[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, can the government give us any information as to the situation in Nova Scotia?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: What situation does my hon. friend refer to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I a,m particularly interested of course in the situation with regard to the miners.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has no further information on the matter.



PEI GAN INDIAN BAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I presented to this House a petition from the Peigan Indian band, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) assured me that if I allowed the matter to stand he would give me an opportunity to discuss it under the Indian estimates which he would bring forward sometime in the afternoon. I understood from him that these estimates would be dealt with yesterday, but as they were not, may I ask if the government will bring these particular estimates forward at a convenient hour to-day


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a little difficult to arrange to-day's programme, but I can assure my hon. friend that the Indian estimates will be brought along to-day. I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has in mind the wishes of my hon. friend, because he intimated to me yesterday that he expected to go on with the estimates this afternoon. I cannot say definitely at what stage of the day's proceedings they will be reached.



THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question which I am sure will be of great interest to every citizen, and no doubt of some interest to the members of this House. Will' the Prime Minister state when the next general election will take place; will it be before the next session or afterwards?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that at the most, there will not be more than one session following this.



RAILWAY CONSOLIDATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the members of this House will be put in possession of a printed copy of the report made by the Senate committee in regard to the consolidation of the railway systems of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say whether the report is printed or not. The Senate arranges the printing of its own reports. I have no doubt, however, that the Senate will be desirous of having the report printed, and I should think copies will be available.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with relation to that point, I observe that the Senate committee which is supposed to be making this report-the origin of which would be very interesting-met in secret. I would suggest that the government see to it that if there is any report the evidence in support of it-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the right hon. gentleman that rule 19 precludes any reference to the Senate.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think rule 19 forbids reference to the Senate, but to what takes place there. I am not referring to anything that has taken place in the chamber. If a report is to be published, I would think that the evidence in support of it should be published too. I hope my words will reach the Senate.


William Findlay Maclean: We are told that the Senate committee met in camera.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day some few days ago I called attention to the fact that sessional paper 258, being an alleged return to an order of the House for a statement of the expenses of the special committee on Ocean Rates, with details, gave repeated answers, " No information ", on a subject with respect to which the government has the fullest information-in fact, the government makes the payments itself. I spoke again yesterday on it and stated I would certainly expect the return to be completed to-day, if this is to be the last day of the session. Also I would ask the government
Canada Grain Act

now, while this matter is being referred to, if it will undertake to have answered, before the session closes, the question which stands in my name now as No. 2 on the order paper. I have drawn attention to this on two occasions also.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the return, I am informed that up to the present time the government has not received from the counsel his bill of costs, which, as my hon. friend knows, is taxed by the Justice department. There is nothing in the department; therefore we are not in a position to answer the question.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see that the counsel can relieve the government by withholding his bill. The committee completed its work long ago. We know what he was being paid per day. The government can get the number of days and simply state, in answer to the first part of the question, that Mr. Symington was occupied so many days at that much, plus expenses; and the other part of the question can be fully answered. With that I will be satisfied.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Only a little multiplication is required, which my right hon. friend can do for himself.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite ready to do that if the rest is answered. If the government will give the amount per day, I can do the multiplying myself. May I not get an answer as to whether or not this question is going to be answered this session? Five minutes' calculation will put that answer in shape, and I have a right to the answer on the authority of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: Which rule compels the government to answer all questions asked by my right hon. friend or anybody else when they have the information and can do the work themselves?


Arthur Meighen: If the government will say it will not answer that question, all very well; let the government say so-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: -and not hide behind mere delay by way of evasion.


Ernest Lapointe: That is childish. We have other work to do just now.



GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OP MOTOR CARS

Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: On March 9 an order of the House was passed for a return in respect to motor cars pur-

chased by the government. The order was enlarged later on, and a return was placed on the table a couple of days ago giving information with respect only to the Department of National Defence. That surely does not comply with the order of the House. I would ask the Prime Minister if I may expect the balance of the return before the close of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Information had to come from several of the departments to make up the return. I will inquire of the Secretary of State and see if my hon. friend's wish cannot be met.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Maybe the confusion has arisen over the fact that until a couple of years ago all the cars were under the Department of National Defence and were looked after by them.



CADET TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSW'ORTH (Centre Winnipeg) : The Minister of National Defence promised me some information as called for by an order of the House of June 4. I should like, if possible, to get that information before the close of the session.
George Perry Graham: He is not particularly active this morning.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 113, respecting Grain.
Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to enter a protest against the concurrence of this House particularly in one of the amendments made by the Senate to the bill as it was approved of in this chamber. I refer to the amendment made to section 140.
It is not necessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the fact that throughout western Canada, where the great bulk of our wheat is produced, the opinion is prevalent that the process of mixing, which is a process adopted by those who market the grain, and not by the producers, is detrimental to the best interests of the producer in that his grain thus mixed reaches the final market in a condition not as pure, and with a grade not as high, as that which it has when it leaves the farm. When the bill was before this House I moved an amendment to section 140 which required that grain coming out of the mixing elevators

Elections Act
should be judged on a standard equal to that in Winnipeg, not on the lowest of the standards that is passed in Winnipeg, but on the average of that standard. That amendment was approved by this House, but the upper body, in its wisdom, has seein fit to reject that amendment that this House approved of, and to insert in its place a section which does not require that the grain coming out of the mixing elevator shall be of a grade equal to the average grade of the grain passing inspection at Winnipeg.
It is my opinion, Sir, that if the grain as it comes from the mixing elevator were required to be of a standard equal to the average of the standard on which the farmer's grain is inspected, at least the greater part of the objection to mixing would be done away with. I am informed by those who are well acquainted with this process of mixing that to require the mixing elevators to reach such a standard would practically do away with their business; the profit would be gone, and consequently mixing to a great extent would be stopped. If that would be the result, then, Sir, I would be willing to take the result of my amendment and I submit to this House that the producers of Canada would be behind us in that stand. If the profit is secured by bringing the grade lower than the average of the grade the farmer secures, the mixing elevators are taking an undue profit out of us and damaging our product before it reaches the final market.
It is said that my amendment is impracticable, that it could mot be worked. Well, Sir, if that is true I submit this, that it is a good way to prohibit something that should not be carried on. It is a fact that there are every year a number of bushels of low grade grain produced, and a very considerable quantity in some years. I am of the opinion that the privilege to mix this grain is a special privilege granted to companies operating elevators with a license to engage in this process, as a system by which this low grade grain is 'absorbed into the market with perhaps greater facility; but if iin absorbing the lower grades of grain we are to seriously deteriorate the higher grades of our grain and lower its value in the ultimate market-the Liverpool market-I submit we are doing something that is wholly contrary to the best interests of the producers. All that the amendment that was made in this House called for was that the product from the mixing elevator should be equal to the average of the grade which the farmer secures for his product from the farm. We are granting not only a special privilege in mixing, but if
we approve, as the government mow moves to approve, of the amendment made by the upper chamber, we are also granting a special privilege to the mixing elevator enabling them to ship out a product which is lower in grade than the average which the producer himself receives.
In making this protest, Mr. Speaker, I speak for at least the majority of those sitting around me, and I believe a very considerable majority, and we want our protest om record because we represent in this House first of all the producers of this country.
Motion agreed to on division; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 25th consideration in committee of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act-Mr. Copp -Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 5-Use of provincial voters' list.
Mr. EULER:: I would like to make sure as to the meaning of the words "provincial lists" in this section. Under the law as it stands, all elections for the Dominion House -I am referring now to the province of Ontario-would be held under lists used in provincial elections unless they were more than two years old. For example, should an election be held this fall we could not use the provincial lists used in the last provincial election and some other provision would have to be made. I understand that a list would be prepared from another list which would be used with or without revision at a provincial election commenced at the same time as the election under this act. That is, under conditions such as would prevail if we had an election this fall, with no old provincial lists available because they are more than two years old, we would then, I understand, have to take as a basis a list which would be used by the provincial government for the purpose of making a new list. If that is the case then I assume we would have to fall back upon what I would term the municipal lists, that is, lists prepared by the municipal officers as a basis for making a new list. In line 2 of subsection (a) it says: "Every urban registrar shall transfer from such provincial lists," and so on. Ordinarily I think the layman would call that a municipal list, and what I am concerned about is whether when we speak here of "provincial list" it does refer to the list that is prepared by the municipal officers, so that it may be definitely understood that in case of an election this fall or before a pro-

Elections Act
vincial election is held, our election list in Ontario will have as its basis the lists prepared by the municipal officers.


Mr. COPP:: I put that question to the Chief Electoral Officer and he informs me that the term "provincial lists" refers to the lists made up according to the laws of the province for use in connection with the provincial elections. Provincial list does not necessarily mean a list made up by the province. It is made up by the municipalities and the list made up in that way would be the one used for provincial elections.


William Daum Euler: It is based on the municipal list?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes. I wish to move the following amendment:
That section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto as subsection 3 the following:
" If any question arises as to whether any list, or which of two or more lists, prepared under the laws of a province, should be used pursuant to such laws at a provincial election commenced at the same time as the election under this act, the Chief Electoral Officer may direct the use under this section of such list as should in his opinion be used, and such list shall be used accordingly."


William Daum Euler: If a list is found unsuitable will the Chief Electoral Officer have authority to change the whole basis, that is, make a change in the lists as used generally, or only in regard to the municipality in which the disability exists?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Just in relation to the municipality where the disability exists.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. COPP moved the third reading of the bill.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have on previous occasions, presented to the House as clearly and forcefully as I could the discrimination which subsection 1 of section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act imposes on organized labour. I have shown that owing to the nature of the trades union organization it is impractical for every trade union of every city to become incorporated for political purposes as is required by the act. In addition to the difficulty presented by the nature of the organization itself, I have shown that the constitu-* tion of the international trades union movement is an added barrier to the compliance of unions with clause 10 of the act. I introduced a bill early in the session to repeal the section in question. The government defeated that bill on the ground that to repeal the section would open the door to corruption, a view-

point which, if warranted by facts, is a damning indictment both of the wealthy people and of the common people of the country. The implications of this view are that certain wealthy people are both capable and desirous of corrupting the electorate, and also that the masses of the people are corruptible, and that both require the grandmotherly supervision of a statutory declaration. I use the term "statutory declaration" advisedly, for not only do I dissent from the view that our wealthy people who subscribe to election funds do so for the purpose of corruption, and that the average man is corruptible by such funds, but I hold the view that it would be, comparatively speaking, an easy matter for wealthy corporations to contribute through individuals for election funds notwithstanding the fact that such is prohibited by section 10 of the Act. Indeed I would not be surprised if in the next election a very great deal of the election funds for all parties should come from corporations- all parties, of course, with the exception of the Labour party. I have not much hope of the Labour party securing very heavy donations from the industrial controllers of this country or from the financial institutions. In any event, clause 10 of the Dominion Elections Act is only an impious statutory declaration. I believe it is violated by all concerned in every election, yet not a single prosecution has ever been instituted under its provisions. I submit to the House that to retain a section in an act which cannot be enforced-no; worse than that, which invites its own violation-is to bring law itself into disrepute. In fact, a law which people regard as one to be got around is more detrimental by far to parliamentary dignity than a shirtsleeves statesman to the presence of whom objection has been taken.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I, believing that every individual or group of individuals, rich or poor, should be free to contribute funds for political purposes, providing that such funds be expended in legitimate channels or within the provisions of the act in this regard, accordingly made an attempt to repeal this legislation. But the government prevented us. Then we tried to amend the offending section by moving an amendment which would exempt labour unions. Having been defeated in our attempt to exempt all classes from the prohibition of the clause referred to, we took a course which would exempt labour alone, not however in any sense desiring class advantage but because labour unions are put to a greater disadvantage in violating the provision than any other class. But in this too we were defeated in com-

Elections Act
mittee of the whole. I now make a last effort to remove from the Dominion Elections Act, the discrimination against labour unions. But before moving an amendment to the bill before the House I desire to call the attention of organized labour throughout the country to the fact that the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and those around him have expressed their willingness to repeal clause 10 or, failing that, to support the amendment which I moved in committee. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) and his followers have expressed themselves also in a fashion similar to that of the opposition. For some strange reason rot yet given to parliament the government and their supporters doggedly refuse to add one phrase to a single clause of a single act which would remove an injustice to which labour is subjected.
Why is this? Is it because the government desires to hamper the political activities of labour men? One would be justified under the circumstances in that conclusion. But this petty oppression, in addition to being far from harmonizing with the theoretical principles of Liberalism, will not drive labour from the political field, although it will be a very considerable inconvenience. Perhaps the reason for the government's opposition to this amendment is that it was moved 'by the labour representatives in this House. I am loath to attribute to the government of Canada an attitude of mind as cantankerous and unfair as that. However, the fate of the amendment which I am about to move is in the hands of the government. I make an earnest-appeal to the common sense, the fairness and the generosity of the administration to support it. But if the government persists in its bovine obstinacy it must be lacking in these qualities to which I have appealed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hoD. friend think that an expression like " bovine obstinacy " is calculated to induce the government to change its point of view?


William Irvine: I have merely described as best I can the attitude so far shown by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is always prepared to meet hon. gentlemen opposite but will absolutely refuse to consider anything brought forward in a spirit such as characterizes this amendment.


William Irvine: If an expression of that description, however objectionable it may be to the administration, is sufficient to stand between the government and the performance 317
of its duty, then I shall have to describe the government's attitude further and more accurately. I was not using the expression in any objectionable sense but if the government objects to it I shall be glad to withdraw it. The amendment I am about to move-


An hon. MEMBER:: Too late.


William Irvine: Yes, I presume it is too late. The second remark of the Prime Minister makes me despair of the administration paying the slightest attention to any appeal of labour; but I shall make that appeal nevertheless. There is no reason why a provision which is violated should not be removed, and the offending clause works more hardship on labour than on anybody else. If the government does not particularly want to stand in the way of labour, then I plead with hon. gentlemen opposite to remove the discrimination that now exists by adopting the amendment I move, seconded by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth):
That this bill be not read .the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend subsection (1) of section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act by inserting the words " or a labour union " after the word " alone " in the third line thereof.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: During the previous discussion of this matter I was unavoidably absent and I wish to take up the time of the House for a moment now to support the amendment. There is no doubt that organized labour throughout the country is placed under a serious and unfair handicap by the existing law. It is said that the present law was formulated many years ago by the Liberal party with a view to certain advantages which political organizations in Ontario would obtain. May I suggest that from our everyday contact with the public life of the country it is palpably unfair and unreasonable to handicap such a body of men and women as organized labour in Canada by a law which can bring little actual tangible good while in its operation it is capable of doing considerable actual tangible harm to these people. I was somewhat surprised at the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) received a certain remark made by the hon. member who has moved the amendment, and -I say this without the slightest intention of offending-I doubted the sincerity of the right hon. gentleman in his irritation over that remark. I do not think the Prime Minister will allow for one moment the words of any hon. member on any great measure affecting the masses of the people to interfere either with

Elections Act

the performance of his duty or with the carrying out of his good judgment in the interests of the country at large. I hope the government will reconsider the matter and that the present legislation, which has existed too long, be replaced by a far more sensible law in the interests of organized labour and of the people generally.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: I have
taken this matter up with some labour men in Kamloops, and I may say that a certain percentage of them are opposed to it. They say that all labour men do not believe in sending labour members down here, some of the labour people belong to the Conservative and some to the Liberal party, and these men ask, why should they supply money to any candidate if they do not want to support him? Why should they be obliged to support financially anyone who is not of their persuasion? If the hon. member (Mr. Irvine) would move that the vote in the labour unions would have to be carried by a two-thirds majority I would support the motion; but I certainly cannot support it as it stands, in view of the instructions I have got from those I represent.


Mr. ANGUS McDONALD (Timiskaming):: Will the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) give the name of one labour organization that he knows of in Canada that believes in what he says right now?


Thomas George McBride: I did not state that I had discussed the question with the labour organizations, but I said that there was a number of gentlemen whom I knew belonged to the organization with whom I talked the matter over, and these men supported me and sent me down here, and it is their wishes I want to support.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): I have had an opportunity of observing the hardship which is imposed upon labour unions by virtue of the provisions of the act which is now in force. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) on a former occasion sought to strike out the section, in order that it might operate to the equal advantage or disadvantage, as the case might be, of all classes of the community. In its judgment the House saw fit to reject that proposition. The hon. member for East Calgary now asks in his amendment that labour unions be exempted from the operation of this section. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the section as it now stands does operate to the especial disadvantage of labour. I think the House will be well advised to remove that discrimination against organized labour. There can be no question that the proposed amend-

ment is in acordance with the views of organized labour in Canada, as the Trades and Labour Congress have made their position clear in this matter. Therefore, I would make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in connection with the proposed legislation, to. alter the act in order that this discrimination may be removed. I know, and all members of the House know, that the Prime Minister is as deeply interested in the affairs of labour as any hon. member in this House, and I am sure, if he were convinced that labour was being discriminated against in this regard, that he, in common with the rest of us, would not hesitate for a single moment to act. I make this appeal to the gentleman who is responsible for the legislation, and to the Prime Minister, because I feel that in so doing we will be working to the best advantage of labour and giving it an opiportunity for the fullest expression of opinion at the polls, an opportunity which perhaps may be otherwise denied. I am not prepared to agree with the remarks of the hon. member for East Galgary, in so far as he seeks to impute any motives to. the government in connection with this matter. I do not want to be put in the position of imputing motives to anybody, and consequently in that spirit of fair play I ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to give labour the benefit of this proposed amendment, and I am sure the result will be to the great advantage of labour and likewise will enure to the great advantage of the community in general.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is not necessary for me
to add very much to what has been said in support of this amendment. We ask only for fair play for labour. I take it that the time has gone by when any hon. member of this House will deny to labour the right, if labour so chooses, to take political action through the formation of its own organizations. We are all familiar with the fact that all over the world to-day there are distinct labour parties. We are all familiar with the record of the labour party in Great Britain. I quite concede that Canada is not industrialized as Great Britain is, but a great many labour men in Canada have come from Great Britain, and they feel they ought to look to Great Britain for a lead along this line. It seems to me that the parliament of Canada would be well advised if they encouraged a movement of this character. Let me point out, as I did in committee, that when this matter was up recently in the British house, and an effort was made to get rid of legisla-

Elections Act
tion which gave an opportunity to Labour people to subscribe funds for election purposes, Mr. Baldwin made one of the most notable speeches of his career in appealing for labour, even against the measure as advanced by his own followers and insisted that labour should have eveiy right to control its own funds.
With regard to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride), I urge that it would be very unwise indeed to attempt to say just in what manner labour unions should dispose of their funds. They have the right to dispose of their own funds, according to their own regulations. The great evil surrounding the contribution of funds lies in secrecy. In the case of labour unions, before any amount can be voted, the matter is brought before the whole membership in regular business session, and if they choose to support any particular candidate, whether it be the Labour candidate, or the Liberal or Conservative candidate, they are to be at liberty to make their decision.
I would point out also to the government that the Labour party throughout the country is beginning to revise its estimate as to how much it may obtain or hope to obtain through the present administration. We have come here pleading for provision for unemployment, for old age pensions, for the eight hour day, and for active interference in industrial disputes in such a way that the interests of the labour man may be safeguarded. We have had again and again for four years troubles in Nova Scotia, and this government absolutely refuses to take any effective action in regard to safeguarding the interests of .the workers. Again we have to plead that the laws now on the statute book, placed there in 1919, which discriminated against labour by certain clauses in the Immigration Act and in the Criminal Code, should be removed. None of these things has been done. Now we come urging for one little amendment closely connected with the good government of the country. That is something that'will facilitate labour in electing its own representatives.
As I said on a previous occasion, again and again when labour men strike or take some other form of industrial action, gentlemen in all parts of this country protest that labour ought to use parliamentary means, that labour ought to seek to present its case on the floor of the House of Commons or in the various provincial assemblies. Yet, when labour makes any effort whatever to assert its rights by the use of the parliamentary machine, it finds itself effectively blocked. We believe in that 3174
respect there is a distinct discrimination against labour, and we ask in all fairness that this particular clause should be removed.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), in introducing this resolution, has stressed the point that he has the support of organized labour. Last week, and again yesterday afternoon, I introduced an amendment to another clause of this bill which would have resulted in prohibiting orientals from voting in British Columbia. That amendment has the sanction of every organized labour body in British Columbia. It has the sanction of all unorganized labour in British Columbia and of a very large proportion of people who are not classified as labour or unorganized labour in that province. But I failed to get any support for that amendment on either of those occasions from the hon gentleman who now threatens us with what organized labour will do or think if we do not, support his amendment. Moreover, when I brought in that amendment, I think it is within the knowledge of the House, I couched it in respectful language as respects the government and as anxious only to see it accepted. I did not challenge the government to reject it nor use offensive language in connection with it. Therefore, I think it would have been more appropriate if the hon. member for East. Calgary had supported that amendment than, for him to ask me to join him now in his wholesale condemnation of the government before he sees what the government are going to do. I would feel inclined to support 'this amendment if it is a thing that will benefit labour, for after all, why should I not do so? I have been a workingman all my life, and I am yet as far as that goes. I would be more willing to do it if I had some assurance that the money so collected from those labour unions would be used for the election of labour representatives in this House who would devote their time and energy to the initiation of really useful constructive legislation- for the benefit of the working men and women of Canada, and not of representatives who indulge in the theoretical shadow-chasing and vague glittering generalities that we have-listened to for the last four years.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to assure the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) that he has come to wrong conclusions in regard to the attitude of the government in reference to not taking any interest in any matters -that he or his. colleagues bring before the House because of their small representation in this chamber. I
Elections Act

know I am voicing the sentiments of all my colleagues and, I believe, of practically every hon. member. Every hon. member has a number of labour organizations and labour men in his constituency, and I feel that these hon. gentlemen have just as much sympathy with labour as have the special representatives who are with us in this chamber to-day. I know, speaking for myself, if I were to err at all, I would rather err in giving consideration to matters suggested by them because of the very fact that they are not as largely represented as other occupations in this country. I think my hon. friend is entirely wrong 12 noon when he charges hon. members of this House with not being sympathetic to any matters that he may bring before this chamber because of the fact that the representation of labour is not large in this House. The main reason why I would beg for nonacceptance of the amendment moved by my hon. friend is this: This matter has been before the House previously on an amendment when the bill was in committee. It was thought by the majority of this House that the amendment at that time would not be acceptable. This bill was before a special committee on Privileges and Elections which gave consideration to it. The amendment was considered here in committee and a vote taken on it, and I believe the consensus of opinion in this chamber was that we should not relax in any way the securities we have in regard to contributions for political purposes. That is all we have in mind in regard to it. It may be that clause 10 would be much improved by this and other amendments, I am not going to discuss this at the present time; but the reason I take the stand of not accepting the amendment moved by my hon. friend is that the matter has been considered in two or three different ways during the present session, and I feel this is not the time to accept it.
Hon. HUGH 'GUTHRIE (South Wellington) : I regret very much I was not present in the House when the amendment introduced by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) was up for consideration. My inclination would have been to support the amendment and to strike out clause 10 or those particular words in clause 10 which restrict political subscriptions to associations or corporations expressly formed for the purpose. To my mind, clause 10 is about the most useless and innocuous clause in the Dominion Elections Act. There is in that clause some language which is also in the act. Those particular words:-" other than a company incorporated for political purposes "-were in-

serted in the act to protect a single political organization, the Ontario Liberal Association, which some twenty-five years ago was incorporated for political purposes. If hon. members will refer to Hansard of about twenty-five years ago and again to Hansard of, I think, the year 1907, to the speech of Sir Allen Aylesworth, then Minister of Justice of Canada, they will see that he specifically preserved the right of the Ontario Liberal Association as an association incorporated for political purposes. When the act was up for revision five years ago, we maintained the section, I think almost in its integrity, but in my humble judgment it has been a useless and innocuous section. There are at the present time in Canada many associations incorporated for political purposes. I think the Progressive party have an association in almost every riding in Ontario specifically incorporated under letters patent of that province to enable them to contribute funds to elections. I see not the slightest objection to granting the same privilege to labour organizations in Canada, and I believe they are entitled to have it if they want it. For my part, I am heartily in sympathy with the amendment.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr Irvine) which was negatived on the following division.
YEAS Messieurs:
Anderson,	Kennedy (Glengarry and
Arthurs,	Stormont),
Bancroft,	Knox,
Black (Yukon),	Lovie,
Bowen,	Lucas,
Brethen,	Maclean (York),
Brown,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Campbell,	McKillop,
Chaplin,	Maybee,
Coote,	Meighen,
Davies,	Millar,
Duncan,	Milne,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Morrison,
Evans,	Sales,
Fansher,	Senn,
Forke,	Shaw,
Gardiner,	Simpson,
Garland (Bow River),	Spencer,
Garland (Carleton),	Steedsman,
Good,*	Stewart (Hamilton),
Gould,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Harris,	Stirling,
Hodgins,	Thurston,
Hoey,	Tolmie.
Hopkins,	Wallace,
Irvine,	Ward,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Woodsworth-53.
 NAYS Messieurs:
Bel and,	Casgrain,
Benoit,	Chew,
Binette,	Copp,
Bouchard,	Dechene,
Bourassa,	Delisle, '
Cahill,	Denis (Joliette),
Cardin,	Denis (St. Denis),

Criminal Code
Desaulniers,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Descoteaux,	McBride,
Deslauriers,	McConica,
Desrochers,	Mclsaac,
Ethier,	Mercier,
Fafard,	Morin,
Forrester,	Murphy,
Fortier,	Neill, [DOT]
Gendron,	Papineau,
Gervais,	Pelletier,
Graham,	Pouliot,
Hammell,	Raymond,
Hanna,	Rheaume,
Healy,	Roberge,
Hudson,	Robitaille,
Hughes,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hushion,	St. Pere,
King, Mackenzie (York),	Seguin, .
Lanctot,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Lapointe,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Lavigueur,	Tobin,
Low,	Vien,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Woods-60.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs.
Michaud.	Leader,
Robichaud,	Bird.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres Mr. Archambault). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBB:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. GORDON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to on same division reversed and bill read the third time and passed.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth not insist upon their fifth amendment made to Bill No. 182, an act for the relief of the depositors of the
Home Bank of Canada, to which the House of Commons hath disagreed, but have amended it as follows:
On page 2, line 5 of paragraph 1 of clause (a), after the words, "special need" insert " or in straitened circumstances ",
On page 3, leave out the seventh amendment namely the preamble.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 147, an act to amend the criminal code.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the Senate amendments would fail of being carried if the Minister of Justice spoke in favour of them.


