are other members who are not so familiar with it. Fort William, on the other hand-and I include Port Arthur, of course-is the point at which the wheat is weighed, cleaned, stored, transhipped and1 inspected on to the boats. There are disputes every now and then arising
at that point, and very important disputes in connection with shortages of cargoes going on the boats-much more important than many of the minor differences that occur in the west.
The point has been made in the past that the board, being situated at Winnipeg, might be under the influence of the larger percentage of the trade. I do not care to give credence to that statement, because if the board is properly constituted it should not be subject to such influence. I allude to the fact, however, for the reason that it has been mentioned to me by some people, including some members from the prairie provinces.
The head of the lakes as has been pointed out by the minister, is the largest grain centre in the world; there they have 85,000,000 bushels elevator capacity, and there are thirty-three elevators. To give some idea of the work that is being carried on at the head of the lakes, I may mention two or three figures with regard to the weighing staff and the weighing of grain, an important function which has to be supervised by the Board of Grain Commissioners. The weighing staff in Canada comprises in all 247 members, of whom 139, or more than half, are at Fort William. There are in Canada ten terminal elevators, of which five are at the head of the lakes, four being scattered through the interior and one at Vancouver; and the five at the head of the lakes have twice the capacity of the other five. Then in regard to the income of the board. The income of the Board of Grain Commissioners, according to their last report, was $1,956,000, and of that sum over $1,000,000 was taken in' at Fort William and Port Arthur.
I am not going to to detain the committee much longer because I have no wish to rehash all the arguments I have advanced in the past, but I wish to say that I can see no reason for the change. And I make that statement as sincerely as I have said anything in this house. I hope hon. members will bear in mind that there is a fair deal coming to the people of Fort William, just as there is to the farmers of this country; and it certainly is not a fair deal to have the government of Canada ask the people of that city to put up a $500,000 building-and it has been put up-and then tear up the agreement as a mere scrap of paper; because that is pretty much what it would amount to now if this board were to move its headquarters. I appeal to the committee to look at the matter in a fairminded way; I appeal to them to consider the importance of equitable treatment to all sections of the country. Moreover, I would point this out:	I have
Canada Grain Act

been a member of this house for about thirteen sessions, and in all that time, so far as I can recollect, I have never taken a narrow sectional point of view in regard to any question. Take, for example, the Hudson Bay railway; speeches have been made in this house against that railway, but I have never made any of them-and this notwithstanding the fact that no city will be harder hit than Fort William and Port Arthur if that railway becomes a success, 'because whatever wheat is shipped by that railway will be so much less passing through the head of the lakes.
I do not intend to discuss the matter further except to urge upon the members of this committee the desirability of leaving the act as it stands in this regard. And with this object in view I wish to move this amendment:
That section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out in line 26 the words, "such place as the board may decide", and inserting the words, "the city of Fort William or Port Arthur".
The section would then read:
The head office of the board shall be located at the city of Fort William or Port Arthur, and the board may from time to time establish offices of the board at other places.
This would be practically the same as the present provision in the grain act, except as changed by the committee this year. In the previous act it was left to the governor in council, on recommendation of the board, to establish offices in other places, and my amendment leaves that provision untouched but for the stipulation that the head office shall be at Fort William or Port Arthur.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The hon. member says that either Fort William or Port Arthur is the logical centre for the board. What reason has he to think that the new board when it comes in will transfer operations from Fort William to some other centre?


Robert James Manion: If, as implied in the hon. member's question, there is no intention to remove the head office of the board, why change the act? While there is a stipulation in the act as to the location of the head office, that location cannot be changed1; it is statutory. And that was the understanding when the agreement was arrived at between the people of Fort William and the government. More than that, Mr. Boyd has made a statement to the effect that the head office had better be at Winnipeg, and Mr. Snow lives in that city. So that two of the three members are there, and there is likelihood that they might find it more convenient to
fMr. Manion.]
live at Winnipeg. I am not sure that this has not something to do with the suggestion as to the desirability of having the head office at Winnipeg; and of course most of us want to live in a large and central city. I do not want to be offensive to the hon. member or even to members of the board, but that is my impression.


James Malcolm: Many of the remarks of my hon. friend1 are quite correct. Fort William has proved in the past a very good centre for the location of the board and the committee felt that probably there was not so much of a desire to move the board from that point to Winnipeg. The opinion prevailed, however, that Parliament should not dictate to the board in deciding where its headquarters should1 be. Let me assure my hon. friend that his arguments with reference to the loss of personnel in the city of Fort William are not well founded. The recommendations which the committee have made to parliament in this connection will undoubtedly result in an increased' personnel of grain handlers at Fort William and will add to the population of that city.
There is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman has said as to the necessity of having the board travel. That is precisely what the committee thought; the 'board should be a mobile 'body. No better suggestion could be made than that this Board of Grain Commissioners should have a private car on which to keep necessary records when they are expected to travel, even to Halifax and to Vancouver. The board should visit every port in Canada; the board should inspect terminal elevators; the board should inspect all handling facilities in the country; and, recommended by as many members of the committee, should also make a yearly trip to Europe to see what reception our grain is receiving on the European market. I appreciate the force of what my hon. friend has said: A large portion of the records will always be kept at Fort William. It would not be convenient to move them to any other place, and I believe that even if the board did decide to set up its office in Winnipeg or Calgary, Fort William would lose very little [DOT] by reason of the powers we are conferring upon the board under this legislation. May I read the section to my hon. friend:
The head office of the board shall be located at such place as the board may decide, and the board may from time to time establish offices of the board at other places.
I think the committee will agree that, after giving the matter careful consideration, the special committee have introduced legislation

Canada Grain Act
which will not impair the interests of the city which my hon. friend represents. After all, this legislation has 'been introduced on the recommendation of the committee on agriculture of this parliament. The administration of the act is under a board, and while it is true that the personnel of that board is appointed by the government which happens to be in power, it must also be remembered that the committee on agriculture, who consider this act from time to time and make recommendations to the house in relation thereto, are a non-partisan committee. The members on the government side can take no more credit for the changes proposed in the act than can the members on the other side. These are parliamentary recommendations and in my opinion it is well that this is so; because after all this is not a party question. This is one of the largest questions in the Dominion, and if the committee of the whole consider that the Board of Grain Commissioners should be free to set up offices where they choose, I do not think the remarks of my hon. friend from Fort William should be taken too seriously but that the larger issue should be considered as recommended by the committee.


Robert James Manion: I just wish to say a further word, and I shall not delay the house very long; apparently the remarks I made are not going to have very much effect. The minister mentioned that due to the enlarged functions which are given to the board there will be an increased personnel at Fort William anyway, but whether the board remains at Fort William or whether it is moved to Winnipeg that personnel will be increased if necessary; in other words, that is not to be taken as compensation to Fort William for the loss of this board.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Just what
loss will there be? The board never resided there; Mr. Boyd lived at Montreal, Mr. Snow lived at Winnipeg and Mr. Robinson was kept busy attending farmers' meetings. Now there will be a commission at Fort Wiiliam permanently.


Robert James Manion: The loss will be in connection with this building which the people of Fort William built at the request of the government of Canada.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); The building will be there just the same.


Robert James Manion: Yes, perhaps empty.
Mr. MALCOLM; The inspection staff offices will be there.
3391


Robert James Manion: I will admit that my
friend the minister cannot move them all away from Fort William, but he is going to move quite a few of them. The minister said the records would remain largely at Fort William anyway.


James Malcolm: No, I said I agreed with my hon. friend that it might be advisable to keep many of the records at Fort William, and I think that will be the case, but all the committee is doing is leaving it to the decision of the board as to whether they desire to retain their offices at Fort William. They may desire to set up offices in Calgary and be there part of the time, or they may desire to set up offices in Vancouver and spend part of their time there.


Robert James Manion: Yes, it is quite true that
the farmers say the board should be a good deal more of a travelling board than it has been in the past, but in view of the fact that the minister said in his previous remarks that these records would be left at Fort William because it would not be convenient to change them, and since a large personnel also will remain there, why change the headquarters of the board?


James Malcolm: That is not being done.


Robert James Manion: No, but it is being left to the discretion of the Board of Grain Commissioners; one commissioner lives in Winnipeg and another has put himself on record as thinking the board should be located in Winnipeg. Fort William would not have a Chinaman's chance against that sort of thing. I do not intend to fight this matter much further, because while I think I will get a good deal of support from my own party I cannot fight, two-thirds of the house.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); I think you could.


Robert James Manion: Not very successfully. I
remember that the last time I took up this matter the hon. member for Bow River was with me.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, and
look at the results; much of the dissatisfaction now prevailing is due to the location of the board.


Robert James Manion: With all due respect to my hon, friend I submit that the complaints in regard to the board were not with respect to their headquarters but because they had not been travelling enough and had not seen enough of the farmers, and I am rather afraid some of the complaints were due to the quality of the wheat.

Canada Grain Act


Mr. MILLAR:: Is it not a fact that in
1912, when the board was established at Fort William, scarcely any grain was going through the port of Vancouver, whereas now it is a very important port? Is that not a strong reason for a change?


Robert James Manion: I do not think it is a reason for a change; I quite agree that a large amount of grain is going through Vancouver, but a very much larger amount is going through the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur. My hon. friend knows that even with the port of Vancouver in operation, Port Arthur and Fort William handle 85 per cent of all the grain.


John Millar: Fort William is at the extreme end of the western inspection division, whereas a great deal of the grain is now moving in a westerly direction.


Robert James Manion: That is quite true. Perhaps if we were merely establishing the board now it might be decided to have their headquarters at Regina; that would be about the centre of the three prairie provinces, but that is not the question. I am pointing out that- there should be something like fair dealing with a city after an agreement has been made; there should be fair dealing by a succeeding government under an agreement arrived at by a preceding government. Governments are continuous although the personnel changes, as we learned last evening in another province.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of the committee; apparently hon. members have made up their iminds, but in closing again I wish to point out that while the headquarters of the board is not being absolutely changed it is being left to the discretion of the commissioners. According to the agreement between.the city of Fort William and the government in power at that time, provision was made in the act that the board should be at Fort William, and under that agreement the people of Fort William put up this building.


Mr. KAY:: I just want to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Bow River with reference to the residence of Commissioner Boyd. My hon. friend said Commissioner Boyd lived in Montreal, but that is not correct ; his residence is in Fort William. I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to be unfair.


Edward Joseph Garland: I intended to say that he spent most of his time in Montreal.


Robert James Manion: Why?


Edward Joseph Garland: Because it was his business to watch the situation there with regard to grain.


Robert James Manion: Then if one commissioner must be situated in Montreal and others must be located as far west as Regina and Calgary, I submit again that Fort William is the most central point between the two and is the most logical place for the headquarters oi the board.
Mr. McQUARRlIE: I agree very largely with what has been said by the hon. member for Fort William, and I have noticed some remarks which were made about Vancouver. In my opinion I do not think any of the grain which goes over the Canadian National railway westerly should go as far as Vancouver at all; I think it should stop at New Westminster, and I would like to see this matter looked into by the board. There would be a saving of one cent per bushel on all grain shipped from the Fraser river instead of from Vancouver.
My reason for making that statement is that Fort Mann, on the south side of the Fraser river across from New Westminster, is the freight terminus of the Canadian National railway, which does not enter Vancouver on its own tracks at all; for the last fifteen miles all shipments must go over the tracks of the Great Northern railway which, by the way, i.s an American concern. That means that grain coming over the Canadian National railway to Vancouver from Port Mann must pay first a toll on the bridge; then the cars must be switched to the Great Northern tracks, which involves a switching charge; then there is a toll to the Great Northern railway and in addition, when these cars get to Vancouver they must be switched to the Canadian Pacific tracks in order to reach the elevators. All these operations cost money, which works out to about one cent per bushe; on all grain, so there is that amount of money to be saved by shipping from New Westminster instead of Vancouver. The big ships can come right to the docks at New Westminster, and there are miles and miles of desirable sites for the location of elevators along the Fraser river. As a matter of fact, with the assistance of the government one elevator has been built near New Westminster, and I hope this new grain board, when it starts to function, will look into this situation and see that something is done to recognize the advantages of the port of New Westminster.

Canada Grain Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Malcolm: Yes, that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, would not it be the proper thing to leave it as it is, without change-I submit that to the minister and to the house-and then the gentlemen and interests affected will have an opportunity to study the situation and be able to deal with it when this house is in committee on the act which will be introduced next year. I think this is a matter which transcends any political view, and when we approach it we should keep in mind that old maxim of the infallible justice of the crown. In view of these circumstances, I think the minister might leave that section just as it stands, having given to the house and to those interested a clear intimation of what may happen when the matter is further considered.


Robert James Manion: I did not know that my
leader was going to make the suggestions he has, in fact, I did not know that he was going to take part in the discussion at all. I appreciate what he has said, and I appreciate *particularly his final suggestions. I think it is an eminently fair suggestion to allow the matter to remain in abeyance for this year, try out the new system of commissioners and the operation of the act as amended, and then if it be found to be absolutely necessary for the good of the grain trade of Canada to do this thing the city of Fort William will have been given notice that it will have an opportunity to appear and state its ease.
The people of Fort William did not know, nor did I know until very recently that there was any likelihood of a change being made; it was understood that there was no likelihood of a suggestion being made in that regard at all. I think the leader of the opposition has made a fair suggestion. This is not a political matter; if it were a political matter it might be better for my purposes to have the office moved and then I could blame the government for doing that. I am not anxious for any political advantage, I only desire that the city of Fort William shall be properly treated. The people of that city have lost considerable money through this deal and they feel that they should not be mulcted of any more.


James Malcolm: I appreciate the remarks of the leader of the opposition as to there being at least a moral obligation upon the government towards certain capital interests
Canada Grain Act

which are involved, but I would say that the rent paid by the Board of Grain Commissioners to the owners of this office building in Fort William is not a large rental, being only $7,480 per year.


Robert James Manion: That does not include the rental for the other grain offices.
Mr. MAiLCOLM:	No, that is the office
of the Board of Grain Commissioners. I submit that this is a question which the department or the government might recognize when it is faced with it. I realize that what the hon. leader of the opposition has said is true, that the government should not enter into a contract with private interests to erect a building for a certain purpose and then when the building has been completed and the capital invested to vacate the premises. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Board of Grain Commissioners would be the best body to determine where their head office should be. I doubt very much if the Board of Grain Commissioners will see fit to move out of their existing offices for some time. It is not an easy matter to arrive at a decision as to what the best place will be and it is quite within the realm of possibility that the Board of Grain Commissioners will think that their records could be more conveniently kept at Fort William, although they might be spending a good portion of their time in the Calgary office, the Vancouver office or the Montreal office. The question of whether or not the records should be kept at Fort William will have to be decided by the board under this legislation.
I would submit to the hon. member for Fort William that until such time as the Board of Grain Commissioners recommend to the government that they do not require any of the space wdiich Sir George Foster contracted for, we should not be expected to give consideration to hypothetical hardships. When it does come to that point I can assure my hon. friend that I do not believe it will be possible to give up any of the space. The work is increasing all the time and 1 hardly think it is fair to assume that less space is going to be required for the work of the inspection staffs and supervision staffs in Fort William. While I recognize the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition I do not think it can be used until the tune actually comes when the Board of Grain Commissioners state that they do not require the space, and I hardly think that that will ever be the case.


John Millar: Mr. Chairman, I would like . to ask the hon. member for Fort William a

question in connection with this building at Fort William. The investment to which he referred was made in a building for the purpose of carrying on a sample market and although the headquarters of the board has been at Fort William for some time I understand that the stock has decreased in value to fifty cents on the dollar.


Robert James Manion: It is paying five per cent
at the present time, and has been for the last three or four years.


John Millar: I submit that poor business foresight has been shown on the part of the government as well as the citizens of Fort William. When this legislation was put into effect it was quite evident that the sample market would never amount to anything and without being offensive I would say that very poor business foresight was shown in making this investment. The result has been that money was lost in that way al-tfiough the head office has been located in Fort William. The money has been lost while the board's head office has been right there. How is the removal of the head office of the board going to bring this back or affect the matter in any way?


James Malcolm: My secretary has just
sent me a memorandum covering the complete payments by the department for office rental in Fort William. The rentals are as follows:
Office Rentals at Fort William
Per month
Commissioners and secretaries' rooms $
The statisticians' rooms	
The licensing and bonding rooms.. .. The weighing branch	 -. . * The inspection and registration
branches	
General manager of elevators	
275 75 161 59 83 00 249 34
823 55 141 67
Total	$1,735 90
A total of $20,830.80 for the year.
Therefore I submit that with a supervision branch going into Fort William, it is very likely that the full amount of space will still be required and probably more.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Qu'-Appelle has asked:	Since the money was
unwisely invested anyway, what harm is there if you wipe it out altogether; in other words, if money is paying 5 per cent, why not wipe out the 5 per cent; it does not make much difference to the people. Perhaps it does not, but it makes the difference of 5 per cent. When I spoke of fifty cents on the dollar, the building had been paying nothing. Later it paid 2i per cent and recently it has been

Canada Grain Act
paying 5 per cent. It is not 'being used entirely for the Board of Grain Commissioners. It is a very large building and there are stores downstairs.
As regards the wisdom of doing this, the legislation was passed. As pointed out in this letter of Sir George Foster, it was intended to put it into shape as a sample market, and many people in the west still think there should have been sample markets. The farmers at that time asked for this. Is there any small city in the west that, if approached 'by even this Dominion government and asked to erect a building which they say they will use for offices, would refuse the same opportunity if they could raise the money? I doubt if any would, so that there was no lack of wisdom on the part of the people, except perhaps in believing that this government would carry out an agreement made by previous ones.


John Millar: Was the mistake not in
believing that a real sample market could be established by legislation?


Robert James Manion: If there was any mistake
it was not that of the people of Fort William.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I feel it my duty to protest on behalf of the people of Vancouver against the provision in the act depriving that city of the benefit of an assistant commissioner. The act specifically locates the commissioners so far as the head of the lakes, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are concerned. It is interesting to observe the argument of the minister with respect to not fixing the location of the commissioners themselves. Vancouver is becoming year after year a greater shipping point for grain. Last year about 100,000,000 bushels passed through the port and we have or will have shortly, a storage capacity for approximately 14,000,000 bushels. With the development of the Peace River district and the increasing flow of grain from Alberta, it seems most extraordinary that by statutory provision it should be made impossible to have an assistant commissioner at Vancouver, if circumstances warrant it later on. I rise vigorously to oppose that restriction on our great seaport being definitely fixed in the statute and to urge upon the committee as well as upon the minister the advisability of applying the same principle with respect to assistant commissioners as exists with respect to commissioners or definitely establish an assistant commissioner in Vancouver.


Mr. COWAN:: With regard to this subject I find myself in complete accord with the stand taken by the hon. member for Fort
William. I do not intend to go over the arguments which he advanced this morning, except to say that the statement he has made in regard to the construction of the building and the representations made to the people of Fort William by the government of the day, is quite correct. The people of Fort William subscribed generously towards the construction of this building upon the distinct understanding that for all time the offices of the Board of Grain Commissioners would be established at that point. My suggestion is in line with that of the leader of the opposition, namely, that the matter should be allowed to stand until the board has had an opportunity of functioning for another year; then when the Canada Grain Act is fully and completely revised, the question can be considered whether it is advantageous to move the 'head office or not. There have been no complaints of a serious nature against the location of the board at Fort William. There have been complaints against the administration of the Canada Grain Act, but those complaints would have occurred whether the head office were at Fort William, Port Arthur, Regina or any other city in the' west.
New commissioners are about to be appointed and I suggest that that part of the act be administered as proposed for another year and that this section be allowed to stand. Personally I would prefer that the location of the offices be left, as the present legislation provides, in the discretion of the governor in council, rather than in the discretion of the board. That is the last vestige of control which parliament has over the location of the offices. If you leave it to the discretion of the board, they may place the offices anywhere they please. It would be far better to leave the question of location to parliament rather than to the board and for another year at least the act should be administered with the amendments now proposed and the question of location held pending the final revision.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 21; Nays, 57.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Powers and duties of assistant commissioners, and appeals.
Mr. WARD:: Subsection 3 provides that
there shall be an appeal to the board within fifteen days by any person dissatisfied with the decision of an assistant commissioner. Suppose there is a ruling by one of the commissioners against which I as a farmer wish to
Canada Grain Act

appeal. Is there any provision made in this bill for an appeal against the ruling or decision of one of the commissioners?


James Malcolm: Yes, an appeal to the
board is provided for.


William John Ward: In another section?


James Malcolm: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On section 27-Warehouse receipt.
Milton Neil Campbell: I feel that the change
in subsection 1 is not really necessary. The complaints with respect to section 150 were that the old act was not enforced, and I can hardly agree that failure to enforce the act will be overcome by an amendment to the act. Suppose that this amended act is not enforced any better than the old one; surely we are not going to relieve the situation by a still further amendment. My submission is that the whole trouble was the failure to enforce the old section 150. I realize that some of the difficulties and some of the anomalies have been cleared up, but the fact still remains that no effort was made to enforce the old section, and that was the cause of the trouble we had last year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 28 to 30 inclusive agreed to.
On section 31-Moose Jaw and Saskatoon made order points.
Mr. EVANS:: I wish that we had had an
opportunity to read this bill beforehand. I notice that Moose Jaw and Saskatoon are to be made inspection and car order points. I opposed this two years ago in the house, and I have seen no reason for changing my mind. There has been no demand to include Saskatoon and Moose Jaw as order points. It will certainty mean extra expense and greater delay in the handling of the crop, and it will serve no useful purpose as far as the grower of the grain is concerned. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
That the words "Moose Jaw and Saskatoon" in lines 7 and 8, and the words "Moose Jaw or Saskatoon" in lines 11 and 12 of Section 31 be deleted.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: This section was
dealt with in the committee and a vote was taken of the members of the committee then present, and there was an almost equally divided opinion in regard to this particular amendment. In the first place, it was not

dealt with by the sub-committee but was referred to the main committee for consideration. In the first vote taken, the figures were 12-12. Our chairman had the right I presume to give a casting vote, but being a very modest man he did not feel like doing so, and he called for a recorded vote, which resulted 11-13. That will show to the members of the house that there was an almost equally divided opinion in the committee in regard to this particular amendment.
At the present time the inspection of oars of grain at Saskatoon or Moose Jaw is optional. Any farmer may have his grain inspected at either of these points if he so desires. I would also point out to the committee that our Saskatchewan wheat pool, who handle more than 50 per cent of the wheat of our farmers, inspect all their grain going through these two points, so that making these two points compulsory inspection points will not affect the members of the Saskatchewan wheat pool to any extent whatever. On the other hand, making these two paints compulsory inspection points is going to add to the expense of handling the grain. The effect it will have will be to compel the grain companies to inspect all their grain that goes through these two points, and of course the farmers who grow the grain bear that expense. It will also add to the expense of our government inspection staff. I am not sure what that extra expenditure will be, but I got the impression in the committee that it will require an increase of approximately one-third of the present staff to handle the business if these two points are made compulsory inspection points. For these reasons I feel like supporting the amendment as proposed. Under this section the chief advantage will accrue to Saskatoon and Moose Jaw. Now, if by amending the act in this way advantage is to be gained by individual cities we are establishing a precedent, and if next session Regina, Brandon, Dauphin, or any other city sees fit to ask for a similar concession we will not be able to withstand the request. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel the amendment should commend itself to the committee and that the section should be rejected.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wish to associate myself with the hon. members for Rosetown and Kindersley in opposition to this section. I believe it is unnecessary in the interests of the farmers. The principle on which it is based is in my opinion a vicious principle. It makes no difference to the farmers whether this section goes through or not, because at the present time any farmer can have his

Canada Grain Act
grain inspected at Moose Jaw or Saskatoon if he so desires. This section would result in the railway companies being forced to provide additional trackage and engage extra employees, and the department would have to enlarge its staff. This would increase the overhead expenses of both the department and the railway companies, without giving any corresponding benefit to the farmers so far as I can see. It is simply a concession to Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, and certainly, as the hon. member for Kindersley has said, if you establish a precedent in this case then undoubtedly many other cities will ask for a similar concession-a concession that means nothing to the handling of the grain trade as a whole, but will impose a penalty on the railway companies and on the department. It may perhaps be said that we are not concerned about the extra exipense entailed on the railway companies, but I submit that that is not so. At some future time we may be applying for reduced rates, or fighting a demand by the railway companies for higher rates, and on such an occasion you will find the railway companies advancing this extra expense as a reason why they should be allowed to increase their rates. For these reasons I intend to support the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members sitting in the extreme southeast corner of the house, particularly my hon. friends from Kindersley, Rosetown and Mackenzie, point out that under the existing conditions at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon the farmer has the privilege of having his grain inspected. They say the effect of this section will be to increase the cost of handling the grain. Well, we will concede that the inspection is voluntary. What would happen if all the farmers whose grain goes through those two points were to exercise that right and decide that it shall be inspected there? There is only one thing that this department could do-put in a staff to take care of the work. As long as that condition remains we must keep a staff there sufficient to look after inspection. As to increasing the cost, you are only relieving the situation at Winnipeg. As one of the representatives of the farmers west and north of Moose Jaw, while I recognize that they have the right of inspection, I feel that it should .'be made compulsory. As has been pointed out, every carload of grain belonging to the pool that goes through Moose Jaw is inspected there. I feel that in any case while the inspection remains voluntary the government, in order
to enable the farmers to exercise that right, must retain a staff sufficient to take care of the possibility of all the farmers exercising it.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, there is one point that has not yet been covered in my opinion, and it is one of the chief reasons why we should make haste slowly in making Moose Jaw and Saskatoon compulsory inspection points. The Hudson Bay railway is nearing completion, and as soon as it is open for traffic a great deal of our grain will go out that way. That of necessity will create a rerouting of the freight that is now making its way towards Fort William. When that occurs it will be time enough to consider where we are going to make inspection points other than those we have already set up. For that reason I shall support the amendment.


James J. Donnelly: I have listened to the arguments of those who favour this amendment. The principal argument seems to be that no advantage would be gained by making Moose Jaw and Saskatoon compulsory inspection points. I take exception to this argument. Practically all the grain coming from that part of the country in which I live passes through Moose Jaw. If Moose Jaw were made a compulsory inspection point the grain would be inspected there and this would give the farmer time to complain if he finds he is not getting the proper grade for his grain. At present many carloads of grain pass through Moose Jaw to Winnipeg, are inspected there, and then are unloaded at Fort William. When the farmer gets word of the grade of bis car of grain he has no time to make a complaint. I had that experience last year. A carload of grain was graded at Winnipeg and unloaded at Fort William, and when I got the return and asked for reinspection, I was told the car had been unloaded and that nothing could be done. Another objection taken is that the proposal would cause delay.	As a matter
of fact all train loads coming into Moose Jaw are broken up. Inspection would not cause any delay, for the cars remain there for some time. As has already been stated, the pool companies at present keep inspectors at Moose Jaw and do all the inspection of their grain there. I for one am in favour of inspection at Moose Jaw and am not at all concerned as to the expense the line elevators may be put to. I am not concerned about the line elevators, I am concerned in giving every advantage to the farmer. We are told about
339S
Canada Grain Act

the expense that this would put on the line elevators. Well, if they have to keep inspectors on the job that is their lookout; but it is vital that the farmer should get the advantage that I believe he will get by having compulsory inspection points at both Moose Jaw and Saskatoon.


Milton Neil Campbell: I fail to see the logic of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Willow Bunch. He states that if grain is inspected at Moose Jaw it will give the farmer time to call for reinspection in case the grade is not satisfactory. The farmer has that right to-day. If the farmer wants the grain inspected there he can have it inspected there. That is the reason we opposed the change. Every argument the hon. member brings forward applies at the present time. There is inspection at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon but by this section we propose to make it compulsory. Now the farmer can exercise that right to-day if he wants to. But compulsory inspection of grain there would mean additional expense to both railway companies and additional expense to the department as well, without any added advantage to any of the parties, and it is simply a concession to the cities of Moose Jaw and Saskatoon.


John Vallance: If every farmer whose
grain goes through Moose Jaw exercises his right and says that his grain shall be inspected at Moose Jaw, will the department have to maintain a force large enough to carry out that inspection? We are now asking only that the staff be larger and that it be used 100 per cent to take care of all the grain going through Moose Jaw.


Milton Neil Campbell: The hon. member is
raising a hypothetical question when he asks what would happen if every farmer exercised that right. He might as well ask the civic authorities at Ottawa what they would do if all the citizens of Ottawa broke the law at once-whether they would have a police force strong enough to cope with such a situation.


James J. Donnelly: How many farmers in
the country know that Moose Jaw is not a compulsory inspection point at the present time, and how many of - them are aware that they may exercise the right of inspection there?


Milton Neil Campbell: That is an immaterial
point. The farmer soon finds out, if he wants to have his grain inspected there.


John Evans: Hon. members need not be
alarmed at the supposition that all farmers will ask for this. I have tried in the last
fMr. Donnelly.]
two 3'ears to arouse some interest among the farmers west of Saskatoon in regard to this question but they have not even brought it up at any of the local meetings nor even at the convention. The only body who represented them were, I think, at one time the executive of the farmers' union in Saskatoon, but they did not have the sanction of all those whom they were representing, the rank and file back in the country; and the farmers themselves have never asked for it. The hon. member for Willow Bunch made the statement that it would be of great advantage as it would give the farmer time to complain if he were not satisfied with the grain, I have been shipping grain from Saskatchewan since the year 1896 when I shipped my first carload, and I have never had cause to complain of not having time to enter protest if I saw fit. In several cases I have done so, and I can remember at least in three cases having had the grade changed. There is no need for this extra expense, and so far as the grower is concerned it will not benefit him in any shape or form. It will only entail more expense to the grain trade, and I believe we are creating too much machinery now-rather more than is needed in several cases for the handling of grain.


James J. Donnelly: How many carloads do you ship a year?


John Evans: What has that to do with
it?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose at one o'clock we were considering section 31, to which the hon. member for Rosetown had moved an amendment. However, we will revert to section 30, to which an amendment has been moved by Mr. Stewart (Edmonton), as follows:
The car order book and the order for a car shall be in the form D-l, in the first schedule to this act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 31-Moose Jaw and Saskatoon made order points.
John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
Rosetown has moved in amendment that the words "Moose Jaw and Saskatoon" in the seventh and eighth lines and the words "Moose Jaw or Saskatoon" in the eleventh and twelfth lines, be deleted.

Canada Grain Act
Mr. EVANS' When the committee rose at one o'clock I was speaking with regard to the rights of the grower to have his car of wheat go forward to his own terminal. It was brought out before the Grain Inquiry Commission in Saskatoon last year that certain millers had bargains with the line companies throughout that province by which they were permitted to open cars at the divisional points and divert them to their own mills after having selected those with the highest milling value. When the manager of the Quaker Oats Company was asked if that practice wras followed by his company he answered, "No, we do not consider it right."
If there is one thing that should be done in the interests of the grower it is that his car of wheat should be permitted to go forward to the markets of the world without being mixed, and the crop should not be skimmed of wheat with high milling value. World1 prices should be based on our best wheat instead of on the skimmed grades, and I think perhaps this is the chief reason why the farmer's wheat should go forward to his own terminal. It is very important that we should receive the highest price possible for our wheat, because under present conditions we are hardly able to carry on farming as it is. I would ask the house to consider this amendment from that point of view, having regard also to the expense and delay already mentioned.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The hon. member for Rosetown has just mentioned the diversion of cars of wheat, but this amendment really has nothing whatever to do with that matter. At present Moose Jaw is what is known as a voluntary inspection point; it was made an inspection point by order in council under section 22 of the grain act. Prior to that, in 1925-26 an amendment was moved to the grain act and unanimously adopted by this house, providing that Moose Jaw should be made a full grain inspection point, and when the government passed the order in council making Moose Jaw an inspection point under section 22 of the Canada Grain Act they thought they were making it a full grain inspection point as was intended by the amendment of 1925-26.
For about a month or so after the point was opened all grain passing throughout Moose Jaw was inspected. No farmer ever objected to that inspection; no farmers' organization ever objected, but the grain trade did take objection. A ruling was requested from the Department of Justice, and they held that to make Moose Jaw a full inspection point an amendment to the act was necessary. Therefore last year in the agricultural committee an amendment was moved to Bill No. 188, and that amendment was adopted in the committee by a vote of about two to one. My hon. friend from Kindersley said that this amendment was adopted the other day by a vote of thirteen to eleven, but I would remind him that it was passed by a vote of something like sixteen to eight in the committee last year when Bill No. 188 was being considered, but it will be remembered that this bill was withdrawn.
The present inspection service at Moose Jaw is now fully staffed and is capable of carrying on full inspection except during the very heaviest run of the grain, which is for about three months of the year. That situation could be met by putting on a few extra men. With regard to the railway companies, since this is a voluntary inspection point they have to set out certain cars from their trains and take on other cars, while with full inspection the whole train would be handled there. At all events, no complete train passes through Moose Jaw to-day; it is known as the grand divisional point of western Canada, and all freight trains are broken up in the yard and other trains are made up to continue east. The Canadian National Railways have every facility there for the inspection of all wheat coming to that point, and they have informed me that it is more of a hardship to have voluntary inspection than it would be to have full inspection. A great many farmers' organizations all over that part of the country have continually petitioned the government to make this change. The pool uses this inspection service at present to the extent of 100 per cent, and together with other members from Saskatchewan, a year ago I was told at the pool offices in Regina that due to the fact that Moose Jaw was an inspection point and they were having their grain inspected and their inspections checked there, over $200,000 had been saved to the farmers.
In this case, so far as Moose Jaw is concerned we are not asking for anything more than they have to-day in Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg. At Calgary and Edmonton ah grain passing through is inspected, whether it is going to Vancouver or Prince Rupert or to the head of the lakes; they are compulsory inspection points. We are only asking that Moose Jaw be put in the same position as Calgary and Edmonton. Surely the province which grows the greatest amount of grain should have the same right as its sister provinces?
Canada Grain Act

One lion, member in the other corner of the house mentioned the fact that this was wanted only by the people of Moose Jaw; that is not the case. It is wanted by all the farmers in that district, as all their grain goes through that point. There is no doubt that a certain amount of work will be done in Moose Jaw because all cars will be looked over when in the inspection yards and a great many leaky cars and care needing repairs will be found, thus saving money for the farmer as well as preventing damage actions against the railway companies. Surely that would not be a detriment to the grain trade, the farmers or the railway companies.
An inspection at Moose Jaw would not mean a further inspection at Winnipeg. When the grain is inspected at Moose Jaw it passes on under a different coloured car seal and the cars are not again inspected. The only grain inspected again would be those cars of which a reinspection has been ordered. Grain going east is inspected upon arrival at Winnipeg, and it is a matter of only a few hours from Winnipeg to Fort William while it requires considerable time for the certificate to get back to the farmer in western Saskatchewan. To-day the grain is inspected in Moose Jaw, the certificate is sent right out, the shipper has it before the grain arrives at Fort William and thus he has an opportunity to call for reinspection if he so desires.
Mr. Chairman, this matter has been passed upon unanimously by the house, it has been agreed to twice by the committee on agriculture, and, therefore, I think this committee should reject the amendment and adopt the section as it appears in the bill.
Amendment agreed to; yeas, 41; nays, 37.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would direct the attention of those who are responsible for the acceptance of this amendment to the fact that it will now be necessary to reconsider section 18. The section which has been amended deals with voluntary orders, but section 18 deals with the actual establishment of the inspection point.


James J. Donnelly: We have not been
voting on the question of the inspection point at all; we voted on section 31 (a) which refers to the order point.


John Evans: I move that we reconsider section 18, dealing with the inspection point.


John Gordon Ross: I object to the committ-ee going back to section 18; it has already been passed.
iMr. J. G. Ross.]


Edward Joseph Garland: A motion to reconsider is always in order.


John Frederick Johnston: It would have to 'be by unanimous consent. Standing order 41, paragraph 318, reads:
There is no such proceeding as a motion to reconsider a decision, in British parliamentary procedure.
It could only be by unanimous consent that we could reconsider section 18.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I would point out
that copies of this bill were not in the hands of the members until we started to consider it. The sections of the bill have been read off rather hurriedly, and in some cases the marginal references were not read. It has been practically impossible for the members of this committee to follow the reading of the bill and know just what each section means. I think it is only fair that reference should be made to section 18 and reconsideration given to that section in view of the fact that the sections have been passed so hurriedly.


James Malcolm: Mr. Chairman, I submit that apparently the mover of the amendment did not quite understand the meaning of the section which he moved to amend. I do not think it was the intention of the mover to strike out the order point section at all; I think he had the impression that he was striking out the compulsory inspection point. Therefore, I would suggest that we proceed with the bill and an amendment could be introduced on the third reading. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment can be introduced on .the third reading without going into committee. I do not think 'that my hon. friend has accomplished what he intended to do by this amendment. The privileges of voluntary inspection could be restored under section 31, and then the house could amend, section 18 in the regular way.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would not it simplify matters if we went back to section 18 and dealt with it now, instead of taking it up on .the third reading?


James Malcolm: The Chairman has ruled that we cannot revert to that section without unanimous consent, and as one member of the committee is opposed to our reverting, I think the proper way would be to proceed as has been suggested.


William Irvine: I think unanimous consent
should be obtained in view of the mistake which has been made by the mover of the amendment which has been carried, and also because I do no.t think any hon. member

Canada Grain Act
of the house would like to see a section carried which had not received the proper consideration. I suggest that those who opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Rose-town might very well give their unanimous consent to the committee in order that we might revert to this section.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think we are overlooking the fact that there is such a thing as a consequential amendment. When the committee undertakes to amend a bill in a manner different from the original trend of the measure, consequential amendments ito other sections are permitted. The committee has amended section 31 and as a necessary consequence section 18 should be amended. Therefore, I submit that we do not need the unanimous consent of the committee, but that we can return to section 18 for the.purpose of considering a consequential amendment.


John Gordon Ross: With regard to
this matter, this has been carried through the house on one occasion and twice through the committee on agriculture unanimously. A vote was taken in the committee here a few moments ago with a small attendance and an amendment was carried. This morning, when there was a large attendance in the chamber, section 18 was carried unanimously by the committee. Now with a small attendance, certain hon. members wish to have us revert to section 18. Seeing that they have obtained' a majority on the one amendment they want to try to take the other out. I do not think this is fair. If the minister wishes to bring in two amendments on the third reading, both the amendment that has been carried and the one on section 18, I will agree to that and the house can vote on the question.


William Russell Fansher: I think
we are losing sight of the point under consideration and dealing wth the principle. We voted on the principle in the form of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown. That principle has been decided, and the principle should be settled now in regard to section 18 where the words appear in the same way as the principle has been settled in regard to section 31. I do not think we should carry this discussion on any further because we have already decided on the principle, and this is only a technicality in regard to changing the wording in another section of the act to conform with the principle that we have already decided.


John Vallance: The discussion would indicate that those who were opposed to the principle contained in section 18 are agreed.
because of the discussion that has just taken place on section 31, that we should revert to section 18. It is quite obvious, as was pointed out by the hou. member for Moose Jaw, why they wish to do this. I do not think it is fair to this committee, the house or the country. This matter was decided this morning and the hon. member for Moose Jaw should receive some consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not
found myself in very much discord with my hon. friend from South Battleford, certainly not in the work in connection with the agriculture committee. We found him a very amiable, interested and useful member of it, but on this occasion I must disagree with him. Neither he nor the hon. member for Moose Jaw is justified in assuming that the reason why we want to revert to section 18 is because we happen to have secured a majority on the amendment to section 31. The fact is just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has set forth. It was not the intention of the mover of the .amendment to amend section 31. He thought it referred to a compulsory inspection point. It refers, however, to an order point. His intention was to amend section 18, dealing with compulsory inspection points, and all the discussion on the amendment indicated that very clearly. I do not think either of my hon. friends is justified in suggesting that we are motivated simply because we happen to have a temporary majority in the committee or for any other reason than that we want the question cleared up as best it can be. I do not think the amendment moved in this corner of the house is a wise one, and I am willing to have it deleted from section 31. I think those points ought to be voluntary order points, but to make them compulsory inspection points is a different matter altogether.


John Gordon Ross: The amendment deleting those words brings about the situation that Saskatoon and Moose Jaw cannot, be order points.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
exactly what I am trying to tell my hon. friend.


John Gordon Ross: I realize that,
but my hon. friend says that they are dealing with a different principle, and seeing that they are a majority in the committee they want to revert to another section.
Mr., GARLAND (Bow River):	My hon.
friend is wholly incorrect. The point is merely that the will of the committee may be properly carried out. It was clearly the intention of the committee, when the amend-
Canada Crain Act

meat carried, not to disestablish the order points, but to prevent the establishment of the compulsory inspection points, and that therefore we should revert to section 18 and clear that up.


John Frederick Johnston: Before we can revert, it is necessary to have unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was not given. As regards the point raised by the hon. member for South Wellington, standing order 48, subsection 399 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, states:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended. In like manner where an amendment of any part of a question has been proposed from the chair an earlier part cannot be amended unless the amendment so proposed be withdrawn.
I submit that on both those counts we are precluded from considering at this time an amendment to section 18.


James Malcolm: I would suggest that the mover of the amendment to section 31 withdraw his amendment, and in that case I shall be very glad to ask the committee to revert to section 18 and draft the proper section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a moment. On the question of order, Mr. Chairman, the section that you read from the rules has no application to this at all. It refers to a question. We are dealing with various sections. When the question is put and amended, obviously the rule applies. That is not dealing with the question at all. The question which was put was: Shall we agree to the section. Then an amendment was made. When that was carried, an amendment was made to the section. But each section is a separate question and not the same question.


John Frederick Johnston: Each section is a
question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Malcolm: Can the hon. member
withdraw his amendment?


John Evans: Under the circumstances I
wish to withdraw my amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member is
not in a position to withdraw it except by unanimous consent.


William Irvine: Is it in order to move that it be rescinded?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, that is in order.


James Malcolm: It is pointed out to me by the clerk that the hon. member does not
[Mr. E. J. Garland.)
require unanimous consent to rescind his motion. That can be done by a majority vote. I would suggest that the hon. member move to rescind his amendment.


Mr. THORSON:: How can it be in order
to rescind without the unanimous consent and not be in order to revert to another section without unanimous consent?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: We are still dealing with section 31. We have voted only upon the amendment, and if an hon. member, before we pass on to the next section, moves to rescind the amendment, he is quite in order in doing so.


John Frederick Johnston: We are still dealing
with section 31.


William Irvine: In the event of the hon.
member moving that his amendment be rescinded and that motion being carried, will the committee then be in order to return to consideration of section 18?


John Frederick Johnston: No, except by unanimous consent.


James Malcolm: Or on third reading. I
might point out to my hon. friend that the clerk has just informed me that we cannot return to section 18 now except by unanimous consent, but we could have an amendment to section 18 made on the third reading of the biU.


William Irvine: If you wish to amend section 18 on the third reading, you would have to give notice of motion?


James Malcolm: No.


William Irvine: It would have to be referred back to the committee for reconsideration.


James Malcolm: Not necessarily.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 31, as
amended, carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Malcolm: I move that the amendment to section 31 be rescinded and that the section stand as drafted in the bill.


Milton Neil Campbell: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should not be asked to rescind the amendment unless we are assured that we are going to be permitted to refer back to section 18.


Charles A. Stewart: I contend
that the minister's motion is quite in order. We have not yet passed from section 31. We

Canada Grain Act
have merely voted on the amendment, and we are still on section 31 as the next section has not yet been called. I submit that the motion is therefore in order.


Hugh Guthrie: After we have just
passed the amendment, you cannot under the rules move to rescind it at the same sitting of the house. We have deliberately voted on the amendment and passed it.


John Vallance: If the contention of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is correct, the same principle applies to section 18. My hon. friend says that we cannot rescind something that we have passed. Therefore we cannot do it with respect to section 18.


Hugh Guthrie: As a consequential amendment, I said,


John Frederick Johnston: A motion to rescind
is in order, but it cannot be put at the same sitting at which the amendment is adopted, as pointed out by my hon. friend from South Wellington.
Section as amended agreed to:	Yeas, 41;
Nays, 37.


Mr. CAHAN:: What happened to section
31, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: It was carried as
amended.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I point out the
awkward situation we have here in connection with sections 31 and 18? This has happened just because of the way the bill is being rushed through. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you read each section and give us a few moments to consider them.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not think the
charge that the bill is being rushed through is fair to the chair. When we started to consider the 'bill this morning I called each section, and as no one rose to debate the sections as we proceeded I declared them carried. I think it is unfair now that we have reached almost the end of the bill that the hon. gentleman should suggest that the bill is being rushed through.


Milton Neil Campbell: I did not intend for
one moment, Mr. Chairman, to reflect on you but rather on myself and the other members of the committee because we have sat here and permitted the bill to go through in this way in the interests of the despatch of business. In view of what has happened, however, I think it would be good business to have each section read so that we may consider them for a few moments.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Mixing grades in private elevators.


John Evans: I would ask the minister if
any statutory grades will be permitted to be unloaded into private elevators?