Ernest Lapointe: The Senate has made
quite a number of amendments to the bill. Although I do not agree with most of them, I think the best way is to concur and move their adoption. The amendments are as follows:
Section 4, imposing a penalty in respect of advertising, printing, posting or selling intelligence on horse races, is struck out.
Section 7, carnally knowing any girl between fourteen and sixteen, is struck out.


Arthur Meighen: What is the effect of
that?	.


Ernest Lapointe: We* struck out the
words " of previously chaste character " which appear in subsection 2 of section 301. The Senate has reinstated them.
Section 8, making it an indictable offence for an agent to make false returns on the sale of goods, is struck out.
'Section 11 is struck out. This imposed a penalty for the use of the word " royal " without authority. I think many members of this House will thank the Senate, for they strongly opposed it in committee.
Another section restored to the attorney general the right of appeal in criminal matters on points of law, and the Senate has declined to accept this amendment, which I thought was a perfectly proper amendment.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What is the effect of
the non-acceptance of the amendment?


Ernest Lapointe: It leaves the code as it
has been since an amendment was enacted three years ago instituting the right of appeal
Pension Act

in criminal matters in favour of the accused. Previously the crown had the right of appeal on a stated case, but the prisoner had no such right; now the prisoner has the right and the crown has not. That looks really ludicrous. I thought it had been an oversight two years ago, but the Senate still insists on withholding this right from the crown.
There was a clause which I had given notice of when the bill was first considered in committee here, with regard to cruelty to animals. Apparently when the bill was read the third time the clause had not been inserted. The Senate has inserted it, and properly so.
The Senate has also inserted two minor amendments to the clause dealing with agricultural fairs. They have amended subsection 6 of section 5 by adding the following as paragraph (f):
(f)	the distribution by lot of premiums given as rewards to promote thrift by punctuality in making periodical deposits of weekly savings in any chartered savings bank.
I do not see any crime in it myself, and I am quite willing to accept this amendment. The following is also added as paragraph (g):
(g)	bends, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, recallable by drawing of lots and redeemable with interest and providing for payment of premiums upon redemption or otherwise.
It appears that the partial redemption of bonds is provided for before the due date either by means of a redemption fund or in some other manner, and it is stipulated that a draw shall be made and the trustee will pay to the holders of the bond whose numbers have been so drawn. There is nothing wrong about it, and I am quite in agreement with the Senate amendment in this respect. I therefore move concurrence.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the seventeenth^ amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 70, to amend the Pension Act.
He said:	I wish to make a brief explanation in connection with the action of the Senate in regard to the message which we sent to them a few days ago. The House thought it proper to ask the Senate not to insist upon three different amendments they had made to the pension bill as passed by this House.
. Mr. MACLEAN (York):	Does the minister consider that a money bill? iMr. Lapointe.]
Mr. BELAND:: It is not a regular money
bill. A body constituted by parliament has the exclusive power of awarding pensions, and payment can be made by parliament only after such award is made. The Senate have decided not to insist upon two of the three amendments to which I have referred, but to insist upon the amendment they made to the clause regarding appeal. I read in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a report which unwittingly ill-describes the situation. It is represented in that report that the Senate agreed to insist only upon the amendment which it had made to the pension bill prohibiting the granting of pensions in cases where disability was to be traced to misconduct. That is not the situation as it exists. We have never attempted to prohibit payment of pension to men whose disability was to be traced to misconduct. What we attempted to do was to provide an appeal for all those men who on that ground were refused a pension. A decision on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners not to grant pension on the ground that the disability was due to misconduct is tantamount to saying that the disability was not attributable to war service, and in all other cases where the decision is that the disability was not attributable to war service there is the right of appeal. The Justice department has given the opinion that where the Board of Pension Commissioners decide that the disability was due to misconduct and that therefore no pension can be awarded, there is no appeal, and we had provided in the bill for such an appeal. The Senate has chosen to insist on its amendment. I do not propose to move for a conference at this late hour; I do not think that any useful purpose can be served by it. The Senate acted in full cognizance of the whole situation and circumstances. I can only express regret that at least for a few months more the men who have been turned down on this ground and who feel that they have been unfairly dealt with will be precluded from entering an appeal.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1924, AMENDMENT

James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, in the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, June 25, there is the following under "Notices of Motions and Questions":
The Acting Minister of Finance-on Saturday next: - bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924".

Superannuation Act
If I may have a unanimous consent, I should like to have this bill put on the order paper and if possible put through. I will explain the reason.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House,
and its unanimous consent, Mr. Robb moves, seconded by Mr. Graham, for leave to introduce Bill No. 239 to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ROBB moved the second reading of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know anything about the bill, and I want it understood that its second reading in no way binds me. I would also point out 'that this bill was not mentioned in the list of items of legislation to be brought down, and it comes as a surprise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was too
small for that.


James Alexander Robb: This bill has been requested by representatives of the civil service. Under the Superannuation Act of last year they were given until the 19th of July of this year to elect whether or not they would come under that act. They now ask that the time be extended for another year, and all we are doing is to substitute "two years" for "one year". The bill is introduced to meet their wishes. I am not pressing it* if there is any objection.


Arthur Meighen: That is not a very illuminating attitude-


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the discussion
had better take place when we go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1

Time of election extended.
James Alexander Robb: I have no further explanation
to offer than that already given. This is to extend the time of election for another year. I brought in the bill at the request of representatives of the civil service. I admit they should have already elected whether they would come under this act or not, but perhaps it is not unreasonable to give them another year.


Arthur Meighen: What are the reasons
they advance? If the minister has none of his own, perhaps he would pass on their reasons.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Perhaps I might be allowed to give an illustration. Take the case of a man sixty or sixty-five years of age who will within a very short time be retired. He has paid into the retirement fund, under the previous regulations, a considerable amount of money, which he would be allowed to draw out in a lump sum on his retirement unless he elected to come under the new Superannuation Act. A number of them have not yet elected whether or not they will relinquish their grasp on. that lump sum they can withdraw under the old scheme and let it go into the new superannuation fund, as it would have to do if they elected to come under that scheme. Some of the employees in that class desire a little longer time in which to decide whether to draw out the amount to their credit in the retirement fund, or to relinquish that and take advantage of the benefits that would accrue to them under the Superannuation Act that was passed last year.


Arthur Meighen: This makes clear the
advantages of waiting, I know, but then a time limit has been fixed. Do they give any reason why they should have another year, and if so, what is the reason?


James Murdock: The only reason is the
uncertainty which some of them are in as to which course it would be advisable for them to take, whether to get their money in a lump sum, and in some cases it amounts to two or three thousand dollars, and be done with all superannuation schemes, or to come in under the new act. It is just a question of uncertainty in the minds of some of them as to which course they should take.


Arthur Meighen: Catching the contagion
of the government, and falling into ways of procrastination.


Mr. SHAW:: I think also some question
has arisen as to the interpretation of various sections of the Superannuation Act. I know that in some civil service organizations with which I am familiar these questions have arisen, and they have asked for another year in which to elect, pending assurances as to the real interpretation of the act.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would ask the
minister if this act would cover the cases of some seven or eight guards or more in the penitentiary who would have to pay into the superannuation fund a large sum of money in order to get the benefits of this act. The officials who have been there for twenty-odd years have not the amount of money that it is necessary to pay into the new superannuation fund in order to bring them under the
Superannuation Act

act. At the same time, they have laid up a gratuity in some cases of some two thousand dollars or more, which would come to them, in case of resignation from the service. Now these few officials would like some change in the Superannuation Act, so that instead of paying in the lump sum that is required to come in under the new act, they shall be credited with die amount that has accumulated to their credit after twenty-five or twenty-six years service. They are withheld from entering into the superanuuation scheme on account of the large amount of money, some $1,500, which they would have to pay in in a lump sum to come under the scheme. I would like to ask the minister in charge or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour if their case will be considered, and an amendment made to the act so as to permit of some change being made in their case.


James Alexander Robb: This amendment does not
change their status in any way. It does not in any way change the Superannuation Act, except as to extending the time of election. I know there have been representations made to us from various sources to widen the act, but we have refused to meddle with it at all. We propose to let it have another year's operation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Might I ask the
Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice to make some statement that the cases of these men will be considered? I think they will agree with me that it is impossible for these men to pay in that lump sum of money.


James Murdock: There are a considerable number of employees in the service in somewhat the same position. For instance, down at the Printing Bureau we have several hundred employees who are not now under this Superannuation Act that was passed last year, whereas they were under the Calder Act, which expired last year. That situation and a number of similar situations possibly should be dealt with by parliament at some time, but this amendment does not change the situation at all in relation to the employees my hon. friend speaks about, except to give them one year longer in order to elect which they shall do.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I point out
that in the meantime these employees are taking great chances. There is a ease now, and it will come up in the supplementary estimates, of an employee with about twenty-six years' service who became sick. If he had been informed that he was going to die within a very short time, he could have resigned, but he died and he lost his $1,800. He was not 
under the Superannuation Act. A number of these sad cases may arise, and I think the minister would be doing a very creditable thing if he would assure us that their case will receive immediate consideration. I shall have something further to say on this matter when the estimates come up.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 25 consideration in committee of Bill No. 237, to authorize advances to assist agriculture by providing for long term farm loans,-Hon. Mr. Robb-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Arthur Meighen: I thought the government had abandoned this farce? What was the idea of taking it out of committee?


James Alexander Robb: The idea was to proceed with other business and make some progress. If we make progress we shall go on with the bill. I intimated to the House yesterday that we had introduced it with good intentions but it did not receive the support we expected, and I say frankly now that I am not going to sit here all summer and discuss it.


Arthur Meighen: I would not advise the
minister to do so. Does he consider it progress tb pass a bill like this? Take the one clause which provides that mortgages under this legislation shall take precedence over all taxes,-school taxes, municipal taxes, and every other lien and charge. Does the minister imagine that any municipality or province could possibly permit such a thing as that? Why, you could not conduct your school system under such circumstances. Even to-day there are many scores of school districts which cannot sustain themselves, and the fact that our soldier settlement lands that have fallen into the hands of the government are exempt has been a contributory cause.
I am not attributing any fault to the government in that respect because it is difficult to take the stand that these lands should be taxable. But for goodness' sake do not suggest that we go further. There is not the slightest chance in the world of any government permitting mortgages under this legislation to take precedence of school taxes. How could the school district ever protect itself against the mortgagor? How could it

Rural Credits
protect its security? Here they have a lien on land, a mortgage against it, with a mortgage sale proceeding started. How will they protect their lien? They have three or four hundred dollars in accrued taxes and they have no power to bid in the mortgage; and what is more, they never could provide the money if they had the power. That one clause therefore, to say nothing of other features of the bill, is fatal; it is only a mere fiasco for the government to bring a bill in this form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Conditions.
Mr. SPENCER:: I would suggest, although I will not move, an amendment to subsection (1) to strike out in the twenty-eighth line the words " ahead of all other claims and encumbrances whatsoever". As the leader of the opposition says, this provision makes the bill useless, and I would advise the government to amend it. I will not offer it as an amendment because I know that if the government insists on carrying the bill as it is the amendment will only be defeated.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot consent to that. As a matter of fact, I think that one reason they are paying high money in western Canada is the fact that there are too many restrictions. People who loan money want to have some assurance that they will get it back and in some of the western provinces they have in recent years introduced legislation which is adding materially to the cost of money in that part of the country. We have a record in the Department of Insurance showing the revenue secured by land companies for investments, and when you figure the amount written off as a loss on loans in western Canada, I think the rate of interest compares favourably with the rates paid in eastern Canada.


George Gibson Coote: At least I would suggest
that subsection (1) stipulate that this mortgage shall rank ahead of all other claims except in such case as may be provided for by the Governor in Council. Surely the minister will admit that school taxes should have precedence in this matter. If the school district is not allowed to collect its taxes it will be impossible to carry on the school system; and without a school system you cannot have anything approaching a civilised community. The minister will find this unworkable.


James Alexander Robb: If some method could be
adopted by means of which school taxes might be exempted, that would be desirable,
because it is important that the school districts should function. But I understand that in some of the provinces the assessment is made and the school taxes are collected along with all other taxes, and we cannot therefore make an exception.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would point out,
however, that although the taxes may be collected by one person they are really separate. That is the case in the province of Alberta.


James Alexander Robb: This legislation is not for
Alberta alone; it is for all the provinces. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Indians-Nova Scotia, $74,340.
Mr. MacLAREN:: I understand that nothing further is to be done at this hour, after calling the item.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
INDIAN AFFAIRS	,


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the
explanation of this item?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: The Indian population of Nova Scotia is 1,827 on 45 reserves. The details of the estimated
expenditures are as follows:
Salaries	 $ 6,240
For relief	 25,000
To provide for the encouragement of agriculture	 1,500
Medical attendance and medicine	 12,200
Repairs to roads	and dykes	
3,000Miscellaneous and	unforeseen	
26.400Total	
$74,340


Arthur Meighen: There is an increase of
$20,000. That is a tremendous increase.


Charles A. Stewart: Some years ago land was purchased outside of the town of Sydney for the removal of the Indians out of the town-they are residing on about an acre or two of ground in the heart of the town. I have had to put a largely increased amount in the estimates for the purpose of trying to get the Indians upon an area out-
Supply-Indian Affairs

side of the city and to build houses for them.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister intend to go ahead with that scheme now?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is the Indian population there diminishing or increasing?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
diminishing; it is just about the same from year to year. The municipality complained very bitterly about them and we are going to try to move them out of the town.


Arthur Meighen: The Indians are doing
better than the rest of the people there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Prince Edward Island, $3,935.
Arthur Meighen: How many Indians are
there in the island?


Charles A. Stewart: There are
292 on two reserves.


Arthur Meighen: The cost is about $200
apiece.


Charles A. Stewart: About that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec, $254,930.02.
Mr. SENN:: Six Nations Indians who
reside in Brant county are wards of the government the same as the other Indians. The department, I believe, hold in trust certain funds accumulated by the sale of property which belonged to the Indians when they were first given their grant in Canada. I am sorry to say-of course the department understands the situation more fully than I do- there is a feeling on the reserve in regard to certain things which the department has done. A year or two ago the department abolished .the	old	hereditary council	and
established a new system of electing the council. I do not know that this has worked out altogether satisfactorily, but I do not want to press that at all to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member resides beside the reserve. Does he not think the	new	system	of election	has
improved the situation somewhat?


Mark Cecil Senn: I think it would have been
a wise thing if the 'band themselves had had an opportunity of having some kind of referendum to say which system they preferred. I believe I can safely say that the majority of the band to-day are not in favour of the elective system.	It	is very	hard to get	theIndians to take	any	part in	an election	or a
referendum.

I should like to mention one or two matters to the minister and see if possibly some consideration cannot .be given to them by the department. The first question I want to ask is about the secretary of the old hereditary council, Mr. Hill. He was regularly appointed and he resided on the reserve for some length of time. All communications from the department went to him. in fact, I think up to the time when the old hereditary council was abolished. During the last two or three years of his incumbency he has not been paid his salary. I do not think the secretary should be penalized in any way on account of any disagreement between the department and the council, because the secretary, after all, holds a secretarial position and is not responsible for the' action of the council. I would urge upon the department that Mr. Hill should be paid his salary. I understand the interest from their trust funds is used largely for educational purposes and for the maintenance of roads and bridges. Perhaps the minister will state whether this is so. I should also like to know if the schools on the reserve are conducted according to the provincial regulations requiring properly qualified teachers. I see that in one of the Auditor General's reports there is an entry of bonus payments to these teachers. What is this bonus given for?


Charles A. Stewart: The school
regulations are much the same as those governing public schools of the province in which the reserve may be located. The bonus referred to is the cost of living bonus. Although this is one of the finest of our Indian reserves, there has been a rather bitter fight there for a number of years between two factions on almost everything relating to the administration of the reserve, including the old system under which they selected their councillors on an hereditary basis. We thought it well to widen the selection by changing the system to an elective basis. Naturally when a drastic change of this kind is made resentment will be aroused, but I do not think we could have allowed the hereditary council to function very much longer on account of the arbitrary manner in which it wa3 treating the people. As to the salary owing to David Hill, he was appointed by the old council, without reference to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs at all, and he carried on very arbitrarily, refusing to make returns to the department, and so far we have no returns of the transactions of the council for that particular period. We have no desire to keep Mr. Hill out of his money, but we do insist on getting those returns. It may

Supply-Indian Affairs
be somewhat unfair to penalize him for the shortcomings of the council, but we feel that he could, if he so desired, get us all the information we are entitled to.


Mark Cecil Senn: Of course, I realize that there
have been differences between the department and the old council, but I must repeat that I do not think Mr. Hill should be penalized for the failure of the council to make proper returns. As to the change made by the minister from an hereditary to an elective council, it must not be forgotten that the Six Nations Indians are in rather a unique position. They came to Canada from the United States at the time of the American Revolution and were given their reserve by the British crown. Although the Haldimand Treaty possibly did not make any specific reference to the rights of the Indians with respect to administration, it is generally conceded that they were to be allowed to look after their own municipal affairs. That privilege is gradually being taken away from them, and I think it is the main cause of the longstanding differences between the band and the department. I would urge that the minister should give further consideration to Mr. Hill's claim, and I think it is very unjust that it has been neglected so long.
I understand that the band has been asked to ratify a certain oil lease which the department proposes to grant to a certain company. A vote was taken among the band some little time ago on the question of ratifying this lease, but out of a total of 800 votes, only 130 were cast, and this unrepresentative vote resulted in a small majority in favour of ratifying it. The lease, as I understand it, will tie up all the land of the reserve and will effectually prevent any individual Indians making arrangements whereby they would have the privilege of enjoying free gas or oil. Therefore it seems to me that the proposal is not in the best interests of the whole band.


Charles A. Stewart: The lease,
as a matter of fact has not been granted, but the vote has been taken. I am very glad to get this information from my hon. friend, because we will be considering the matter very shortly, and I can assure him due weight will be given to the representations he has made.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister referred to the
failure of the old council to make certain returns to the department. On the other hand, I am told that the old council is asking for an audit of all the department's transactions with the band. I presume the superintendent general has had that request before him. Of course, I am not going to press for such an
audit, but it seems to me that in view of the accusations and counter-accusations, a full audit might well be arranged for.


Charles A. Stewart: I think there must be some mistake, because two or three years ago at a meeting in Brantford I promised the Indians they should get from us every six months a return covering all transactions, so that they may be kept posted as to what is being done with their funds.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am advised that certain
members of the band have been enfranchised during the last two or three years, and that these Indians, although they are no longer members of the band, have been granted relief scrips which entitle them to provisions from grocery stores on the score that they and their families are in indigent circumstances. It seems to me that if this is being done the practice is most unfair to the band.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the first I have heard of the complaint. The band is prolific of trouble all the time, but I think we ftmve a good agent in Mr. Morgan. I know it has been complained that the enfranchised Indian leaves the reserve, dissipates his money, and comes back and forces himself on the band when he is hard up. I do not think the band is being charged for funds that have gone towards the maintenance of any enfranchised Indians.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are the schools of the reserve built out of the trust funds of the band or out of government funds?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
built out of the band's trust funds.


William Findlay Maclean: I know the Six Nations Indian reserve very well. In view of the likelihood of a great discovery of oil in this country, does the minister know if any oil companies are trying to tie up Indian property in the way that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn).


Charles A. Stewart: In the
sense of buying up the property, no; but in the sense of securing leases, yes. Leases are issued in these cases just the same as they are on the property of white people.


Arthur Meighen: I had the advantage of
listening to a delegation representing this land some time ago. They presented their case with really remarkable ability and a native eloquence that was inspiring. I presume the minister has had some experience of that kind. They made serious indictments against the department, but the gist of it all was the lack
Supply-Indian Affairs

of fairness and frankness in dealing with them. They claimed-and they seemed to have evidence to support the claim-that those supporting the hereditary system were not given a hearing before the commissioner who investigated, or was supposed to investigate, their difficulties; that they were treated rather cavalierly, and their secretary has been denied his remuneration. They also made a complaint, which I recall very well, with respect to the type of teacher, in both spheres, sent to instruct them. I must say they presented their case about as ably as any I have ever heard by way of delegation, and I am sure the member for the riding, who knows more about the band than any other hon. member is voicing the sentiments of the people in that district when he expresses some sympathy with these Indians. This tribe, I think, deserve better of us than any other in Canada; certainly no other deserves more than does the Six Nations Indian tribe. They came here in the capacity of United Empire Loyalists. They left their own country and came to stand by the British flag in these dominions, and they came under certain treaty rights which we should' scrupulously and sacredly honour and protect.


Charles A. Stewart: I entirely
agree with my right hon. friend as to the manner in which the Indians can present their claims. Indeed, for a year and a half after I took charge of the Indian department I thought they were the most abused people on the face of the earth, from the representations they made to me; but I discovered on closer acquaintance with them that they were very adroit at presenting their case. I have gone to Brantford on three occasions and consulted with the member for that riding (Mr. Raymond) as well as many other prominent people in the locality. The agent who was then in charge, and who has since died, had perhaps the most troublous and turbulent time of any agent in the employ of the government. He was a very decent chap, but all hon. members will agree with me, I think, when I say that he had a very troublous time. Evictions were being made and the people of the reserve were being treated in the most arbitrary manner. In fact, so bad did the conditions become that we had to ask that a detachment of police be placed upon the reserve; It was quite out of the question to permit that sort of thing to go on; we had to call a halt. In addition, there was a chief by the name of Deskaheh who finally appeared at the League of Nations to lay his troubles before that body. He had to leave the country, and he was aided and

abetted by an American lawyer. His argument, of course, was that these Indians were British subjects; that they were not amenable to the laws of Canada but 'were allies of the British. Now, I have no quarrel with that sort of thing, but it must be borne in mind that there are two elements on that reserve, the Christian element and the pagan element, between whom the feeling existing is not of the best and it is a little difficult to stand in between those two elements and preserve order. But I notice that since the inauguration of the elective system they have not had nearly so much trouble. I will say for David Hill that he is one of the cleverest platform speakers I have listened to, and he can make a presentation of a case that is somewhat difficult to refute. I know all these gentlemen very well; I have had three years' acquaintance with them. But I wish the committee to believe that the difficulties are not by any means all on one side. I will say that if there are difficulties now I am not hearing so much about them as I did formerly. The people are living in peace and quiet, something that they were unable to do prior to the inauguration of the new system.


Mark Cecil Senn: I would not like the minister to give the committee the impression that under present conditions the situation is all that could be desired. One section of the tribe, which is in the vast majority so far as numbers go, are doing their best to keep the peace and to obey the law and they are accepting the present situation in the best possible spirit. On the other hand, I would like to plead with the minister and with the department for the adoption of a little more conciliatory attitude, because these men, after all, have their grievances. I live close to them myself, I have talked with a good many of them, and I know their attitude. I know they are loyal to the British Crown, and their grievances are only over such small differences as occur in local administration. Possibly it would not be wise for me to say anything more, but in closing I just want to plead with the minister once more to adopt a conciliatory attitude so far as the department is concerned, and I think it would be in the interests of the department itself to settle these few small matters.


Mr. McKILLOP:: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the condition of affairs that, exists among the Munsey band of Indians, situated on the Thames river. Some weeks ago I received a letter from the chief of the tribe asking me if I would get in

Supply-Indian Affairs
touch with the deputy minister or with the hon. minister himself, and find out if they would send an inspector up to investigate certain charges they had against the local [DOT] agent. I got in touch with the deputy minister, and he assured me that an inspector would be sent up there to investigate. Two weeks ago I received another letter from the chief informing me that the inspector had arrived there, but an investigation was not held, that all the inspector did was to cal! in the local agent and have an interview with him. The Indians were not called in at that interview at all. They claim that they have certain charges against the local agent that they want investigated; in fact, they go so far as to say they want the local agent removed, that he is not satisfactory to .them at all. One special charge they make against him is that he is registering the names of people belonging to the reserve who do not belong there at all, and they object very strenuously to that sort of thing. They would like to have their charges investigated as soon as possible.


Charles A. Stewart: I think this is the same case that the late Mr. Drummond brought to my attention, is it not?


Hugh Cummings McKillop: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: There was
trouble there last year, and we held an investigation and thought the matter was adjusted, but it seems to have broken out again. We are having' Mr. Parker go up there very shortly to look thoroughly into the whole matter.


Hugh Cummings McKillop: Will you have Mr. Parker make an investigation with the Indians present?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


Hugh Cummings McKillop: With all the band together? The matter should be thoroughly threshed out before them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $691,657.
George Gibson Coote: I wish to bring before the
committee a petition which I presented to this House on June 15th from the Peigan Indian Band, praying for the cancellation of a certain lease granted to the Hon. A. J. McLean, covering a large portion of their reserve-although a majority of the Indians had voted against the lease. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I should have to delay the committee this afternoon when we are so near
prorogation, and I presume a great many members will be rather impatient that this matter should be taken up to-day, but I do hot think it is my fault in any way. I would like to have discussed it on previous occasions, but I have deferred doing so to suit the convenience of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and I think his convenience should be considered before that of private members.
The Indians in their petition ask for the cancellation of this lease on the ground that they were assured by Commissioner Laird, who negotiated the treaty with them in 1877. that their reserve would not be occupied without their consent. I wish to quote very briefly the words used by Commissioner Laird when he negotiated this treaty with the Indians. I am quoting from a book "Treaties of Canada with the Indians of the Northwest" by Morris. The Hon. Mr. Morris was at one time Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories, and is, I think, very well qualified to speak on all Indian affairs. He sets out in this book the reasons why the government of Canada were very anxious to negotiate this treaty with the Indians. Briefly, the reason was that the Indians, who held a natural title, as he states, to this land, were anxious that the treaty should be negotiated, and the government were anxious also because many white settlers were desirous of securing homesteads in that part of the country. The treaty was negotiated by the Hon. David Laird and Colonel McLeod of the Northwest Mounted Police. In order not to take up too much time, I will quote briefly from Commissioner Laird, who, at page 257 of this book, says in regard to this treaty:
On Tuesday we met the Indians at the usual hour. We further explained the terms outlined to them yesterday, dwelling especially upon the fact that by the Canadian law their reserves could not be taken from them, occupied or sold without their consent.
I would ask the House whether a lease for ten years means occupation or not.
The late Colonel McLeod is quoted -at page 275 as saying to the Indians:
You say that I have always kept my promises. As surely as my past promises have been kept, so surely shall those made by the Commissioners be carried out in the future. If they were broken I would be ashamed to meet you or look you in the face; but every promise will be solemnly fulfilled as certainly as the sun now shines down upon us from the heavens. I shall always remember the kind manner in which you have to-day spoken of me.
After this there was a great shaking of hands and the council ended. The late Colonel McLeod, who afterwards became chief justice of Alberta has gone, and the present Super-
49S4
Supply-Indian Affairs

intendent General of Indian Affairs, in spite of these promises that were made to the Indians at that time, has against the vote of the band leased a large part of this reserve. There are many quotations given here by the late Lieutenant Governor Morris along similar lines but I think the two I have quoted should be enough to show the House the nature of the promises made to the Indians by the two commissioners on that occasion.
Section 40 of the Indian Act provides that no leases of any Indian land shall be granted without the consent of the band, and that a vote shall be taken, and a record of the vote kept in the Indian office. When I discussed this matter in the House last year, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs stated that he understood the Indians had voted in favour of this lease. On the 8th of July last he made the following statement, as will be seen at page 4332 of Unrevised Hansard, July 8, 1924:
We never lease land on an Indian reserve unless the band has voted in favour of it, which vote is registered in our office.
This shows clearly that the practice of the department in the past has always been to obtain the consent of the band. I find that an attempt was made to secure consent to this lease. A year ago I asked for a return of all correspondence passing between the government and any other parties in connection with this lease. This return when brought down contained a letter from the Indian Commissioner dated April 2 in which he states very clearly that an effort had been made to secure the consent of the Indians. He said:
With regard to the Peigan lease, I gave the Ind.ian Agent, Mr. Arthur, strict instructions to negotiate with the Indians for the surrender of 30,000 acres of grazing to be leased to Mr. McLean. The whole matter was fully discussed with them by the agent. They could not come to an agreement. I then sent one of the inspectors up from this office to see the Indians, and he was not successful in getting a surrender for leasing.
On my return to Alberta last year the Indians asked me to come to Macleod to see them in connection with this lease and while I was there the Indian Chief requested me to interview their lawyer in company with himself. From my conversation with Mr. Fawcett I learned that certain correspondence passing between himself and the Department had not been included in the return brought down. This year when I came back to Ottawa I asked the Deputy Superintendent General if there was such correspondence in the department and he later on brought down a supplementary return. This return I
[Mr. Coote.l
have in my hand and it shows that three or four letters were written by Mr. Fawcett who was at that time, I think, mayor of Macleod. The letters are addressed to the Superintendent General protesting against this lease, on behalf of the Indians. The first letter dated January 9 includes a petition signed by some seventy of the male members of the band protesting against the lease being granted. There follows a reply from the Superintendent General, with a further letter from Mr. Fawcett dated January 31, 1924. In this letter Mr. Fawcett points out that the Indians claim that the granting of the lease would be a violation of the treaty which was entered into with them by the Hon. David Laird and Colonel McLeod on behalf of the government of Canada. They also point out that only fourteen Indians had voted in favour of the lease. Mr. Fawcett in this letter says:
Surely the department will not arbitrarily ignore the treaty with the Indians and lease their land without their consent.
I want to quote the reply of the Superintendent General under date February 16, 1924, to Mr. Fawcett:
As you are probably aware, the Indian Act gives the department authority to take whatever action it deems to be in the best interests of the Indians; and as the Indians are costing the people of Canada a considerable amount annually, it becomes necessary from time to time to take such action as is in their best interests, at the same time relieving the taxpayers of Canada to this extent.
This is -the question I want to ask the Superintendent General and the members of this committee: For the paltry sum of $1,300 odd should we sacrifice Canada's good name by a violation of a treaty with the Indians, when we spend $1,400 to erect a flagpole on pur magnificent new parliament building?


Arthur Meighen: How much does the hon. member think our good name is worth?


George Gibson Coote: I think it is worth considerably more than that.


George Perry Graham: And it is getting to be
of greater value every day.


George Gibson Coote: If the taxpayers of Canada
were consulted in regard to this small sum which we are receiving for this lease they would say that the lease should be cancelled and that Canada's obligations under this treaty should be considered as something more than a scrap of paper. In order that those who care to read this debate may be fully informed in regard to this matter, I should like with the permission of the House to put these letters on Hansard. They are

Supply-Indian Affairs
not very long and they form a part of the supplementary return brought down this year.
Macleod, Alberta,
January 9, 1924.
Superintendent,
Indian Affairs,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Peigan Reserve Lease
Dear Sir,-I enclose you herewith list of negative votes in connection with the proposed lease to Archie McLean of some thirty-seven or more Sections at 6 cents an acre which the Indians stated to me he would fence if granted the lease. This document was brought into me by Philip Big Swan, Head Chief, Leo Smith, Minor chief and Percy Smith, cousin of the Minor chief.
These men pointed out that it is not satisfactory to have any of the reserve leased. Years ago Maun-sell Brothers had a lease, and that the pasturing and the opportunity to cut hay gradually grew less and during the years of 17-18 and 19 the Indians were not able to put up hay sufficient for their stock, resulting in the winter of 1920 in a tremendous loss of stock and a very large expense of money and labour to purchase hay for the stock on the reserve. Since that time the stock has been increasing and these men state that if a large portion of the reserve is leased they will find themselves in exactly the same position as obtained a few years ago when the range was heavily pastured by Maunsell Brothers. They point out further that in fencing thirty-seven sections a very large portion of the best watering places will be enclosed by the fences and the Indian stock forced to w'ater elsewhere.
It would seem that this application to lease and the advisability of it was not discussed with the Chiefs of the reserve. May I point out that the Head Chief and two minor chiefs Leo Smith and Many Chief, are against the lease, sixty-five I believe in all.
Kindly give this matter your usual good attention in the best interests of these Indian Wards.
Yours truly,
John L. Fawcett.
Macleod, Alberta, January, 31, 1924.
Honourable Charles Stewart,
Superintendent of Indian Affairs,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Peigan Reserve Lease
Dear Sir,-Your favour of the 19th inst., at hand and contents carefully noted.
Philip Big Swan, the head chief came in again to-day and expressed himself and the other Indians who are with him very strongly in the matter. He asked me to point out to you with the other Indians the action of the Department in going ahead to lease the reserve, was a complete renunciation of their treaty which their fathers had made in years gone by when it was agreed that the Indians should have this land so long as the grass grew and the river ran. He tells me that w'hen they talked the matter over at the agency at Brocket, only four Indians were in favour of leasing, and all those whose names I sent you were against it, but Philip Big Swan tells me that he thinks some ten people signed it before that. He further tells me that there has never been on the reserve any notice sent around and the day fixed when all the male Indians over twenty-one years could go in and vote for the leasing or against it.
It is very apparent that if all the male Indians were asked their opinion the big majority would be against leasing and if this is so surely the Department will not arbitrarily ignore the treaty with these Indians and lease their land without their consent.
It might not be so bad if all the chiefs were in favour, but the fact is, the Head Chief, Philip Big Swan, and the minor chiefs, Leo Smith, Many Chiefs. Man Who Smokes are all against it and the fifth chief, Crow Eagle was away at the time they had their talk at Brocket, but he is probably against it. Thus, yon have a great many of the Indians against it and all of the Chiefs but one and probably all of them, and yet the department in the face of that seem to intend to follow Commissioner Graham's recommendation. Thi3 surely is a very serious way of dealing with the management of the reserve.
Since I last wrote, the Chief informs me that an Inspector Christenson from Regina has been up to ses them and knows now that very many of the Indians are against the leasing and he told the Chief that he would report the matter to Commissioner Graham. At the same time the Chief and other Indians explained personally why they did not want the lease.
Kindly bear in mind that the representation as I have made as above has been given me direct by the Indians themselves and are only -worded as best I could to express their position.
I am not personally interested but I cannot refrain from saying that I have known the Head Chief for quite a number of years and his conception of what is best for the Indians on the Reserve should be given great respect for he is shrewd and reliable.
Yours truly,
Jno. L. Fawcett.
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 16, 1924.
Dear Mr. Fawcett,
I have your favour of the 31st ultimo re the Peigan Reserve lease.
As you are probably aware, the Indian Act gives the Department authority to take whatever action it deems to be in the best interests of the Indians; and as the Indians are costing the people of Canada a considerable amount annually, it becomes necessary, from time to time, to take such action as is in their best interests, at the same time relieving the taxpayers of Canada to this extent.
In the present case,t the necessary pasturage is available and the department has concluded that it is in the interests of the Indians to execute the lease.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Stewart.
His Worship Mayor Fawcett, LL.B.,
Macleod, Alberta.
John L. Fawcett, LL.B.
Barrister, Notary Public, etc.,
Macleod, Alta.
March 6, 1924.
Superintendent General,
Indian Affairs,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Peigan Reserve Lease
Dear Sir:
Your favour of 16th ultimo was duly submittted *o the Head Chief of the Reserve and he in turn took the matter up with the Minor Chief and the other Indians and they returned to-day asking me to write j'ou further, pointing out to you as follows:-
They signed the original petition because they believe there is not sufficient pasture and hay available and further that some of the land to be included in the lease has Indian settlers thereon.
49S6
Supply-Indian Affairs

They note what you say in regard to the Indians costing the people of Canada large sums of money and they answer that the Treaty which they signed by their now dead Chiefs arranged for that and they were promised that they would be looked after.
They further point out that about ten years ago they voted to allow	the	Government to	sell	the ReserveNorth of the Old Man River and that about tea thousand acres	of	this land	are	still	unsold andworse still the Indians have not received any payment whatever from that which was sold either from the account of interest or principal and that the Department must still have this money on hand. They ask that if the Government is going to lease without consulting them that they should confine themselves to leasing this	ten	thousand	acres	and	not involvethe Reserve in	another matter	when the	Department
has not settled or cleaned up the former.
They complain that it looks to them as though the Government was not trying very hard to take care of, their interests, that surely the Head Indians of the tribe ought to be considered as having some knowledge as to what is in their interest.
Only a short time ago they agreed to sell a small portion of the Reserve for the Lethbridge Northern Right of way and that this money has been duly received and distributed and they fail to understand why the Dominion Government does not deal the same way with the people under its particular care.
Yours faithfully,
Jno. L. Fawcett.
Brocket', Alta.,
April 4, 1924.
Rt. Hon. M. King,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-We respectfully submit to your Excellency that we members of the Peigan Band of Indians do express our disappointment of a certain lease, which we have learnt from Commissioner Graham, that Hon. Chas. Stewart has granted to Mr. A. McLean.
A meeting was called for by Indian Agent Mr. C. A. Arthur, a vote took place, a majority of over three-quarters of the voters was against the said lease.
Experience has taught us to do away with such leases. We have leased our reserve for the past twenty years to Maunsell Bros., and we know the consequences. We never received a cent of the lease money and then the dry years came so our stock had to die.
We understand it will be a closed lease not in one block, but in three parts, twenty-four sections, ten section in another, and three sections, so it will take up the best grazing land we have, including the springs and watering places, when it is fenced our stock at large will suffer for want of water.
We surrendered thirty-six sections of our reserve, about thirty-six sections is fenced in for farming purposes and Mr. McLean got on or about thirty-seven sections.
We have about 2,800 head of stock, cattle and horses, to graze the balance of our reserve. If we should get dry years again and do not save our grass now our stock will die on us again. So we think we will be far better off to not have the lease, six cents an acre or three dollars and twenty cents for each Indian is not enough.
This lease is against the Indians' will, and so we are asking you for protection, to see into the matter and to find out why should they force this lease on us. An answer will oblige.
We are, Sir,
Yours obediently,
Jno. Crow Eagle, M.C.
I also obtained from the department this year a record of the vote taken in connection with this lease. I find that was taken on January 7, 1924 under the superintendence of Mr. C. A. Arthur, the Indian Agent. Seventeen Indians voted in favour of the lease and fifty-three against. I am giving these particulars in view of the statement made last year by the Superintendent General to the effect that he understood that the Indians had voted in favour of the lease. I have also a letter from the Indian Commissioner in which he states very plainly that the Indians voted against the granting of the lease and the matter was reported on by him to the minister. The commissioner apparently could not have advised the minister to that effect; Mr. Fawcett of Macleod states very clearly in his letters that the Indians were opposed to the lease. In view of that fact I think I am fully justified in suggesting to the minister that the lease should now be cancelled. I would point out to the committee before leaving this phase of the question that on April 4 one of the chiefs of this band, John Crow Eagle, addressed a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) protesting against the lease and stating that a large majori:y of the Indians had voted against it. This letter was forwarded to the Indian department for a reply to the Indian chief; it was forwarded by the department at Ottawa to the Indian Commissioner at Regina, and the Indian chief was finally answered by the commissioner. I desire the permission of the committee to place on Hansard this one letter from the Indian chief.
I have brought this matter up here because the Indians said to me, "We feel that we have no one to speak for us. When we try to talk to Ottawa it is like talking through a ten-foot wall, and we hope you will take the matter up for us there and see if parliament will not restore to us our treaty rights." One old Indian chief said to me, "Will you tell the members at Ottawa that' we think they are wise men, and if they are wise men they will surely say that the treaty with the Indians should not be broken. I would like every member of this House to consider that statement of the old Indian chief. In 1918 the Indian Act was amended by adding subsection 3 to section 90, which gives the Superintendent General power under certain circumstances to lease the Indian lands without 'a surrender, and it seems to me that it could only be under the authority given here that a lease could be granted to Mr. McLean when the Indians had voted against the lease. I ask the House to note that

Supply-Indian Affairs
this power is to be used only in case the Indians are neglecting or refusing to cultivate or make use of the land, and I do not think it can be' shown that the Indians were either refusing or neglecting to make use of the land in question. I wish I could show to hon. members a map of this Peigan reserve. It would show that the lease granted to Mr. McLean covers three distinct and separate parts of the reserve, about 5,000 acres in the northeast corner, 15,000 acres in the southeast comer and approximately 1.900 acres in the southwest corner, and covers. altogether 22,560 acres. The original area of this reserve was 116,000 acres, but the Indians surrendered for sale in 1919, 22,000 acres, and there has been surrendered, for railway right of way 775 acres, leaving the Indians now 92,000 acres. From that 22,000 acres has been'leased, which leaves the Indians a total of 70,000 acres. As I have already pointed out, the lease covers three separate portions of the reserve. The small part of three sections in the southwest comer of this reserve was a part of the Indian stock farm, and Mr. McLean secured this part, without having to put up any fence at all. The northeast corner of the reserve, where Mr. McLean has about 5,000 acres, the Indians have always used for a winter pasture. The reserve is divided almost equally into two parts by the Canadian Pacific Railway and Old Man river, running diagonally across the reserve. The Indian homes are nearly all on the north side of the railway. The Indians took their cattle over to the north side of the railway in the wintertime, and in the past they have always used a portion of the northeast corner of the reserve for a winter pasture. Under the terms of this lease Mr. McLean has secured practically all of this corner of the reserve and he has fenced this part of his lease thus shutting out the Indian cattle from their winter pasture. This winter a large number of the Indian cattle when turned out drifted down the long narrow strip of land which was left between the railway right of way and Mr. McLean's fence, and a great number of them drifted off the reserve. The Indian chief told me that Mr. McLean and his man, the Indian chief, and the stock man on the reserve spent over a day gathering cattle and placing them across on the north side of the river. The Indians claimed that if they had had a hard winter this year many of their cattle would have died because they would have had no winter pasture for them. Not only did the Indians use this for a winter pasture, but I find that an Indian widow and her son had their home within the part fenced off by Mr. McLean. I would like 318
to read to the House a letter which I have received from this widow dated April 20, and reads in part:
Then Mr. Webb, a Mounted Police came in and he repeated the same old story to me. He claims that the Indian agent told him to come down to my house and order me out of the leased land, and he also suggested to me that the department wrote to the Indian agent for me to move away from my land.
My answer to Mr. Webb was, "I am not willing to move away, this is my house and I have been living here for last fourteen years. The lease is not granted by the Peigan Indian Act". After all this Mr. Weeb told me to write to the department and make the following statement, so that I will know from the department if it is so that I have to move away or not.
The police told me that he will give me three weeks from the said date to move away.
I want to point out that this is the result of leasing land against the vote of the Indians. I think it is a shame in this country when we come to the point where the mounted police are used by the Indian agent to force Indian widows off their land. I took this letter to the Superintendent General and he was good enough to wire instructions to the Indian agent at Brocket, that this woman was not to be disturbed in possession of her property at the present time. But I also desire to point out that so long as this lease is persisted in this widow is liable to this kind of persecution. I have in my hand a statement given to me by the son of this widow when I was in Macleod last winter. This Indian cannot write English, but this is his story as near as I could put it on paper:
This Indian lives with his mother, the widow of Seth Plain Eagle. His mother has lived in their present location for fourteen years. Their buildings and little farm are included in the part of the lease which Mr. McLean has fenced.
Some time last summer he was given a cheque for .$40.00 by the Indian Agent to pay him for his oats and pasture fence. The Agent also offered his mother $70.00 to move out of her home. He was out haying last summer and fall, living in a tent, and he states that he was told by the Agent that he must not go back to their old home, although he was living there when Mr. McLean put up his fence.
His mother is very anxious to stay at her present home. She has a house, root-house and a log stable, for which she has been offered 170.00, but she has refused to accept this amount.
At the time this statement	was made, these	peoplewere still living in a	tent, as they	were afraid	to go
back to their home. The weather shortly before had been very severe, the temperature being about forty below zero.
This Indian asked me whether I thought he could .go back to his home, and I told him I certainly thought he could in spite of the Indian agent. Under our treaty with the Indians we promised to send them agents to advise and protect them against unscrupulous white men,	but I	am	afraid in	somecases the Indian	agent	has	only delivered
them into the hands of unscrupulous white

Supply-Indian Affairs

men. I should like to emphasize ait this point that, in face of the statement which I have made and which, I think, cannot be disputed, in regard to this part of the reserve which has been used by the Indians for a winter pasture, I do not think it can 'be contended in any court of law that the Indians were neglecting or refusing to use the land, particularly as a widow and her son were living in that area. In addition to that, there are ten or twelve families living on the southeast side of the river within a very few rods, in some cases, of this fence, who used this particular piece of land all the time for their pasture. They are now shut in a narrow strip of land between Mr. McLean's fence and the river. It is no wonder that these people feel very keenly about this lease being granted and insist upon their rights being restored to them.


Mr. HOEY:: How many Indians are on
that particular reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: There are
383 all told, men, women and children.


George Gibson Coote: One other reason why the
Indians object so strongly to this lease is because of a very unfortunate experience which they had under a lease some years ago which had been given to Mr. Maunsell. That lease ran for a period of seventeen years from 1902 to 1919. During this time Mr. Maunsell ran as many as 2,000 head of cattle, possibly more, over the reserve. I have been unable to secure definite information on that point.


Charles A. Stewart: About 2,500.


George Gibson Coote: So many cattle were grazed
on the reserve that during the dry years of 1918 and 1919 the pasture was completely eaten off and the Indians were not able to put up any hay on this reserve, with the result that they were compelled to sell a large number of the Indian cattle. They also spent a large sum of money for feed. They incurred expense putting up hay on the Hobema reserve and shipping it to this reserve. Although they received from Mr. Maunsell in those seventeen years only $19,991, they paid out for feed in the winter of 1919, $13,480, and in the winter of 1920, $30,126, or a total of $42,606. I cannot help thinking that if the reserve had been kept for the Indians, instead of Mr. Maunsell being allowed to have all those cattle on it, sufficient hay could be put up on the reserve to take care of the Indian cattle. One of the most unfortunate , features about their experience was that in 1920 they lost, apparently from starvation,

475 head of cattle. There were on the reserve at the end of the fiscal year 1920, 1.610 head of cattle. At the end of the following year there were only 968, leaving 642 to be accounted for. There were 78 sold during that year and a total killed of 89, leaving, as I have already said, 475 unaccounted for, which apparently died of starvation. In view of the very unfortunate experience which these Indians had under the Maunsell lease, surely the members of this committee and the Superintendent General cannot wonder that the Peigan Indians voted against giving a lease of 22,000 acres to Mr. McLean. I should like you to imagine the feeling of the Indians after this unfortunate experience, to see this lease granted against their wishes. If it were not for taking up so much time, I should like to give the committee the statements that several Indians gave me in regard to this matter, but I am going to forbear. [DOT] I should like to give the committee the statements of the head chief, Big Swan. He said that prior to this hard winter he had 300 head of cattle o? his own. He sold 75 head and he paid out $2,000 himself for feed, and that after the winter was over he had 75 head of cattle left. His stock has now increased to 175, and I should like the committee to imagine the feelings of this Indian chief this winter when he finds the winter pasture fenced off and he is not allowed to pasture his cattle on Indian land. As long as this lease is persisted in, I am afraid the Indians will not be given a fair chance. I am informed that many of the Indian cows have been killed this year for beef, although there were plenty of steers on the reserve. I have also been informed lately that the agent has speved some of the Indian heifers, apparently with the idea of keeping down the number of stock which the Indians have, so that he will be justified in recommending the lease to Mr. McLean.


Charles A. Stewart: Where did
my hon. friend get that information?