James Malcolm: The act does not prohibit the unloading of statutory grades of grain into private elevators. It simply provides that after August 1, 1930, the mixing of statutory grades of grain either with anything else or with each other shall be prohibited, but it does not provide for the exclusion of the statutory grades from private elevators.


John Evans: I must say that I am rather disappointed at the decision of the committee to allow mixing of the commercial grades. I cannot see yet how the minister is going to prevent mixing without an undue amount of police work in all the elevators. As the statutory grades will be unloaded into private elevators, the commercial grades will be unloaded in the public terminals, and I should like to have some idea from the minister as to how he is going to prevent mixing even with a law like this on the statute books.


James Malcolm: It is admitted that -when the prohibition of mixing in the statutory grades becomes effective, probably a great many of the houses will turn public. Arrangements will have to be made, as suggested by the pool officers, to use certain houses for the straight grades where no mixing is allowed, and to use other houses where grain has to be treated or cleaned and where it can be mixed in the commercial grades. The reason the committee thought it wise to defer for a year the putting this regulation into effect was just so the board could make arrangements to cover the points that my hon. friend regards as dangerous. It is proposed that these points dealing with the prohibition of mixing will be dealt with in the new draft legislation which will be submitted next session. The committee on agriculture and colonization felt there was danger from the very point my hon. friend has called attention to. Therefore a year's time was given to enable the board to work out the methods by which no mixing of the statutory grades could be brought into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 35-Offences in connection with this part-penalties-disposal of penalties.
William Russell Fansher: I have not my draft book before me, Mr. Chairman,
Canada Grain Act

but if my memory serves me correctly subsection 2 was struck out by the committee. Apparently by some mistake it has been incorporated in the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


William Russell Fansher: Apparently it is only a mistake on the part of those who compiled the bill.


John Millar: That is quite clear, Mr. Chairman; subsection 2 was struck out.


Charles A. Stewart: I move to amend section 35 by striking out subsection 2.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 36.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved by Mr. Stewart (Edmonton):
The first schedule of the said act is amended by Striking out form it thereof and substituting therefor form D 1.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Malcolm: With the consent of the committee, I should like to revert to section 26. The wording is hardly clear. In the last two lines of subsection (la) it says:
Provided however that this section shall come into operation on the first day of August, 1930.
I do not think that carries out the intention of the committee. It will be noted that the section deals not only with the prohibition of mixing becoming statutory on August 1, 1930, but also with the licensing of elevators. To clarify the section I propose the following amendment:
That section 26 be amended by adding at the commencement thereof the words:
"From and after the first day of August, 1930;" and by striking out the words:	"providing however that this subsection shall come into operation on the first day of August, 1930."
I think this will make it clear that the whole section does not come into effect until August 1, 1930. It allows the rest of section 140 dealing with licensing of houses to Stand until -that date.


William Irvine: Would not the minister's amendment come better on the third reading?


James Malcolm: It is such a simple
change that if the house would give unanimous consent we might clear up the poimt.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: How will the section read now?
[Mr. W. R. Fansher.l


James Malcolm: As amended it will read:
From and after the first day of August, 1930, subsection (1) section 140 of the said act from and including the first words thereof down to and including the word "aforesaid," in the tenth line thereof is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
I would point out to my hon. friends there is no necessity for repealing section 140 until such time as we enforce the statutory prohibition of mixing.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think that the amended form of the section makes clear the intention of the committee. It would appear that the permission to mix is with-[DOT] drawn during the interval between now and August 1, 1930. I think the section would be much clearer if it were put in this form:
Private elevators when so licensed may carry on the business of mixing grain and grades of grain, provided that on and after the first day of August, 1930, there shall be no mixing of the grain of the grades mentioned and defined in section 96	
That will continue the permission to mix in the meantime and will prohibit the mixing of the classified grains from and after the first of August, 1930. I think if the section were recast as I have suggested it would make the intention of the committee clearer than does the proposed amendment.


James Malcolm: Mr. Chairman, I submit this can be made perfectly clear to the committee if I may be permitted to read the section in its amended form:
From and after the first day of August, 1930, subsection (1) of section 140 of the said act from and including the first word thereof down to and including the word "aforesaid," in the tenth line thereof is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :

There would be no repeal of that part of section 140 which permits mixing until that date. Then section 140 would read:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act the board shall, subject to the approval of the governor in council, make provision for licensing and regulating private elevators and to determine the conditions under which the grain handled by such elevators may be weighed and inspected. Such elevators shall in the course of their operations be bound only to observe such regulations as may be made by the board as aforesaid;
(la) Private elevators when so licensed may carry on the business of mixing grain and grades of grain except grain of the grades mentioned and defined in section ninety-six of the act under the heading "Spring wheat" and more particularly described therein as No, 1 Manitoba hard. No. 1 Manitoba northern, No. 2 Manitoba northern and No. 3 Manitoba northern.

Canada Grain Act
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the section as drafted by the law officers is perfectly clear with the addition of the date at the beginning of the section. It is quite obvious that the intention of the committee is being carried out. I think my hon. friend realizes that is is simply a deferred statutory repeal. That is what it really is.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the title.
Mr. BROWN:: I should like to call the attention of the committee to what has already been under discussion with regard to sections 31 and 18. The only authority given in the report was to change subsection 2 of section 193, which reads as section 31 reads in the bill now before the house. The committee gave no authority for the change indicated in section 18, that subsection 7 of section 83 of the act should be amended by striking out the words "or Edimonton." There was no authority for that change.


John Gordon Ross: When the
matter was before the committee the principle of compulsory inspection in Moose Jaw was voted on, and not the order point as suggested in the amendment. And it was carried in the committee on agriculture. The same amendment was carried once in the committee and once in the house.


James Malcolm: In reply to my hon.
friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I may say that I take full responsibility for the insertion of section 18 in the bill. The committee apparently made exactly the same mistake as the hon. member for Rosetown. Members discussed the principle covered in section 18 and made a recommendation in accordance with section 31. After considering the discussion in committee the law officer of the crown suggested that we amend the section which the committee discussed. Therefore the amendment was included in the bill under section 18.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read the third time?


James Malcolm: Now.


Milton Neil Campbell: I move, Mr. Speaker,
that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete section 18.


James Malcolm: And to restore section
31?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


James Malcolm: I submit to the hon.
member that the deletion of section 18 as well as section 31 would indeed create a hardship for the farmers of Saskatchewan who want to have grain inspected at Moose Jaw. I would point out that voluntary inspection has been practised at Moose Jaw for some years; that the railways have made certain provisions to carry out voluntary inspection; that the wheat pools have established their offices so that inspection may take place there; and that there are advantages in connection with inspection at Moose Jaw. When any shipper feels that he will not have an opportunity for re-inspection if his grain is inspected at Winnipeg. One of the advantages of inspection at Moose Jaw, as pointed out by a former member for that constituency, Mr. Hopkins, when the question was first discussed, was that a farmer who wished to appeal from a Winnipeg inspection had very little time in which to get his appeal before the board, whereas if the inspection was made at Moose Jaw and he wished to appeal, he had ample time to have the appeal made before the grain reached Fort William. I do not think my hon. friend wishes to withdraw from the farmers of the west the privileges of inspection at Moose Jaw.


Milton Neil Campbell: I had no intention
whatever of doing that.


Charles A. Stewart: But you
voted twice to do it.


Milton Neil Campbell: It was to change the
amendment.


James Malcolm: If the hon. member
would change his amendment to provide for the deletion of section 18 and the restoration of section 31, he would be doing exactly what is desired.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am quite willing to
do that. I would change the amendment accordingly, Mr. Speaker.


John Livingstone Brown: May I ask, on this point,
what difference there is in the situation as between Moose Jaw and Saskatoon? A good deal has been said about Moose Jaw but little about Saskatoon. The same situation
Canada Grain Act

does not prevail at Saskatoon to-day as at Moose Jaw, and this is simply a move to introduce into Saskatoon the custom that has prevailed at Moose Jaw. I am opposed to the principle of introducing anything into the grain act simply for the sake of giving. consideration to a certain town. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the principle of doing anything whatever that will help the producers, but I do not believe in establishing inspection points or order points for the sake of helping some particular town. I may be wrong, but I believe that for some time there has been voluntary inspection at Moose Jaw. It might possibly be well that this practice should continue, and it might also be well, now that it has become established, that it be made compulsory. On that point I do not feel strongly. But I understand that the situation in Saskatoon is somewhat different; the only inspection that takes place there is made for the sake of milling institutions established at that point. While, therefore, confirming the practice that already obtains at Moose Jaw, we are proposing to extend it to Saskatoon, and I fancy there is a little rivalry between Saskatoon and Moose Jaw: one does not want to see the other get something which it does not enjoy itself.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: Surely my
hon. friend will admit that the grain going into the elevator at Saskatoon is inspected at the government elevator.


John Livingstone Brown: I was not perfectly clear on the situation at Saskatoon and I am willing to hear further evidence on that point. One important point in this matter is this: these inspection points seem to have been established at the demand of local interests. WThat, therefore, is to hinder representatives from other communities-from Weyburn, say, or Brandon, or any other of a number of points -coming along and demanding that inspection points or order points be established at these places? It is altogether too soon to establish a point at Saskatoon. The time is coming when we shall have grain shipped through Hudson bay, and in that event Saskatoon is much too far west for the inspection of grain going through that port. In my opinion the whole question has been inadequately considered from the beginning; we have rushed into the matter of establishing order points and inspection points without taking a proper view of the whole situation, and the demand of local communities have been considered rather than the situation as a whole as affecting the producers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Suppose section 31 stands as it is now: cannot voluntary inspection of grain take place at Saskatoon in the future as it has done in the past?


James Malcolm: I might tell my hon.
friend that if section 31 stands as amended, then a farmer can order his grain inspected at either Moose Jaw or Saskatoon. There is a small inspection staff, at Saskatoon and it has been represented to the inspection department that, in view of the fact that grain will move via Saskatoon for the Hudson Bay line, a man should have the privilege of ordering his grain inspected at that point as well as at Moose Jaw. It has been held also, as I pointed out to my hon. friend from Rosetown, that there is often difficulty in securing enough time for appeal, when the grain is inspected at Winnipeg. It moves very rapidly to the head of the lakes and after the farmer is informed as to the grade which has been given his grain, before his request for a reinspection can be complied with the grain may be unloaded at Fort William. Therefore the privilege of primary inspection at either Saskatoon or Moose Jaw is a distinct advantage, and I would suggest to the house that making both Saskatoon and Moose Jaw order points and permitting voluntary inspection at these points can be nothing but a privilege to the producer.
The question involved in section 18, which was discussed in committee and discussed in this house, is as to whether or not it should be compulsory for all grain to be inspected there, and inasmuch as the mover of the amendment has agreed that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete section 18 and1 restore section 31 to its original form, I am entirely in favour of the amendment.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The committee has already refused compulsory inspection at these two points, and if voluntary inspection is also denied them we will practically prohibit the use of Fort Churchill at all, after an elevator is built there, except by taking the grade with no chance of reinspection or survey. There must be some place, somewhere, to have an inspection service where a grade may be given before the grain is taken to Fort Churchill, otherwise it will go straight through without an opportunity being given for reinspection or anything else. I think that is most unfair, particularly to a province which grows about 60 per cent of the grain grown throughout all Canada.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am under the impression that two members of the government

Canada Grain Act
are not giving us a true interpretation of the actual circumstances. I am under the impression that Moose Jaw and Saskatoon have been and still are voluntary inspection points.


James Malcolm: Yes, that is true.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Then the amendment to section 31, deleting the words "Moose Jaw and Saskatoon" and "Moose Jaw or Saskatoon" restores section 193 of the act to exactly the same form in which it now appears, so we will continue to have Moose Jaw and Saskatoon as voluntary inspection points.


John Vallance: Dealing with this Moose Jaw inspection point, by the very act of making it a voluntary point we imply that something can be gained by the producer by making use of this voluntary privilege; there must be something in it or we would not be using it. Representing as I do that portion of Saskatchewan to the west and north of Moose Jaw, through which comes all the wheat grown in that part of Saskatchewan, it is my opinion that this inspection should be compulsory, because those of us who have used the voluntary system have found it to our advantage to do so, and if it is good for those of us who have taken advantage of the voluntary system I do not see why it would not be good for all that portion of the country if it were made compulsory. It is the producer for whom I am concerned.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the debate proceeds further I might say that I have received from the hon. member for Mackenzie an amended amendment. His first amendment reads:
That the bill be not now read a third time but referred back to the committee with instructions to delete section 18 therein.
The second amendment, which the hon. member desires to substitute for the first, adds the following words:
-and to restore section 31 to its original form.
The hon. member should withdraw his first amendment before submitting the second, if the house gives him permission to do so.
Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his first amendment?


William Irvine: I want to know exactly what we are doing before this action is taken.


Hewitt Bostock: I will explain to the
hon. gentleman. The hon. member who moved the original amendment, moved it in the following words:
That the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete section 18 therein.
Now the hon. gentleman desires to add the following words:
-and to restore section 31 to its original form.
He must first obtain permission to withdraw the original amendment.


William Irvine: I think I understand the
procedure but I want to know from the minister what will happen-


Hewitt Bostock: First of all we should
settle this question.


William Irvine: If this question is settled
I will not have anything to say.


Hewitt Bostock: I want to know from the house if the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his first amendment.


William Irvine: I understand that but I
want to know whether or not I should give him leave to do so, and that depends upon the minister.


Hewitt Bostock: Then the hon. gentleman
can put his question.


William Irvine: I want to know from the
minister whether, if the section is allowed to stand as it was amended in committee a few moments ago, that implies that compulsory inspection of wheat will be not permitted, and whether that will leave the section as it was in the original act. If that is the case, why should the first amendment be altered?


James Malcolm: For my hon. friend's
information and to make it clear to the committee I think perhaps we had better take our copies of the Canada Grain Act and refer to section 193, which section 31 of Bill No. 359 proposes to amend. Section 31 is as follows:
Subsection two of section one hundred and ninety-three of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
"12) To -the exetent to which any provisions of subsection one of this section are stated therein to apply to Winnipeg or St. Boniface, such provisions shall also, to the like extent, apply to Calgary, Edmonton, Fort William, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, and in every such case-
And so forth. If hon. members will turn to section 193 of the Canada Grain Act and read the privileges which are now given to Winnipeg, St. Boniface, Calgary and Edmonton, and which it is proposed to extend to Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, I think they will realize what an order point means. Section 193 is as follows:
Grain in carloads offered for shipment to points in Canada may be consigned "to be held at Winnipeg for orders" en route to its destination on the direct line of transit on the following conditions:-

Canada Grain Act

(a)	The shipper shall pay to the agent of the transportation company at the point of shipment the sum of three dollars per car;
(b)	The shipper shall endorse upon the consignment note and shipping receipt "this car to be held at Winnipeg for orders" with the name and address of some company, firm or person resident in Winnipeg, who will accept advice from the carrier of its arrival in Winnipeg and who will give to the carrier instructions on behalf of the owner for its disposal;
(c)	Twenty-four hours free time after such advice of arrival shall be allowed the advisee in which to dispose of the property;
(d)	If the carrier, within the twenty-four hours free time referred to in pararaph (c), receives written directions for delivery within its Winnipeg-St. Boniface terminals, such delivery shall be made to team tracks or industrial spurs or sidings within its own terminals upon payment of the current grain rate in effect to Winnipeg or St. Boniface at the time of shipment, and surrender of the bill of lading;
(e)	The parrier may, in the absence of written instructions from the advisee for the disposal of the grain within the free time mentioned in paragraph (c), forward the grain to its destination as consigned;
(f)	Grain shipped "to be held at Winnipeg for orders" delivered in Winnipeg or St. Boniface. as provided in paragraph (d), may be sent forward to any point in Canada within six months of its receipt at Winnipeg or St. Boniface-
We have a government elevator at Moose Jaw and one at Saskatoon, but at present they are not order points. A farmer cannot order his grain held at either of those points, but under this amendment subsection 2 provides that they will be given the same privileges as are now extended to Winnipeg, St. Boniface, Calgary and Edmonton. The creation of an order point has nothing to do with the compulsory inspection of grain; it provides that the farmer may have the privilege of ordering a oar held for diversion at a later date.


William Irvine: I thank the minister for his explanation and I withdraw my objection to the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment moved by Mr. Campbell will Tead:
That the bill be not now read a third time but be referred to the committee with instructions that they have power to delete section 18 and to restore section 31 to its original form.


John Gordon Ross: The amendment is that they have power to do that; that does not mean that they must do that?


Hugh Guthrie: It is an order.


Hewitt Bostock: It is parliamentary parlance; if they have the power they may or may not do it.


John Gordon Ross: Does it compel the committee to act?


James Malcolm: With instructions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Bill No. 359 has been referred back to the committee with power to delete section 18 and to restore section 31 to its original form.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Chairman, I did not think that it was going to be necessary to debate this matter at any length, but this is a matter which could be discussed for hours as it is one which has been before this parliament for the past seventeen years. This matter first came before parliament during the days of the Union government. Prior to that time inspection at Moose Jaw was recommended by the then chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, Doctor Megill. This matter had been considered by the board on many occasions and it was brought into the house and the section was amended in 1925-26. It was passed by the house but in the break-up of parliament which occurred that year it was dropped in the Senate. On May 25, 1926, the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce stated to the press that pursuant to an order of the 'board, approved by the governor in council, Moose Jaw was to be made a grain inspection point. At that time the government thought that they were providing full inspection at the city of Moose Jaw for the surrounding country. On August 1, 1927, at the start of the crop year, an inspection point was established there. All grain was compulsorily inspected for thirty days, but the grain trade, through the Northwest Grain Dealers Association, objected to this inspection. No farmer, or no farmers' organization objected bo this compulsory inspection, but the grain dealers were able to get a ruling from the Justice department that in order to make Moose Jaw a compulsory inspection point it would be necessary to amend section 18. In 1928 the committee on agriculture passed these amendments to Bill No. 188 by a vote of 16 to 8. The bill was then brought before the house but because the committee had not agreed to certain other sections of the act the bill was dropped in the house and did not become law. This matter was brought up again this year in the committee on agriculture and an amendment to section 18 was voted upon and carried, and it was then brought to the house.
We are asking that the farmers of Saskatchewan be given the same advantages at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon as the farmers of Al-

Canada Grain Act
berta have at Calgary and Edmonton, and the same advantages as the farmers of Manitoba have at Winnipeg, and nothing more. We are asking the privilege of having our grain inspected as close as possible to the point of production.


Mr. SPENCER:: There is nothing to stop you having your grain inspected at those points if you so desire.


John Gordon Ross: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, but there is. When the railway companies find that it is inconvenient to set out a car to be inspected they pull the grain right on through. That has been done repeatedly and although orders have been given to have the grain inspected at those points, the railroad companies have not carried them out.


Mr. RALSTON:: I think the committee
should proceed regularly; is there a motion before the committee?


John Frederick Johnston: No, there is no motion before the committee.


James Layton Ralston: Should not there be a
motion so that we may proceed regularly? This bill has been referred to the committee advising the committee that it has power to delete section 18 and restore section 31, but no motion has been made to that effect.


Milton Neil Campbell: I beg to move:
That section 18 be deleted from the bill and that section 31 be restored.


James Malcolm: May I suggest to my hon friend that it might be advisable to make two motions rather than one. If he wishes to move the deletion of section 18 first, that would be quite in order, or if he wishes to move the restoration of section 31, that would be quite in order. But I suggest that he should permit members who are in favour of the deletion of section 18 to vote on that point and those who are in favour of the restoration of section 31 to vote on that. Under a double motion it is difficult to get a proper vote.


Milton Neil Campbell: I ask unanimous consent to the withdrawal of my motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion withdrawn.


Milton Neil Campbell: I beg to move:
That section 18 be deleted.


John Gordon Ross: Before the interruption I was discussing the question of inspection in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Mackenzie appears to 'be a great deal 78594-216J
more exercised over the rights of certain grain men such as the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association than he is over the rights of the farmers of Saskatchewan. Compulsory inspection at Moose Jaw is for the benefit of the farmer, has been asked for by the farmer and has been objected to by nobody but the organized grain trade, not including the pools. The pools have asked for inspection there; in fact, they have used inspection there to the extent of 100 per cent. Every car of theirs that goes through Moose Jaw is inspected there at the present time.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the pools are using it to the extent of 100 per cent, what is my hon. friend objecting to?


John Gordon Ross: There are in Saskatchewan, besides the pool, other farmers whom I represent and whom probably my hon. friend does also.


Milton Neil Campbell: All those farmers have the privilege of having their grain inspected.


John Gordon Ross: They have the privilege, but they are not taking advantage of it at the present time.


Milton Neil Campbell: The only thing is that they are not compelled to do so at the present time.
Mr. ROiSS (Moose Jaw): All I am asking for is compulsion.


Mr. COOTE:: One hundred per cent.


John Gordon Ross: The pools have this 100 per cent inspection in Moose Jaw. I may say to the hon. member for Macleod that that includes his Alberta grain as well. In Moose Jaw grain from the Saskatchewan pool as well as grain from the Alberta pool is inspected. A great deal of money has been saved in this way to the farmers of Saskatchewan, according to the statement given to us by the executive of the pool at Regina. No doubt a great deal of money has also been saved to the farmers of Alberta for the same reason. Still my hon. friends abject to this proposition although the pools are in favour of it and the organized trade or the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association are against it. No farmer has ever made any objection unless it be my hon. friends in the house.
The question in section 18 is compulsory inspection. The question in section 31 is car order. They are two different propositions. The car order point gives the man an opportunity of having bis grain routed from the order point to any terminal that he wants
[DOT] 3410
Canada Grain Act

it ordered to. Once that grain arrives in Moose Jaw, if it is an order point, he will be able to order it to Vancouver, Fort William, Minneapolis or Fort Churchill. That certainly should be an advantage to the farmer in the province of Saskatchewan. The farmers from all over southern, central and north central Saskatchewan, as well as the farmers of eastern Alberta, have asked for this for many years. Some of the members in that corner of the house, before I had the privilege of representing my constituency in parliament, went to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce and asked that this be done. Among them were the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Swift Current and several others at that time in the Progressive group. This matter has been agreed to by the Conservative, Liberal and Progressive parties.


Mr. GARDINEIR:: No.


John Gordon Ross: It has been passed by the House of Commons. My hon. friend must know that fifteen members of his party formed a committee in 1924 and went to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to this matter.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend forgets that the whole house and the government had agreed to my amendment before it was voted on this morning, yet my hon. friend voted against it this morning.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaiw):: My hon. friend will probably vote against me this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: I intend to do so.


John Gordon Ross: Seeing that all parties in the house and the government have agreed to this, I think it should pass and the amendment should be defeated.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry that section 18 be deleted?
Amendment agreed to; Yeas, 49; Nays, 45.


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to a point of order. Seven hon. members came in during the progress of the vote. They were not in the chamber when the question was put. Have they a right to vote?


John Frederick Johnston: They have a right to vote in committee.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I understand that in
committee we have the right to do that. I was here when the motion was put.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not refer to my
hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: I was here when the
motion was put.


John Frederick Johnston: Hon. gentlemen have
the right to enter the chamber and vote when we are in committee.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg to
move that section 31 of the bill be restored to its original form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Dill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Edward Ross: I would draw the attention of the government to the second report to the policyholders and creditors of the Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company, now' in liquidation, and ask if any steps are being taken to reimburse those agents who according to the suggestion reinsured all policyholders under this company?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry the Minister
of Finance is not here at the moment, but I shall bring the question of my hon. friend to his attention so that he may give him an answer.



ELIGIBILITY OF WOMEN TO SIT IM THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I would ask the government what explanation they have to offer of an editorial which appears in this morning's Ottawa Journal which states that the Hon. Lucien Cannon is going over to England to represent the government and appear in opposition to the appeal to the privy council from the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last year that women are not eligible for appointment to the Canadian Senate.


Edward Joseph Garland: Shame!


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend from Southeast Grey knows, this is an appeal from the judgment given by the supreme court on a reference that was made to the court in order to

Chignecto Canal
clear up that point. The Department of Justice has given a ruling which dates back to many years before I had anything to do with the department, and this question is now before the court for a decision on a reference by the Attorney General of Canada. Of course, the Attorney General of Canada must be represented before the court. The women of Canada who are interested in the matter will have their representatives there, and the Solicitor General will have to be present in order to see that justice is done. I do not think he will be so aggressive as the Journal seems to suggest. I may tell my hon. friend that so far as I am concerned I am in sympathy with her views in the matter, and -if the judgment of the court is antagonistic to those views I am willing to do my part to change the constitution.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why don't you go over there in his place?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend must see that I am quite busy here answering questions.


Mr. POULIOT:: I would suggest that the
first appointee of the government, in case the judgment of the supreme court is reversed, should be our charming colleague the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail).



LUNCHEON HOUR IN DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to regulation 89 of the Civil Service Commission which provides that one and one-half hours shall be allowed daily to the civil servants for luncheon, from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. During those hours nobody is left in any of the departmental offices. This is not the case in other countries. At Washington, for instance, the regulations distinctly provide that no departmental office shall be left during the luncheon hour without someone in it to attend to telephone messages and other inquiries. That is also the practice in every large business office in this country. Those are now the only hours at which the members can do business with the departments, and I think someone should be on duty in these offices during the luncheon hour.



CALGARY FLOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that a short time ago I presented to the department a telegram from the city of Calgary urging the pressing necessity of assistance being given in connection with the washing away of the government's boulevard and other city property by the recent flood. May I ask what the government is going to do about it?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: My hon. friend was kind enough
to bring to my attention the telegram which he had received. The matter is not without its difficulties, but it is receiving very serious consideration by officials of the department.



PROPOSED CHIGNECTO CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT IC. SMITH (Cumberland): I should like to ask the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Robb) or the government, or some member of the government, when the Department of Railways and Canals intend to commence their surveys and investigations into the proposed canal across the isthmus of Chignecto. By a resolution, adopted many months ago, the house unanimously concurred in this matter. The season for engineering work is rapidly passing, and the citizens of eastern Canada are uneasy over the prolonged delay, as indicated by a resolution of the associated boards of trade of Cumberland county, passed at a meeting held at Amherst on June 4 last, urging immediate action and asking that the promise made in this house be implemented without further delay, copies of said resolution having been forwarded to three ministers of the crown, myself and others.
Ernest Lapointe: I will call my hon. friend's question to the attention of the acting minister.
. WAR REPARATIONS
On the orders of the day:


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rin-fret) when it is the intention of the government to pay the reparations claims?
Sup-ply-National Revenue


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: As soon as the supplementary estimates are voted the department will undertake to pay the claims.



LABOUR DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I
see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in the house. Could he tell me when the estimates for his department will come down?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid they cannot come down before Monday.


Robert James Manion: Thanks. I saw the Minister of Labour in the house and I wanted to know when we might expect his estimates.



DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
National revenue-salaries, 1745,840; contingencies, $60,000.
Archibald M. Carmichael: Mr. Chairman, I
notice this vote represents an increase of 840,970 as compared with the vote for last year. I am at a loss to know why the expenses of the department should be increasing in view of the fact that the royal commission on customs and excise recommended a decrease in the number of ports, outports and preventive stations. I find the following on page 18 of the report:
The evidence discloses that at the close of the fiscal year March 31, 1926, there were in Canada 148 ports, 358 out-ports, 219 preventive stations, and 48 post offices where revenue was collected, making a grand total of 773, or excluding the post offices, 725.
In the next clause the commission state:
In our view, this number is unnecessarily large and might be very materially reduced without detriment to the public service or any inconvenience to business interests.
Further on will be found the following:
The reduction in the number of ports would to a considerable extent centralize the appraisal work and place it in the hands of competent appraisers, to the great advantage of the revenue.
The royal commission, after a thorough investigation, tell us that if the number of ports were reduced there would be no detriment to

the public service, no inconvenience to the business interests, and there would be a great advantage to the revenue. I do not know whether the department has carried out this recommendation or not. If it has been carried out, and the number of ports has been reduced, then I fail to see any justification for the increase of $46,970. I presume the minister will have some explanation in reference to this point.
I desire also for a few minutes to deal with the matter of the clearance of liquor-laden vessels destined for the United States. In the debate on this subject which took place several days ago five members from this corner of the house were unanimous in their opposition to the granting of clearance to such vessels. Some of the facts adduced by the minister tended to give a rather misleading impression because some other facts in relation thereto were not stated. In general, his address might be summed up as more or less tolerating the clearance of liquor-laden vessels to the United States. One member from the subgroup on the government side also took part in that debate, and while he did not condone the clearance of such vessels he did not come out very strongly in opposition to the practice. He seemed to censure the United States for not doing all they might do. I was rather struck by the very mild tone of the speech made by the one member of the official opposition who participated in that debate. It was very much in contrast with the speech he made some three years ago on the administration of the customs department. He did not exhibit nearly the same force and vim in declaring his disapprobation of the practice of the government at this time as he did on the former occasion.
Now, the Minister of National Revenue has stated, and I think he was quite fair, that the United States government asked the Canadian government to discontinue sending reports of vessels when they were ready to clear from this side for the American side. I think that was the statement made, or something to that effect.


Mr. EULER:: Only at one point, Windsor.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Well, it is quite
clear from the treaty passed in 1924 that such information could be given to the American government by our government; but we must also bear in mind that that information was given at the expense of the receiving government. The information was given by tele-

Supply-National Revenue
phone or telegram at the expense of the receiving government, the United States paying for the cost. It would look as though their asking to discontinue the submission of such information was very damaging evidence against them. But this is the point that the minister failed to make clear to the committee:	It was brought out in the conference held in Ottawa last January that in five thousand cases information had been given to the American authorities, and an investigation having been made into the said cases it was found that the names of vessels given were fictitious, the names of the owners of the vessels were fictitious, and the addresses of such owners did not exist. In five thousand cases of information sent across it was absolutely false, not because our Canadian authorities purposely sent false information but because the rum runners gave such false information to the Canadian authorities, who had no alternative except to send the information to the American authorities at the latter's expense. Can we find any fault with the American authorities for asking that such information be henceforth dispensed with? It meant an expense to them and was absolutely valueless from the standpoint of doing anything to curtail the rum running business.
Another point was mentioned by the minister, and I think perhaps he was fair in his statement. That was to the effect that not more than from 2 to 5 per cent of the liquor used in the United States was of Canadian origin. That assertion, I believe, was based on a statement made by General Andrews, who was in charge of prohibition in the United States during the year 1926. His statement' was, I believe, that not more than from 5 to 10 per cent of the total liquor was of Canadian origin. Then Major Mills, who was formerly in charge of prohibition enforcement in New York, stated that 98 per cent of the supply in the United States was produced within the borders of that country. So that I do not question the minister's statement in view of these statements made by these two gentlemen.
There is a further statement which I should like to give to the house, and this also was brought out at the conference held in Ottawa last January. The statement was made by Mr. Doran, who is now Commissioner of Prohibition in the United States, that in eighteen laboratories in the United States,
100,000	samples of seized liquor were examined in an effort to determine the origin of the liquor in such samples. I am neither
chemist nor scientist enough to know how they arrived at their conclusions as to the origin of the liquor in these samples, but I have their conclusions as given at that conference, and they stated that in the great lakes and Detroit section not over 2 per cent of the liquor in these samples related back to the industrial alcohol and other forms of control liquor in the United States. And in the New England states, in New York, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in such places the figure was not more than from 10 to 15 per cent. The statement was further made that in the southwest section of the country the percentage was quite negligible. That is almost a direct contradiction of the statements made by these two other American gentlemen some years ago, General Andrews and Major Mills. I am putting this statement on record because it is just as valuable, made by a prohibition officer of the present day, as the statements tnade by prohibition officers of a previous year.
There was another statement made by the minister to the effect that the American efforts to curtail rum running were not very pronounced; that is to say, they seemed more or less to tolerate the situation as it exists. Judging from the evidence given at the conference in Ottawa, it would appear that they have been putting forth a strenuous effort. For instance, I have before me the figures in regard to the seizures that were made in the six months beginning July 1 and ending December 31, 1928. The seizures made by the American customs officers in connection with illegal shipments into the United States were these:	During that, six month period
there were 117 boats seized; 375 automobiles; 46,076 cases of beer; 4,576 cases of whiskey. The total number of seizures in that period was 2,283. I have also the figures for the two fiscal years ended June 30, 1928. During that two year period there were 634 boats seized; 964 automobiles carrying liquor from boats on the American side; 46,594 cases of beer; 6,644 barrels of beer and 16,360 cases of whiskey.
In view of these figures it would seem that our American friends have been making a considerable effort to curtail the rum running business from Canada over to the United
States.
The minister rightly stated that a good deal had been done by the Canadian officials to curtail at least the rum running business. He told us that the export docks along the
Supply-National Revenue

Windsor frontier had been reduced from forty to ten. That, perhaps, will curtail the business; at least, it will keep it within a narrower channel so that it may be more easily checked. I am not so sure that it will curtail actual shipments to any great extent. The minister also outlined the restrictions with regard to bonded warehouse.?, which warehouses are to disappear entirely ou June 11, 1930. No doubt that will have a salutory effect on the shipment of such cargoes. He pointed out also-or someone in debate pointed out-that the treaty negotiated to permit seizure within the twelve mile limit had a very beneficial effect. And by the way, I believe it came out in the conference in Ottawa that the effect of that treaty was almost entirely to eliminate rum running along the great lakes and along the seaboard. The conference held in Ottawa, to which I have made reference, was a means of airing the differences between the two countries, and while an agreement was not reached, yet perhaps we are safe in saying that some ground has been gained. But in spite of all the efforts that have been made, in spite of the conference that has been held, the business seems to be flourishing. For the year ended March 31, 1926 the value of liquor exported to the United States, upon which duty was paid, was $12,572,011. For the year ending March 31, 1928, the value was $18,380,070, showing an increase of over 46 per cent, and that represents only the liquor on which duty has been paid1; it is quite possible that a considerable quantity got across without paying duty. We also know from the debate which took place a few days ago that the government has collected through the excise tax of $9 per gallon a total of $7,800,000, and perhaps that has a considerable bearing on the attitude of the government towards this business. I am not going to make the statement that it has or has not any bearing, but it is quite possible.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood my hon.
friend to say a moment ago that some liquor might have gone across the border without duty being paid. Would he suggest how that could happen?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I said it was quite possible that some might have gotten over without the duty being paid. No doubt we have stills manufacturing liquor, in addition to the licensed distilleries.


William Daum Euler: They would not pay duty
anyway.


Archibald M. Carmichael: But liquor would
get across without duty being paid. Perhaps our friends in eastern Canada are so much against such an evil that they may not have stills, but I know we have had stills in western Canada which made liquor illegally.
To give my own personal point of view in regard to this matter I may state that I do not hold that Carrie Nation view which was exemplified several years ago in the United States; I am not one of those ardent prohibitionists who think if you look at liquor, smell liquor, handle liquor or even taste liquor you are going to eternal perdition. I do not hold any such views at all, ibut I do hold that the whole business is an evil tree which does not bear good fruit, I care not where it is carried on or by whom; its influence is not good. Therefore I take this opportunity of registering my protest against the practice of our Canadian government in more or less tolerating the business; I would not say we encourage it but certainly the government does tolerate it and I want to protest very definitely against that state of affairs.
The viewpoint of the United States, of course, is that they can be helped very considerably if our government will refuse clearance to these vessels, and I do not look upon that as being an unreasonable request. I am of the opinion that perhaps the Americans themselves could go a step further than they have gone as yet. I hold no brief for them; I do not say they have done all they can do; I am of the opinion that they could do very much more, and rather agree with the opinion advanced by our Canadian delegates to the conference here in Ottawa some time ago, which was to the effect that if the Americans would require registry of all vessels of every size and tonnage, that would help a great deal in curtailing the rum running business. Then they would be able to check up all their own vessels. I believe it came out at that conference that practically 100 per cent of the vessels in the business were owned by Americans.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
ask if it has not been stated within the last, few days that all these vessels are registered, just as automobiles are registered. If I might make an interjection, I would venture to

Supply-National Revenue
say that if this is the case the argument to which my hon. friend is alluding has been very much over-emphasized.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not sure
whether the hon. member expects the minister to answer now; I presume he will deal with that point later. The evidence brought out last January, however, was to the effect that at present vessels of five tons or under are not registered, and the reason advanced by the American delegates to that conference as to Why this was not done was that such registry would interfere to a large extent with small pleasure boats which were running back and forth. I do not attach much weight to that argument; in view of the fact that our government requires the registry of all Canadian vessels of all sizes, I see no reason why the American government could not adopt the same practice. Then we had a number of petitions presented to this house this session in connection with this question;
I have not taken time to count them but I am sure there were scores and perhaps hundreds sent in. As a matter of fact the minister himself presented petitions from different organizations calling upon the government to refuse clearance to vessels laden with liquor for the United States, but I noticed that every time he presented such a petition he had a smile on his face.
It was stated during the course of the last debate on this subject that the report of the customs committee recommended the refusal of clearances to these vessels. The royal commission, in its report, concurred in the report of the customs committee and stated that smuggling could be considerably curtailed if these clearances were refused. I think it was also stated that the Prime Minister of this country, during his election campaign of 1926, stated that he was prepared to carry out the recommendations of the royal commission to the limit. I think perhaps he obtained a great many voteg in Ontario because of that declaration and I have wondered just how many of these votes he will retain in view of the fact that he has failed to carry out what evidently was a very definite pledge to the electors of Ontario.
I am of the opinion that 'Canada would not lower herself nationally or internationally if she were to take the attitude that this business should be curtailed so far as officialdom can do it. By so doing Canada certainly would be discouraging a business which is not beneficial to the country beyond the small revenue derived from it. If we were to place on the other side of the scale the evils which come from the class of people engaged in this
business who frequent our borders and get over into Canada, such people as smugglers, gangsters, rum runners, hi-jackers and racketeers-


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is a hi-jacker?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I will have to consult a dictionary; one hon. member has suggested that he is a bad actor anyway, and I will take it for granted that he is a bad actor who is in the business for the money he may get out of it. We have such people, as well as murderers, flourishing along our borders like the proverbial green bay tree. Surely this is not a business of which our country is proud; surely after all that old Biblical statement, ''A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches," stands good to-day just as it did when it was made. That holds good for the individual as well; the individual who goes out after great riches may get them, but if he loses his good name what has he left? He has a few paltry dollars, but what good are they? The same applies to a nation, and we should take some pride in our good name. I used to take pride in the good name of Canada but I feel ashamed when I am approached and written to by individuals living in the United States who throw it up to me that we, the legislators of Canada, allow such a business to be carried on. I feel ashamed when I think of myself as being one of the legislators of this Dominion of Canada.
I take this opportunity, therefore, to register my very decided protest against this whole business. The whole business is bad and no good will come from it. The few million dollars of revenue which we obtain from it may look rather enticing, and perhaps it is enticing to the government, but I am rather of the opinion that if we did away with the business and curtailed the rough element of mankind which is flourishing along our borders, we would be moving a step forward in the retention of our good name; we would be washing our national hands clean of the whole business. The government asked for a full discussion on this matter, and I would like to urge upon them that they reconsider it. I would like to see the Americans required to register every vessel and I would like to see our Canadian government refuse a clearance to any vessel laden with liquor for the United States.


George Gibson Coote: The practice of granting
clearance papers to ships engaged in smuggling liquor to the United States was discussed in this house a couple of weeks ago, but I did
Supply-National Revenue

not have an opportunity at that time of taking part in the debate, and I desire to take advantage of this vote to say a few words in regard to this matter. I do not want to approach the subject from the point of view of the United States, but desire simply to keep in mind the effect which this practice has upon the people of Canada. In my opinion, the smuggling of liquor is a dirty, low-down, nefarious business. The practice is made easy because we grant clearance papers to the boats engaged in the smuggling of liquor. We encourage the location in Canada of a lawless element which is a distinct liability to this country, a class of people who would kill for money, a class of people very well described in those excellent articles which appeared last winter in MacLean's Magazine. It seems to me that the practice of granting clearance papers to these ships is carried on largely for the benefit of the brewers and distillers of Canada, many of whom in past years evaded every tax which they possibly could and, in some cases, when their books were required by a royal commission, they were destroyed.
I was disappointed at the position which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) took some days ago. He suggested that we should not stop granting these clearances to these rum runners because the United States preventive officers were not doing all they should to apprehend the law breakers. He told of how the Canadian officers notified the United States officers whenever clearence papers were granted and the boat was about to sail, and I could not help but think that it must be very interesting indeed to those Canadian customs authorities to watch the liquor smugglers dodge the American officers as well as the officers of the Ontario government. The very fact that we do notify those authorities would lead one to believe that it is an improper thing for the government to grant clearances to the boats.


James Dew Chaplin: That is in the treaty; that was in the agreement.


George Gibson Coote: The minister said that he had limited the number of docks at which clearances would be granted, and he seemed to think that that was an improvement. I could not help thinking how much better it would be for us to prohibit clearances at all docks. The minister suggested that if we should stop granting these clearances liquor would be smuggled out of the country anyway, but that seems to be taking it for granted that the distillers, brewers and bootleggers would defy the government of the country, and that seems
[Mr. Coote.l
to me to be the wrong attitude for us to take. I do not think the minister would suggest that we should repeal the law governing the importation and sale of narcotic drugs because a lot of men engaged in that business would not obey the law. The" minister read a report made b3' one of his officers to the effect that no effort was being made by the United States preventive officers to apprehend these smugglers at one of their ports, but it is hard to harmonize that statement with the action of American officers in firing on Canadian boats and at times wounding not only the men engaged in the traffic but innocent parties as well.


William Daum Euler: I did not say that they made no effort whatever.


George Gibson Coote: Possibly I should correct that and say that the minister had said that they made very little effort. However, I gathered the impression from his remarks that they were making no effort. Only a few days ago the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) made rather a long speech in which he complained about the actions of one of the United States patrol boats; that they were too zealous in performing their duty-the notorious I'm Alone case. The minister also said that he was more interested in stopping smuggling into Canada than in preventing the smuggling of liquor into the United States. It would seem to me that this granting of clearances encourages smuggling into Canada; it encourages the location in Canada of a class of men who will not hesitate to smuggle goods into Canada if they can make a dollar out of it; it encourages the location in Canada of people of the very worst type; it brings into Canada a class of people who would not hesitate to commit murder if there was sufficient money in it. This whole business is bound to have a demoralizing effect upon the people living in the areas from which the exportation of liquor is being carried on, and we are encouraging the formation in certain parts of Canada of a gangster element such as they have in Chicago. I think it is time we stopped giving official cognizance to this whole nefarious business.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the minister give us some information about the correspondence which passed between his department and the American officials with reference to the discontinuance of notice to the collector of customs at Detroit?


William Daum Euler: I have not the correspondence here, but it came from one of the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State, asking that we discontinue telephoning in-

Supply-National Revenue
formation that clearances had been granted at Windsor. We fell in line with that request, but I can assure my hon. friend that it was perfectly formal. It was not made by the collector at Detroit, it was made by a representative of the American government.


Milton Neil Campbell: When the minister was speaking a few days ago he gave the impression to the house and to the country that the American authorities were not very much [DOT]concerned as to whether or not the information was received. Is it not a fact that before that time there was considerable correspondence between the two governments with regard to the proper indentification of these boats, and it was only when the department refused to grant the American requests and properly identify the boats, that they asked fo^ the discontinuance of the giving of this information? Without the identification the information was useless.


William Daum Euler: I am very glad that the hon. member mentioned that matter. I have read of the same thing elsewhere, that the Department of National Revenue refused to give certain information which was asked for by the American authorities, and I desire to deny that absolutely. I will give my hon. friend information as to what we did. Under the treaty we were obligated to give certain information, and I will read the circular which was sent out by the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise. It is dated October 30, 1926, and I may say that was very shortly before I took office. It reads:
Memorandum No. 63.
Additional instructions. 'When furnishing information with regard to vessels as provided in the above named treaty and regulations thereon, you are instructed to have such information include as far as possible the following:
(1)	Name of vessel.
(2)	Nationality of vessel.
f3) Name and residence of master.
(4)	Registry or license number of vessel.
(5)	Kind of vessel.
(6)	Description of the vessel sufficiently correct to enable its identification.
(7)	Time of clearing.
Those were the instructions that were sent *out, and as far as I know they were faithfully carried out until at Windsor we were requested to discontinue giving that information. We sent out a further circular under date of June 20, 1927, to all the collectors as follows:
You are requested, when supplying information to United States officers under the above treaty, either by way of advance or immediate information or periodical reports to wherever possible include the particulars set out in supplement F to memorandum No. 63. This should be carefully observed.
That was very faithfully carried out. It is on record and I suppose my hon. friend has read the evidence of what took place at the conference between the officials of the two countries where our United States friends made the following statement. Admiral Bil-lard, who led the United States delegation said:
This treaty, as we all know, has not accomplished the purpose for which it was designed. In this regard, however, may I be permitted to add that Canada has fully and faithfully discharged the obligations which she assumed under the present treaty. The fact that the treaty has not tended to curb smuggling activities can in no wise be attributed to any failure on the part of your officials to perform their duties under the treaty.
If the United States authorities felt that our officers were not giving all the information that it was possible to give, why did they not accept the offer of the Canadian government to permit United States officials to come on the Canadian docks and send the reports themselves? They declined that offer.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am more tired than I
can very well express at having to listen in the house to pussyfooting talk of this kind in regard to the subject under discussion. Surely the people of the United States are able to look after their own affairs without any assistance from us. They admit that practically ninety-seven per cent of the liquor consumed in the United States is brought in by their own people or produced in their own country, the small amount which they claim is brought in from Canada is but 2 per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask where
that admission is made?