George Gibson Coote: I got it directly from the
reserve. This is only information which has come to me. I should like the Superintendent General to ask the Indian agent for an affidavit as to whether he has speyed Indian heifers or not. My reason for not giving the names is that the Indians say: We are at the mercy of the Indian agent, and if we write you and give our names, you can easily see that we are liable to persecution by the agent. I was told that the statement was in a Calgary paper that the Indian Comimis-

Supply-Indian Affairs
sioner had said that he was going to try to ship some of the Indian riding ponies east to sell them because of lack of feeding ground.


Charles A. Stewart: Not the
ponies on that reserve or near it.


George Gibson Coote: ' Before I leave this phase of the matter, I should like to suggest to the Superintendent General that what he should d.o for the Peigan reserve is to purchase some more cattle for the Indians. The Peigan Indians have a band fund of over $100,000, and if there is room for more cattle on the reserve, the cattle should belong to the Indians and not to outside parties. One other reason I would advance why in my opinion this lease is not in the interests of the Indians is that it is for a term of ten years at a rental of only six cents per acre. I am confident that if leased by public tender the land would bring three or four times the amount, and I have been assured by ranchers living in the vicinity that it is easily worth the higher figure. Under our homestead regulations, a man proving up a homestead with cattle must have at least sixteen head after the second year, or ten acres to each animal. On the same basis it will be found that Mr. McLean will be pasturing his cattle for sixty cents per head per annum. I think that is a pretty nice snap for the man who holds the lease. Under these circumstances. I do not see how the lease can be held to be in the interests of the Indians; and if it is not in their interests, I fail to see why it should ever have been granted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to cover the ground as quickly as possible, but before concluding I wish to give to the committee a few brief quotations from certain of our prominent public men with respect to the spirit in which we should regard our treaty obligations. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in referring to^ a statement made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr Woodsworth) thus expressed himself on February 18, 1925:
I heard an hon. member say the other day, speaking, I believe, of the suggested law concerning the eight-hour day, and evidently being impatient of the obstacle put in the way of that enactment in the difficulty of knowing the respective fields of jurisdiction on the part of the Dominion and the provinces-I heard him say, "Well, where there is a will there is a way." I was surprised at that statement. That was the spirit which inspired the invaders of Belgium in 1914, and the world was precipitated in a sea of blood. Surely the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper-
' The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member indicate how that quotation is relevant to this item?
318i


George Gibson Coote: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The treaty I have been speaking about wTas made between Canada and the Indians; that treaty,
I submit, has been violated by the action of the Superintendent General in granting this lease, and therefore it seems to me that the remarks I am quoting are strictly applicable.


The CHAIRMAN:: Not in Supply, when
the question is limited to whether it is expedient that the item should be passed. Of course, in a general debate, such as that on the Address, ample latitude would be afforded the hon. member for such quotations.


George Gibson Coote: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. One of the Indians of the Peigan band, a returned man who fought in France, wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald on this subject, and I quote a dozen lines from it:
These Indian reserves were set aside for us by our representatives in 1877, forever, and that treaty should be held just as sacred as the treaty which made us send our sons to a foreign soil to help fight one of the biggest and best-equipped war machines that ever infested Europe. Former Canadian premiers have always impressed on the minds of the Indians that these reserves were the property of the Indians, and that they cannot be sold or occupied without the Indians' consent.
I have several other quotations from letters written by Indians, but I will forbear reading them lest you might wish to rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not wish to rule
the hon. member out of order, but general statements of the type he quoted first are not considered in Supply as being relevant. This has always been the practice. The last quotation read was directly applicable to the vote.


George Gibson Coote: The Calgary Herald last
winter-I have not the exact date-contained an editorial, the last paragraph of which, I think, is well worth bringing to the attention of hon. members:
Treatment of its Indian wards has long been a scandal in United States politics. Such exploiting as has been shown to exist across the border must never be even hinted at in Canada. Treaties made with the Indians of the Dominion are as sacred as treaties made between nations. The self-respect of Canadians demands that these treaties shall be honoured in better as well as in spirit to their last word.
Before I sit down I would again urge the Superintendent General to cancel this lease. I think it is quite probable that with all the affairs of the Indians and of the other branches of his department bo take care of, he may not have realized at the time the lease was granted just what far-reaching effects it would have and to what extent it was a violation of the treaty entered into by this country with the Indian band. But if he persists in continuing granting the lease in violation of the treaty
Supply-Indian Affairs

I would suggest that the least he could do would be to transfer the lease to that part of the reserve which lies on the north side of the river. Part of the land over there, which was surrendered by the Indians years ago, is unsold and lying, practically idle. I think the consent of the Indians could be easily secured to leasing this part of the reserve. In my opinion it is most unfair to ask the Indians to give up their land which lies close to their camp, the land which they are entitled to use, and compel them to drive their stock over to the north side of the river. As no doubt the Superintendent General knows, the Old Man river at that point is very hard to cross and there are onty a few places where it can be forded. I think it was very unfortunate that the department did not in the first instance deal with that part of the reserve on the north side of the river, if they were determined to grant a lease. Again I appeal to the Superintendent General to do the right and fair thing with these Indians and so convince them of Canada's good faith. Putting the matter on the lowest plane, surely the amount involved is not worth violating the treaty for and arousing distrust and resentment among the Indians. The head chief of the Peigan Indians is a reasonable man and I think all the circumstances of the case go to show that a grave mistake has been made. I do not think that the Superintendent General will be dealing fairly with the Indians or with the country itself if this lease is not cancelled and the prayer of the Indian petition granted.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: Why the difference?


Charles A. Stewart: A 'ease that is given for sheep is more valuable; you get more money out of it and you can afford to pay more. Moreover, the sheep are more destructive; they graze more closely and destroy the lease very much quicker than the cattle would. The leasing of 150,000 acres of the Blood Indian reserve for that purpose brings in a considerable revenue to the Indians. Not only that, but the Peigan lessee paid $1,800 to the Indians, at the rate of $5 a ton, for the putting up of hay, and besides, the man who looked after the stock assisted also in looking after the Indians' stock. There are 1,700 head of cattle belonging to the Indians in this large area of land. On this reserve, as well as on any other, when the Indians are found to have sufficient stock to oecupy the whole of their territory I would cancel the lease over night. I see no reason why the Indians should not be encouraged to take care of their own cattle, and when they show a disposition to do so I am ready to spend public funds, if no band funds are available, to purchase stock for them. The Indians should make a much greater success as stock men than as agriculturists, although we are trying to teach them agriculture as well. Only 2,877 acres are under cultivation on this whole huge reserve, and there are 385 souls on it, all told. We are not making much of a success in getting the Indians on
Supply-Indian Affairs
that reserve to cultivate their land; but we are making some progress in encouraging them to care for their stock. My hon. friend refers to the winter pasture. It is to be remembered that the location of the Indians is some miles away from the winter pasture; all the way down the valley from the location of the Indians' homes on the north side of the railway is winter pasture. While last winter was a rather mild winter, I venture , to say that the Indians lost fewer cattle during that period than they ever did before; at least that is the report I get from the reserve itself. I am not telling of this in any attempt to justify the breaking of an Indian treaty. I am not making a defence of that sort, but I do want to point out, Just as I pointed out in my letter, that once in a while, if we are going to act in the best interests of the Indians we have to take what may seem like somewhat drastic action. ^
With reference to the ponies my hon. friend referred to, I want to point out that the ponies are roaming east of the Galician reserve, and they are a regular menace to the country. If we ordered them slaughtered there would be an awful row about that, but the best thing that could be done would be to destroy them. They are eating up the grass on the ranches, and are of no value for sale purposes. Anyone in the vicinity knows that it is difficult to sell a work horse, let .alone a pony. These ponies are off the reserve, and as I say, have become a menace.
Let me say with respect to this lease or .any other lease, I am prepared to lend every encouragement, I would even go so far as to recommend loaning to the Indians the *funds of the government for the purpose of .purchasing stock if they would take care of *them.
With reference to statements made by people off the reserves, one of the biggest difficulties we have to contend with is that a few busy gentlemen, largely in the legal profession, make it their business to make a living off these Indians by fomenting grievances. That is a statement I can substantiate by a dozen different cases.


George Gibson Coote: The minister would not
apply that to Mr. Fawcett who had been mayor of Macleod, and a highly respected gentleman.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
agree with my hon. friend, but all through the country one of the biggest difficulties we have is this fomenting of supposed grievances. The Indian loves to get legal advice. I do not know any white man who is so fond of
Supply-Indian Affairs

taking legal advice as the Indian. He excels his white brother altogether in that line, and very frequently the Indian does not get *good advice. I am not saying that perhaps we have not taken what may seem like drastic action, but I do not think anyone who has lived and dealt with me would say that by disposition or otherwise I would want to coerce or drive anyone into a corner. There are times, however, when in the best interests of these wards of the government, you have to take what may seem at the time drastic action. I think the plains Indians are making splendid progress. I see evidence of it on every hand, and I do think the administration of Mr. Graham has been good administration in that direction. I think we will have a great number of them on the Galician reserve, and on the Blood reserve, where they raised 300,000 bushels of grain last year where very little was raised four or five years ago. The administration of Mr. Faunt, the local agent, has brought about that result. I had to go to the Blood reserve on one occasion accompanied by the deputy superintendent to prevent what looked likely to develop into bloodshed, but after we had spent a day with the chiefs of the band and discussed the matter, we have never had a single bit of disturbance on that reserve since. The trouble arose over supposed injuries; meetings were held, the discontent fomented, and an agitation worked up that eventually forced me to visit the reserve in the interests of the Indians and of the department.
So far as the Peigan reserve is concerned, I have discussed this matter with Chief Big Swan. I pointed out to him that if they had sufficient cattle I would cancel the lease at once, but that the lease was not going to do them any particular damage, and he said it was the principle of the thing he was objecting to, and he was going to keep on objecting to it. That was the statement that he made to me on that occasion. At that time I had Mr. Graham go down there and make a special investigation on his own behalf. He did so, and reported that so far as he could see, the lease from the standpoint of the reserve and the interests of the Indians was a benefit, inasmuch as it brought in SI,300 a year, which, as my hon, friend says, is a small amount, but nevertheless it does help them materially. The cattle on the reserve, some 1,700 head, my hon. friend will readily recognize, have ample grazing territory, in fact, there is grazing for three or four times that number outside altogether of the land that is leased.

I will say this, however, to my hon. friend. So much agitation has been created over this matter that as soon as I reach Alberta, which I hope will be within a few days, seven or eight days at the most, I am going .to Macleod and shall go on the Peigan reserve and meet the chiefs and discuss' this matter with them; and if the grievances are there rvhich they claim exist I shall arrange for the cancelling of the lease. I cannot say anything more in connection with the matter.


Arthur Meighen: Would there not be another solution perhaps that would be more worthy of consideration? As I understand the argument presented, it mainly goes to show, not that the lease should be cancelled, but that a portion of the land should be taken out of the lease, some special portion near to the railway.


Charles A. Stewart: That is,
.between the railway track and the river? That might solve the whole difficulty. How-iever, I intend to go there mj^self and make a special investigation.


George Gibson Coote: I want to point out one
thing that came to my mind during the minister's remarks. I think it is very wrong on the part of the department to lease Indian lands at six cents per acre. Some of this land on the Peigan reserve is worth twice as much as the land at the north ond of the Blood reserve.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is entirely mistaken, athough he is a rancher. I have been on both reserves, and I disagree with him entirely. There is no better grazing territory in western Canada than is to be found on the .northern end of the Blood reserve, surrounded by the St. Mary and Belly Rivers. It is the finest grazing land in western Canada.


George Gibson Coote: I disagree with the minister, and if he will come up to the Porcupine hills district I will show him grazing land that is three times as valuable as the land at the north end of the Blood reserve. At the north end of the reserve the grass is pretty short in these semi-dry areas. What the Indians particularly complain about is that they want part of the land for winter pasture.
I regret very much that the minister seems determined to persist in the violation of Indian treaties. It is certainly not necessary. The consent of the Indians could have been obtained to a reasonable lease on this reserve, but this lease is unreasonable in that it covers three separate pieces of the reserve and this part that is so necessary to the Indians

Sup-ply-Indian Affairs
On the face of it, that looks suspicious. I have not before referred to the fact that the lessee in this case is a very good friend of the Superintendent General, and in a case of that kind the superintendent should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. The ranchers in the vicinity of this reserve look upon this lease which has been granted as a very nice plum indeed1. That portion of the lease covering the southeast corner of the reserve is of itself easily worth more than we are getting out of the entire lease. There is no question about that in my mind, or' in the mind of, anybody who lives in that vicinity, and if tenders were called for more than twice this amount would be paid by anyone to get just the southeast corner.
In regard to getting the Indians to use this land, I was told by Indians on the reserve that there are a lot of horses there that should be broken and put to work, but that the agent refuses to give them to the Indians; he will only sell them to them. We have educated these young Indians in industrial schools, and then we turn them loose on the reserves-


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
allow my hon. friend to make a statement of that sort. Where does he get that information?


George Gibson Coote: I have the letters here.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
care how many letters you have. A statement of that kind is absolutely untrue because we buy horses for the Indians. If there are horses on the reserve it would be absurd to suggest that they could not be used.


George Gibson Coote: There are plenty of good
Clydesdale mares on the Peigan reserve bought years ago and a lot of colts have been raised. Why should not these Indians be given horses and encouraged to work?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Graham takes especial delight in helping these Indians, and I went so far as to have some $80,000 set aside to stop this pernicious practice that was in effect some years ago of allowing Indians to get into debt. That money was for the purpose of loaning the young Indians sufficient to buy horses and implements to start with on the land. To say that Mr. Arthur refused to assist the Indians in this matter is absurd and I could not allow a statement of that kind to be made.


George Gibson Coote: The statement was made
by the Indians in their convention at Macleod.


Charles A. Stewart: Other statements may be true but that one cannot possibly be.


George Gibson Coote: It may not be true, and
then it may be as true as the statement, which Commissioner Laird made to these Indians when the treaty was entered into. With regard to the ponies shipped, I only mentioned the matter to show that if this were true there was no pasture land to give away on the reserve. Now, it only takes four years for a herd of cattle to double itself, as the minister will agree, and if the cattle of the Indians were well cared for in the next ten years they would have a great increase which could be accommodated on that reserve.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope they will make good, and I may say that 'there will be no lease on that or any other reserve so long as the Indians occupy the land.


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister say that
he will not grant any lease of lands against the vote of the band if they were told when entering into a treaty that the lands would not be leased without their consent?


Charles A. Stewart: No lease
will be given of any reserve that is occupied.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is
the present situation on the Blackfoot reserve with regard to the dispute over the alleged incompetency of Water Chief? Is he to remain chief of the band? I wrote to :he department some time ago respecting this matter, stating that the Indians themselves had written me requesting that their appointee, Little Water, should be made their chief. Some dissatisfaction was expressed with the reply received from the department. What is the present state of the case?


Charles A. Stewart: Speaking
from memory, I can say that we ordered an investigation into that complaint so that we might have all the facts before us before taking any action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia, $303,990.
Arthur Meighen: What is the present position of this long standing controversy over the title to Indian lands in British Columbia? Is the government standing in the way of the submission of the matter to the Privy Council? What I understand is this-and I know it has been the case for some time-that the Indians and those representing them have been anxious to obtain the decision of the Privy Council. I do not see any reason why
Supply-Indian Affairs

they should not have that decision. Why is it that they have not been able to get it?


Charles A. Stewart: Conferences have been held in tie past two or three years with the Indians. My hon. friend will remember that the McKenna-McBride agreement with respect to land has been carried out. We did not entirely satisfy the Indians or their representatives in the allocation of lands, but inasmuch as the provincial government were threatening to cancel the arrangement altogether if we did not take action we thought it well to do something, and the matter between the two governments is settled, although I am bound to say not to the entire satisfaction of the Indians. Regarding the controversy over the aboriginal title, I have been trying for the past three years to find out just what the Indians mean by this. Do they lay claim to all lands in British Columbia in view of the fact that in ninety per cent of the cases no treaty had been signed between the tribes and representatives of the crown? After a great deal of discussion I found that they did not lay claim to the land in its entirety, but they do say that before an adjustment can take place they should have certain specified and unspecified provisions made for them by the government of Canada. This is all so vague and difficult of understanding that it is very hard to arrive at any concrete definition of what their claims are. On behalf of the government I have informed them that we are prepared to do for them everything that was done for treaty Indians in any other part of Canada. As a matter of fact we are giving them the same consideration as we have given every other Indian in Canada. Still that does not seem to be enough; certain claims are made for compensation and so on. A gentleman whose name is no doubt known to most hon. members, Mr. O'Meara, spends his whole time investigating this very vexed question and preparing briefs for consideration. My hon. friend says, why not send it to the Privy Council?


Arthur Meighen: Why do you not let
them take it?


Charles A. Stewart: They want
the government of Canada to pay their expenses.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I see.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess that I do not see very much hope. I have joined with me in the investigation the Speaker of the Senate and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) in an

endeavour to see whether or not we can get on common ground. We have asked the Indians to prepare a brief and they have done so. Their representatives were here some months ago and the deputy superintendent general is now getting ready a brief in reply to theirs. But one of the difficulties we have to meet is the vagueness of their demands. I defy anyone to get them down to a concrete basis as, for example, so much for education, so much for relief and so forth. That is one great difficulty and it looks hopeless to me. I believe the Privy Council would only come to one decision. They are quite likely to follow precedent and to say to the Indians, "You are entitled to the same consideration as has been given other tribes throughout Canada." That the government is prepared to give them, and for the life of me I do not know what to recommend. It seems to be an unending difficulty, and I do not see that the government would be warranted in paying expenses of representatives of the Indians to go over and argue the case before the Privy Council unless we have something very concrete presented to us.


Arthur Meighen: Then you would be
quite willing that they should get a fiat and let them go over?


Charles A. Stewart: Cdi yes, if
they wanted to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs-salaries, $167,570.
Arthur Meighen: There is a decrease of a thousand dollars.


Charles A. Stewart: The personnel has been reduced by two and the only other difference is the statutory increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nova Scotia-Repairs to roads and dyking, further amount required, $2,500.
Arthur Meighen: Is it worth while going on with that now?


Charles A. Stewart: The change of government does not make any difference so far as that is concerned.
Item agreed'to.
Ontario and Quebec-repairs to roads and bridges and drainage, further amount required. $32,000.
Relief, medical attendance and medicines, further amount required, $450.


Arthur Meighen: Why is this reserved for the supplementary estimates?


Charles A. Stewart: We have a number of cases where the provinces are building those roads, and we did not know

Supply-Post Office
wo were to be charged with these amounts. We are contributing to the roads through the reserves and the provinces are contributing a part. In some cases we pay all of it, and in other cases only part of it, so that a number of these could not be put in after the estimates were prepared.


Arthur Meighen: Where is it to be spent?


Charles A. Stewart: We will
spend $5,000 in the Maniwaki district.


Arthur Meighen: That is in Ontario and Quebec.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.	And
we have to purchase seed grain and medicine. There is an expensive road put through the Caughnawaga reserve going into Montreal. We have an expenditure of $15,000 there.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot refuse anything there.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a very important road.
' Item agreed to.
Post Office Outside Service-
Salaries and allowances including F. H.
Smith, postmaster, Edmonton, at his present salary of $4,020 a year as Post
Office Inspector	$15,458,584 40
Mail Service	 14,580,000 00
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud, secretary of the High Commissioner's Office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific Cable Board at $1,000; $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the Governor in Council; and $500 for payments to employees required to work overtime checking incoming and outgoing British mails at steamship terminals	 1,051,050 00
Yukon Territory	 165,000 00
Appropriations not required for 1925-26.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General):: Post Office estimates, 1925-26	 31,254,634 40
Reduction	$	288,573 54
That explanation is necessary in order to understand what would otherwise appear to be an actual increase.


Mr. BROWN:: I was going to call the
minister's attention to a little incident I witnessed a month or so ago. We had a discussion in the House on the question of mail carried by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. The incident was this. I was down the Ottawa river on the north shore as far as Lochaber bay, and while waiting for the .train there I saw a train going into Rockland on the Canadian National. Just at the same time there came a ferry across the river and I saw a man carrying a big mail bag, all he could lug on his back. I went over to see what was in it. It was a large sack of empty mail bags brought across from Rockland on the ferry to Lochaber bay and sent in to Ottawa on the Canadian Pacific. This may be a small thing, but it is these small things that count. I do not see why such expense should be gone to in carrying mail bags into Ottawa. I do not blame the minister for that in particular, but there is surely some laxity in the department somewhere when an incident of that kind can happen.


Charles Murphy: I have no information
regarding the particular incident to which the bon. member refers, but as he says that the package was made up entirely of empty mail bags, that reminds me of a trifling saving of $157,000 or so we have made in the department, which I probably would not have thought of if the hon. gentleman had not drawn the matter to my attention. Mail bags are held in cheap estimation and are regarded as being of little account, but just the same they cost money. An effort has been made to save the country a considerable sum of money in the purchase of material for the bags and the manufacture of the bags. This system has been devised. Instead of leaving the bags to be scattered all around the country to be used for the storage of potatoes or the transportation of anything else that needs

transportation and for which another bag is not available, storage depots have been established in different parts of the Dominion with the result-and I am now speaking as to the figures altogether from memory-that last year, the first year this system was in operation, we saved about $157,000 in connection with the purchase of material and manufacture of mail bags. It may be that this package of mail bags which my hon. friend saw, wTas being transferred in the way he says because of the operation of this new system and has no reference to the carriage of the mails or the ordinary operation of the postal service.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston). Whose function is it to grade the post offices throughout the Dominion according to which grades the salaries are paid?


Charles Murphy: I understand it is the
function of the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know the minister has always a good warm spot in his heart to see that all his employees are fairly treated. That is his history in the past, and I know from experience it is his attitude now. In my opinion, there is too great a discrimination between the pay of clerks from grade seven up and those under grade seven. The maximum of clerks in grades under seven is $1,560, while the maximum of those from grade seven up is $1,680. But that does not indicate so much the discrimination or the hardship, as wall be seen by comparing the increases. The increase in grade seven up is S180, while in grades below seven it is only 860. That looks like too big a difference. I should like also to point out that in no other part of the service is such a discrimination shown. No such discrimination exists as regards the railway mail clerks or the letter carriers. They are all treated alike. Further, the work is not of such great difference as to justify this discrimination. The hours of a clerk in grades under seven are just as long and he is, perhaps, expected to be a little bit more acquainted with the work than is the case with the higher grade officers. For these reasons, I should like the minister to take into consideration this discrimination. If there is no discrimination, as regards railway mail clerks, letter carriers and senior postal clerks, I fail to see why there should be such a discrimination against employees under grade seven.


Charles Murphy: The point taken by my
hon. friend is well taken. As a matter of fact, this very question is at the moment under

Supply-Trade and Commerce
discussion with the Civil Service Commission. I may explain that the condition to which he has referred prevails as the result of a note attached to the classification that was made last year. The note reads:
Note 1. Postal clerks in post offices under grade seven and those in other offices engaged in dead letter, money order or postage stamp work shall not proceed beyond a salary of $1,560 per annum.
At the present moment the department is in touch with the Civil Service Commission discussing the elimination of that note, and I am informed that its elimination will bring about the very result that my horn, friend desires.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the earlier remarks of the minister, and I do not know whether he touched on the Pacific Cable board, but I should like to bring one phase of its operations before him. I understand that the cable between Australia, New Zealand and Canada is owned and operated by a company, the stock being put up jointly by those -countries and Britain, If I am not mistaken

the minister will correct me- Canada owns five-eighteenths, or something like that, of the share capital. Of course, the board employs a large number of telegraphists. It appears there is a. training school for them in England and another in Australia, but there is none in Canada. The result is, of course, that the young fellows entering the service from England and Australia largely predominate over those from Canada. I understand that the board is making a considerable profit in its operations, but apart from that, it is only just and .proper that we should have our share of the employees. I had some correspondence with Mr. Pacaud, our representative on the board-he has proved himself a most diligent official and .took a great interest in the subject-and through his energy I was able to get four Canadians put on as apprentices. But there are no facilities for training them in Canada, and the situation ought to be met 'by establishing a training school here. I hope -the minister will bake the matter into consideration and try to induce the board to establish such .a school in the Dominion so that we will have our fair share of employment along with the other two countries.


Charles Murphy: I must express my thanks, Mir. Chairman, to the hon. gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention. Of late I have been having a good deal of correspondence with the Pacific Cable board, and most of it has passed through the hands of Mr. Pacaud, and what the hon. gentleman says in commendation -of this official I heartily endorse. I am entirely in sympathy with the
suggestion made, and it will be one of the first matters to which I shall direct my personal attention after prorogation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-Dalhousie, N.B., and Carleton, Que., service between, $1,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, Mr. Chairman, the minister should tell us something about this. We -thought we had covered every possible subsidy. How is it this came to be overlooked? Is it a new service-who are the contractors-and what is the necessity?