Thomas Cantley: I am sorry that I cannot hear my hon. friend and it does not make any great difference, as I propose to go on with my speech. Within the last three years a delegation from this parliament went over to one of the principal cities of the state of New York, and I see here some of the gentlemen who accompanied me on that occasion. We were entertained there by the mayor of the city, also by the chief of the fire department. Some of my friends whom I see before be now were regaled there with imported liquor, Johnny Walker whiskey, and other potent stimulants, dispensed by the mayor and other officials of that city.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The hon. member is
looking at me and I deny the charge.


Thomas Cantley: It does not make any
particular difference to my argument whether my hon. friend denies it or not. Further, I was not looking at him. I see an hon. gentle-
Supply-National Revenue

man in front of me who was there. That, however, is not the point. The point is that ninety per cent of the people of the United States have no intention of enforcing and do not want to enforce their own legislation. That is the real fact of the matter and I am rather tired of hearing in the house statements which in my opinion should not be made. Let the United States people skin their own skunk and enforce their own legislation. If they want restrictive laws of that character, let them enforce them. We have no obligation. We have gone far out of our way to demean ourselves in connection with enforcement of their legislation, which if they really want they cannot expect Canada to enforce. The statement made by the Minister of National Revenue the other day should have convinced any reasonable member that the government had taken every step they could in fairness or by way of international courtesy be called upon to take. Indeed I think they went perhaps too faT in their efforts to aid people to .enforce laws, many of whom say themselves they do not want enforced. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the minister to a matter to which I referred a year or perhaps two years ago, namely, the publication containing the customs tariff. I have under my hand a 'book of 300 odd pages. The index, instead of being printed at the beginning or at the end as in almost any other book, extends from page 129 to page 154. This publication is intitled "Office Consolidation". It is anything but a consolidation. It has been in use for twenty-one or perhaps twenty-three years. It contains appendices to the number of something like forty or fifty. There are in it schedules "A", "B", "C", "D", and I do not know how many more. There are in it items which come under two different tariff classifications and it is impossible for the ordinary man to tell under which classification some of the items come. It is a publication of which the government should be absolutely ashamed. Two years ago I appealed to the minister and also to the Minister of Finance to have some improvement made, and I remember very distinctly that they agreed with me and it was understood that some improvement would be made. There have been some slight changes made, but it is not a publication with which the government should be in any way satisfied. I appeal to the minister to have prepared a book setting forth the tariff schedules in such a way that the ordinary man can read and understand them and can see in a few minutes what the duty is on any item and the regulations in regard to it. Such a tariff is pub-[Mr. Cantley.l
lished by other countries and conditions in this country differ in no particular way from theirs. I would appeal to the minister to prepare a tariff publication properly arranged and indexed and as will be a credit to the government and the minister at the head of the department at the moment.


John Evans: I do not think I would have spoken on this question had it not been, for the impression the minister gave to the country the other day. Although it might be said that a good deal is being done, and we are doing what, we can to aid the United States in the enforcement of their own laws, I do not agree with the hon. member for Pictou when he calls this kind of talk "pussyfooting." In fact, I am very glad to see, judging from the petitions that have been presented to the house from all parts of the country, that the conscience of the people is being aroused in regard to this matter. The United States have taken steps by means of a prohibition law to stamp out the liquor evil and I believe it is time Canada did the same thing. The liquor traffic is considered to be harmful even to health. During the war time we took steps to curb that evil. Since then, we have provincially tried to control the traffic, but we must admit that the result has been practically that the traffic has controlled the different governments. I think it is also true that our provincial administration of liquor laws has made prohibition in the United States very difficult to enforce. To-day we are up against a situation that calls for drastic measures. We are allowing the manufacture of the stuff, and its distribution is carried on by provincial governments. This government gives clearance to craft engaged in defying the laws of the United States. This is a difficult position to be in. The question has a moral as well as a financial side. When we give clearance to these rum-runners smuggling liquor into a country with a prohibition law we give practically a legal standing to the illicit traffic, and Canada as a nation is put in a most humiliating position as a law-breaker. At the same time we are one of the most vigorous members of the League of Nations. That is not a consistent position to occupy. I say again that it is an immoral act, and makes us all partners in what I term and what the hon. member for Southeast Grey has called a dirty business. The Minister of National Revenue says that the stuff will be imported into the United States anyway, and so far as I could gather from his argument the profits override any moral issue in which as a nation we become involved.


Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. gentleman
quote anything I said that will bear out that statement? What he says is absolutely wrong.


John Evans: I have not the minister's
speech in front of me.


William Daum Euler: You will find nothing of the kind in it.


John Evans: There was the money question and what we were making out of it.


William Daum Euler: I never even mentioned the
revenue that we had from it.


John Evans: I can remember figures being given.


William Daum Euler: I did not quote any such
figures.


John Evans: There is one thing certain,
that this house was given to understand that as the traffic will be carried on illegally, we might as well give clearance to these vessels and make it legal for them, and then nobody will be breaking the law. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister himself was silent when this question was under debate in the house before, but perhaps we shall hear something from him yet. It is easy to understand from the attitude taken in this house and by the government why newspapers all over the country lauded the crew of the I'm Alone as heroes.
I want to ask, where do we stand on this question? Is it right to make this rum-running business a national undertaking, or is it not? Is Canada to follow the ideal that a Christian nation should have, or are we going to continue to break the law of a friendly country because of a profit of $9 a gallon on stuff that we ourselves have banned as a curse ?
The minister, if I understood him aright, justified the granting of clearances because the United States themselves have not done all they could to stamp out the evil. Again let me ask, are we to take advantage of a situation that gives us an excuse to comply with the wishes of a number of men who are determined to make a profit out of the depraved tastes of their fellow men and are violating the laws of a friendly country? Are we to dishonour the laws of a friendly country simply because there is money in it? When Canada dishonours the laws of another nation can we expect our own people -to obey our own laws? It is as true to-day as it was when Ilabakkuk uttered the words, that a city built and established on blood cannot last.
The liquor laws, the minister said, are in a class by themselves. No doubt they are. Too much they are viewed as if they did not have to be obeyed. The report of the royal commission on customs I think gives us the key to this line of thought. Governments through their election managers have put themselves under the power of the traffic and under the power of some of these lawbreakers. It is the saddest thing on record in our history that a supposedly valid reason for this traffic can be found by members speaking in this house to-day.
It is most inconsistent for Canada to be a member of the League of Nations and enter into a convention with other nations for the suppression of the drug traffic, and then condone law-breaking in carrying one of the worst drugs there is to a foreign country, and give clearance to craft that engage in that triffic.
I have no two standards for laws at all. I would class rum-running and! bootleggging along with murder, robbery, rape or anything else. Again let me ask, has the report of the royal commission on customs become a dead letter at this early date?' The I'm Alone incident ought to have shown us the danger into which an incident of that kind might land us. Indeed, had it not been for the quiet and steady temper of our people and the way in which they regarded this incident, I have no doubt that it might have landed us into an international difficulty of some moment. Doctor D. L. Ritchie, of Montreal, writing on the I'm Alone incident, has this to say:
The great war itself broke out when Europe's dynamite dump had an assassin's bullet fired into if from Sarajevo. How great a matter a small fire kindles, especially when primitive impulses are stirred and the baser forces of the nations set themselves to make gain out of men's follies and woes.
Again he says:
I repeat, Canada's attitude has been an example of the new patriotism, the common sense and true patriotism, a patriotism with moral standards that endeavours to keep everything in subjection to the imperial reason and confers with a nation before it begins to quarr-el.
Further:
It must be made clear that the day has one past when desperadoes can wrap themselves in any honourable flag and expect the might of which it is the symbol to hasten to their defence when caught in evil ways. Certainly to fly the British flag on anything but clean business and honourable adventure is now to soil and to degrade it; so to do must be made a crime. More and more it must wave on every breeze for justice, ordered government, and at least a measure of the golden rule.
Now, the I'm Alone incident raises questions that to my mind go to the very root of

Supply-National Revenue
ordered government and everything that makes for peace and good will between nations. All civilization is built on law and its observance, and the question comes down to this:	are
neighbouring states to assist each other's lawful governments or to connive at their destruction? I do not think we should talk of national honour if any untoward incidents occur while we are granting clearance to vessels manned by law-breakers who defy the laws of a neighbouring country.
Again I wish to read one short paragraph from Doctor Ritchie's statement:
We may flatter ourselves in Canada that we are not as these Americans, that our courts are clean, our police uncorrupted, our laws firmly administered and our people law-abiding. Once there was truth in all that; but are we not in danger to-day of making it an idle dream? Was not the brazen attempt of the liquor ring assisted, alas! by some of our public men, to make a hero of a rum-running scofflaw, an ugly sign of warning? And what of those in our midst, confederates of evil, who boast that they live by breaking a neighbour's laws, and are still regarded as good citizens? It was frankly asserted in one of our journals that the cargo of the I'm Alone belonged to big interests in Montreal that parade as patriotic. Why cannot they be dragged into the light? Has it not been proved that some of our brewers are behind the bootleggers? And who more swaggeringly patriotic than they?
It is a healthy kind of thing that there are at least some, journals that cannot be used to further the interests of a class of men such as those engaged in this traffic. Mr. Ritchie's article that I have been quoting will be found in the Montreal Witness. There is a real danger to-day in taking a wrong viewpoint of the public opinion created by our newspapers.
I read the other day that the Rev. Lome McTavish had declared that the four leading papers in Saskatchewan aided and abetted this work. When we see such journals upholding the crow of the I'm Alone, is it any wonder to-day that men like Harry Bronfman are untouched? In spite of the crimes named against him in the customs investigation report, that man is still unpunished. Here and now I protest against letting such men go scot free. Although the royal commission said there was a prima facie case against Bronfman, neither the Saskatchewan government nor the justice department at Ottawa hae seen fit to prosecute. As long as the illness of inspector Knowles could serve as an excuse, the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan took the responsibility for not proceeding against Bronfman. Now that gentleman says the duty is on the Minister of Justice at Ottawa, and the Minister of Justice in turn says that somebody must lay a charge against Bronfman. The charge is contained in the customs investiga-
(Mr. Evans.]
tion report, and yet this man still goes free and unmolested. Sometimes I tremble to think what a liquor-controlled press could have involved this country in had it not been for the steady character of our people at the time.
Now, unless this nation takes drastic means -and I say this in all seriousness-to curb this evil, it will as completely control all governments in Canada as it has controlled the government in Saskatchewan during the past year. Our first duty is to refuse assistance to these rum-running craft. At the conference held in Ottawa last January between our officials and officials of the United States we talked in a very friendly tone, but since then we have learned that in such a business smooth words avail very little. Admiral Billard said that as far as he could learn the aim of Canada was to further the temperance problem, but that the whole difficulty was we were handling it in a way different from that adopted by the United States, and he got the impression that the Canadian authorities seemed to think that that situation caused certain difficulties. He clarified the situation at the conference in these words:
We are asking you to consent to recommend to your government the refusal, or rather the discontinuance, of official sanction to export certain commodities into a friendly neighbouring state whose laws forbid the importation of such articles.
I take his words to be a warning. He also pointed out that- our treaty with the United States was entitled a "convention to suppress smuggling," and that he was now asking Canada to follow the policy they had already officially sanctioned. If I understood the Minister of National Revenue in this house the other day, the answer he gave to this was that we are making revenue out of this business.


William Daum Euler: Absolutely, I never made any such statement.


John Evans: I apologize if it is not so, Mr. Chairman.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, I was not present at the conference. I do not know Admiral Billard; I never met him in my life.


John Evans: I did get that impression, but I will accept the minister's denial. When he spoke of the fact that the United States was not looking after the enforcement of its own laws, I certainly got the impression that he was inclined to let the United States look after their own laws.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why shouldn't they?


John Evans: That is all very well, but it will not excuse Canada for breaking the laws of the United States.

Supply-National Revenue


Mr. ROBINSON:: How is Canada breaking the laws of the United States?


John Evans: Perhaps that is putting it
pretty strongly; but at least we do assist the gangs that go out purposely to defy those laws.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: They are not Canadians.


Mr. VENIOT:: They are Americans, every one.


John Evans: Admiral Billard at the conference said the only way Canada could aid the United States now would be to refuse clearance to vessels that knowingly defy the United States laws. I take that, Mr. Chairman, as a polite way of informing Canada that we are playing a two-faced game.
Now, to me it is a very serious matter. I look on it from our own national standpoint as having a most deadly effect on our young people. As for the money that is in it, I do not care how much it may be; I want law and order upheld before our young people. This is a moral question and we cannot escape it. I think it is indeed a sad reflection on our administration that since 1924 the importation of liquor into the United States from Canada has steadily increased, and Doctor Doran at the conference plainly stated that any regulatory measures would be obviously impracticable. . This border outlawry, he states, will be bound to increase. If I mistake not his meaning, he has given warning to us, and we shall have nothing ' to say if any untoward action occurs in the enforcement of that law. It may involve us yet in a nasty quarrel. I look on the I'm Alone incident as simply an incident in the prosecution of a policy which the United States authorities themselves have now adopted. I know it will be asked-have we no national pride that we allow the United States to dictate to us? They are not dictating to us. That question was put forward in this house, but I do not loo': at the matter in that light; and in answer o that I want to appeal to those in authority in Canada to-day not to put this nation, by any means whatsoever, in the position where its people will have to defend a dishonourable and disgraceful business.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I want to make a few
observations without entering into any details in regard to the question which has been thrust upon the attention of the house by hon. members to the left. That question appears to be whether Canada should or should not lend its forces at the present time
to the prevention of liquor exports into the United States. On that question I have my own opinion and conviction.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made the other evening by the Minister of National Revenue and I must say that it was not convincing to me. In the efforts to grapple with what is civilization's great problem, there would be nothing wrong about the Dominion of Canada endeavouring to do something to assist in the solution of the difficulty which is being met by the United States of America. For the moment, however, I consider it far more important for us as Canadians to take an interest, a universal interest, in what we consider at present to be the solution of the problem so far as this country is concerned. Rightly or wrongly, seven provinces in this Dominion have decided that the best way to handle the liquor question in Canada is under a system of government control. I am not going to say whether I consider that the best or the worst system. All I say is that at the present time the great bulk of Canadians are of the opinion that it is the best method they know of by which to control or to cope with this great difficulty in our country. Whether in the end it will succeed or fail I do not know; but as a good Canadian, and as a citizen who desires to see a better condition of society obtain in Canada, I claim it is the business and the duty of all Canadians to give this great experiment in the Dominion the best possible chance. That we are making some headway is evident, I think, in the fact that" about three days ago the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, who spent three or four years trying to convince that province that government control was all wrong and that some other system should be inaugurated, came to the conclusion and announced himself in favour of the government control of liquor in the provinces. Of course, he was a Liberal, and Liberals do not generally find it very difficult to turn a handspring if it suits them. And this gentleman took a big handspring and landed at this point.


Milton Neil Campbell: Probably he was only
bringing his policy into line with the policy of this government.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: No, I wish it were the
other way about; I wish this government would bring its policy into line with him. One of the difficulties which the people of Canada have had in the past to deal with this question, from a local point of view, was the fact that the government of Canada would not try to do anything to give the provinces a proper chance. With seven
Private Bills

of the provinces undertaking to meet the situation by means of government control- whether that system be right or wrong-what do we see taking place in Canada? The records show that we export 2,355,431 gallons of whiskey, of which 1,126,399 gallons go to the United States. This is according to the figures given by the department; and 1,229,034 gallons are exported from Canada to other countries. The other countries are classified according to exports within the British Empire and exports to foreign countries. To countries within the Empire we export 657,771 gallons, and this considerable export is largely to the small islands along the Atlantic coast. The minister knows that we export 170,000 gallons per annum to Miquelon. I see it is six o'clock and I will remain at Miquelon until we shall have had something to eat.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took reoess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 281, respecting The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Hurley Alexander Fummerton.-Mr. Thorson.
' Bill No. 314, for the relief of Barbara Elise Sewell de la Penotiere.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Oliver Milton Martin.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Mary Jane Teeson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Sam Gladstone.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Charles Smolkin.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of James Franklin McDonagh.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Joseph Louis Philippe Corbeau.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Frances Thirza Edlund.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Vivian Elizabeth Pearce.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Robert Henry Dunlop Ellis.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Lillian Ainsworth.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No 351, for the relief of Sarah Berko-vitz.-Mr. Sanderson.

Bill No. 352, for the relief of George Frederick Wilson.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 353. for the relief of Roy Franklin Beattie.-]V4r. Spence.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of John George Laney.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Albert Nott. -Mr. Garland .(Carleton).
Bill No. 356, for the relief of John Thomas Legge.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Isabella Henderson.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Emil Henry Hornburg.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Ruth Oretta Taaffe.-Mr. Donnelly.
Bill No 361, for the relief of Frank William Benson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
' Bill No 362, for the relief of Hilda Rebecca Allison.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Sydney James Black.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Llewellyn John Chubb.-Mr Anderson (Toronto-Hyde Park).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Edward Ernest True.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Glennville Wesley Potter.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 339. for the relief of Elizabeth Mitchell.-Mr. Boys."
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Edith May Enfield.-Mr. Howden.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Barton.

Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 300, for the relief of Stella Pearl Duncan-Mr. Clark -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the children?


Mr. CLARK:: Perhaps my hon. friend has the evidence before him. I have no doubt this has been before the private bills committee, but the evidence has not come to me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we have not the evidence I do not see that we should be expected to go on with the bill.


John Arthur Clark: The bill has been reported by the committee; if my hon. friend has the evidence on these bills no doubt he has the information, but it has not been forwarded to me.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the sponsor of the bill himself has not the evidence and has no information I do not see that we can be expected to go on with the bill now.


John Arthur Clark: Then I would ask that this bill be allowed to stand for the present and that it be called later. In the meantime I will see if I can get a copy of the evidence which ordinarily is mailed to all members but which has not come to me.
Bill stands.



VERA ALICE GRIFFIN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 333, for the relief of Vera Alice Griffin-Mr. Sanderson -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Can we have an explanation with regard to the children?


Mr. SANDERSON:: There are some children in this case but provision is being made for them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 324, for the relief of Vivian Elizabeth Pearce-Mr. Lennox-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section I-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I am moving this bill for Mr. Lennox.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2-Right to marry again.
James Shaver Woodsworth: How many children are there?


John Arthur Clark: What about the children in
the Jacobs case?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been asking only in regard to those cases where the wife is concerned; I have not been asking any *questions where the man has been the petitioner, as presumably he would be in a better position to take care of the children.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am sponsoring
this bill for the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox), and I would remind my hon. friend that if he has the evidence before him the petition would show just what is the position of the children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I have said before, I have no desire to take up the time 78594-217
of the committee unnecessarily, but nearly three hundred divorce bills have come before us during the course of the present session and I do not think that any private member has the time to go through the evidence in each case. I have not done so, although I have tried to read a few particular cases which have been referred to me. If the consideration of these bills is not a mere formality, the least we can expect is that the sponsor be in a position to answer a few questions. If the hon. member for North York is not present and he has made arrangements for another hon. member to sponsor the bill, I should be willing to concede that point, but I think we are entitled to any information we desire. If the acting sponsor is not able to give this information the bill should be allowed to stand.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am not suggesting that there was any arrangement; I merely thought that- as an act of courtesy the bill might be proceeded with because we are instructed that the hon. member is not in good health and is unable to be present.
Mr. WOODiSWORTH: If the hon. member is ill and unable to be present some of his friends should have looked up those cases which stand in his name.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Perhaps the hon.
member could do that himself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have
done as much of that as any hon. member, and perhaps more than some.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to see
that that statement at least meets with approval. Unless it is intended that these cases should go through in a purely perfunctory way, I think the hon. member should be prepared to give the information asked for.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not unreasonable in this matter. I have not had the time, and I do not think any other hon. members have had the time to read this case. At this late stage of the session I am anxious that there should be no unnecessary delay, but the members who sponsor these bills should be prepared to give certain information. The bills have been allowed to pass first reading, second reading, have been sent to the committee, and now they are be-



Procedure Respecting Divorce
fare the committee of the whole, end this is the place where they should be discussed. Objections have been raised to our discussing them at an earlier stage, and I now take this opportunity to ask for certain information.


John Frederick Johnston: It is for the committee to say whether or not this bill should stand, not for the Chair. Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It will not carry for at least a few minutes. The members of the committee are aware of the objections which some of us have taken to the perfunctory way in which these bills have been passed. Some of us would have liked to see a divorce court instituted, but that bill was rejected by the House. Some hon. members took a stand because of religious convictions, and would not concede the principle which they believed to be involved, that is, the principle of divorce. I recall one hon. member from Toronto who said that the Anglican church was opposed to divorce, but since that time the Toronto synod of the Anglican church has met and has declared itself to be in favour of a divorce court. I think that decision should make it considerably easier for the members of that denomination, especially those Who come from the city of Toronto. We have had a good deal of favourable opinion from a number of other sources, and this would go to show that the public generally is in favour of a divorce court. Two cases have been brought before the private bills committee and investigated, and in each case the petition has been refused. In one instance, the Bourdon case, the petition was withdrawn. It had been stated, and I read the letter in the house, that an operation had been performed which had rendered this poor woman incapable of bearing children, and then later that she had been, as it were, thrown on the street, by her husband who came seeking a divorce.


Mr. STEVENS:: That has nothing to do with this particular case.


John Arthur Clark: I rise to a point of order; certainly this is not debatable at this moment. Furthermore, I dispute the statement which has been made in reference to a particular case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am discussing the principle.


John Arthur Clark: It is not a question of principle; we are discussing the bill.
fMr. Woodsworth.]


James Shaver Woodsworth: We were told that this was the place to discuss these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We were told that it was permissible to discuss these matters.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the principle of divorce?


James Shaver Woodsworth: When some of us undertook to discuss the principle of a bill we were told that we could not touch upon the evidence, and now we are told that we cannot touch upon the principle underlying the bill. I must submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is an absurd situation. When I was interrupted I was calling attention to the fact that when cases have been really considered in the private bills committee they have been rejected. I have no desire to go into the case now before us except to point out how necessary it is that each case should be carefully considered, and how absurd is the present practice. I am as anxious to get on with the business of the house as anyone else; I am as sick of these divorces as anyone else in the house.