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This is a new service. It is proposed to make three trips daily, except Sundays, during the season of navigation, except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when only two trips will be ma-de. The service was in operation in 1923.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the idea
of taking it up again?
iMr. LOW: It is needed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the recommendation?


Thomas Andrew Low: Our inspectors report that the service is required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For what? Here we are getting along without it, it is not -put in the main estimates, and we now have something which in effect is new.


Thomas Andrew Low: As I said before, -this service was performed in 1923. Sixty-four trips were made and 288 passengers and 50 mail bags were carried. My hon. friend will see that it is a service of some importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is so, the hon, minister was quite wrong in stopping it. Or is he wrong this year?


Mr. VIHN:: He is right now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What representations were made last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Chairman, I shall ask that the item stand until my deputy comes in.
Item stands.
Newcastle, Neguac and Escuminac, calling at intermediate points in the Miramichi river and bay, steam service between-additional amount required, $500.
Mr. LOW. This is an old service. The subsidy last year was $5,000. We felt, from the returns made by ithe company, tha-t there should be a reduction of $1,000, and $4,000 was -placed in the main estimates but representations were subsequently made to us that it would be impossible for the contractor to
Supply-Trade and Commerce

continue at that figure. So we compromised and made the reduction $500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On what basis of return to the carrier is that made?


Thomas Andrew Low: I will have to get the docket.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a small
thing-let it go, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Parrsboro, Kingsport and Wolfville, steam service between, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a new service again?


Thomas Andrew Low: No. A service was operating
there without a subsidy but the company refused to continue and took off their boat. We called for tenders but we received no response. This is the best arrangement we can make for a proper service. I am told there is a large tourist traffic in that district.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
name of the company that formerly operated?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was a subsidiary of the
Canadian Pacific.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the recommendation of the officer show as to traffic?


Thomas Andrew Low: The service was not previously subsidized, so there is no record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski and Pointe aux Outardes, service between- additional amount required, $2,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the increase there?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is an entirely new boat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
amount already paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
real reason for this increase of fifty per cent, aside from the persuasive eloquence of the member for the constituency?


Sir EUGENE PISET:: We have this year
a new boat which undertakes to carry passengers and to handle the mail contract. Besides, there is added to the contract a mail and passenger service between Rimouski, Bersimis and Pointe aux Outardes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the
contractors?	[DOT]


Eugène Fiset: It is a local company of which Captain Fafard is president.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is the
fifty per cent increase necessary?


Eugène Fiset: The need for the
service has increased one hundred per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
new boat built?


Thomas Andrew Low: It has just been completed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was there an
agreement made by the department before the new boat was built that this subsidy would be paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was an undertaking that it would be considered, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who gave the
undertaking?


Thomas Andrew Low: The department


Henry Lumley Drayton: The usual ex
cuse is that there will be a new boat if we pay the subsidy; here we have the stitement that the new boat is already built. Apparently any old excuse will go.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, steam service between-additional amount required, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Here is another
increase; what is the reason for that?


Thomas Andrew Low: During 1924 the loss on this
service, as certified to by a chartered accountant, was shown to be $2,539.60, and the prospects during the present year are for a further loss unless additional financial assistance is granted by the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are we
paying at present under this item?


Thomas Andrew Low: Ten thousand dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the principle been established of making a fifty per cent increase in the supplementaries for these services wherever it is asked?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend should give
us credit for reducing one of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is such
a notable exception to the rule that it cught to be labelled, photographed, preserved. An amount of $10,000 was provided in the main estimates as sufficient for this service; now we are to increase it by fifty per cent. When was this demand made?


Thomas Andrew Low: Since the main estimates were
submitted to parliament.


Robert Gardiner: Is there a contract in
relation to this subsidy?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: All contracts are. made subject to the vote of parliament. If this vote is not passed the contract will automatically cease, and so will the service.


Robert Gardiner: What was the date
of this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: April 1, 1925, for one year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So we have a
contract made on April 1, for $10,000 and we are now increasing it to $15,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, not at all. The contract
is for $15,000. The amount placed in the main estimates this year was the same as last year, but it was found that the contractor would not agree to continue the service unless there was an increase of $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the
contractor?


Thomas Andrew Low: Hugh Cann & Son, Limited, of Yarmouth.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the size of the boat?


Thomas Andrew Low: Leng'h, 120 feet; breadth, 25
feet; dep'h, 11 feet; net tonnage, 176 tons; gross tonnage, 299 tons; capacity, 350 tons.


Arthur Edward Ross: When they fail
to carry out these contracts, has the minister ever considered using the vessels of the merchant marine? Here is a boat sailing up to Escuminac, where you have a new harbour, a new wharf, and now you want a new boat.


Thomas Andrew Low: I doubt whether the vessels
of the merchant marine that are idle would be suitable for this service.


Arthur Edward Ross: (Kingston):	Is not that a
chronic complaint against the vessels of the merchant marine?


Thomas Andrew Low: It may be, but it may also be true.
Item agreed to
Summerville, Burlington and Windsor, steam service between, $500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a new
service?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the why of that?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is to serve the people of
Burlington, Summerville, Avondale and other points, and enables them to get their produce to the market in Windsor.


Arthur Edward Ross: What province is
it in?


Thomas Andrew Low: Nova Scotia.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why is the amount only $500 in this case, and $5,000 in the others? Is this a smaller boat?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is a difference in the size of the boats.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I might be able to say a word or two about this service. This boat runs from Summerville, along the Hants county shore, Minas basin, the Avon river, up to Windsor and return. It serves people who are. at least twelve miles from a railway, and have no other means of communication.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the hon. member must have been neglecting his constituency because only $500 is asked for this service, whereas we have just passed votes for $5 000 for similar services.


Clifford William Robinson: This is a verjr small
boat.


Arthur Edward Ross: What size is it?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is 92 feet long and 22 feet broad. The net tonnage is 66, and the gross 123.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dalhousie, N.B., and Carleton, P.Q., service between,
Thomas Andrew Low: I shall secure the information my hon. friend wants if he will allow this item to pass.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item pass on that understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal commission to inquire into the grain trade- further amount required, $3,300.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think the House could stand the shock of knowing just exactly what was the total cost of that commission?


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been submitted to the House two or three times.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is always
growing. Here is the last growth.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will turn up the records of the House, he will find the figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have only one index, and we are always losing our index. The minister has his deputy here; surely he can tell us what the total cost was.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: It was $170,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that really the last call?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think so. I think it was worth while, too.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has any allowance been made to Chief Justice Turgeon, the chairman of the commission?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, there has been no amount placed in the estimates for that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That will be quite satisfactory. Of course, he would be drawing his salary as a judge.


Ernest Lapointe: There have been representations made that Air. Justice Turgeon is certainly entitled to remuneration for the splendid work he did during last year, but under the Judges' Act as amended two years ago, a judge of a high court cannot be paid any other remuneration than his salary. That is the obstacle in the way.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That is what I had in mind. I hope the government, in view of the fact that Chief Justice Turgeon has been receiving his salary while acting as chairman of the commission, will not consider it desirable or advisable to disregard a section of the statute in order to pay him any sum of money.


Robert Gardiner: The minister told the committee the commission had cost $170,000, and he thought we had received good1 value for the money. Would he for one moment suggest that we have received any value for this expenditure in view of the Grain Act that has just been passed?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Rupert elevator, towards the construction of further amount required, $685,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a big growth. I thought we had done this before. I think we have already voted $650,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, $500,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but the year before we voted $150,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: We did not use any of it, or very little.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite right, because there is no revote shown on page 66 of the main estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: Only a very trifling amount was spent, if anything at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there must be an error in the main estimates submitted, because it does not show a revote.


Thomas Andrew Low: Up to the 31st of May, 1925, the total amount expended was $72,499.17.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much has been spent since?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract for the substructure is completed. It amounts to $222,000.


Robert Gardiner: There was a previous estimate passed for this elevator.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, $500,000.


Robert Gardiner: And we are now voting $685,000. Is this for the superstructure?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, for trestles and everything.


Robert Gardiner: That means the elevator is going to cost over $1,000,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is the capacity?


Thomas Andrew Low: Speaking from memory, 1,350,000 bushels.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister the original estimate of the cost of the elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: The original estimate was
$1,329,000. The total cost will be less, $1,249,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think that is the information the House got before. My recollection is that we were told last year that this would be a cheap construction and that there would be no difficulty about the foundation. But far from that being the case I think this is one of the most expensive elevators the minister is building. To the amazement of everyone the foundation alone is to cost $220,000 or thereabouts.


Thomas Andrew Low: You cannot build an elevator on rock; you must prepare the foundation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We were told last year that the foundation would be reasonable; it was an excellent place for an elevator. But this is the most expensive one the minister can boast of. He has struck the pinnacle here.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the most expensive elevator having regard to the cost per bushel capacity.


Robert Gardiner: Who are the contractors?


Thomas Andrew Low: Messrs. Carter, Hall & Aldinger.


Robert Gardiner: What will be stored in this elevator when it is completed?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think my hon. friend asked
the same question about the Edmonton elevator last year.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Gardiner: I did not ask the question then but I should like to have it answered now. *


Thomas Andrew Low: We hope to fill it with grain.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where will the grain come from?


Thomas Andrew Low: The hon. member asked this question when the Minister of Public Works had a certain item before the committee and the minister spent fifteen or twenty minutes telling him what part of the country would be served by the elevator. I have nothing to add to the information then given.


Arthur Edward Ross: The government had various lots which were finally sold at $7 a lot, and I think the minister made a great mistake in not retaining them until this construction was undertaken. I am sure that the value of those lots would have gone up.


Mr. JELLIFF:: If the minister would
substitute Lethbridge for Prince Rupert in this item I think the country would receive more value for the money to be spent and it would be more serviceable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief supplies for the Leeward islanders-further amount required, $300.
Arthur Edward Ross: What is this for?


Thomas Andrew Low: We had in the main estimates an amount to cover a donation of lumber and other supplies made to the Leeward islanders last year. When the accounts were received we were $300 short.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inquiry re ocean freight rates-further amount required, $25,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister now give to the House the information denied in the return brought down? The House is entitled to know what money has been spent and who got it. The return was simply a sham.


Thomas Andrew Low: All the accounts have not yet been received. We have not got the account of counsel for the committee; that will come through the Department of Justice although it will be paid from this item. Mr. Symington, I understand, is on his way home and it can hardly be expected that he would send his account in the day after the closing of the investigation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the amount already voted?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount is $9,997.07.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Voted?


Thomas Andrew Low: No expended. Already voted,


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that we have $35,000 voted for the costs of the enquiry. How is that money to be allocated?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is to pay for the entire
investigation, witnesses, staff, stenographic work, counsel and anything else in connection with the investigation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much of
the estimate is for witnesses?


Thomas Andrew Low: I cannot give that information; I do not know whether the accounts are ali in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But what is the estimate?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not got the items separately itemised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend know anything at all about the matter except that he has paid out so much money? Is this simply a hit and miss in the dark? Is not the slightest care being taken in the matter? It would seem not, from the minister's answer, and the House is being treated with absolute contempt so far as this item is concerned. What allocation has been made as between counsel, stenographers and witnesses, for example?


Thomas Andrew Low: There has been no allocation. This amount we believe will cover the expenses, and if it is not all required it will not be used.


Mr. FORKE:: Is there any understanding
with counsel before they undertake the work?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, the Minister of Justice
arranged the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There need not be the slightest difficulty about this item if the government wants to be fair to the House. One would think there was something in it of which they were ashamed.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is nothing we are
ashamed of. We have not received the account of counsel yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Comparatively
early in the session a question was put on the order paper in regard to counsel's fees, and so on. The information given the House at that time was that Mr. Symington was to receive $200 a day for the period of the investigation. He was to get that amount for every day he put in whether the committee
Supply-Trade and Commerce

sat or not, and of course one would expect him to be paid for any work he did whether the committee was sitting or not. Now, why can we not get all the facts? We had the same inquiry in regard to Mr. Lafleur and we know definitely what he. received.


Thomas Andrew Low: After Mr. Lafleur had sent in
his account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will not contradict the minister but I think Mr. Lafleur's bill was $1,400; we got that information.


Thomas Andrew Low: When the question was asked
we communicated with Mr. Lafleur and requested him to send in his account.


Ernest Lapointe: When the answer was
given Mr. Lafleur had not yet sent in his account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At any rate,
the government had no difficulty in giving the information in his case. Here we are asked to vote this sum of money and I cannot see any reason why we should not have all the particulars, especially in view of the fact that the House itself ordered that the information should be brought down. The order of the House was dated June 8. Now we have had this delay from June 8 to the present time. We have an order filed which is incomplete on its face, which shows on its face that the government is not discharging its obligation to the House fairly. I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, why we cannot get discovery in a case of this kind. We have a right to get it certainly on this vote. If we cannot get the government to pay any attention to the orders of the House, we can at least get the information on this vote. But why should there be any delay about it? The minister knows exactly how long this inquiry occupied. There is a record and the per diem allowance is also well known.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is very easy for my hon.
friend to figure it out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If this government would only give to other people the opportunity of doing most of their figuring for them, and if they would give to other people the right of directing them and doing something towards having things done in the right way, it would be a grand thing. But just at present we are not figuring on the moneys the government is handing out. We cannot control that. It is absurd to say that we can do the figuring.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see why my
hon. friend should build up such a difficulty. There is no mystery. There is no secret. Mr. Symington has been retained. The amount

of his fees has been given publicly to my hon. friend. It is $200 a, day. It is less than the government of which my hon. friend was a distinquished member paid to the horde of counsel who appeared in the Grand Trunk arbitration and the Canadian National arbitration. It is no secret. This investigation has just taken place. The amount which will be paid will have to be determined by the number of days Mr. Symington has devoted to this work. That has not yet been ascertained. He has not- sent a bill to the department yet. What can we do? I think my hon. friend will agree that we have been busy enough in this House and that we should not be compelled to run after our creditors and ask them to hurry up and send us a bill. He may rest assured that {he bill will be sent in due course, but all that is necessary is to know the amount of the fee, and this has been stated publicly at $200' a day. It will be paid for every day Mr. Symington devoted his time to this inquiry. Why the trouble? Why the fuss? Why is the eloquence of my hon. friend devoted to this subject?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know whether my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would suggest that orders which the government do not oppose are to be disregarded1. I do not know that he seriously takes that position. It would be much better, however, for my hon. friend to take that position and say that this government is not bound at all by any order of the House, and! that they will pay no attention to it, than to adopt the method they have adpoted here, of bringing down returns which are absolutely illusory and misleading. My hon. friend says there is a lot of fuss being made about nothing. I do not know that it is nothing when a charge is made against an administration that is supposed to function. It is true the supposition is a violent one, but it is certainly not a light charge to say that they treat orders of the House with contempt. We have absolutely no explanation of it one way or the other, but there is a good deal more in this than Mr. Symington's bill. The House said on the 8th June that they were to know, and that a return was to be made as to how much this inquiry would cost, and it would have been a very easy thing to have found out what it would cost. My hon. friend I think knows perfectly well at the present time that the estimate which they have now brought in is not going to cover that cost. Every member of the government knows it perfectly well. It may be that time is unnecessarily wasted about something, but the fault is not here; it is with the government which should have

Retirements jrom Service
paid some attention to the order of the House, instead of putting in a return the only object of which was to mislead the House. I do not consider these idle or light matters. I think the people of this country have a right to regard the formal return of this government as meaning what on its face it is supposed to mean. This return is supposed to cover the whole cost of the inquiry. That is the order, and instead of the order containing that information, it is simply a return which conveniently gives only one item in the whole thing. My hon. friend might say that is right. He may complain about delay, but the delay and the trouble is absolutely owing to the government not doing as they ought to, giving us proper information in connection with an inquiry which I venture to assert will cost-I do not know where it will be hidden- at least $50,000. Why should not at least an estimate be given? I am not asking very much when I ask for an estimate. I simply want an estimate showing how this is arrived at. It seems to be a most outrageous proposition to think that this vote can be put through the House without even a guess as to what it is for, as to whether it is for counsel fees, or for this or that, or whether it is for stenographers, or anything else. I have been letting a lot of things go through this afternoon without saying anything about them, and they were matters which ought to have been discussed. Here is one thing which, if there be any desire to deal honestly with this House and the people of this country, can be answered in two minutes.


William Irvine: If the Acting Minister of
Finance (Mr. Robb) is able to estimate the total expenditure of the nation for a year ahead, the minister in charge of the estimates ought to be able to tell us the cost of a committee after it is held. If he cannot do that, I do not think we ought to vote the item. I will go so far as to say that if he cannot do it, he ought to pay it out of his own pocket, especially in view of the fact that the committee, including all that pertains to it, is an absolute fiasco.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



RETIREMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE


Hewitt Bostock: I regret to inform the
House that we are losing the services of two 319
distinguished public servants, Mr. Alfred Hamlyn Todd, who after fifty years of service in the library has applied for superannuation on account of ill health, and the other Mr. A. C. Campbell, Editor of Debates. I have received the following letter from Messrs. Burrell and Taehe, Librarians:
Ottawa, June 25, 1925.
The Hon. Rodolphe Lemietjx,
Speaker of the House of Comons.
Sir,-We have the honour to enclose a copy of a report from Dr. Fraser on the condition of Colonel Todd, assistant librarian who has not been able to attend to his duties for some time past. Colonel Todd, we think, recognizes that it will be impossible for him to continue tasks which require the ability to read without difficulty. While reluctant, therefore, to dispense with the services of an official who for more than fifty years has rendered valuable and conscientious services to the library, we respectfully recommend that Colonel Todd be superannuated, and, in view of his unique record, it would be gratifying if he could be given six months' leave of absence with full pay, dating from July 1 next.
We have the honour to be, Sir,
Yours obediently,
M. Burrell.
J. De L. Tache.
I have nothing to add to the compliment paid to Mr. Todd for his long and distinguished services to parliament. I can only express the hope that he may enjoy better health in the future.
As the House has always asserted its authority over its servants, it is moved by Mr. Beland, seconded by Mr. 'Stewart (Argen-teuil):
That this House approves the recommendation of Mr. de L. Tach6, General Librarian, and Honourable Martin Burrell, Parliamentary Librarian, that six months' leave of absence from the first of July, 1925, prior to superannuation, be granted Mr. Alfred Hamlyn Todd, Assistant Librarian, who for more than fifty years has rendered valuable services to the library of parliament.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is not
customary to make extended reference to officials of the country on the occasion of their severing their relations with this House, but when a man of the standing and reputation of Cdlonel Todd has passed more than fifty years in the public service and retires, a word of recognition may not be inappropriate. Colonel Todd, as we all know, is the son of a distinguished author who has been of great service himself to parliament. In the performance of his work in the library anyone who frequents that institution will know how uniformly courteous he has always been, how alert and anxious to serve, and how encyclopaedic his knowledge of the library itself. I do not think that in the course of my life

Retirements from Service

as a member I have ever asked for anything in the library which he was not able to reach in very quick time, or for any other service which he was not prompt and efficient to give. I am sure we all regret that he is now encountering ill health and must retire from a work which he liked verj' much indeed. I join with Mr. Speaker in expressing the hope that retirement may prove of benefit to him.
Hon. H. S. BELiAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment): Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of pleasure do I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and Your Honour towards Mr. Todd. I remember in my younger days-and it is much longer ago than I care to admit-when I first came to this parliament, almost a quarter of a century ago, I frequently went to the library to read up various subjects and I found Mr. Todd ever ready to guide me in my uncertain steps toward knowledge. I express also, in the name of the government, regret at his being obliged to abandon the position which he has so highly honoured and the duties of which he has discharged with credit to himself, to the House of Commons and to parliament generally. The motion that you have read to the House, Sir, will, I have no doubt, be unanimously approved. It will be only a very feeble recognition of the eminent services rendered by this faithful servant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: As I said a moment ago, another veteran will leave us after this session. I refer to Mr. A. C. Campbell, Editor of Debates, who has been with us in the House of Commons for almost forty years; who was promoted from the press gallery to the floor of the House, and from the floor of the House he ascended further to the office of Editor of Debates. He has been a public spirited servant. He has the characteristics of his race, being a good Scotchman. He has always been most attentive to his duties and desirous of helping the members and of facilitating the business of the House of Commons itself. I regret that he has to leave, bu' while expressing that regret the House will learn with pleasure that he will be succeeded by way of promotion by one whom we all know and whom we all appreciate, one who also was a member of the press gallery for many years-I refer to Mr. George Simpson. Applying in this as in the other case the principle that the House of Commons asserts its authority over its officials it will therefore TMr. Meighen.]
be moved by Mr. Graham, seconded by Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil):
That Mr. A. C. Campbell, Editor of Debates, who has been in the service of the House since the year 1893, and is now in his sixty-eighth year, be granted six months'leave of absence with full pay from July 1, 1925, at the expiration of which he shall be superannuated and replaced by Mr. George Simpson, the present Associate Editor and Assistant Chief of Branch, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, and amendments thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-inquiry re ocean freight rates- further amount required, $25,000.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to take up a question raised by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) before six o'clock. Before entering upon what I have to say I am going to make a further reuest of the government, the granting of which will obviate the necessity of any further pressure or very unwelcome delay at this time of the session. It is merely this-and a more justifiable request I cannot conceive of-that the order of the House which was made on the 8th of June in response to a motion placed upon the order paper be complied with, before the session ends, say tomorrow morning, to the fullest extent that the government has the information. It is this:
The total expenses incurred by the special committee in its investigation into Ocean Rates, showing, (a) full amount paid to Mr. Symington in fees, (b) the amount in fees still due to Mr. Symington as counsel, (c) total amount paid and incurred for expenses to Mr. Symington. (d) the amount paid to each witness for fees and for expenses, (e) the amount paid or proposed to be paid to Sir William Petersen for fees. or. and, for expenses, (f) amount in full paid to W. T. R. Preston in fees or, and, for expenses since January, 1924; and all other expenses, including reporting and printing, incurred by the committee, or by the authority of the government.
How the government can resist this request I do not know.


Thomas Andrew Low: We will not resist it at all. I assure my right hon. friend that I will give him to-morrow, before the day is over, the very fullest information that my department or any other department-inquiry will' be made from all departments concerned-can furnish:	Mr. Symington has not yet rendered his account, but I will be glad to give my right hon. friend an estimate to-morrow of what Mr. Symington's fees will probably total.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister transmit it to me by letter?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: I will.


Arthur Meighen: I will accept that. I
cannot understand Mr. Symington's account not being in. It seems a strange proceeding.


Thomas Andrew Low: I may say that inquiry was
made about an account of M.r. Lafleur's four months after the work had been done by him, but even at that late day we had to ask Mr. Lafleur to let us know what his fees were in connection with that work.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Symington, though,
was down here for some time after the inquiry was all over, and had plenty of time to put his account in.


George Perry Graham: I wonder he did not ask
for something on account, being a lawyer.


Arthur Meighen: I fancy it is likely he
has. But it does not look to me as though the government was anxious that the amount be brought down. As a matter of fact the whole employment of Mr. Symington or of anybody else was wholly unnecessary. I have read the report of the inquiry, and if he had been employed by Sir William Petersen he could not have served the interests of Sir William Petersen's end of the contract more. He served apparently as counsel for the government through the whole matter. Now, the one other thing I wish to ai for is this: that at the same time I receive an answer to the question which is on the order paper, No. 2, which asks what sums in addition to the estimates the government has requested parliament to authorize payment of in government measures during the session of 1925. Nobody would suggest I have not right to that.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am inclined to think the
Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) answered that question to-day.


Arthur Meighen: He has not, because I
brought it up. Not only did he not answer it, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), using language which I think he ought to regret, expressed the view that I had no right to it because I could go to work myself, dig into it and get it. As everyone knows, the purpose of questions is to get, not the authority of some individual, but the authority of government for data. That is what I have asked for several times in this House and that is what I want now to ask. If I have the minister's undertaking that that will come to-morrow, I will accept that.


Charles A. Stewart: What department does it come under?
319i


Arthur Meighen: It does not come under any special department except Finance. It is not difficult to get. I know I could do it. Any official of the government could do it in half an hour. It is not to avoid the work I am asking it; it is because I want the authority of the government behind the answer, which I am entitled to have, which the people of Canada are entitled to have, and which as a representative I ask for. The purpose of questions is just that purpose.


Thomas Andrew Low: So far as my own department is concerned, I can assure the hon. gentleman I will be very glad to do it, but I cannot speak for all the departments.