John Frederick Johnston: I am not saying that the hon. member has not the right to discuss this bill at this time, but there are many other bills upon the order paper and the hon. gentlemen who are sponsoring those bills are present in the committee. I think we could make better progress if this bill were allowed to stand, and then we could proceed with the others.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all I was asking for.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee that Bill No. 324 should stand?
Section stands.
Bill stands.



STELLA PEARL DIJNCAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 300, for the relief of Stella Pearl Duncan-Mr. Clark *-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children involved in this case?


John Arthur Clark: There is one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has any provision been made for its care?

Procedure Respecting Divorce


John Arthur Clark: The child is living with the mother of the mother.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 32S, for the relief of Mabel Bullis-Mr. Smoke (for Mr. Stinson)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. WOODSVv GPJTH: 

Are there ar'v children in this case?
Mr. SMOKE:: I find from the evidenc"
that these people were married in 1894, thirty-five years ago. There are four chidren, ail over age. The respondent deserted his wife in 1901. There are seven charges of adultery proved by the evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. ALICE CLARKE
The house in committee on Bill No. 325, for the relief of Alice Clarke.-Mr. Clark (for Mr. Boys)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there children
involved in this case?


John Arthur Clark: There is no record of any
children.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 326, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Hambourg- Mr. Lawson-/Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-/Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children in
this case?


Mr. LAWSON:: One child born July 11,
1928, residing with the mother.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 327, for the relief of Florence Gertrude Singer-Mr. Lawson-/Mr. Johnston in the chair.
78594-217i
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


James Earl Lawson: One child born June 25,
1923, residing with the mother.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 331, for the relief of Evelyn Cowie-Mr. Lawson -Mr-.^Johnston in the chair.'
$n section 1-Marriage dissolved.
,Mr. WOODSWORTH:	Any children?
' Mr. LAWSON:	One child, five years of
age, in the custody of the petitioner, supported, under a court order, by the respondent.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 332, for the relief of Enid Marjorie Judd-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children.


James Earl Lawson: One child, born January 11, 1/926, maintained by the mother, the petitioner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. CHRISTINA ADAMS BOURNE
The house in committee on Bill No. 334, for the relief of Christina Adams Bourne- Mr. Clark (for Mr. Boys)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-'Marriage dissolved.
John Arthur Clark: No children.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 335, for the relief of Ruth Agnes Townsend-Mr Lawson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?

Procedure Respecting Divorce


James Earl Lawson: There is no mention, either in the petition or in the evidence taken before the divorce committee, of there being children.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 329, for the relief of. Fanny Elizabeth Reed Kendall- Mr. Clark (for Mr. Bell, St. Antoine)-Mr. Johnston in thVehtdr.
On section 1-Marria^s dissolved. \
James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly the sponsor of this bill would give us an outline of the. case?


John Arthur Clark: I thought I could, but I
notice the evidence has disappeared.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I suppose we may ask that the bill stand until the evidence can be secured.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is Friday evening and the senate, I think, will not be convened to-morrow. We should do everything possible to afford these people the relief to which they are entitled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would venture to assert that these people are not entitled to anything. That is one of the premises which we have been taking for granted and it ought to be challenged. These people come here with a petition and the senate all along seems to have been going on the supposition that if a petition is presented, it must be granted. That is not the case. We shall have a Monday, we hope, to discuss these bills. These private bills have the right of way on Monday, and there is also Tuesday. I do not think that we are holding up things unnecessarily if we ask that the ordinary procedure be complied with for the next day or so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no such procedure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely, we ought to know something about a case before we pass on it. We do not know anything about this case and the sponsor is not in his place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason the
evidence is printed.


John Arthur Clark: There are two ways in which my hon. friend can ascertain all about any particular case. One would be by reading [Mr. Woods wo rt-li.l
the evidence, which is certainly sent to him as to other hon. members, except that I have noticed there has been an oversight in one or two eases. The other is by appearing before the private bills committee, where the case is fully considered.
I should like to point out to my hon. friend that this is the end of the session and there are at least some hon. members who have other things to do besides attending to private bills. There are many things to be done at the end of a session, and at this stage I think it is expecting too much to ask Thai members should be ready to__ examine the evidence and read it to the "Souse, in the face of the facif th:.-i L'lie whole case has been tilf&^ghly considered by the private bills committee and by the senate committee, where there has been a full trial. Some consideration ought to be shown to hon. members, some of whom live a very long distance from Ottawa. In my own case, for instance, railway accommodation to Vancouver must be arranged for fully ten days ahead at this time of the year. It may be that there are members of this house who have been obliged to leave with their families, having reserved their accommodation ahead, and the session may go on for a day or two beyond the date they expected. They are obliged to go and yet my hon. friend would hold up these bills because they are not here. These bills are wished on members. Not one out of the 245 members of the house knows why his name appears as sponsor for a divorce bill. Somebody has to sponsor them. Some of us are lawyers, and there are legal firms in the city of Ottawa who use our names perhaps because we are lawyers and friends of theirs. I have no objection to that; if a lawyer friend of mine puts my name to a bill, all right. But these litigants have also some rights. They have just as much right to have their case heard as my hon. friend has to speak in the house. They have just as much right to justice at the hands of parliament as my hon. friend has to sit in and speak in the house; yet because the sponsor of one of these bills happens to be out of the house-and I believe it is our duty to sponsor them-my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says he will deny justice to the bona fide litigant. Outside the provinces of Ontario and Quebec any one of these people could go before a court of justice and have the case tried just as it has been tried here, and the court would be bound to give a decision. But these people have been denied by the members of this house the right to go before a court of law.


Mr. LAFLAMME:: No.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


John Arthur Clark: Who says "no"? My hon. friend voted against the bill to establish divorce courts in the province.


Leo Kemner Laflamme: I was right too.
\ Mr. CLARK: And now' he says "no." What does he mean?


Mr.   S@: He does not mean anything.


John Arthur Clark: He does not mean anything, no, certainly not. If my hon. friend had anything to do but read a newspaper, if he had any desire to do justice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I say that advisedly. If he had any real desire to do justice he would inform himself as to the merits of these cases, and vote according to the dictates of justice. What tve are up against is that some members of this house refuse absolutely to consider the merits of the case, which they are bound from every point of view to do, while others refuse these litigants justice because some hon. member, who happens to be the sponsor of a particular bill is not in his seat. They "will refuse justice to these litigants despite the fact that the senate committee has fully heard the case, that the evidence has been printed and every hon. member given the opportunity to read it and size up the merits of the case; that the case has been before the private bills committee. There might be a rehearing of the case before that committee, as has been done in several cases this session, and they might refuse to report the bill. I have the evidence here, Mr. Chairman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not feel quite as chastened as I might do if I did not recall that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has had a good deal to say with regard to a number of the estimates. He considered that it*was perfectly proper for him to challenge at considerable length estimates with which he was not satisfied. I just happen to be working along a different line. I am concerned in this particular case rather than about some particular estimate.
I frankly concede that there is some ground for what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said. I know that in the past it has been the practice for various members to sponsor these bills without their having any idea they woulu be called upon to present
the case. I do not wish to be unreasonable in the matter. But unfortunately the hon. member has buttressed his plea with some false statements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I withdraw; I
should have said that he had buttressed his plea with some unsound arguments. He suggested that these people pi'eT*-I am pleading for justice for them, and the *ay to get justice is to have their cases considered instead of having a large number of bills passed here en bloc, as has been done in the past, or having them passed without any consideration at all, as has happened with some of these bills even to-night. Io get justice for these people we should not attempt to rush the bills through without any consideration, indeed without even the sponsor being in his seat.
It is further stated by the hon. member- and this is what I had reference to when I said that he had buttressed his plea with false statements, which I changed to unsound arguments-that these bills have been carefully considered by the private bills committee. I do not think that statement is absolutely accurate. The fact is that any case that is not challenged passes the private bills committee without any consideration whatever. There are ten steps in the procedure for divorce. First it is dealt with by the Senate divorce committee, which examines the case to the extent it considers necessary; then the bill is reported, given its first and second reading in the Senate, considered in committee and given a third reading. The bill then comes to this house where it is given a first and a second reading, goes to the private bills committee, comes back into committee of the whole, is reported and given a third reading. There is only one real examination made, and that is the preliminary examination by the senate committee. All the other, processes are simply equivalent to a rubber stamp, and we put on the rubber stamp ten times. Now, that is what I object to. I would rather sweep away this whole elaborate procedure, but if there are those who insist on retaining it, it is not quite fair for them to blame us when we insist on following the regular procedure. They accuse us of holding up the house. I have now held up the house about as long as the member for Burrard, and will let him proceed with the evidence.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


John Arthur Clark: There are no children. That is all I have to say.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thanks very much.


William Irvine: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member is an indictment of the entire house and is well deserved. He simply indicated by his very fair and straightforward criticism of the members of this committee and of the house generally that we are incapable of doing the ww-v nf a divorce court. No one is prepared to admit that more readily tnau I am. While we are allowing these bills to go through this-session on the strength of the Prime Minister's promise that next session there will be some alteration in this regard, yet we are conscious that we are not doing the business in a proper way. Some one has suggested that we consider these matters in the private bills committee. We do nothing of the sort. In that committee bills are simply read off; that is all that is done. In my experience during the last five or six sessions of parliament I have only seen three or four cases really considered in that committee. And those were cases that had been specially referred to the committee; all other cases are passed without anybody reading or discussing the evidence. I am afraid that what the hon. member for North Centre Winnipeg desires will not be attained in this house. We are not a divorce court; we cannot seriously treat ourselves as such, and the whole proceeding is the most shameful and disgraceful that I have ever seen anywhere.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


William Irvine: The sooner we get rid of
this divorce work the better. I do not know whether I would be in order in serving notice on the government that at the next session of parliament they will not get any business through in this way.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply Mr. Johnston in the chair.
National revenue-salaries, $745,840; contingencies, $50,000.
Thomas Erlin Kaiser: When the committee rose at six o clock I had just arrived at the island of [Mr. Woodsworth.J
Miquelon, that beautiful, barren isle of the sea where liquor flows and nothing grows, and during the remainder of my remarks I wish to refer to this island as representing conditions at other points on the Atlantic ocean.
I suppose the Minister of National Revenue/-must realize that the conditions which exist on this island cannot be taken seriously; there are elements of fraud in connection with what is going on there. We will say a cargo of liquor leaves the port of Halifax and goes to Miquelon, or pretends to go to Miquelon, and a certificate is brought back to the department showing that the cargo arrived safely; the customs officer certifies that the cargo has landed and this certificate is accepted by the department as proof that the liquor has reached its proper destination, so no excise duty is charged. I understand that the government of Canada became rather suspicious of this beautiful little island and insisted that the governor of the island should also sign this certificate.
I want to point out that if this cargo really arrives at Miquelon and is unloaded at that point a duty is charged by the government of the island; in fact they charge three duties, one of which is called a customs duty, another a consuming duty and the third by some other name, but the three duties total $1 per gallon. That cargo, paying no duty in Canada and a duty of only $1 per gallon at Miquelon, has an advantage of $8 per gallon over a cargo sent to the United States or any other part of Canada, and I want to know why we charge an excise duty of SD per gallon on liquor going direct to the United States when it goes out the back door by way of Detroit or Niagara Falls and when we know it is going to the United States, with everything pointing to that fact, while if it goes out the front door and lands at this little island there is no excise duty collected. I wonder if the minister imagines that we are so devoid of intelligence in Canada as to suppose that the people of Miquelon consume all this liquor. I pointed out the other night that Canada alone sends annually over 50 gallons of liquor per capita of the adult population or 42 gallons per head when calculating every man, woman and child on the entire island. Some one says that is not enough, but I think it is quite sufficient; if all the inhabitants of that island consumed that much liquor per head for two years there would be only about two or three individuals left alive, and they would be regarded as perambulating distilleries. It is absurd; the government of Canada must know that the liquor landed on that island is not consumed there.

Supply-National Revenue
I am not going to discuss the question whether our excise duty on liquor going direct to the United States is too high or too low but I do claim that we should charge the same duty on liquor exported to Miquelon or to any other foreign country as we charge on liquor for home consumption, because I believe one of two things happens; either this liquor finds its way back to Canada' or it reaches some other market such as that of the United States. In any event it is objectionable. Why does the minister say that there is such a wide open door at Detroit and Niagara Falls, when we have evidence that that door is not open on the Atlantic ocean? A vessel was found two hundred or two hundred and twenty miles off the shore of the United States and a government cruiser shot it down, and yet we are told that the same government has a green light up and it is perfectly safe to smuggle liquor at Detroit and Niagara Falls. There is something a little suspicious about the statements given to this house by the minister but I do not care whether he is right or whether he is wrong, what I want to say is this: The people of several provinces of the Dominion of Canada have come to' the conclusion that they can best handle this liquor question through government control. I do not know whether they are right or whether they are wrong, but it is a great experiment and I want to say here that I ally myself with those people of Canada who are trying to eliminate drunkenness from society. This is the method which has been adopted, and I plead with this government to ally itself with those provinces which are trying to do something with regard to this liquor question. The gove|rnment should do something to help them and not leave the door wide open and thus circumvent the efforts which are being put forth by those who believe in government control. We give these smugglers an eight dollar advantage on every gallon. We are told that the smuggler and bootlegger has been eliminated from Ontario. He was eliminated when the Ontario Temperance Act first came into force and he did not reappear for two or three years, but he found out how to get around that act. In three or four years' time he will find out how to get around this government control act, and I am afraid we will have the same conditions. I believe that act is a good law but I think a fair chance should be given to the provinces to better the condition of society. No headway will be made as long as this government stands still and permits the conditions which exist at the front door of our country, which conditions only tend to circumvent the efforts being put forth by those who have faith in government control. As a Canadian I consider it of great importance that we should endeavour by every means to prevent the export of liquor to the United States. We should do that, but our greatest duty is to the people of the Dominion of Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman, one can understand the concern in the United States about this traffic in liquor from Canada by examining the statistics. The figures show that in 1923 liquor to the value of $3,178,000 was exported from Canada to the United States. That was the legal exportation, and one can only guess as to how much was exported illegally. In 1925 the value of the exportations had risen to $11,610,000 and in 1928 the figure had grown to $24,403,000.
To come down to the particular issue which is being discussed at the present time, as to whether or not Canada should refuse to grant clearances to vessels laden with liquor for the United States, it seems to me that we are only being asked to extend a courtesy to that country which we would not for a moment refuse in our social relations with each other. I read the minister's speech of some days ago, and I take it that his opposition to carrying out the request of the United States is based on four arguments. His first argument was that we should not be asked to assist in carrying out the laws of another country. Then he claimed that the United States made no effort to curb the shipments of liquor into Canada when conditions were reversed during the war. His third argument was the obvious insincerity of the United States in enforcing her own laws, and fourthly, he doubted the efficacy of the remedy suggested by the United States, that is, for Canada to refuse clearances to vessels loaded with liquor for that country.
In my opinion, this is not an issue between what we commonly call the wets and the drys. I take it that there are tens of thousands of people in Canada who believe in government control of the sale of liquor, that is, they support what is commonly called the wet side, and yet they are in favour of the government using every means at its disposal to prevent the export of liquor into the United States. They object to Canada failing to grant what seems to be a most reasonable and modest request on the part of the United States.
The United States are not asking us to assist in enforcing their laws. In a recent issue

Supply-National Revenue
of the Toronto Star an American official is quoted as follows:
We do not want Canada to help clean up our backyard, but just to stop throwing dirt over the fence into it.
It seems to me that that covers the situation very well. He went on to say that they did not ask Canada to aid in the enforcement of their law, but they did ask Canada not to aid in the violation of it.
Every member of the house knows the difficulties a government encounters in enforcing any prohibitory law. We have heard that old cry for generations, that a government was not sincere in enforcing such and such a law. I have heard tlhe charge made in western Canada against the minister's own department, that his officers were not sincere in enforcing the Inland Revenue Act, I do not believe those charges because I think his officers are doing everything that is humanly possible to stop the illegal manufacture of liquor. Just because there are still many infractions of the American law and because the law does not absolutely prohibit the opinion is expressed that the government is not sincere in attempting to enforce the law. It is not for us to judge whether or not the government of the United States is sincere in its efforts to enforce a prohibitory law; all we have to do is to grant this reasonable request and refuse clearances to vessels loaded with liquor.
The next point in the minister's argument was that the United States had made no effort to curb shipments of liquor into Canada during the war when that country was wet and Canada was supposedly dry. I am not sure that Canada ever made any particular requests to the United States for assistance along that line, and I have no proof that if such requests were made they were ignored. But that seems to me to be a most illogical argument to use, to say that because someone committed a crime or a misdemeanor some years ago it justifies the doing of the same thing to-day. That is one of the most unsound arguments anyone could use, and I did not expect it to be used by a minister of the crown. If there has been insincerity on the part of the United States government, or on the part of their officials, in enforcing this law, then Canada is just playing into their hands, because certainly the impression is being created from one end of the United States to the other to-day that these laws are not being enforced on account of Canada's failure to grant that reasonable request. If the minister is convinced that there is that insincerity to which he refers, then he is help-

ing along and strengthening that insincerity in the United States by refusing its request. If the request were granted and there still were no particular improvements in >the situation, then the people of the United States would find out the insincerity, if any, on the part of their government.
May I remind the minister that there is a good deal of ill feeling, I may say, in Canada to-day over the action of the United States congress in raising the tariff against many Canadian products? But let us consider that there is being engendered in the United States as well a feeling just as bitter and probably more so; a grievance is developing there against Canada because of the failure of the government to grant that request. It is just possible that even the tariff action of the United States congress is influenced to some extent by the inaction of the Canadian government in this regard.
* May I refer to a series of articles which were published in MacLean's magazine beginning in the issue of December 1 last and concluding in the issue of January 1. These articles are headed: "Men will Kill for Whiskey", and they are written by Mr. Frederick Edwards. They cover the whole situation on the lake front and they point out with great force that this is not merely the business of the United States. The minister may assume an attitude of complacency and perhaps we as Canadians may thank the Lord that we are not as other men are; that vve are not bothered with this thing ourselves; but these articles show very clearly that all the crime and viciousness that have developed in the wake of the liquor traffic have penetrated Canada as well as the United States. I say that for our own protection, our own benefit, for the upholding of law, order and decency in this country, we should cooperate with the United States to stop this illegal traffic. May I quote from the article of December 1? This article refers to I he attempt of the border cities to get rid of the underworld that had developed there due to this illegal liquor traffic. Tlhe writer points out that they have met with much success. Many of the dives were closed up; many of these crooks had to decamp to the United States. Yet the writer goes on to say:
Yet, in May of this year, Jack Kennedy's dead body was found in a Toleda woods; and his murderers have never been apprehended.
Yet, during the summer, Charlie Williams, responding to a telephone message from Detroit, crossed the river, a Iamb going in panic to the slaughter, and paid $40,000 to Detroit gangsters, refusing later to lay a charge against the one man the police were able to entrap.

Supply-National Revenue
This is one of the most terrible features of the whole thing. Even where these men were spotted; even where the police had their fingers on them, we find the parties were so much in terror of these crooks that they refused to invoke the law to punish them. They were more afraid of the crook than of the law. The writer goes on:
Just a few weeks ago Sam Low was attacked on the highway between Windsor and London, bound, blindfolded and held for ransom.
This man was later released on ransom. Further on the article says:
We in Canada are rather proud of our reputation for law enforcement. It is a thought not consoling to our national consciousness that American thugs are able to ferry themselves across a narrow river to our Dominion and there kidnap, blackmail and arrange even for the murder of our citizens without encountering a swift and just retribution; but here are three examples of outrageous crime perpetrated within our boundaries during the past year, and in each case the guilty parties originating from the American side of the line, have been able to escape with a casual ease which cannot but be an invitation to further similar outrages.
The article continues:
It is a blazing affront to Canadian dignity, a menace to the peace and order of the Dominion, that such things as the Kennedy killing, the Williams hold-up and the Low kidnapping should go unpunished. And yet no one has been arrested.
The writer asks the question:	Why? And
he goes on to give the reason. The reason is quite obvious-the enormous profits that are made in the liquor business. I will deal with that presently. He gives many instances of men who have testified before tire commission and the various criminalities which many of them were guilty of, such as false statements, brewers falsfying their books and all that sort of thing, a story of crime and wickedness that would make any Canadian blush for shame.
In his article under date of December 15, the writer has this to say:
A geographical accident compels the peaceful, industrious and thrifty populations of Windsor, Walkerville, Ford City, Sandwich and the rest of the border towns, to accept as a close neighbour the overcrowded, cosmopolitan, rowdy metropolis of Detroit. So it came about that at the very moment that the honest burghers of the Border Cities were dusting off their palms, rolling down their sleeves and congratulating themselves that last years strenuous campaign had triumphantly routed the forces of evil which had infested .their communities for years, the worst elements among the yellow parasites who feed greedily on the illicit liquor traffic were chuckling grimly in the depths of their Detroit and border ratholes, and remarking "is that so?" Whereupon these dangerous gangsters proceeded at once to demonstrate that in this day and age, with the aid of fast automobiles, telephones and automatic pistols of deadly precision, the bloody business of murder for money is not in the least discommoded by a mere mile of smooth water.
The writers goes on:
Against the banditti of the turbulent motor city the folks of the border towns on the Canadian side are powerless. Everything that the rsidents of the Border Cities can do in their own behalf, they have done.
May I refer again to the article of January 1? He gives an instance or two to show the enormous wealth that is acquired by those engaged in the traffic. He quotes the case of Cecil Smith. He says that two years ago Cecil Smith was a taxi driver without any money. Two years after he had set up as a bootlegger, Smith boasted in open court that during the previous twelve months he had paid more than $90,000 to officials of various grades and services in return for immunity granted a score of valuable liquor cargoes smuggled across the river. In this case we have Canadian as well as United States officials bought and corrupted by these men, yet the minister assumes an attitude as if it were none of our business, as if it did not affect Canada in the least, and he refers to the United States request as one for our assistance in enforcing their laws. Surely our own law is at stake; surely law, order and decency are at stake in Canada as well in the United States. This condition is not one that is creditable either to the minister and his department or to the people of Canada as a whole.
The writer refers to the evidence given before the commission. I have not time to quote much of it, but it is most illuminating and it would be worth the while of any member of the house to read all he has to say. He gives an account of the murder of Jack Kennedy to whom I referred a little while ago. It appeal's that Jack Kennedy was an employee of a brewery on the lake front. He was an accountant and probably he was one of those gentlemen who was called upon to fake the accounts in order to defeat the minister's own officials. When he knew he was going to be called upon to testify before the commission, he suddenly disappeared. He spent part of the season in Florida, most likely under the pay of the corporation. Later on he came back to Toronto. Just a few days after he arrived there, he was served with a subpoena to appear before the court, but apparently he was a decent, honest fellow, just as good a fellow as you could get in that class of business, and he said, when asked by one of his friends what he proposed to do,

Supply-National Revenue
that he was going to tell the truth. Before the time arrived for him to appear before the court he was kidnapped, taken across the river, and his battered and mutilated body was found a few days later. As this article points out his murderers have never been apprehended.
The article goes on:
And finally listen to this. The speaker is William C. Dunford, a Canadian, and a liquor exporter of Windsor. He is giving testimony in one of the series of government actions against the brewers, in Toronto, last May. He has admitted that he has sold many cargoes of liquor to American bootleggers with headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. He has been asked by the court to give the names of his customers. Here is his reply:
"My lord, in the United States a man is marked if he is a squawker or is a stool pigeon. I would sooner face a charge of contempt of court than be taken for a ride when I return to the United States."
The article concludes:
How do you like that, Canadians?
Yet the minister adopts the attitude-as if it were none of our business-that it is the fault of the United States wholly when that kind of thing can go on. But I say that when a man admits in open court that he is more afraid of the thug who has threatened him than of a sentence of a judge of a Canadian court, it is not to the credit of Canadian institutions, and unless we deal with this matter we shall soon have as bad a condition in Canada as they have on the other side of the line.
What is the remedy? In a case of this kind I do not think there is any clear-cut distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. It is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, and to my mind the only conclusion from that standpoint, choosing the lesser of two evils, is completely to nationalize every brewery and distillery in Canada. I know that there are objections to that. Many will say that it would lead to political corruption and a certain amount of graft in connection with government. Undoubtedly there would be some graft, but certainly there would be nothing like there is to-day. The main thing is to take the private profit out of that liquor traffic, and I think that is as far as public sentiment will permit us to go at the present time. I know that consti-tional questions will be raised as to the relative rights of the provinces and the Dominion, but I suggest that the federal government take action to nationalize these breweries and distilleries. Wherever there is a province that has government liquor control and it

desires to exercise that right, let that province be allowed to do so. I think that would help to a considerable extent to clean up the situation.
I wish to quote from the Toronto Star of Saturday last, which gives an account of a speech by the Hon. Grant M. Hudson, representative in congress of that section of Michigan which is across the river from Windsor. He disputes many of the statements which the minister made in this house some time ago. The minister's statements to-day would seem to conflict with what this gentleman says, and of course we must accept the minister's statement. However, I will read this for the benefit of the minister because, although there may be other inaccuracies in this statement, it must be taken seriously because it is the speech of a congressman in the House of Representatives at Washington.
The minister made the statement that vessels of five tons and under did not have to take out clearances in the United States, but Mr. Hudson points out that it is only in the case of passage from one American port to another American port that these boats are not required to have clearances. He points out that under American law, if these vessels leave for a Canadian or foreign port, they must secure clearances.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt
my hon. friend, but would he mind reading that part of the law to which he now refers, that it is necessary for American boats to obtain clearances when they leave for a foreign port?


Milton Neil Campbell: I have no law here.
Mr, EULER: I am quite sure the law is quoted there, because I read that myself.


Milton Neil Campbell: This is a statement of
the Hon. Mr. Hudson.


William Daum Euler: Yes, and I think he quotes the American law.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps so. The minister gave the house the impression that none of these boats of five tons and under were required to secure clearances from the United States.


William Daum Euler: Nor are they required to do so because they leave the United States without cargo. They come to Canada for their cargo.	-


Milton Neil Campbell: This gentleman says
they have to have a clearance regardless of whether they have a cargo or not.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: What I stated was confirmed by the representatives from Washington when they met with our representatives.


Milton Neil Campbell: Referring to the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue regarding five-ton vessels, Mr. Hudson quotes this statement of the Minister of National Revenue:
I am not going to suggest any reason but, peculiarly enough, we were requested by the United States government to discontinue the giving of notices to the collector at Detroit and in accordance with that request such notices were no longer given at that port. They asked us then to give weekly reports rather than daily reports by telephone and we have acceded to their request.
Mr. Hudson then asked:
What are the facts? The United States officers did not ask that these notices be discontinued until the Canadian government had refused to give information that would be of some real value. In doing this the fault did not lie with the Canadian customs officers, who undoubtedly acted within their instructions. The difficulty was apparently higher up.
Of course I realize that that conflicts with the statement which the minister made in the house this afternoon. Mr. Hudson goes on:
The vessels of less than five tons, to which Mr. Euler refers, are not registered in the United States by name but, like automobiles, by number. Every owner must take out a license, as he would for an automobile, and receive an identification number, which the regulations require shall be prominently displayed. This number is the only means of real identification. The Canadian authorities have been asked to give the identification number of the vessels that were cleared. This they have refused to do.
I realize that that conflicts with the minister's statement this afternoon. Mr. Hudson points out that on the Florida coast the Bahamas government does give them this information, and that it has been very useful to them in identifying vessels. He points out that one cannot rely at all on the identification given by the Canadian authorities. A boat may be called The Bat, The Bug or The Rambler, and the United States officers find that there is no such vessel. The names of the owners are fictitious and their addresses are often inaccurate or fictitious.


William Irvine: Might not the numbers
also be fictitious?


Milton Neil Campbell: I suppose there would
be a license plate the same as for an automobile, and that would be some means of identification.


William Daum Euler: None at all.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Hudson points out that on account of the action of the Bahamas government the rum-running in that section has been clamped down very substantially. This has been done by arrangement with the British government, and he says that Canada has been asked to do this but up to date has refused to do so. He goes on :
If Canada will not stop granting clearances, will she at least take steps to make the ruinrunning business honest, in this regard at least, that the correct names of the vessels and the correct names of the owners shall be given, and that there shall be an insistence that the vessels clearing reach the destination for which they clear. . .
Surely it is not too much to suggest that the government of Canada should not be a knowing accessory to the falsehood and perjury that now characterizes the rum-running business on the border. The evidence is irrefutable that at present boats are cleared by Canadian customs officers under what they know to be a fictitious name of the boat and with what is known to be a fictitious name of the master, and to what is known to be a fictitious destination. This action is unjustifiable by any standard of international ethics.
He quotes the minister again:
Mr. Euler says: "Exportation of liquor from Canada is entirely legal. If we pass a law prohibiting clearance, the liquor will then go out in any case, but it will go out illegally and secretly instead of openly, above board."
Mr. Grant replies to that. He says:
"Here surely is a new principle in jurisprudence-that the law should be made to suit the would-be law violators, and that when their wrong-doing cannot be prevented by law it should be facilitated by law; that where you cannot prevent an evil thing from being done secretly, then provide that it may be done openly."
The same argument might be applied to murder, because you cannot detect all murderers and then make murder legal. He goes on to say:
"I wonder in what other regards would Mr. Euler apply this principle. It would work fine with hold-up gatngs and .burglars. Certain hours in broad daylight might be provided during which burglars and hold-up men would operate, and certain sections reserved for them. Apply this to obscene literature or immoral plays. Provide that insted of this being driven into the dark and underground it be brought right out into the open. Let the obscene literature be displayed on certain corners during certain hours. Let the immoral plays be given in the open park."
Then he proceeds to challenge the minister's statement that the United States government was not sincere in its attempt to enforce the law.
As a proof of the earnestness of the United States in seeing that their officials do their duty, there is the fact that to-day there are

Supply-National Revenue
*nine officers in gaol in the city of Detroit for the taking of bribes and ten others under indictment awaiting trial. It may be further said that the bribing of these officers was done by the very rum-runners and the interests behind them with whose infamous business Mr. Euler declines to interefere.
Mr. Hudson claimed that Mr. Euler was in error regarding United States law when he claimed that all boats under five tons sailing from United States ports are not required to take clearances and do not need to report when they return.
"It is true," Mr. Hudson said, "that these vessels do not need to take out clearance papers when going to another port within the United States, but they do require clearance papers when going to a foreign port."


Mr. BIRD:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two persuasive words in the hope that the minister will yet choose the better way. I have given this matter very careful attention and I have considered the reasons advanced by the minister and also by his officials. I maintain that anyone who impartially considers those reasons cannot say that they are impressive, except in the sense that they are unimpressive. It seems to me to be a case of alleging reasons to support a position that has been come to without the aid of reason. I am reminded of the story of the old British squire who sat down to write out his reasons against prohibition. He jotted down twelve reasons, and then to bring them to a close added a thirteenth, which read, "and for any other reason." Now. when I read the reasons that were concocted by the minister's officials after the January confabulation with the officials from the States, that story came very strongly to my mind. When I read over those eleven points, each succeeding point seemed to destroy the force of the whole case.
I think there are three very clear reasons-[DOT] not thirteen, but three-why the minister should prohibit clearances of these liquorladen vessels going to a friendly country; three reasons that stand out so spontaneously in one's mind that I would have thought they could not have been gotten around even by the official mind. The first reason is that public opinion has already expressed itself in a most articulate form in this house. In 1926 a committee of this house declared clearly that the only ethical thing to do was to prohibit these clearances. What has the minister to offset that clearly expressed will of the people of Canada? One should hardly need to bring forward any other reason. But surely if I were asked to appreciate the work of the Liberal government in the last few years I think I would say in their commendation that they had been very sensitive to the will of the House of Commons, that they had sent 
out feelers almost constantly to find out what the Commons were thinking, what they had thought, and what their position was on any given question. I would say that very freely. But here is a case where, for no adequate reason at all, the minister is going counter to the clearly expressed declaration of the House of Commons. And the onus is altogether on the minister. "But" he says, "my officials"- my officials-"considered this thing, and they outlined their reasons, and I accept their reasons." He did accept their reasons. His speech the other day was a very faithful recapitulation of the points that were drawn up by his officials. I have the greatest respect for the officials of the government. I have never yet in my contact with any of them had any cause for anything but respect But I have yet to learn that government officials in the position in which they are ought to formulate government policies on these allimportant things. They are there to carry out policies already formulated by responsible government. Do not let us hear too much about this "responsible government" business because whenever it is convenient to do so ministers and governments are prepared to shoot the whole thing to the winds. The Minister of National Revenue cannot shoulder this on to his officials, because people will immediately ask, "Where do the officials get their hunch from?" Either they got their eleven points from the minister or the minister got his eleven points from them. "Oh", you say, "well,"-and the minister actually said it -"the man in the street has pronounced on this thing. The man in the street says we have no business to try to enforce the laws of the United States."
Well, I have not much respect for the "man in the street", because I have never met him. That is one of the fictitious personages from time to time invented by people who have axes to grind in order that they might put into his mouth sentiments that would be unpopular if they came from their own lips. The man in the street indeed! He has appeared again, as he will often appear, speaking popular phrases, well-conceived catch words, that have no foundation in reason and are not meant to appeal to reason, but are meant to appeal to passion, to that ignoble passion that one nation has inherently against another. It does not matter what crisis occurs, from somewhere, from some dark corner, from some anonymous source, the man in the street, this imaginary phonograph, will get off the popular catchword-"Oh, it is not Canada's place to enforce laws in America". And that is sufficient.

Supply-National Revenue
The brewers of Canada are not without influence; they are not without brains; they are not without ingenuity; they are not without knowledge of this time-honoured game, the instinctive sense of psychology by which you can make use of the gullibility of the so-caEed man in the street. Someone has said that if you will let him write the songs of a nation anyone who likes may make its laws. One might also say, "Let me coin the catchwords of a party and I don't care who makes its policies"; because the catchwords will eventually rule. A very clever catchword indeed, displaying remarkable genius: It is not our business to enforce the laws of the United States-no truck or trade with the Yankees-our whole history of politics is bespattered with these despicable phrases invented by self-interest and put into the mouth of this fictitious person, the man in the street. One would have thought that a clear expression of public opinion through parliament would have given the minister his steer and not this shady and suspicious voice out of this puppet which no one knows or calls brother, the man in the street.
Another reason equally conclusive is the dictate of international good feeling. I saw on the bulletin board this afternoon that the British embassy at Washington had refused to sign any more requisitions for the importation of liquor into that embassy. That seems a small thing, and it is a small thing. But the less demonstrative a gesture the greater its value. It is not the big things that affect relationships between nations. Anyone who reads the story of the great war as told by Sir Edward Grey will discover that the things which exacerbated relations between the European nations were all despicably small things, little slights we should be ashamed almost to show between individuals. These are the seeds that eventually become dragons' teeth. If we did something openly against the United States, if we made some blatant brag, they would probably laugh at us and that would be the end of it. But no nation can afford to overlook these little courtesies and felicitations, because they are the things which ultimately determine relationships between nations. A little spark kindles a great fire and a little mustard seed will some day grow into a big tree. You may say that this is a small thing. I know it is a small thing. But when one great nation comes along to another, looks over the fence as it were and asks some small courtesy, some small concession that costs very little, it seems to me there is an opportunity we cannot afford to
overlook. But it is going to be overlooked. I think that the minister, for whose common sense and human feeling I have conceived the very highest regard, has overlooked some of the simplest impulses of our nature. I do not think the minister has ever kept chickens, for instance, on a thirty foot Lot.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: There is sometimes a display
of a very inferior type of humour in this house, and I rather thought this remark would elicit it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Who started it?


Thomas William Bird: At any rate it is plain to
see that the minister was never in that situation, because he would have found out that a principle of human justice, dating back to the time when Justinian himself kept chickens, is that a man who keeps chickens must fence against them; it is not the man on the other side of the lot who must do the fencing. The man who keeps the chickens must do the fencing, and God forbid that the minister should ever keep chickens; for what is going to happen to his neighbours? Every morning the minister is going to go down when he takes the milk in and open his garden gate and shoo his chickens into his neighbour's yard; so to speak, he is going to give them clearance into his neighbour's garden. In other words, he is going to disregard a principle of justice recognized by all civilized peoples in the memory of man.
I appeal to the minister to lend an ear to such simple dictates as begot the golden rule, to such simple impulses that make for neighbourliness everywhere. The principles by which we live harmoniously together in little communities are ultimately the principles by which nations live harmoniously side by side.
I want to suggest another principle before I conclude. I think the dictates of reverence for law and order ought to have guided the minister. But the puppet in the street says it is not our business to help the Yankees to maintain law. and order. "I am not my brother's keeper" is a form of cynicism as old as 'human writing; the disavowal of any obligation for the life of our neighbour is not a new thing in the earth. But the most surprising fact is that it should find modified expression on the humane lips of the minister. It is not our business to interfere; it is not our business to help them to maintain law and order. I want to point out, however, that it is our business in a very real sense. It was Carlyle who told about a tragic occurrence in a Scottish city, when some poor people caught the typhus fever in the slums

Supply-National Revenue
of that city. The wealthy people in the west end said, "That is not our business; they must look after themselves." But the typhus germ, being a veiy democratic animal, did not stay in the slums; it strayed over into the other end of the city and the city was decimated. Now that is what is going to happen on our border if we disavow responsibility for helping the United States to maintain law and order. If we refuse to recognize that responsibility, do you think we are going to be able to stem the flood of lawlessness and disorder that will break through that invisible line? I do not think we can expect it.
We have heard a good deal this session about the tragedy of divorce, the breaking up of homes. You know that homes do not break up spontaneously; all kinds of moral influences contribute to that result. Do you think these influences can be stopped at the border? Do you think that by talking about divorce or social ethics in this house you are going to put up an insuperable barrier at the border? That cannot be done in that way, but it can be done by showing some sincere effort to maintain social conditions, not only here but on the other side of the line as well which will lend themselves to the establishment of our old-time institutions. No, we cannot be indifferent to what is going on across the line; sooner or later our homes will be exposed to the same influences.
In closing I want to remind hon. gentlemen that this house spoke two or three years ago, and as far as I can learn no one has spoken since except the "man in the street," who does not exist. The dictates of international good feeling implore my hon. friend to take a different course; respect for law and order on both sides of the line also pleads with him to yield this simple point, which will cost Canada practically nothing. He is asked simply to place his prohibition on the clearance of these vessels.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I do not 'want to prolong the debate or take up the time of the house unnecessarily, but I should like to add a word or two to this discussion. During the days of the Drury government in Ontario it was a popular pastime to picture the border along the Detroit river as a terrible place and the people who lived there as outlaws; it used to be suggested that it would not be safe for decent or respectable people to walk the streets after dark, and apparently some of our hon. friends in the southeast comer have caught the fever. I would like

to tell them that the distillers, the brewers and the exporters are doing an honest business and are living up to the law. Whenever churches, hospitals and other charitable institutions want help they do not forget to call upon these people for money, and they are usually very generous in responding.
With regard to the articles in the Toronto Star and in MacLean's magazine, I want to say that these articles are written in the most sensational manner possible. In order to illustrate the unfairness of the Toronto Star I might tell the committee that prior to the last election they sent to the border a couple of reporters who laid indiscriminate charges against four exporters in East Essex, four in West Essex and two breweries, but when the magistrate called the cases the next day these men were not to be found; they had gone over the river. After the election was over the cases proceeded, with the result that these men had not a tittle of evidence to support their charges, and they received a severe reprimand from the magistrate.
I am firmly of the opinion that it is not up to Canada to attempt to enforce the Volstead act of the United States, a law which they themselves make very little attempt to enforce. For instance, when the river was frozen over and the boats could not cross, all through the day there was a long stream of automobiles and sleighs carrying goods across the river below Ojibway from the Canadian side to Detroit, and hundreds of people watched them unload and reload their cargoes in broad daylight.
Hon. gentlemen spoke about these thugs and bootleggers and implied that they were Canadians, but that is not the fact. Last fall they had an investigation on the American side and discharged about one hundred or more preventive officers, many of whom were found to be criminals themselves; some-of them were house-breakers,, thieves and hijackers. I was very much amused at the reference by the hon. member for Kinders-ley as to the number of automobiles that had been seized. [DOT] They may seize an occasional automobile in Detroit, which is sent to the police department to be sold; a friend of the bootlegger usually buys back the car for $5 or $10, and that is all there is to it. A number of boats were seized and taken to>
anchorage, and when the time came to sell them it was discovered that they had all disappeared.
I claim that if the United States officials were in earnest they could stop the bootlegging across the Detroit river, but they are not in.

Supply-National Revenue
earnest. I also think the United States owes Canada a debt of gratitude for allowing their bootleggers to import this liquor; if they were not able to get a supply of good liquor and beer their people would be drinking squirrel whiskey and all that sort of stuff, which sends them to the hospital and blinds them, as had happened in a hundred cases, especially a few years ago. I do not know that I have anything further to say except to add that I am heartily in accord with the statement made by the minister a few days ago.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Like the hon. member for West Essex I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I do wish to say that I agree with very much of the statement the minister made in the house a few days ago, and my chief reason for taking this attitude is that I believe the minister and his department have more than they can handle in enforcing the Canadian laws with regard to liquor.
I did not rise to hand out any compliments; I am going to criticize the department, because I believe their decision of a few months ago to close a number of preventive stations and outports in the maritime provinces will make a paradise out of what was formerly a garden of eden for the smugglers. I need scarcely say that when vessels were obliged to enter and clear at the different ports, the department had a close check upon them; they were able to follow the course of these vessels from day to day and from week to week, and they knew pretty well what was going on. The present plan is that all coastwise vessels may enter and leave these ports freely, without the necessity of either entering or clearing. What will be the result? Look at the advantage it will be to the smugglers if they are not obliged to report anywhere during the whole season, if they do not choose to do so; they can go into and out of practically all the different rivers and harbours of Prince Edward Island; they can go out to the gulf and meet the mother ship loaded with liquor and return to any of these harbours openly and freely. So I say the department has done more to assist the smuggler than can be overcome by any means at its disposal.
I have a further complaint to make with regard to the closing of these offices; I refer to the inconvenience this action will cause a great many people in many sections of the country. I believe the minister has received a petition signed by a large number of the residents of one of the ports where the office was closed, and as it is short and concise I will read it in order to show in some measure
the inconvenience these people will suffer as a result of this action. This petition is addressed to the hon. minister, and reads as follows:
The undersigned residents of Cardigan and vicinity, in the county of Kings, Prince Edward Island, having learned that your department proposes to close the customs office in the village of Cardigan, take the liberty of making the following representations in connection therewith.
(1)	This office has been an established institution since the province joined confederation, and is a very great convenience to the people of a large and prosperous section of country.
(2)	The village of Cardigan is the customs and railway centre shipping port for a number of large and populous settlements, some of which are twelve to fifteen miles from the railway, and all of which will be seriously inconvenienced by the closing of this office.
(3)	The entering and clearing of vessels is a matter of much importance, and while this does not bring in revenue, and we realize that the office may not be profitable from that standpoint, we beg to submit that the service given to the public generally is so great as to more than justify its maintenance in view of the very small salary and expense connected with it.
(4)	In stressing the urgency of this matter we wish to represent that the question of revenue should not be the department's only guide in such cases. Accommodation to the public is being given in most branches of government service without regard to financial returns, and we believe this is a case in which the needs of a large section of country should be considered rather than the small economy which can be effected by closing the office.
Therefore we earnestly pray that your department should give further consideration to this case, and trust you may see your way clear to meet our views, and the needs of this district, by maintaining the customs office at Cardigan.
The same arguments could be applied to several other districts where the offices have been closed, notably at Murray Harbour, Murray River, and St. Peter's Bay, and to a lesser extent at Annandale. During the summer time there is a considerable traffic from the United States to Prince Edward Island. Many of our people who have gone to that country to work return for a visit to their friends, and of course the custom is to check their baggage through from Boston or New York, or whatever point they depart from. Take the case of Cardigan. A man writes to his friends at that point advising them that he expects to arrive 'by a certain train, and he checks his baggage through. Perhaps his friends have to drive twelve or fifteen miles to meet him, and then it is discovered that they cannot get his baggage. What axe they going to do about that? They will have to go back home and make another trip to some other place where there is a customs house in order to have the baggage examined. Considerable hardship will be caused through

Supply-National Revenue
closing this office, when it could be averted by continuing to pay the small salary which was paid to the official at that point. The reason given is that the customs returns have been so small, but if the same principle were applied to other branches of the government service many offices would have to be closed. It would be found necesasry to close most of the post offices if they were considered on a revenue basis.
There is another port which I would like to mention, the port of Georgetown. This is the winter port of Prince Edward Island, and is the port of call for many vessels. I have made representations both -to the minister and to the commissioner of customs regarding this matter. I made them as strong as I could, and I wish to repeat them here. The only expense at that port is the salary of the official, because there is a government building which houses both the customs and the post office. That building has to be maintained, heated and lighted for the post office, regardless of whether or not the customs house is maintained. This customs office was established long before confederation. Last year fifty-three foreign vessels entered and cleared; there were two hundred and fifty-three coastwise entrances and clearances, or over three hundred in all. Some of these are large foreign steamers which carry away our potatoes in the fall for delivery to the southern states. I have received information that the postmaster is to be authorized to enter and clear the foreign vessels, while the coastwise vessels are to be allowed -to trade back and forth without being subject to 'entrance and clearance. Even though it has been thought desirable to close this office, the department has a man down there who is costing the department possibly over $2,000 per year, while the man they dismissed was only receiving $660 per year. Hiow long this expensive officer will be kept there is a problem, because at the present time there is no postmaster and there may not be one appointed for many months. Surely if it is necessary to maintain a man there it would be far better to retain the man receiving a salary of $660 per year than to continue to employ one who is costing over $2,000 per year.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. member referring to the postmaster?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I refer to the officer of the department who is at present at that port. The man who was dismissed had been at that port for the last eighteen

years, and although it was thought necessary to close the port they sent an official from Charlottetown to take charge of the office and keep it open.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. member referring to the present time?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Yes.