Arthur Meighen: All anyone has to do is to go over the bills that are here-they are all introduced in the Commons, not in the Senate-and from those bills compile the answer. I do not ask a minister to do it. I ask that it be done by a proper officer, and I want the undertaking of the government that it shall be done. The question was asked in abundance of time.


Charles A. Stewart: It should
not be very hard to answer it.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Justice told me I could do it myself very quickly. He fails to realize what the real purpose of questions is. If anyone will give me that undertaking on behalf of the government, I am satisfied.


Charles A. Stewart: I will take it up in the morning for you.


Robert Gardiner: Now the minister has satisfied the right hon. leader of the opposition, would he satisfy the House to the same extent? Can he give the information now?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I cannot.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
quite right. I was a little bit selfish in speaking for myself. It is the House that requires the information, not myself, and I think it should be given before the House adjourns, so that it will go on the record and everybody can see it. I do not know whether it is the purpose to sit to-morrow or not. If it is not, I can see it will be difficult to have the information go on the record but if we sit to-morrow, will the minister undertake it will be in such form that it will go on the record?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: All right, I accept that.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edward Joseph Garland: I am puzzled to know how it is going to go on the record if it is not produced until to-morrow. Do I understand that questions that remain unanswered and orders for returns that remain unfilled may be filled during the recess, or do they simply lapse?


Arthur Meighen: If the House meets tomorrow, even for the purpose of prorogation, the minister can read it, or he can ask Hansard to take it as read. Then it goes into the record. If the House does not sit tomorrow, I do not see any way of getting it into the record. The hon. member knows who is responsible for that. The government is responsible.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would be very glad to send to the hon. member (Mr. Garland, Bow River) a copy of the letter I send to the leader of the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Let it be put on the
record.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not understand yet. I would like to get the information. Is it to be confined to the leader of the opposition?
Mj\ LOW: Not at all.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It will be read into the record to-morrow?


Thomas Andrew Low: If we meet to-morrow.


Edward Joseph Garland: My question remains unanswered. What happens to these orders unfilled and questions unanswered at the end of any session?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister can undertake to get it into Hansard to-day, because there are no officials at work. I do not absolve them on that account. It is utterly indefensible that we should have had to bring this up to-day at all. But if the House sits to-morrow, even for the purpose of prorogation, then it goes into the record. That is the undertaking of the government. If the House does not sit to-morrow, all that can be done is to have the information given to me and to the hon. member. As to the other orders, there are any amount not complied with. There are at least a dozen?


Edward Joseph Garland: What happens to them?


Arthur Meighen: They stand a monument to the evasion of this government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-West Indies Trade Conference, $20,000.
Thomas Andrew Low: This is to take care of the expenses in connection with the conference that is being held in Ottawa at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I earnestly hope there
will be success to this conference, but I w'ould like to have a statement as to just what is the object of the ipresent delegation. What variations do they hope to secure? I do not mean to say in detail, but speaking generally. What modifications of the agreement of 1920 are they desirous of securing? The minister will know doubtless from the correspondence. What is the complaint? Is it in respect of tariff, or is it in respect of transportation, and if either or both, what is wrong as to tariff, and what is wrong as to transportation?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is in connection with transportation and the existing trade agreement. The transportation question has been a very live one for some years, in fact, ever since the last agreement was entered into in 1920, the matter has been under discussion. Up to the present, nothing definite has been concluded. The conference met for its first business meeting to-day, but nothing has been discussed in detail so far. We hope that the trade agreement entered into so profitably in 1920 may be enlarged and the transportation problem worked out. That would help very much in our trade with the West Indies.


Arthur Meighen: Then, generally speaking, the tariff arrangement is satisfactory?


Thomas Andrew Low: Generally speaking.


Arthur Meighen: But transportation is
not?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the real question.


Arthur Meighen: Is the complaint with the frequency of the service or the speed?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is one of the questions,
and the service generally.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the government has gone far enough into the matter to realize now that they certainly cannot get on without the merchant marine if they are to continue relations with the West Indies. The silence is eloquent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honorary Advisory Council for scientific and industrial research-further amount required, $15,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why this further amount?


Thomas Andrew Low: Last year there was a grant of $10,000 to the Canadian Engineering Standards Association. It was felt that that work could be properly carried on by the research council,

Supply-Interior
and an amount of $5,000 has been placed in the estimates for that purpose. The balance, $10,000, is required to investigate the problem of the magnesite industry in Canada. The research council, after making a preliminary investigation, is strongly of the opinion that research work should be undertaken in connection with this industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Canada Grain Act, administration of-further amount required, $50,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is the matter
with this?


Thomas Andrew Low: When the Canada Grain Board
submitted their estimates I reduced them by about $90,000. After going over the estimates with the chairman of the board, it was felt that with the addition of the other elevators, it would be necessary to have another $50,000 at least.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that if
the change in the Grain Act in this respect is utilized, allowing the board to pay what they like, subject to the Governor in Council, this $50,000 will not do it either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent Record, $35,000.
Thomas Andrew Low: This is to cover the publication of a record printed weekly by the Printing Bureau and the amount that is paid to the bureau for the service.


Arthur Meighen: It is a tremendous
amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the salary of one principal statistical clerk for ten months to March 31, 1925,
at $2,280	 $1,900
Additional amount required to provide for the salary of one expert in grain chemistry.. ..	1,300
Arthur Meighen: Can you get an expert
in grain chemistry for $1,300?


Thomas Andrew Low: No. There is an item in the
main estimates with regard to this. The salary is $4,300, and this is merely to provide for the balance of the salary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses connected with Canadian National Parks, historic sites, care of indigents in the parks, etc., and to reimburse the provincial government for the salaries of police magistrates at Banff and at Jasper, $1,025,000.
Charles A. Stewart: This item
was left over from the previous debate.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to take advantage of
this item to invite from the minister a statement with regard to his position in connection
with the application to develop the power on Spray lakes. Hon. members of the House will have heard of this project before. The situation now is that some two or three years ago the province of Alberta made application in its own right for a license to develop the power in this lake area, which is included in the national parks. An investigation has been carried on, and apparently the consulting engineer employed to advise the government has given the opinion that a great deal of power can be developed in that area. There has been some slight opposition to granting a license in this area on the ground that it would commercialize this section of the park and constitute a very bad precedent. I think hon. members will recall that some of those who have been in that area have indicated very clearly that, so far as scenic value is concerned, the area is not of much significance. A short time ago the government of the province of Alberta called a conference at which representatives of the city of Calgary, the city of Edmonton and some of the other municipalities consulted together with a view of determining whether or not joint action should be undertaken for the purpose of developing this area for water-power purposes. In that connection I desire to read a telegram received) by me under date of June 20, from the mayor of the city of Calgary:
Calgary city council unanimously endorse application Alberta government for rights develop Spray lake power site. Calgary vitally interested not only in question urgent necessity development to meet increased demands for power but proposed storage will effect very considerable floods control Bow river which has often caused serious damage to city in past years. After recent conference with government Edmonton we are satisfied if they are given permit by Dominion authorities there will be no exploitation park resources or disfigurement scenic attractions in national park. City of Calgary by reason its close proximity to Banff park Is deeply concerned in retention of all those things which make park attractive for tourists. We urge your best efforts towards securing of permit by provincial government and hope you will place our views before House on first opportunity.
This is my first opportunity to place before the minister and the House the attitude taken by the city council of Calgary, as indicated by the telegram of its mayor. The only suggestion of opposition to this scheme, so far as I know, is the one reason I have already mentioned, and secondly, a suggestion that perhaps the power can be developed in other parts of the province from coal. I do know but little about the comparative merits of development by steam or water-power; but I do know that the Canmore Coal Company, which is operating a coal mine within a very few miles of the proposed development, has expressed a desire to secure power from this
Supply-Interior

proposed project for the purpose of carrying on its mining operations. I ask and invite the minister to indicate -to the House his attitude in connection with this important matter, a matter not only of great importance to the city from which I come, but also of great importance to many municipalities of the province, and to the future development of the various sections of the province.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Arthur Meighen: Has the Calgary Power
Company no rights there now?	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: On lake
Minnewanka.


Arthur Meighen: None on Spray lakes.


Charles A. Stewart: No; it has no rights there. In view of the fact that there has been so much protest against this development I have hesitated considering the

application. I believe a development of this character is somewhat premature but if people want to invest money I do not know that it is any great concern of ours. In the second place, there is no other large development of this character in the province which would yield the same amount of power for the expenditure to be made. I had hoped that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) would be here to-night. The hon. member takes a vital interest in this question and he is on record in Hansard as registering a mild protest against the exploitation of the parks for any purpose whatever. . I should like to know what the feeling of parliament is on this matter. I intend next session if I am still Minister of the Interior to bring down an amendment to the Paries Act putting the natural resources of the parks under the control of parliament, so that applications of this kind would have to come before parliament in the shape of a bill and be passed upon. There is a very strong feeling abroad that we should not interfere with the natural beauty of the parks and for that reason I think it would be well to place the natural resources of these areas under the control of parliament itself. On the other hand, this application has been pending for three years and I am informed that the provincial government is anxious to go ahead with the development. The Prime Minister so informed me the other day and I assured him that the matter would be discussed shortly in the House when- the estimate was under consideration and when I should have some idea as to how parliament felt about it.


Arthur Meighen: I remember the subject
being before me but very briefly some years ago. I have read the remarks of the minister in a previous debate and, as well, the address of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
I would gather indisputably from his words that he is strongly opposed to anything being done that would mar the natural beauty of this park by any power development at the Spray lakes. I am informed also that there has been considerable protest from other parts of Canada against the general principle of commercializing the parks, and possibly some of these protests have special reference to this site and this projected exploitation. Another factor that weighs with me is the fact, or so I am informed, that the head of the Parks branch, Mr. Harkin, has set his face against the utilization of these falls. On that account it is with some hesitancy that I venture to express an opinion. But finding the government in the position of having no policy it would be a shame not to assist them in any way that one could. I want to

Supply-Interior
say in this respect that their attitude is in no way unique. It is becoming an almost invariable habit with them to represent themselves as being without any opinion on any question that comes up and, as it were, waiting for instructions. Now, I venture the opinion that this country cannot set its face definitely for any length of time against the development of practical power sites in our parks. I do not think that can be done. If you have a big city with aspirations for industrial progress, and hungering for power as Calgary will be, though it may not be just yet, it certainly is assuming a ereat deal to stand a thousand miles away and to say, "Do not harness the power at Spray lakes because I and many others might like to look at the water falling down there. You should be good enough to do without the very life blood of industry in order that we may have that pleasure." I can recall years ago when the question of Niagara development was under review, not in this parliament but in Canada. At that time Canadian and American magazines were filled with protests, with splendidly written articles, and with all sorts of violent protests against the idea of commercializing this wonderful beauty spot of nature. Imagine the folly that would have been .perpetrated had these words been heeded! Just think of the suggestion of denying to the people of Ontario the comforts as well as .the wealth which Niagara development has yielded, in order that some tourists might be able to see more water flowing at a single spot over a hill. Perhaps it is not the same as respects the Spray lakes which are in a natural park. Nevertheless, though perhaps in a lighter degree, the argument applies. There is no province in Canada, unless it be Saskatchewan, which has less natural potential water-power than Alberta; and in that state of the province I do not believe that any government in the world can deny the claims of the people to utilize such powers as they have. Nor is it essential, I should think, that there should be any gross disfigurement of the natural beauty of the park as the result of power development. I know there could be.


Charles Murphy: They get over that difficulty in Italy and Switzerland and they have great power development.


Arthur Meighen: What the Postmaster
General has been good enough to interject is quite true. By the exercise of careful supervision, power development can be made quite presentable, and if I were in the Banff national park, I would prefer to see there some well executed, splendidly finished engineering feat
that had the purpose of giving to mankind the benefit of a great national asset, to having the mere, crude pleasure of watching the spray at a great height. Consequently, in so far as my advice is of any value to the minister, I would say: Just as soon as he is convinced that there is real use to be made of this power site; that it is really needed, then, subject to proper restrictions, subject to proper supervision, the power should be thrown open. I do not say it should be thrown open to the Calgary Power Company necessarily. It might be the part of wisdom to assign it to the province of Alberta, but I never would assume a dog-in-the-manger policy, and with an affectation for the beautiful in nature, presume to deny to our fellow-beings the use of a great natural possession and resource of Canada.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Certainly one cannot resist
the clear-sighted and logical policy enunciated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am sure if he saw some of the snapshots of that area, some of which I have under my hand, he would agree with me immediately that the area has not any very special significance as regards scenic value.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member for Bow
River says, "hear, hear." He visited that area last year and saw it for himself. That particular variety of scenery can be duplicated in a thousand different places. The parks in Alberta total an area of approximately 9.000 square miles, and all of this, if advocates of park conservation are to have their way, is to be forever a closed area in which there shall be no commercial exploitation at all. Some advocates of park conservation or preservation agree with the view that the parks in Alberta are altogether too large. The present park area should be carefully surveyed so as to pick out the points of special scenic significance, and the rest should foe permitted to be commercialized where commercialization is proper and justified. With what the leader of the opposition says in regard to a proper development especially of this particular area, I find myself in accord. I happen to have a copy of the Manchester Guardian Weekly of Friday, April 17, of this year, and apparently there has been from time to time a great deal of controversy even in England with regard to the preservation of what might be called mountain reservoirs. I desire to read from this article one or two selections which will epitomize the situation:
Supply-Interior

Much cf the early indignation was probably due to a confused idea that new moorland reservoirs are what devout Calvimsts used to call "humanised abominations", whereas the lakes previously existing were intensely authentic and well-considered works of nature. In truth there are few things which nature makes sc arbitrarily and so accidentally as lakes, or by which she seems to set less store when they are made. As Playfair pointed out, before our large-scale reservoirmaking had fairly begun, a lake in nature is but a temporary condition, a mere incident, of a part of a river.
Further on, this article states:
Of course a corporation may disfigure a fine vallev by building ugly waterworks and houses, by forcing the banks into rigid lines, or by lining the margin with stone setts. But none of these mistakes is a necessary Dart of reservoir-making. They are merely bad reservoir-making. The very few buildings, roads, and fences that reservoirs need would serve their purpose at least as well if they were models of beauty. And this they ought to be-simply from public spirit in all cases, and also from enlightened selfishness.
My suggestion to the minister is that the application of the province of Alberta should be granted and that if necessary that particular area which has no special scenic value should be excluded from the park area. That can be done easily and readily, and subject to proper festrictiops as regards (development, having in view the preservation of whatever scenic values there may be, the government should not hesitate to grant a license to the province of Alberta if and when it makes application therefor.


Clifford William Robinson: I should like to ask
the minister a question concerning Fort Beausejour on the boundary line between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Does the government own any land there at present", and is it the intention of the government to expend any money there in the near future to preserve this historic site?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. We
own about seventy-two acres, and it is the intention later on to develop this historic site.


Clifford William Robinson: This year?


Charles A. Stewart: Not this
year. Later on. I am told there will be some expenditure this year.
_ Mr. ROBINSON:	Has the minister any
information about Louisburg?


Charles A. Stewart: We are acquiring land at Louisburg and putting up some tablets this year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has
spoken of how valuable an asset these parks are. In the park at Banff the largest hotel is owned 'by the Canadian Pacific Railway, 
and undoubtedly the tourist traffic which is made possible there by the de-9 p.m. velopment carried on by this government brings in very considerable revenues to- the Canadian Pacific because of both the traffic on the roads and the hotel property. Has the minister any information as to the revenue derived by the Canadian Pacific through their hotel at Banff?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not that information. I do not know that it is published in any form. Undoubtedly, the hotel is a great attraction to tourists who have plenty of money.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hotel at
Banff taxed in any way by the Dominion government?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister
not consider that, since these large sums are being spent by the Canadian people to maintain this park and to attract touris s and since roads are built in every direction and wealthy tourists brought there from every part of the world, the people -who benefit financially might return something in the way of taxation for the privileges they enjoy by being placed in the very heart of the park?


Mr. MARLER:: Do they not return a
great deal in the way of taxation? They are the largest taxpayers in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: The question of municipalities in parks is a somewhat difficult one. We only lease the lands upon which the buildings are erected. We do not collect taxes. They tax themselves for educational purposes. Outside of the licenses we collect, very little revenue is gathered in from the municipalities. This is some hing upon which we must develop some policy in the very near future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With an expenditure of over SI,000,000 of the people's money in connection with this park system, it would seem to be only a reasonable thing to expect some return.


Charles A. Stewart: I think we get it.^ Of course the park is not all the attraction, but it is estimated that over $30,000,000 comes into Canada as a result of tourist traffic. The money spent in the country means a very profitable business. Those who reside in these parks are not taxed to nearly the same extent as they -would be outside.

Supply-Interior


Mr. AROHAMBAULT:: Where would the people go if there was no hotel?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting that there should not be a hotel, but we are speaking of the commercializing of these places. They are already commercialized and a few large corporations gain the major benefit of the large expenditure, which does not return directly to the people. I do not think it is an unreasonable suggestion that there should be some tax on these corporations that derive the greatest financial return.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not any idea what return the hotel gets, but it will be readily understood that for a period of five months the rates are high because an inistitution of that kind is pretty expensive to keep up. I do not think it begins to pay for the actual investment, but as an adjunct to the railway no doubt it is very valuable.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has stated his case and asked a question, and the right hon. leader of the opposition has also asked for information. I should like to see this concluded, and it will be if the minister will only state to the House what he intends to do with the application of the government of Alberta for a lease of this power development.


Charles A. Stewart: I did expect to hear some very direct objection taken, but as I have heard none I presume that parliament is in favour of the project.


Edward Joseph Garland: As the minister is asking for some expression of opinion, I doubt very much whether the financial position of Alberta will justify it entering into this project at the present time, but that is the business of the province itself. On the other hand, there are two applications before the minister; one from a private concern	to develop	this power plant,
and one from the government of Alberta to develop it on behalf of the people of the province. I say to the minister he should have no difficulty whatever in reaching a conclusion-the people should come before private interests in the development of the public utilities of this country.


Charles A. Stewart: Agreed.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May we assume from tie minister's statement that the application of AJberta will be favourably considered, subject to such proper restrictions as may be imposed' by the federal government?


Thomas Vien: Carried.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to indicate what conclusion he has reached on the matter. I did not gather whether that is his attitude or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought I made it very clear that I was simply calling for the attitude of parliament on this question. I have learned discretion since becoming Minister of the Interior in looking into these applications. I say at ones that I would very much prefer that the province of Alberta should make application and receive the grant instead of a private company. After all, these projects are very well safeguarded by federal restrictions. From the expression of opinion to-night I gather that the House feels we should -give consideration to the application of the province if it is in proper form.


Arthur Meighen: We are not any further yet as to whether this should be preserved as a sort of aesthetic blossom or be made use of as a work for the advantage of the people. The minister says he comes here seeking the attitude of parliament. Well, parliament is seeking the attitude of the minister. Parliament has had its say. Now, what is the minister's position; is he favourable or is he unfavourable?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I have made two speeches on this question.


Arthur Meighen: And said nothing.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly
not. If my right hon. friend wants a direct expression of opinion as to whether or not I am going to grant this franchise, I soy I am going to give it consideration and I cannot say to-night whether I shall grant it or not. There are some things that I want to satisfy myself on. If the right hon. gentleman was in mjr place, with so many adverse resolutions before him, even in the facj of a favourable disposition on the part of parliament. to grant a franchise to the province, I think he too would hesitate before taking action. After all, parliament is the proper place, it surely represents the true state of public opinion, and if the province of Alberta is sincere in this thing, and if its application is in order, I will be prepared to go forward with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion lands and parks-amount required to meet uncollected portions of advances of seed grain made in the Province of Saskatchewan by the chartered banks
Supply-Interior
[Stage Direction]
to holders of unpatented Dominion Lands under the guarantee of the Dominion government, also including commission payable to banks for collections, fees to secretary-treasurers of municipalities and officers of the provincial Departments of Agriculture, clerical assistance, travelling expenses, etc., $25,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is for the past
year?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
*an estimate for this year.


Arthur Meighen: How much did it cost
last year?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
believe we had any last year.


Arthur Meighen: Will there be any this
year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we
were notified there would be in Saskatchewan, *not in Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: This plan of handling
it through the banks has proved much better than the other?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, very
much better.


Arthur Meighen: I accept the compliment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to transfer buffalo from Buffalo park, Wainwright, Alta., to the Wood Buffalo park near Fort Smith, N.W.T., $20,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why is this being done?


Charles A. Stewart: The buffalo at Wainwright are increasing so rapidly that we can scarcely keep them inside the fences. We have about eight thousand there to-day. We have killed a great many of the older animals, but we have had difficulty in marketing the meat and even in selling the hides. TVe are taking the yearlings up to a park in the north to see whether we can increase the numbers of the animals by creating a herd in that northern, territory.


Mr. CRERAR:: What is the condition of
health of the buffalo in Wainwright park? Are they suffering from disease of any kind?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). In slaughtering the animals we have found some of the older ones showing pretty strong traces of tuberculosis, but not much evidence of that disease has been found in the younger animals. But they are getting so congested that we are fearful of disease breaking out among them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How many are there altogether at Wainwright?


Charles A. Stewart: About 8,000.
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Arthur Meighen: What is the reason for
the difficulty in the marketing of the hides?


Charles A. Stewart: Users of
automobiles do not require a heavy robe of that character, and they are too heavy for coats. We have tried almost everything in the way of manufacturing them with a view to creating a sale for them.


Arthur Meighen: Are they too heavy because of the age of the animal?


Charles A. Stewart: It is a very thick hide. It can be stripped and reduced in weight, but still, when manufactured it is much heavier than the ordinary fur coats that are sold nowadays on the market. The old days of the sleigh robe are gone.


Mr. THURSTON:: What has been the
revenue from the slaughter of the buffalo, and the cost of that slaughter?


Charles A. Stewart: The receipts have been about $84,000 as against an expenditure of $76,000. We have in storage hides, heads and pemmican valued at about $161,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: When we passed the
item about the Yukon I really should have asked that it stand as -the hon. member for Aukon (Mr. Black) wanted to say a word. I hope the minister will permit it.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). Certainly.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: In regard to the
item of $10,000 granted to the local council to cover expenditures on replacements of public works destroyed by the flood, does the minister think that is at all an adequate appropriation? I understand his agent in the territory wired very urgently requesting that $50,000 be granted.


Charles A. Stewart: I did anticipate that the amount would be over $10,000, but I did not want to provide a very large item. I have some recent photographs that would indicate that there has been very considerable damage up there.


George Black: I have a copy of
the telegram from the gold commissioner to the director of the Yukon branch in Ottawa, stating that they require some $50,000. The telegram is very explicit and very urgent.


Charles A. Stewart: That telegram came in May, just at the time of the flood, but we have had no definite estimate of what the amount of damage would be.

Supply-Interior


George Black: 
Charles A. Stewart: 
George Black: 
Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I think that is correct. We are to a certain extent responsible, having told them that undoubtedly they would be in receipt of this money.


George Black: Would the minister give the committee some information concerning an item in the public accounts appearing under the head of cost of administration, Yukon Territory, $100,000, Exchequer Court award for the Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Company?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry I have not that information, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend. It was the result of some award by the court, -but I have forgotten the circumstances.


George Black: settlement is fraudulent, and now the item appears in the public accounts as part of the expenditure for administrating the Yukon territory. If the government consented to give away $100,000 to these people who filed this claim for $17,000,000, I say that it should have been charged up under some other heading than the administration of Yukon.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
I am concerned I do not know anything about this claim. It has certainly never come before the Department of the Interior. My hon. friend states it was in the Exchequer court. I have no recollection of the claim at all. I have a recollection of hearing a claim of this character which had been very long delayed being discussed, but I really am unable to give my hon. friend any information about the matter.


Arthur Meighen: Can the Minister of
Justice do it?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no recollection
of anything of this kind. It must have been before I took charge of the department. However, I am willing to make a search for it.


George Black: It is not very
ancient. The judgment was entered and the money paid after the 1st March, 1924, so it is not much over a year old. I am inclined to think the minister is altogether correct when he says he does not know anything about it, for I could not conceive of him paying this claim if he knew anything about it at all, although the claim does arise entirely out of the administration of the Department of the Interior. What surprises me is that the claim was paid without the minister knowing anything about it. Somebody on behalf of the government must know something about it, and I would like to know the people to whom the money was paid, and why they were paid when they had no claim at all.


Charles A. Stewart: I certainly
will look into the matter. Matters that get into the court for court decision, of course, get out of the hands of the minister except the Minister of Justice. The case is out of the control of the other ministers when it reaches that stage. My hon. friend informs me that the matter has been lying dormant in the Exchequer court for a number of years, and therefore it would not come through the Department of the Interior. However, I shall be very glad to get the information and give it to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Was the minister made
aware of the settlement of this claim at all?


Charles A. Stewart: My accountant tells me that the payment came through the Department of the Interior, that the judgment was issued, and paid apparently in the ordinary way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On what date?


Charles A. Stewart: In March,
1924.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say
that to the best of his recollection the question of consenting to this judgment never came before the government as a whole?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sure
it must have come before the government, but I must confess I have no recollection of the matter.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish in the face of the answer of the minister to make any unfair reference to him, but I do protest against any government consenting to a judgment and then paying the money out on that judgment without coming to parliament. The Exchequer Court Act, of course provides that a judgment of the Exchequer court can be paid merely out of consolidated revenue, but the contemplation of that act was a judgment rendered on the finding of the judge himself, not merely on the approval or finding of the government. It never for a moment was thought it would be a mere means of providing a government with power to pay out public money without recourse to parliament, on the will of the government alone. But that appears to be what was done in this case. If what the hon. member for the Yukon says is right and a judgment was rendered without the mind of the Exchequer court judge being applied to the case at all, if it was done merely on the consent of the government, the government should have come to parliament for authority to pay that money, and there should have been no consent unless parliament approved. It is simply defying the rights of the people.
I do not know anything about the merits of the ease. I am pretty much in the position of the minister. I have a hazy recollection of it, and it is not so hazy after all; it is coming clearer to me, a case amounting to nothing less than a huge magnificent fraud that lay in the Exchequer court for years. I remember it coming before me occasionally, and the very thought of a settlement being spumed, and I am amazed to hear that this government consented to pay out public money to

Supply-Interior
the extent of $100,000 on a claim of that kind. Can anyone tell us who were counsel for the claimants?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot. I was just going to remark that we have a recent case, that of Maunsell, against the Department of the Interior for illegal cancellation of a lease. It comes to my mind because it is recent. I immediately took steps to appeal, to protect our interests in the matter. But the case my hon. friend from the Yukon speaks of, I have no recollection of at all. However, I shall be glad to get the information.


Arthur Meighen: I would like to find out who were the lawyers in this case. While I cannot pretend to any intimacy with the details, the impression that was left on my mind was that the claim was nothing but an unmitigated and colossal scandal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the
minister kindly tell us whether this particular case was handled by the Department of Justice, or whether it was handed out to some political legal friends?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not like to make any statement on the case at all. I have a hazy recollection of the case, at least I think it is the one, but without refreshing my memory with respect to the whole thing, it is difficult to recall any particulars. Undoubtedly the Department of Justice would be handling the case.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think any agent of the Department of Justice would have agreed to a judgment by consent without the authorization of the department. I do not think this case has come before me while I have been in charge of the department.


George Black: I might inform the committee that the solicitors for the suppliant were Aylesworth, Wright, Thompson and Company. The case was never tried by the courts. The government cannot excuse itself by saying it had to carry out a judgment, because the merits of the case were never gone into by the court. It passed through the Exchequer court in the first place on the technical defence which I have outlined to the committee, and was ultimately sent back by the Privy Council to the court for trial on its merits. The merits were never gone into for the reason I suppose that there were no merits. The claim consists of about fifteen items amounting in all to $17,619,000. It reads like a fairy tale, for no one living in Yukon and having seen the ground would say anything but that this claim is absolutely ridiculous. They could not conjure up $2,000,000 let- alone $17,000,000 for the whole lease.
To provide for the operation, maintenance, and settlement of the Canada Land and Irrigation Company's project in the province of Alberta, subject to security for repayment with interest upon terms arranged by the authority of the Governor in Council. Appointments and payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $100,000.


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
provide funds to carry on the Canada Land and Irrigation Company's project for one year. We covered this matter fully in the estimates before. We have a first mortgage investment of $400,000 and this will of course increase it by $100,000 in addition to the $20,000 which we loaned the project last year to carry on. So that we shall have slightly over $500,000 against the undertaking, which has cost $15,000,000. The liquidator hopes to make a sale this year, but that is rather doubtful.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we doing
the actual work ourselves or are we advancing the funds to the company to do it?


Charles A. Stewart: It is done
under our own manager. We have also our own staff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it the old
staff?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
Mr. Hays, the former manager, in our employ. He has a large farm in the district and is a thoroughly trained irrigation engineer. It is possible that if he had been there at the inception of the work things would not be in the present difficulty. Mr. Meek of the Irrigation department, one of our own officers, is in charge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The next item I suppose is really the same thing.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay Messrs. R. R. Hall and William Irwin, of Peterborough, upon the relinquishment of their interest in timber berth No. 507, $120,430.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is an old
matter and the minister has sent me the files in connection with it but I confess I have not been able to get at the bottom of it. I recall that at one time when the previous government was in office a similar proposition was made to them but was rejected, but I cannot pretend to have any distinct recollection of the fact3.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: I suppose
that my hort. friend has read the memorandum prepared on the subject, giving the history of the acquisition of this timber area in British Columbia near New Westminster. Some years ago while the berth was held by the present holders, Messrs. Hall and Irwin of Peterborough, steps were taken to preserve a reservoir which was created for the use of New Westminster. Some mistake was made in the department at the time and Messrs. Hall and Irwin failed to be notified, so that they did not discover the circumstances in connection with the reservation until they had entered into an agreement of sale for the property when they found that they could not transfer the property inasmuch as the reservation had been placed on the greater portion of the timber area to prevent the pollution of the water.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has that reference to the $70,000?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
remember the exact figure. I think it was a little more than that. Subsequently the department offered them an exchange of property but apparently was never able to come to an agreement with them. I tried for three years to effect an exchange of this birth for other property in British Columbia but we could never agree upon the basis of exchange. The difficulty of logging appears to enter largely into the matter of exchange there. Some timber areas are logged cheaper than others and we could not secure a territory that would be satisfactory to the parties. We did succeed in getting them to accept one area as a partial exchange for the property, but later on in trying to make an adjustment we disagreed. Finally I made the parties an offer to pay back the money they had expended in connection with the property, and the original purchase price added to interest and other charges amounted in all to $125,000 odd. We are asking for $120,000, that being the agreement I have with Messrs. Hall and Irwin.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was there an
opinion of the Justice department?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we had the matter thoroughly scrutinized.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is their
opinion?


Charles A. Stewart: As my hon. friend knows, these matters are all submitted to the department for their opinion.


Mr. BRETHEN:: What is the area of the property?


George Gordon: I read the file a short
time ago and perhaps I may be allowed to say something on the subject. When Sir James Lougheed was Minister of the Interior he recommended the exchange of an equal area of equal value by reason of the fact that the government had allowed a certain conservation area to be established including a part of this berth. The result was that the New Westminster municipal authorities constructed a dam in what was known as the Coquitlam reserve. The dam, some eighty feet high, caused the water to back up over this vast area making it impossible for the berth to be used commercially. As my hon friend (Sir Henry Drayton) will see by the file, Sir James in his report to council recommended that there should be exchanged for this an area equal in value. It was impossible at that time for a settlement to be arrived at and when the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) assumed office a similar offer was made. The party sent cruisers over the different berths but were never able to agree and it was finally decided that the amount of money which the trustees had paid in on behalf of the syndicate should be repaid to them plus fire dues and certain other charges which they had paid. The department was to pay five per cent in addition, but not compounded. They insisted for a long time that they should be given compound interest but the department refused, and finally, last fall, they came to terms. They have lost some $22,000 in expenses in connection with, cruising trips, inspectors, solicitors' fees and other costs, but I believe that included in that $22,000 there is $3,000 or $4,000 of principal and interest which the department has refused to pay. Ultimately they compromised on a basis of $120,000. The basis of settlement agreed upon latterly was that recommended by Sir James Lougheed to council, but there is no indication that council ever acted. I think that was about five or six years ago, but there is his report upon the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of that?


George Gordon: It is in the file, I can find it. But in those days it was impossible for them to agree as to what berth should be given in exchange, and it was impossible to agree with the Department of the Interior under my hon. friend; so that a compromise was made under those circumstances. I was anxious to know something about the matter, by reason of the fact that these gentlemen were part of a syndicate residing in

Supply-Interior
Peterborough. I had the opportunity of perusing the file and the facts as I have stated them are set forth in it.


George Arthur Brethen: Does the minister assume any responsibility for the damage?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The
acreage of the area is 6,000 odd acres.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is just an
exchange.


George Gordon: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is partly right and .partly wrong in connection with the difficulty here. The initial difficulty, as I remember and as I have been able to gather after hastily looking at the file which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior sent over to me, grew out of the fact that an arrangement had been made for a water supply for the city of New Westminster. This property formed part of the watershed for that supply, and under the usual arrangement as to preserving the purity of water supplies in municipalities, nothing was ever done in regard to this lease. There was a further application in the matter. I think the mis. take my hon. friend refers to in connection with the department lay in the fact that some time in 1910 an order in council was passed setting aside the whole of that territory, overlooking entirely the fact that this particular berth had been leased. There also appears to have been an arrangement in the first instance entered into between the Hon. Frank Oliver, when he was Minister of the Interior, and the municipal authorities in connection with the water supply, which was later amplified, confirmed and carried perhaps a little further. As to that I do not know, because I have not been able to find the original papers, but I gather from the file that it was confirmed and adopted by Dr. Roche when he was Minister of the Interior. My difficulty to-day is that I cannot say now whether or not this vote should pass. It is impossible for the members of the House or for the minister really to acquaint themselves with the story of this whole transaction in the dying days of the session. It is another instance of one of those things which ought not to be done-the resurrection of old claims and their presentation in the dying days of the session. Two sessions ago we had some pretty good examples of this, and we had considerable discussion in cases where old claims were presented which were without legal authority, and settled without any proper investigation. My protest in the first instance is against the continued practice of
bringing down claims of this character under circumstances that give po proper opportunity fcr consideration and discussion. My hon. friend himself, in the way in which he introduced it, has not covered the case at all. He has given us no more than a bird's eye view of a long, complicated situation. He has given us a small sketch of the memorandum he had in front of him, and this memorandum is only fragmentary as compared with what the files show. In the first place I point out that this matter starts in 1907. In 1907 this particular berth, No. 507, was put up for sale by tender and it was acquired for the sum of $43,344. The matter rests there until in May 1909 the berth is assigned to the present claimants, Messrs Irwin and Hall. The file disclosed different things in connection with the berth. It discloses for example that the deal was an unfortunate one, that the ground was of such a character, so broken up and so rough, that the timber was not worth anything on account of the expense which would be entailed in lumbering operations. I do not know of course whether those statements are correct or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my
hon. friend has been confusing the matter by reference to certain areas of the berth that were not included in the reservation for the preservation of water. The area alienated for the purpose of purification of water was quite available for logging; but that question did arise in our endeavour to settle the matter later, and there is an area on the other side on the height of land lying over to the southwest that will be available for logging probably in the very near future. The railway is built into another berth that adjoins it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: However that
may be, I am pointing out the difficulties the file itself shows.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon
friend is quite right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is room for much argument as to whether it applies to this berth or not. I notice the memorandum on the file of December 21, 1917 to the deputy minister. It comes from the Timber and Grazing Lands branch, and I think the history is given here fairly well. I read the following:
As you may recollect in 1910 a reserve was made by order in council of certain timber on Coquitlam lake, with the object of protecting the waters of the lake, from which the city of New Westminster take their water supply. Through an oversight on the part of the branch which handled this reservation, the reserve included a portion of berth No. 507, which had
Supply-Interior

previously been granted to Messrs. R. R. Hall and William Irwin of Peterborough. Some time ago it was rumoured that this berth was going to be operated and the city officials of New Westminster protested against the berth holders being allowed to operate that portion of their berth which lay within the reserve. The matter was referred to the Department of Justice, and, as anticipated, they held that the berth holders had the right to cut the timber covered by their license if they so desired.
I may say that apparently in the ten-year period between 1907, when the lease was given down to 1917, the right seems to have been left with the holders of the license to cut and sell that timber if they so desired. This memorandum continues:
As a preventive to the contamination of the waters of this lake, and any other waters which might in future be similarly affected, the timber regulations were amended so as to place certain restrictions on operators.
A joint inspection of the portion of the berth affected was made in October, 1916, by an official of the Timber and Grazing Lands branch and an official of the Water Power branch.
This is an inspection, not of ithe other part as suggested by my hon. friend, but of the part covered by these restrictions put on in connection with the water supply of New Westminster. That is, unless the file is absolutely wrong. It goes on:
Our inspector reported that the examination of the berth convinced him that there was no likelihood of the portion of the berth affected being logged in the near future, as the ground was rough and at the price which then prevailed the timber could not be removed at a profit. The inspector was of the opinion that the agitation regarding the logging of the berth had been aroused for the purpose of inducing the government or the city of New Westminster to purchase the licensees' interest in the tract affected, and he recommended that matter be allowed to stand in abeyance until some definite move was made by the interested parties.
If my hon. friend desires to interject anything at that point, I shall be glad if he does. I am pointing out from the report of the department of December 21, 1917, what the -result of the inspection was of the portion of the berth affected. We are -told that the land is just what I said at the -commencement, of such a character that, during the w-ar period, when lumber was high-and we all kno-w it was high then-it wo-uld not pay -to -co-nducit logging operations. Then -the memorandum goes on:
In July last Mr. Irwin who was then in Briti.h Columbia, wrote our agent at New Westminster that, the licensees proposed operating the berth in the near future and that they were prepared to consider a proposition of compensation for the timber affected.
Later on Mr. Hall wrote along the same lines, pointing out that the owners were prepared to consider the selling of the timber on the tract affected to the department or the city of New Westminster, or making an exchange for other timber; and has recently been urging the department to make a survey in order to ascertain just what portion of the tract is within the watershed of Coquitlam lake, I may here say that the w'hole of the portion of the berth included in the reserve does not drain into the lake. A portion drains

into Gold creek, and any operations conducted on the tract within the watershed of Gold creek would not, of course, affect the water in the lake.
In view of the nature of the report made by our inspector as to the feasibility of the licensees operating that portion of the berth referred to, the probability is, as pointed out by the inspector, that the licensees have not any intention of operating the tract in question, but are endeavouring to sell to either the government or the oity of New Westminster timber which is practically of no value to them. I have discussed the whole matter with Mr. Weld, of the Water Power branch, and he is of the opinion that even if the licensees did operate that portion of the berth which drains into the lake, the interests of the city of New Westminster would be reasonably well protected if the licensees carried out the conditions of their license which pertain to the pollution of waters.
He goes on:
Should the tract be operated, and it is found that compfliance with the conditions of the license is not a proper protection against the contamination of the waters of the lake, it appears to me that it would be a matter for the city of New Westminster and not for the department to arrange with the licensees.
I recommend that the licensees be advised that the department does not propose to take any steps towards purchasing their interest in the timber on the tract in quesion or granting them other timber in lieu thereof.
As I say, I do not know whether that report made by appasently an official of the- department in good standing, the gentleman in whose charge the matter is, Mr. York, is or is not correct. But if it be correct, the situation is that we are paying for timber which, according to him, is useless to those gentlemen owing to the fact that it will erst them so much to get it out. That may or may not bs correct. There is in the files so far nothing *which shows it to be incorrect. The first reference made to this question as to the territory being of such a character that there is n-o money in it is, I have noted, in th.e report of October 18, 1916, and that report, I think, must be referred to in part in the summation made by Mr. York which I have just read to the House. Eight down to the time when what appears to be the first report was made on October 18, 1916, as to the character of the land, absolutely no attempt was made to do anything with this property.
Again, if the information we
10 p.m. gather from the report 19 correct-[DOT] -and I assume the government's position is that it is correct-the first thing that we see as to any suggestion of working this lease is, so far as my reading goes, to be found in a letter of July 12, 1917. I admit at once that it is a very hurried reading, and I have not covered anything like all that is in the file. I simply have not had the time. The suggestion was made in the report of October 18, 1916, that if anything was said at all about working this berth, it would be only for the purpose of getting

Supply-Interior
either the government or the city to buy the licensees out. The first evidence that I find of their wanting to work it comes, of course, after that suggestion by this letter from Mr. Irwin of July 12. He writes in that letter which is to the Dominion crown timber agent at New Westminster:
The owners of Dominion timber berth 507 have decided to institute logging operations to take the timber off this timber berth, and I am attending to the matter while at the coast. We understand a portion of this timber berth is within the boundaries of the conservation of water area of the city of New Westminster, and that the city desires to keep the timber in this area intact. We regret the conflict but are situated so that it is of necessity for us to get the matter of taking off the timber under way at once.
My only object in writing you is that I understand the city has made some representations to the Dominion government with reference to the preservation of the timber within the area mentioned and to say that the owners of the timber berth would be quite reasonable in considering any proposition of compensation for the timber upon that portion of T.B. 507 within the conservation area, or of any alternative proposition which might be made The matter, however, will have to be attended to at once as we are desirous of making arrangements with one of several parties with whom we are now negotiating, looking to cleaning up the timber berth. The only method of logging the timber berth which could be considered would be that of putting the logs in the lake and driving the river.
Kindly let me hear from you within the next few days as to what position, if any, the city of New Westminster desires to take in the matter.
Thus the question of the working of this limit was brought up, so far as I have been able to find out, for the first time. Matters rested there. The next thing that struck me as very important is the memorandum of January 30, 1919, to Mr. Challies. From that memorandum it appears the brief was prepared by Mr. H. W. Grunsky, who seems to have to do with the legal issues in the department. In his view the department is under no liability in the case. I do not want to hold up the committee by discussing the whole of this lengthy memorandum, and I will content myself with reading this short extract:
If Mr. Grunsky's view is the correct one, it does not appear to me that the department is interested in the case, it being one between the berth holders and the power company.
That, I think, is where the question of the dam referred to by my hon. friend comes in. There is a big dam-put in by the power company, I think, not by New Westminster -and this constitutes an additional difficulty, for I suppose it makes logging operations impossible. My hon. friend says it is 88 feet. I accept his statement at once. With that dam there it is quite clear that these berth holders cannot log that district very well through the lake, they would have to go down 320
the other way and either use the railroad or the other water which I have already referred to. But I would point out to the House-and my hon. friend will tell me whether this is right or not

that if the difficulty be, as pointed out by him, the building of this dam, there can be no possible liability in the Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: The liability is for the granting of the closed area.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Dominion
surely has the right to grant its water-powers.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the
dosed area under the lease.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a different matter entirely. Suppose we take the liability here, as stated by my hon. friend the Chairman, that that 80 foot dam had been erected and these transactions could not be carried on-supposing that is right, and I am going to accept it-what liability can there be on the department or the government? Mj' hon. friend knows perfectly well that the liability, if any there be, is on the power company in not maintaining a proper by-pass, or some other arrangement, in order that those logs can be carried through; so far it has never been looked upon as a liability of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: But my hon. friend forgets that the logging operations were stopped on account of the pollution of the water that was going to be used by New Westminster. It was not particularly the building of the dam, but the restrictions placed upon the logging of the berth, which could very readily be logged into the Coquitlam river.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend must see that if the dam was there, and the logging could not be done anyway, the falling back on the other matter is an excuse, not a reason. Down to 1917 the department was taking the position: We have put in reasonable regulations under which the water will not be polluted; go ahead and cut. And why should they not go ahead? Because we have this dam which is spoken about, and the opinion then given makes it perfectly clear:
If Mr. Grunsky's view is the correct one, it does not appear to me that the department is interested in the case, it being one between the berth holders and the power company.
There we are. I do not know whether the department has had an opinion from the Deputy Minister of Justice since, saying that Mr. Grunsky's law is wrong. But if he is

Supply-Interior

right, in law there is no justification for what we are doing.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is building up an argument against * treating with these men at all. All the ministers who preceded me appeared to be quite willing to make an exchange. I never attempted to do anything else. I quite believed that these berth holders were entitled to consideration. We have had the timber valued half a dozen times, and I think my hon. friend will recollect that Mr. Craig made the most recent valuation. We were trying to made an exchange, as we frequently do for various reasons, for instance, that the berth cannot be logged. But what I would point out to my hon. friend is that that was the established policy of the department, and that is what I recognized it to be-to give to these parties an exchange for their property. We still have the timber, which my hon. friend will agree is increasing in value all the time, because it is becoming more difficult every year to secure timber-even the timber over the height of land in berth 507 is becoming more valuable-and we will get our money back. That is what I want to point out to my hon. friend in connection with the whole transaction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am simply doing the best I can with the file I have before me in the very limited time at my disposal. I wonder if my hon. friend has read the memorandum of the branch of June 0, 1919, when the whole matter is gone into and particularly the policy of making provision for a log chute is discussed. For example, this, as bearing out the difficulty of doing anything with timber on that property:
An explanation on file shows that the consulting engineer took the position that the river was entirely unadapted for logging, and that the omission of the log chute could not affect the position of the timber licensees, and that a railway would have to be built in any case to get the logs out properly.
Of course, if that is true, the building of a dam did not make any difference; the property could not be worked anyway. There is the reason why we have the tremendous delay, and if that memorandum is true the property simply could not be worked.
Engineers of the Waterpower branch state unofficially that Mr. Freeman's view about the unadaptability of the river for logging is correct. They also point out that mechanisms have been incorporated in the dam for the release of large quantities of water into the stream if required below the dam for logging purposes,-
And so it goes on. But I have not been able to find anything which says we are liable.

Paragraph eight at page five of the memorandum reads as follows:
On the question being referred to the Department of Justice, the above position was substantiated,-
That is, I presume, as to the absence of liability.
-and upon a second reference to the same department a few months later, the opinion was given that the city would have no claim against the crown for damages for the flotation of logs down Coquitlam lake.
I cannot find anything here as to liability. On the very question of this claim, at page 7, the memorandum proceeds:
The timber berth owners ask for $125,000 damages this amount being based on the value of the timber in the entire area of the berth. They do not seem to recognize, or perhaps have not the facts at their command, to show that the timber from a large part of timber berth No. 507 can be marketed as easily as before the dam was constructed.
And it goes on in connection with the watershed of the Gold creek, pointing out that so far as at any rate the major part cf this property is concerned all this trouble about the Coquitlam watershed has nothing to do with it at all; that it could all be looked after.


Charles A. Stewart: That cannot be so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know; I am simply reading from the report of officials of my hon. friend's department, officials who are supposed to know what they are talking about.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no question that there is a certain portion of the berth that is inaccessible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and according to Mr. Grunsky, the larger part is. The report I am referring to is the one of June, 1916. Now, the matter goes to the Justice department, and I would like my hon. friend to tell me-I think I asked it before, but we did not get a categorical answer- what the position of the Department of Justice is as to this claim.