William Daum Euler: What officer is the hon. member referring to?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The officer's salary is $1,500 per year and he is receiving his expenses, which I estimate would run to at least $500 per year. A considerable amount of money was spent on repairing the bonded warehouse at this point, even though the office has been abolished. I think this matter should be reconsidered by the department and a decision arrived at to keep this office open, in the interest both of the province and of the shipping traffic to and from that port.
What are we going to do when a vessel which must have qualified officers who must be under articles arrives at the port of Georgetown or one of the other ports I have mentioned where the offices have been abolished? How can we put the crews upon articles and start the ship out? How are we going to pay our sick mariners' dues? What will happen to a vessel which has no clearance papers when it is forced by stress of weather to seek shelter in a foreign port? Under the marine laws a vessel without clearance papers is liable to arrest. These things, taken in connection with the statements which I have previously made regarding the advantages accruing to the smugglers, should, I think, convince the minister that this matter should be reconsidered and the offices which have been closed reopened.


William Daum Euler: I did not reply sooner co
the speeches made by some of my hon. friends, chiefly in the far corner, because I had spoken briefly this afternoon to what seemed to me to be the only points of importance that were brought up. I might add to and enlarge upon what I said some two weeks ago when the question was previously discussed in order to strengthen the arguments I made at that time, and which do not seem to have force with some of my hon. friends on the other side. I shall refrain, however, from doing that. It is not my intention to reply particularly to anything that has been said to-day, because with all respect to my hon. friends I do not think they have refuted anything I said ten days or two weeks ago. There may be one or t/wo exceptions. Apparently, there are differences of opinion be-

Supply-National Revenue
tween a certain United States congressman and myself, but I must adhere absolutely to what I said on the occasion to which I refer.
Something was said with regard to vessels crossing from Detroit to Windsor, and the matter of clearances. I must maintain that boats that leave the United States shore without cargoes, as those boats do leave, do not obtain clearances. They leave Detroit, we will say, with no cargo, because they expect to get their cargo on the Canadian side, and they do not obtain clearances.
With regard to marks of identification, these boats may be marked with a number similar to that carried by an automobile; but surely if a man is bent, as he is in United States waters, on an illegal errand, he is not going to continue to carry that identification mark, and it is very easy for him, before he reaches the Canadian side, to remove the little name or license number that his vessel bore when he left the city of Detroit. I put it to the common sense of the committee whether a Canadian customs officer, in giving clearance to the United States vessel, can do anything to find out whether the name of the master of that vessel or the name of the boat itself is real or fictitious. He cannot do it. As I said this afternoon-and I say it with no intention of giving offence-if it were felt by the United States authorities that we were not giving the proper information, surely they would have accepted the invitation extended to them by this government only two months ago to place on our docks their own officials who could themselves give the necessary information to United States authorities at Detroit or any other point on the United States side of the border. As I said at the outset, 1 do not propose to enlarge on the matter. I stated some days ago my position and that of the government. What I have heard to-night has not led me to feel that any change should be made in the statement I made then; nor have I any reason to believe, after listening to the debate, that the opinion of the great majority of the members of the house is opposed to what I then said.
With regard to the statement of the hon. member for Kings as to the closing of ports, I may say that in the last year or so some 230 of them have been closed, and this has been one of the most disagreeable experiences I have had since I have been in the office. It is not an easy matter to close a port. In practically every instance strong objection is raised to the closing of a port, no matter how small it may be; there is an element of local pride involved, also the matter of con-78594-218
venience, and of course somebody will ibe inconvenienced when a port is closed. We have endeavoured to reduce that to a minimum. I might state to the committee the course upon which we proceeded. Perhaps a year and a half ago, when we had time to get down to this particular phase of the work, we called in the inspectors of the various districts and they got together with the commissioners and officials of the department at Ottawa. They sat down at a table with a map showing the various ports and they discussed very freely what ports might be closed without injury to public business. A large selection was made and as yet they have not all been dealt with. As I say, we have closed some 230 ports. The matter of revenue has not been in all cases the deciding factor, although it has been in some. The matter of entries and the matter of convenience are involved. We have been more disposed to leave open the ports on the border than those smaller ports inland. But the matter of revenue is important. For instance, take the case of Cardigan, one of the points mentioned by my hon. friend from Prince Ediward Island. The import duties amounted to $324.54 and the salary paid, $300. We are not trying to single out any particular province. In Nova Scotia there were more than 100 ports and out-ports where the revenues were smaller than the expense of maintaining the ports. The amount of expenditure and revenue is not necessarily the deciding factor, but it should have a very important bearing on the matter. The closing of the ports was one of the things recommended both by the parliamentary committee of inquiry and by the royal commission inquiring into the customs.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I should like to get this question clearly-


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend will have his opportunity later. It is also recommended by the auditors, Clarkson, Gordon and Dil-worth. I may say frankly 'that it was done because I thought it was the right thing to do. That is why we are doing it and continuing to do it.
As regards the entries and clearances of vessels and a good many of the revenues in connection with imported commodities, in the smaller places we have tried as far as possible to meet the conveniences of all concerned. For instance, all postal parcels may be entered at the post office by the postmaster himself. Foreign vessels may be cleared by the postmaster. In that way we have tried to reduce the inconvenience to a minimum. I fully appreciate, as my hon.

344C
Supply-National Revenue

friend says, there will be considerable inconvenience, but I may inform him also that ports have been closed of a great deal more importance than the ones to which he has referred, ports with revenues a great deal higher. I do not see how this is going to be avoided; the house approved some years ago the principle of closing some of these ports, and it simply cannot be done without offending some of our people.


Robert James Manion: In that regard, may I ask the minister about Cardinal and Iroquois? I brought the matter up before. A friend of mine spoke to me about it. Cardinal was closed; Iroquois was not, yet Cardinal was doing the greater amount of business. Is Iroquois still open?


William Daum Euler: Yes. The matter is still
under consideration. I rather expect to receive some criticism because a certain port may have been closed while another port is still open, although that other port may have a smaller revenue than the one that has been closed. I shall have to admit that there may be instances of that kind. My only answer is that we have not yet completed the work. We hope to settle those matters after a time.


Robert James Manion: I had it pointed out to
me, and I am sure the minister has had it pointed out to him, that a large amount of money, some tens of thousands of dollars, is being taken in by the national railways at Cardinal. It is very important from a revenue standpoint. I should like the minister, in view of the facts which I and others have laid before him, to give the matter further consideration. It is rather unfair to have closed this port, particularly in view of smaller places having been left open.


William Daum Euler: I am informed that, as
regards Cardinal, the matter has all been settled quite satisfactorily. In many of these places, while the total of the revenue may be quite large, the number of entries may be quite small. The work of the collector is very much less on that account.


Robert James Manion: In what way has it been
satisfactorily settled?


William Daum Euler: 
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: When I
spoke before I overlooked mentioning that the port of Georgetown was considered of sufficient importance by the legislative assembly of Prince Edward Island for them to take the matter up in session last spring, when they heard that the port was to be closed, and I have in my hand a resolution that was passed unanimously by the house, and signed by the Speaker, protesting against the closing of this port. I have also a resolution to the same effect from the town council of Georgetown. I should like to know what is going to be done about vessels in connection with the points I have brought up-a vessel gets blown off her course and has to go to a foreign port without a clearance; also with regard to a vessel that wishes to pay the sick mariners' fund.


Mr. YENIOT:: They can arrange that
through the post office.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: How would
you get articles for the crew in connection with a vessel over 100 tons?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is dealing
with a technical point that I do not understand, but I will take a note of what he says.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I happen to know these matters because it is a part of my business. There might be very serious inconvenience in that connection.


William Daum Euler: In any event it is a matter
not for the customs department, but for the Marine department.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The collector of customs always handled that. It is the only way that I know of.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: As an old collector of customs may I say in connection with the signing of an articled crew that there is a fee charged, and it can easily be arranged for the chief collector to go to the outport or sub-port and sign on the crew. The commission he would get would be sufficient to pay the expenses.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is what I am trying to get at. I want to know what arrangement is being made, because something will be necessary. I think we are also entitled to know why the man at Georgetown was dismissed and a man drawing three times as

Supply-National Revenue
much sent to take his place for the time being, and how long that condition will continue. I stress the point for the reason that the collector of customs had been there eighteen years, and being a man with a family and receiving only $660 a year, he has not been able to save any money. It was a full-time job and he was not able to take on any other work. Now he is let out without notice. Surely it is unfair to let him out in that way. If anybody has to be kept on it should be the man who has been there for years.


William Daum Euler: I am sure there must be an error. It may be the man to whom my hon. friend refers as receiving $2,000 or $3,000 is a preventive service man.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: No.


William Daum Euler: The incumbent of the office
received a salary of $660 a year. He was superannuated, and the office, according to my records, was closed on May 1 of this year. I cannot understand how there can be a man there now drawing the salary that my hon. friend mentions. I should like to ask where he gets his information that a man has been sent there drawing a salary of $2,000 or more a year to replace another man who was drawing $660 a year. Perhaps his information is personal, but if he can prove it I think we are very seriously in error. There must be a mistake somewhere.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is why I brought the matter up. I consider it is entirely wrong. I was there only two weeks ago, and I know the man is there.


William Daum Euler: What is his name?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Nicholas
Murphy, from the Charlottetown office; and I see from the report of the department that his salary is $125 a month. He is boarding at the hotel, and certainly that would be not less than $500 a year. The reason he was there was that there was no postmaster.


Peter John Veniot: The post office is not
closed.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: No, a girl is running the post office temporarily because no postmaster has been appointed. The position became vacant a month or so ago, and no appointment has yet been made. This man was sent down there to keep the customs office open. In fairness to the man who was eighteen years in charge of this office, I say that if some person had to be there to carry on those duties, he should have been retained, at a lower cost to the department, and to his personal advantage.
78594-218J


William Daum Euler: I can only say what I said
before, that it comes as a surprise to me to hear that there is a man there drawing $150 a month, replacing the man who had been drawing a salary of $660 a year, and was superannuated in t'he ordinary course. I think my hon. friend must be in error. There is a mistake somewhere. We all make mistakes and perhaps the mistake is here, but none of the officials know of any such man having been appointed. I promise my hon. friend that I will make an investigation.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That was the condition only two weeks ago.


Mr. SHORT:: I also am interested in the closing of these ports because in my constituency ten or twelve of them have been closed, and practically every one of them is on the coast line. That leaves practically the whole coast line free for smuggling, because there is no one there to prevent it. The postmasters are not interested in this matter. They may be interested in the entering and clearing of vessels, but not in knowing what cargoes those vessels land.


William Daum Euler: There are preventive service men along the coast.


Harry Bernard Short: Not a preventive service
man. You closed the office at Tiverton, on Long island, a point which a preventive service officer has never visited more than once in six or eight months, and there are vessels plying between the United States and that port right through the whole season. It is not on the mainland. There has been an office there since confederation. I have been informed that the office at Bear River is also to be closed. The reason given by the department is that the revenue was only $2,000 a year. I do not know whether that office has yet been closed, but my information from the minister personally and in a letter from his secretary was that it was the intention to close it. That port has had a customs office ever since confederation, and it would be a great inconvenience to have it closed. I can quite understand the department closing a lot of little offices in the interior, but to close the ones along the seacoast such as those I have in my constituency is a great mistake. It is a great inconvenience to the public. It may be that many of these small offices do not pay a sufficient revenue to keep them up, but it is not only for revenue purposes that you have offices along the coast; it is to prevent smuggling and for the convenience of the public. Take a point like Tiverton. Perhaps that is not an office producing revenue sufficient to defray the expenses, but there is
Supply-National Revenue

a great deal of shipping in and out of there, vessels plying between Canada and the United *States. The postmaster who has the authority: to enter and clear those vessels is not interested in whether they are smuggling or not; all he is interested in is the fifty or seventy-five cents that he gets for entering :and clearing each vessel. You are leaving the whole coast wide open for smugglers. That is a great mistake.
I understand the minister stated to-night that the postmasters in these places will collect the duty on parcels. Now, that is not the case. As I understand it, under the new regulations these parcels will come to the main point-in my constituency the Digby customs office-where they will be opened by the collector, and he will assess the duty. He *makes the entry, not the postmaster in the place to which the parcel is addressed. Then the collector sends the parcel to the postmaster to collect the duty. You are putting the work of several offices on to the main office. You are not going to save anything, because you will have to give the main office more help in order to take care of this parcel business, which is very large in many of the country places. You have also to give a. commission to the postmaster on the duties collected. You are saving very little by this change, and you are inconveniencing the public very much indeed. I think the minister should have considered these things before he took this step. He should have looked into the situation more thoroughly and found out just what the public inconvenience was going to be. Let.me ask him: how many of these '* offices have been closed in the constituency next to mine, Shelburne-Yarmouth?


William Daum Euler: I cannot tell my hon. friend. I have not the information in that form.


Harry Bernard Short: You should have the information. You must have expected that this matter was going to be brought up.


William Daum Euler: I certainly did, but I did
pot expect members would ask me how many offices were closed in their respective constituencies.
I Mr. SHORT:	There is a good deal of
partiality shown in this thing.


William Daum Euler: I question it.


Harry Bernard Short: I do not question it.
: Mr. VENIOT: I know in my county alone they have closed five.
,, Mr. SHORT: That i3 all right. How many are closed in the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth?


William Daum Euler: At least five are closed there.


Harry Bernard Short: There were twelve closed
in Digby-Annapolis. I think we have more coast line in Digby-Annapolis than they have in Shelburne-Yarmouth; in fact I feel confident that is so. I think there is partiality shown in the closing of these offices. You say there is no politics in this at all. Well, has the Bear River office been closed?


William Daum Euler: No.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister changed his
mind in that case, then.


William Daum Euler: It is not closed yet.


Harry Bernard Short: He changed his mind.


William Daum Euler: Not necessarily.


Harry Bernard Short: He told me personally that
he was going to close it. His secretary wrote me it was to be closed, and that the collector would be sent to the office at Halifax. Why was it not closed?


William Daum Euler: I told my hon. friend it is
under consideration.


Harry Bernard Short: But the minister had already made up his mind, because I have in my office a letter from his secretary in which he states the office was to be closed and the collector sent to Halifax.


William Daum Euler: That may be quite true.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister tell me
why he did not close it?


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend wants me to say so, I cannot tell; I do not know as yet. I do not recollect everything that is done in this department. I will get the information for him if he wants it.


Harry Bernard Short: But the minister must have
those records. He certainly must have expected that these questions would be asked, because he has closed these offices all over the country. He should have come here prepared to answer these questions.


William Daum Euler: If I came here prepared to
answer every question asked by hon. members I would fill every desk in the chamber with papem.


Harry Bernard Short: His deputy must have the
records. I am very glad indeed that he has changed your mind in connection with the closing of Bear River. But he certainly had made up his mind to close it, and had given instructions to close it. Undoubtedly political pressure was brought to bear on him, and that is the reason it has not been closed.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I am quite sure it would be no use to deny that; my hon. friend would not believe me anyway.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I think, Mr. Chairman, we are all in the same position wth regard to the closing of ports. This action is certainly unpopular in the different districts throughout the Dominion and especially down in the maritimes where those ports have been used by the peoiple for a great number of years. I do not think any partiality has been shown. If there has been any we have not discovered it, because in, the county which I represent all the ports have been closed with the exception of two. There were two ports there that we were very anxious to have kept open, Tignish and Alberton, in the extreme western part of the province, fifty or sixty miles from the town of Summerside, which is the headquarters. We felt that although those offices were not remunerative to the department, still they were of benefit to the people and their continuance would be greatly appreciated. We took the matter up with the minister and did our best, but the policy which he is following throughout the whole Dominion has, I suppose, to prevail. With what my hon. friend has said regarding the port of Georgetown I quite agree. It is the winter port of the province, and I know the provincial government took a very strong stand that it should be left open. If, however, arrangements have been made through the Post Office department whereby vessels can be cleared so that no inconvenience will result to the people, it may be all right; but otherwise we would like to see the ports left open. We have received very strong protests against the closing; we have sent those to the minister, and all I can say is, we are sorry we ware not able to prevail on him to leave the ports open.


William Daum Euler: There is one thing I should like to mention that I overlooked. The chief purpose in the closing of the ports was to follow out the recommendations of the parliamentary committee and the royal commission as they commended themselves to myself and the department. With regard to this one thing in particular, the complaint was that the department was losing large revenues because of undervaluation. True, is was not only smuggling, it was undervaluation, which has not entirely been gotten rid of. You can only get proper valuations by getting proper appraisals; you can only get proper appraisals through good appraisers; and you cannot get good appraisers in a very small port. That was one of the compelling reasons for the closing of those ports. I
should like to ask those who are objecting so strenuously to the closing of these small offices, what principle they would advise the minister to follow in closing them. If they are going: to base their objection entirely on the score, of local inconvenience, then no ports at all would be closed.


Harry Bernard Short: What is the necessity for
closing them? They have been there for
twenty years.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid that nothing I
might say would appeal to the hon. member. In the town of Tiverton the salary was $360 per annum while the import duties amounted to only $234.10. He speaks of the large number of vessels arriving and departing, Only twelve foreign-going vessels arrived in' the course of the year,	y>-r-


Harry Bernard Short: But those twelve might
bring in thousands of dollars.


William Daum Euler: The entries were only forty-three, not one a week. This, it goes without saying, is a reason for closing the port.


Thomas Cantley: That is not a conclusive argument. We are keeping post offices open at various places, the revenue of which is, comparatively speaking, very small; but they are a convenience to the public.


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend give
me the benefit of his advice as to what principle should be adopted in the closing of ports?


Thomas Cantley: I would not close an office that had been open for sixty years until I had good evidence that by so doing the public service would be enhanced. Will the minister tell me how many offices were closed in the county of Pictou, and the names?


Mr. POWER:: May I point out to the
hon. member that the difference between a post office official and a customs officer is that one is a convenience and the other a nuisance.


Thomas Cantley: That is your point of view.


William Daum Euler: I cannot give that information; it is not given by counties.


Thomas Cantley: Have you closed the custom house at Pugwash?


William Daum Euler: Since there seems to be a charge of favoritism I might point out that in Prince Edward Island there were twenty-three ports and the number has been reduced to four. In view of the political complexion of that province I do not think anyone will contend that there is favoritism there.
Supply-National Revenue


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I did not charge favoritism in Prince Edward Island.


William Daum Euler: I was not thinking of my hon. friend in that connection. Pugwash is closed.


Thomas Cantley: I regret that. Pugwash has been open since long before confederation-seven/ty-five years and more. In that port we have some foreign shipping and the closing of that office will be a distinct inconvenience to the people there; it is, I think, a very great mistake from every point of view. I appreciate the fact that the minister is guided by the very best intentions, but in this matter he has gone too far. A few years' experience will demonstrate that >to him. I am not suggesting political favouritism. I do not think there was any political interference at all; I am not making that charge so far as Pugwash is concerned. But I do say that it was a mistake to close the port and I should like the minister to reconsider his decision with respect to this particular port. I might advance various reasons but I will not do so now, because I have faith in the good intentions of the minister and I think that after consideration he will reverse his decision.


William Daum Euler: I will not say that I will
not give every consideration to the matter in any event, but I can give the hon. member this information. The salary paid was $560 per annum and the collections amounted to $162.89. The entries were seventy-four, a little more than one a week. The export entries were eleven; foreign going vessels arriving numbered four in the whole year and foreign vessels departing, eleven; coasting vessels arriving during the year numbered twenty-four and departing, seventeen. The postmaster is authorized to make collections on postal parcels and to enter and clear foreign going vessels. I have given the import duties, which amount to $162, and I have given the salary paid, $560; on the face of it there is a fairly good argument for closing the port.


Thomas Cantley: I am not arguing from
the revenue. Where a certain number of foreign going vessels enter and clear they have to change crews; how will they do it now?


William Daum Euler: 1 am not familiar with the
situation.


Thomas Cantley: They must go to Pietou to do it. They have to engage new crews and pay off the old crews, and to do that they are obliged to go to Pietou, whereas formerly they did it in Pugwash.


Peter John Veniot: The Pietou collector can
go to Pugwash.


Thomas Cantley: That is not the point.
The point is that we have had facilities for over seventy-five years and you have taken them away and we are not satisfied and will not be satisfied under these conditions.


Peter John Veniot: The same in my county.


Harry Bernard Short: That does not help the
matter.


Peter John Veniot: I was reasonable enough to accept it because I saw the necessity, if we are to follow the report of the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise, as some hon. gentlemen opposite suggest we should. But when we do so they blame us.


Harry Bernard Short: You have never heard anyone say you must follow it altogether.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; I have heard you say so.


Harry Bernard Short: You have never heard us
say you must follow it in toto.


Peter John Veniot: I have heard hon. gentlemen blame us for not following the recommendations of the customs commission.


Harry Bernard Short: Not in everything; that is
a lame excuse. I say that the closing of these ports which have been in existence for years and years is creating a good deal of hardship in many cases in Nova Scotia. I have oited the case of Bear River; that was a point where the collections were over $2,000 a year, and1 instructions have been given to close it. How can the minister justify that?


William Daum Euler: Ports have been closed with a much higher revenue than $2,000.


Peter John Veniot: For example, Port Elgin, in New Brunswick, with $9,000.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister the other
day made a statement which is reported in Hansard to this effect-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

John Livingstone Brown: By leave of the house, I beg to submit the fifteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Yukon Mail Contract
Saturday, June 8, 1929