Charles A. Stewart: I never discussed it from that point of view at all. The claim when I had anything to do with it was one of exchange-there was an effort to arrange an exchange.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, there is
one of the difficulties of dealing with this case. The minister does not know the legal right of these gentlemen to get $120,000 of the taxpayer's money. I had better read what that opinion says:
In the case then under consideration the minister advised that allowance of the entry desired would not seem to be unreasonable, but that the expediency of it was a matter for the consideration of the Minister of the Interior and His Excellency in Council. I think these powers may be invoked to justify approval of a recommendation in the present case,-
That is, as to exchanges, as I understand it.
-and that it would not be unreasonable to authorize the licensees to cut timber of corresponding value upon Dominion lands in an other location in consideration of surrender of their existing rights, but while I am disposed to think upon the authority aforesaid that the power exists to authorize these arrangements, the question of propriety or expediency is to be determined by the Governor in Council.
Not one single word as to their being any liability on the part of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, where licensees had allowed their berth to go uncut for a number of years and the government stepped in and prevented the cutting advantageously of perhaps the most accessible portions of the berth, surely the licensees were entitled to some consideration. I never questioned the right of exchange; the difficulty was we never could reach an agreement as to value. I recommended that rather than give more valuable timber we pay back to the licensees the expenditure made and keep our timber, because my own opinion is that we will eventually be very much better off with the timber than we would be by making the exchange. Of course, the $120,000 is in coin of the realm; the licensees get it and we keep our timber. The hon. member has gone into a long argument as to legality. From the strictly legal point cf view I suppose we could say to the licensee: "You have got your berth; do what you like with it; we will not recognize any liability on our part for interfering with your rights and privileges." But in dealing with matters of this kind, if by inadvertence or some other circumstance the government by its action destroys the investment of the licensee, surely the licensee is entitled tc some consideration on that account. I think my hon. friend would agree with other ministers who have dealt with this matter that an exchange should be arranged if possible.
32(11


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister's
statement overlooks the real facts of the case. It overlooks the erection of the eighty foot dam, for which this government certainly is responsible. It overlooks the state of the river, which cannot be fed in the ordinary way by these logs, and which his own department says cannot be used for that purpose. It overlooks the fact that the conditions out there were such that from 1906 up to 1916 no one thought of doing anything with it-not until it is known, as pointed out in the report of the previous November, that there are difficulties in the way and there as some chance of their getting paid either by the city of New Westminster or by the government. But the point I am really emphasizing is this: that it is absurd to expect any proper consideration of a matter of this kind on a supplemental .estimate brought down at this hour of the session. I am just going to finish with the legal question now. The matter was again sent to the Justice department on September 20, 1921, and Mr. Newcombe gives another opinion. He first acknowledges the letter and says:
In reply I beg to state that I have nothing to add to the opinions in regard to the above matter given by me in my letters to Mr. Cory of the 25th of October, 1919, and the 9th of May last. If by "valid claim", you mean "legal claim" my reply must be in the negative, but as stated in the opinions just referred to it is open to the Governor in Council if he thinks. it expedient to make an exchange of timber berths,
That is as far as the Justice department could go, and I submit that they were right in their opinion that there is absolutely no legal liability. The situation is an unfortunate one. It is very unfortunate that these gentlemen should have been held up by all these different matters in connection with their investigation. But why should the Dominion have to take on the whole burden in the absence of all legal liability? Here we have nature itself making that berth, which is valueless until a railway is built, and if the records of the department are to be relied upon-my hon. friend will not say they are not-they show that the river cannot be used, irrespective entirely of the dam; that the river was such that it was not at all suitable for logging operations. In short, the investment was a mistaken one. Here is a lot of timber that the licensees could not have removed irrespective of anything whatever *about New Westminster, except at a greater cost than the timber would be worth even dn the war period, and now we are called upon in the dying days of the session without the slightest proper opportunity of considering
Supply-Interior

this matter, to say that these two gentlemen shall have $120,000. I am not in a position to say whether the whole of this is wrong or not, but I do point out that it does seem absurd that against the reports of the officers of the department, against the reports that the timber cannot be removed, against the fact that an eighty-foot dam is built over which we have no control, and for which we are not liable, giving absolutely no chance of logging operations going on, against the fact that the reports of the department show that unless the railway be built this timber is valueless-


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is confusing his explanation/ because the railway, referred to is the railway built into the southern block, and which when built allows logging to be done quite acceptably, but my hon. friend is referring to a railway being built into the area which the Coquitlam river formerly served before the dam was erected. There is no provision made there for logging, but even if there was provision made for logging, the reservation placed upon the reserve was where the difficulty started in the first place.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: The reserve to preserve the portion of the accessible area.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend referring to the order in council of 1910?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no doubt that so far as the legality of the scheme is concerned you could say to the licensees: Keep your timber. But you 'have stepped in and deprived them of the privilege of logging, made it very expensive, and the logical thing to do was to exchange that timber for timber of equal value, just as we are doing at Banff national park to-day, because we do not want the licensee to cut the timber and destroy the scenic value of the park. I am trying to substitute for that timber other timber of equal value. But in this particular case we did not seem to be able to come to an agreement about it. Always there was a difference of opinion as to the value. My hon. friend is keeping away from the question of the value of [DOT] the berths altogether.


Robert Forke: How was this value reached?


Charles A. Stewart: Upon the
estimates of trained cruisers.


Robert Forke: On the part of the government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
on behalf of the licensees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The chairman
has called my attention to a la/ter report to council by Sir James Lougheed. There was no action taken by council except that the matter was referred to the Department of Justice. This will show the view of Sir James Lougheed:
The city of New Westminster takes its water supply from Coquitlam lake, and the Vancouver Power Company have constructed a power dam on Coquitlam river at the outlet of the lake, using the lake as a reservoir. With a view to preserving the waters of the lake from contamination and to regulate the supply for both the city and the power company, an order in council was passed in 1920 establishing the Coquitlam Conservation reserve, which covered the watershed of the lake; and in this connection an agreement was entered into in 1913 between the city of New Westminster, the Power Company and the Crown. Through an inadvertence, the northern portion of timber berth No. 507, comprising approximately 4.256 acres, was included in this reserve, and Messrs. Hall and Irwin now make application to be granted other timber in lieu of that contained in their berth, and advance the following in support of their application;
My hon. friend will find on the file, in the first instance, a legal opinion that the original order in council of 1910 did not control the situation, and in the second instance, that in so far as the city was concerned, the regulations which were then drawn as to the manner in which logging operations were to be carried on would enable logging to be done without any danger to the city's water supply. The report goes on:
That	they	were	advised by the mayor	of NewWestminster that if any attempt were made to remove timber	from	their	berth into Coquitlam	lake, he
would apply for an injunction restraining them from doing so:
That	the mayor	took the ground that	the cityhad the right	to preserve the purity of the	water of
the lake, and had also the right to preserve the timber upon the lands within the reserve:
That the Vancouver Power Company had erected a dam across the Coquitlam river, at the outlet of the lake, without a sluiceway for the passage of logs, and had diverted some of the waters from the Coquitlam river, thus preventing them from bringing their logs down the river:
With a view to removing the possibility of litigation arising among the parties interested, as a result of a portion of berth No. 507 having been included in the conservation reserve, the undersigned recommends that the licensees of berth No 507 be allowed to select, in lieu thereof, other available timber on Dominion lands of equal value.
I see that the action that was taken by the Privy Council was to refer the report back to Sir James Lougheed on November 24, 1920, and in April, 1921, it was referred to the Department of Justice. I am not going to detain the committee any further, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Interior


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am so glad to be able in some way to please the hon. member. It makes me feel quite happy now, so much so that I am tempted to go on and stop again just for the purpose of pleasing him when I stop. We will have another start and another stop and some more pleasure for my hon. friend.


George Gordon: I do not want to compel
the stop -that my hon. friend mentions, but I might point out that before Sir James Lougheed made his report, cruisers were sent out to examine this berth. The members of the syndicate also had their cruisers go to British Columbia, and in the report of Sir James Lougheed it is mentioned that they took several months. Finally he came to the conclusion that this berth should be exchanged for timber of equal value. The city of New Westminster was threatening litigation. As a matter of fact, on the Coquitlam river logging operations have been carried on for a great many years, vast quantities of logs having gone down the river. Whether the timber on this berth was available for ready cutting and placing in the river, I do not know, but at all events the timber was of some value to the persons who bought this berth, and Sir James Lougheed, appreciating the value of the Coquitlam river for the purpose of floating the timber on that side of the *berth adjacent to it had this inquiry made. As will be seen by the report, he appreciated the fact, too, that this reserve having been created' and an agreement having been entered into with the city of New Westminster which prevented the licensee from cutting this timber, the Department of the Interior was unable to deliver the property which it had agreed to sell to these licensees; that is, they were unable to give the right to cut on this berth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to
give the file to my hon. friend and ask him to read what he is saying from the file.


George Gordon: As a result. Sir James
Lougheed came to the conclusion that they . had a good case; otherwise he would never have recommended that they be given in lieu of this berth timber of equal value.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let the hon
member read it.
Mr. 'GORDON:	I do not need to read it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member knows it is not there.


George Gordon: The inference is a fair
one. It was drawn to the attention of the
minister of that day that the city of New Westminster was threatening proceedings against any persons who might attempt to interfere with their power rights and he 'had an enquiry made by the officials of his department; and the conclusion he reached was that the licensees should be given timber of equal value because in his opinion they had a good claim. During his tenure of office it was impossible for his officials to come to any agreement with the licensee for another berth and for three or four years cruising took place every summer on other berths. On two occasions at least the suggestion was made that the licensees should accept other limits but no agreement was reached between the department and themselves. They wanted more than the department was prepared to give them and the result has been that these men have allowed, not the $126,000 which they paid, with interest and so forth, but $120,000. This means a net loss to half a dozen in the syndicate of some $22,800.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked the hon. gentleman to read from the memorandum but he would not do so for the simple reason that he knew it was useless. He afterwards said that he was drawing a deduction. Well, we can all draw deductions.


George Gordon: I said that it was the
deduction that Sir James Lougheed drew.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The situation
really was this: Sir James Lougheed saw the danger of litigation and he made the suggestion that timber should be exchanged. That is all there is to the Lougheed recommendation.


George Gordon: Sir James Lougheed recognized that the licensees had a good claim in law. Their position was that if the power company attempted to interfere with their rights by flooding the land back of berth 507 they would apply for an injunction to prevent the operation of the dam. And the city of New Westminster itself was threatening proceedings if the company attempted logging operations contrary to the regulations. So that the whole question was in a state of threatened litigation and when the matter was drawn by the city of New Westminster to the attention of Sir James Lougheed he adjusted the difficulty, or rather attempted to adjust it, in the comprehensive report he submitted. But the fact is that he recognized that there was a claim strong enough to warrant him in recommending to council that an equal value of timber should be given to the licensees.
Supply-Interior


George Arthur Brethen: I understood the minister to say that this money is given to reimburse the licensees for expenditures made on the property.


Charles A. Stewart: Not altogether. There have been expenditures in connection with the surveys on berths proposed for exchange. These disbursements amounted to some $22,000 and interest was allowed only on actual investment in the berth in the way of fire dues and ordinary timber charges.


George Arthur Brethen: The initial selling price
of the property in 1907 was $40,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Forty-three
thousand. There has been no work on the property at all. Hon. gentlemen will see now how difficult it is for us to do anything intelligently with this vote. How many hon. members understand the issue now?


Mr. HEALY:: None.


Henry Lumley Drayton: None; there
you have it. I thought the irrepressible member would interject a remark of that kind.


Albert Frederick Healy: It seemed clear enough to
the committee until you tried to explain it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had expected something of such brilliancy from the hon. member, whose name will be famous in verse. But I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to expect anything like a sensible vote in this House on this question at the present time. Why, the Chairman himself (Mr. Gordon) is absolutely all wrong; and he has studied the question. He says that Sir James Lougheed came to a certain legal conclusion. But with much deference to the Chair I suggest that Sir James Lougheed never did anything of the kind; there was a total absence of anything like a legal conolusion in the matter, for all that was done to send a report to the Department of Justice. The hon. gentleman is absolutely wrong.


Mr. RAYMOND:: Gently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is that?


William Gawtress Raymond: I said, gently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I apologize to
the hon. gentleman for interrupting the current of his thoughts which I am sure must have been directed towards a proper solution of the question. This claim is not new; it is so old that it is hoary. It has been hanging fire not for months but for years and having been referred to the former government it was rejected. The Prime Minister shakes

his head. But he has not been here during this discussion and he does not know anything about it. He has never gone through the files and he does not realize that to-day he is putting through a vote of $120,000 after the Department of Justice in two opinions ha3 held that there is absolutely no legal liability. That is the opinion of the Department of Justice; yet here we are, in the dying days of the session, with the House knowing absolutely nothing about this matter, being asked to vote this sum of money. If the vote is passed the government must accept responsibility for jamming it through.


Robert Forke: When did all these negotiations take place? The matter must have been on the tapis for a long time.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, ever
since I became Minister of the Interior; and as hon. gentlemen have heard, it was under consideration before then.


Robert Forke: When was the final settlement made?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give the exact date.


Robert Forke: This is a hard nut for members to crack-$120,000 to two men for a claim we know nothing about.


Charles A. Stewart: I was never
willing to give the amount of timber these gentlemen thought they were entitled to. I never questioned our liability to supply them with timber in lieu of their original berths, and as a matter of fact I think I have made a very much better bargain with them by retaining our timber, which will become much more valuable as time goes on. The government never likes to give back money. I have half a dozen cases of a similar character pending and it is not an easy matter adjusting these difficulties. I find it the most difficult thing to accomplish.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Was it a private corporation
that was responsible for the flooding of this district in the first place?


Charles A. Stewart: It was done originally by the city of New Westminster and municipalities.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would you not have some
claim against the city? Did litigation ever take place?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it never did, because we never changed the berth.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Are they paying part of this
compensation?

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: No. This
is based on repeated cruises of the berth and values placed upon them.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the minister not think New Westminster had some responsibility?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
doubt it could be established by litigation, but that is not a very good method of finding out what the liability might be. We have our timber there. I am bound to say that the most recent estimate I have in regard to the timber I have spoken of so often over this height of land accessible for logging when the railway is built in is that it will more than half pay the money we are paying now. Perhaps that is a sanguine statement to make, but I think it will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment to John R. Vicars from Juljr 1, 1924, of an annuity at the rate of $1,020.60 per annum, being the amount which had been recommended by the Civil Service Commission under the provisions of the Public Service Retirement Act, $1,786.05.
Charles A. Stewart: This is the
case of John R. Vicars, who was an engineer in our department, and who accepted retirement upon being notified that he would be entitled to a certain annuity. This is based on the length of his service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For the enlargement of the western outlet of lake of the Woods and the provision of suitable control works therein in conformity with the recommendation of the International Joint Commission (including revote of $200,000), $800,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is this?


Charles A. Stewart: This is the
cost of the enlargement of the outlet at the mouth of the lake of the Woods at the Norman dam.


Arthur Meighen: Backus owns that dam.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why do we pay him
for this?


Charles A. Stewart: This is our *share of the cost. This is really the government's part of the work that is being constructed, and in order to establish the value of this work I had tenders called for.


Arthur Meighen: Who will own it after
it is built?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) We are not contributing anything to the Norman dam
proper, except to the sluice ways. The dam is owned by E. W. Backus.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not an improvement to it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. This
is to blast out a channel under the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge and widen it to give an outlet for the flowage, provided for in the decision of the commission with respect to the control of the lake of the Woods, and while that is being done repairs are being made to the Norman dam as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any
estimates in the Interior department affecting northern Quebec under which would come provison for the Eskimos and Indians east of the Hudson bay in the territory under the charge of Rev. Mr. Walton? '


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I am
going to call one.
For the relief of distress and medical attendance among the Indians of the Yukon Territory (Governor General's warrant of February 3, 1925), $6,000.


Charles A. Stewart: This is to assist in relieving the distress among the Indians of the Yukon Territory. Owing to an epidemic among them, we were forced to spend more money than we had allocated for that purpose, and I am asking for a further grant.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister been giving special attention 'to the tragic condition of these Eskimos east of Hudson bay? I refer to those who lost their means of support by the great fire of thirty pr forty years ago, which drove the reindeer completely out of the territory. Will the minister tell me what the government is doing to take care of them, to put them on a self-sustaining basis, and avoid the decimation of their numbers which is going on at an appalling rate?


Charles A. Stewart: The reverend gentleman called to see me and gave me a statement as to the condition among the natives on the east coast of Hudson bay. The reindeer or cariboo which formerly subsisted there appear to have drifted down to the wooded area in the interior. For some reason the natives will not follow them. They , prefer to live along the coast and take their chances of obtaining a livelihood from fishing and trapping, and I believe a very serious disaster happened up there a few years ago at one of the Eskimo camps. I have been discussing the matter with the Hudson's Bay Company officials. Some years ago we
5026	COMMONS
Supply-Interior
brought a herd of reindeer into the area northeast of Fox island, in the Hudson bay channel leading out to the ocean. For some unaccountable reason, apparently lack of food, the reindeer did not do very well.


Arthur Meighen: That is at Baffin's land.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and they almost, completely died out. We have given the reindeer which we had on the coast of Labrador to Mr. Menier, who owns Anticosti island, and under his supervision they are increasing very rapidly, but we are not yet in a position to ship reindeer into that territory.


Arthur Meighen: Does Mr. Menier own them ?


Charles A. Stewart: No, we gave him the herd with the understanding that when they reached a certain number we would get the increase for the purpose of shipping into the northern country.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Where is that herd located?


Charles A. Stewart: On Anticosti island. The American government have made a great success of breeding and rearing reindeer among the Eskimos of Alaska. The Hudson's Bay Company had their unfortunate experience with their herd there. We had our unfortunate experience with ours on the coast of Labrador, and I have been somewhat loath to ask for funds to purchase reindeer to put amongst these people, but I think that is the solution. We are now in negotiation with the Hudson's Bay Company, after we have investigated areas where there is sufficient moss for the maintenance of the reindeer, to enter into arrangements with them, as they send in a ship annuallj'', to take in reindeer and to secure the services of a Lapp or preferably a trained Eskimo to put the reindeer amongst these people, because that seems to be the means of preventing utter starvation which frequently undertakes these unfortunate people when they are removed from the wooded area in severe winter weather.


Arthur Meighen: I can take a moment's
time to impress upon the minister the urgency of the matter. I agree that it was urgent before the minister took charge and it must be all the more urgent now. These poor . people are living there in very considerable numbers, and when the reindeer took flight by reason, I think, of the great fire that devastated the territory, they were left destitute of the main means of subsistence. I do not think there is any way in which they could follow the reindeer. The reindeer went virtually to the Labrador coast.


Charles A. Stewart: They went
south east to an area behind the Labrador coast.


Arthur Meighen: They went a tremendously long way and these people had no other means of subsistence.


Charles A. Stewart: About seven hundred miles from their former territory.


Arthur Meighen: The consequence is that, struggle as we may to keep the people from dying, we cannot do that without their natural habits being encouraged and, therefore, the environment kept so that they can live. If they are held there in tents they die. Tuberculosis has become an epidemic. It is not in their being to live as ordinary people can. Heredity demands other work, other exercise and another kind of life. I do not know any trust we have more sacred than seeing to it that some means of keeping up the Eskimo race is provided, and that they are not simply allowed to die right at our doorstep as mere dogs. It so happens that there is a man who has taken a special and life interest really in this territory, Mr. Walton. I remember making inquiries in my last year in the department as to the liability, earnestness, and capacity of this gentleman, and I got nothing but the most eulogistic reports of him. He has simply devoted his entire life to that service. He is a man of very considerable practicability. What he says is this. The reason the reindeer fled in Baffin's land was that the quality of moss on which the reindeer lives does not grow there. It is a moss, but not reindeer mqss. Mr. Stefansson, who felt that he had the problem well in hand, seems to have erred very seriously there as elsewhere, and the contract that was made through his agency with the Hudson's Bay Company has proven unprofitable to that company. We were to get a certain rental from Baffin's land depending upon the progress of the enterprise. The same applies to the territory where we tried to rear reindeer near the shores. of the St. Lawrence. According to Mr. Walton

and he seems to have his proofs very complete-the moss that is essential to reindeer life is very abundant on that north and northwestern coast. If they can be reared there and that animal life can be restored, our problem is solved. We do not need to bother any more. They can take care of themselves. That, with the sealing traffic is all they need. I do not like asking for further grants, but it looks to me, not only the part of common humanity, but as well the part of commercial wisdom, to see to it that under the proper kind of herders

Supply-Health
reindeer are started up there. I am told that in Baffin's land as well the wrong kind of herders were taken in. I would wonder that the Hudson's Bay Company would make a mistake in this regard, but it really appears that they have. Everyone knows the tremendous success of the reindeer industry, that has been made in Alaska. It is really more in the nature of a romance than anything else. My advice is that all the conditions that obtain in Alaska obtain in this particular territory. It would be a wonderful thing for the country if we could get a population of animal life up there and not only wonderful for the country, but merely a discharge of our trust.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been making a very careful investigation in respect to the matter and we hope next year to have arrangements made for shipping some reindeer into that territory and to train the Eskimos in caring for the reindeer. The importation of the Lapp into that
11 p.m. territory does not seem to have been a success. It is entirely new territory to him and conditions are somewhat new. But if we can train Eskimos to take care of the reindeer, I think we shall have solved the problem, because the Eskimo is undoubtedly very adaptable and picks up knowledge in almost any line with great rapidity.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Did the minister say he had provision in an estimate this year to relieve the present distress?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
passed an item for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines-amount required to increase the salary of Charles Camsell, Deputy Minislter, Department of Mines, to $8,000 per annum, $2,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is this the only one now whose salary has not been boosted to $8,000?


Charles A. Stewart: There are a considerable number. This was a mistake in printing when the estimates were brought down. My right hon. friend will remember that when we were dealing with the Mines department, I stated that I would have a supplementary to rectify that error.


Arthur Meighen: What rule is the government following in giving some $8,000 and some $6,000?


Charles A. Stewart: I think all who have any extended service are getting $S,000.


Arthur Meighen: How extended?


Charles A. Stewart: For a certain number of years as deputy minister, but prior to that, service in the department for some length of time. That does not apply all around, but that is very largely the basis upon which the increases are given.
Immigration-medical inspection, $80,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is an increase in
this vote, but it will be noted there is a decrease of $25,000 in the preceding vote. We have made some changes in the regulations regarding the examination of ships and immigrants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose we
are to understand that the former decrease was a switch?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Venereal diseases, $100,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a supplementary for that of $25,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of regret to many members who wish to speak on this subject that it has come before the House at such a late date. Undoubtedly the medical profession have been familiar with the situation for a long time, but it seems only now that the people as a whole are being aroused to a sense of its gravity. It is generally contended that the question of health comes within the provincial jurisdiction, but it seems to me that in a matter of this importance there ought to be no conflict between the provinces and the Dominion. I understand that a few years ago organized work was begun by a grant from the Dominion to the provinces and to the Social Hygiene Council of some $200,000, and that, working in co-ordination with the Dominion, the provinces also contributed sums of money. The work thus begun has, during the last two or three years, been well co-ordinated, so that now there is a thoroughly organized movement being carried on for the control of these diseases. A year ago that grant was reduced by $50,000, andl now there is a further redaction of $501,000, bringing the item in the main estimates down to $100,000. We are well/ assured by those who have given special consideration to this work that this reduction will Very greatly handicap operations, and that the co-ordinated efforts that have been carried on for some years cannot possibly be continued. It would seem

Supply-Health
to me very unfortunate if that should be the result. Representations have been made to the minister already, as he is well aware, and we feel sure that the sentiment of the country will be entirely behind us in our request that this amount should be increased to the $150,000 that was in the main estimates last year. I am speaking on this vote with the idea of encouraging the minister to go forward in his good work, and not in any way to handicap those who are giving it special consideration. I am well aware that a further item of $25,000 is placed in the supplementaries, but I wish to urge upon the minister that the original amount be restored, that it be distributed among the provinces and the Social Hygiene Council as has been done during the past, and that we, as a parliament, set ourselves definitely towards co-operation with the provinces in the elimination of these diseases. Not only from the moral standpoint is it desirable that we should do so, but it was brought very forcibly to the notice of the military authorities during the war that these diseases had taken a terrible hold upon the young manhood of the nations. I do not know the facts in regard to Canada, but I did see estimates made that when the United States authorities began enlistment they found that these diseases had made such terrible inroads that many young men could not be enlisted. I know there are a number of hon. members who would wish to support me in this proposition.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to associate myself with the hon. member fcr Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in suggesting to the minister that the amount spent for this purpose be substantially increased. I think as a nation we have perhaps not fully realized what this work means to us, and I believe we could very well spend considerably more money on it than \re do at present. I hope that in future the minister will see his way clear to increase this vote.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
do not know that it is necessary to endorse the position put forward by the member for Lisgar. Anyone who has come in contact with social service activities in any way must realize the necessity of the work that is now being carried on. Until recently the provinces have not done a great deal along this line, and even though they are doing a certain amount of work, there is no doubt great need for the co-ordination of their efforts and for that general stimulus which can come only through a centralized organization. I should like to read a few striking statements that are contained in a memorandum which I have

no doubt was furnished to many hon. members.
Venereal diseases constitute the most serious of all public health problems. They are more prevalent than any other diseases. They cause more disabilities than any other diseases, and syphilis, one of the venereal diseases, causes more deaths than any other diseases. Therefore it outranks as a cause of death pneumonia, tuberculosis and cancer, the next three causes of mortality.
This statement needs no commentary. The Minister of Agriculture constantly comes before the House to press the necessity of spending large sums to protect the health of our animals, and it would seem to me that the least we could do is to spend a feiw hundred thousand dollars in protecting the health of our people. Let me quote one or two other statements from this memorandum just as they catch my eye:
Patients admitted into the Toronto General Hospital are as a matter of regular routine examined; these tests in 1917 showed 12 per cent of the ward patients admitted for ordinary complaints to be suffering from syphilis.
In 1918 the like routine examinations in the Montreal General Hospital showed that 26 per cent of all the patients were suffering from syphilis.
And again:
In one year as many as 24 per cent of the annual male admissions to Toronto Hospital for the Insane have consisted of general paresis, a fatal form of insanity always caused by syphilis.
The following statistics are, I think, sufficient in themselves to warrant the extension of care of this character:
Venereal Diseases Dealt with in the Dominion in the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924
To<tal number of new cases admitted to clinics and in-	1921	1922	1923stitutions	
Total number of cases re-	10,267	12,252	12,336ported by physicians.. .. Total number of new cases	15,189	16.220	15.477for year	
Total number of new cases admitted to clinics and institutions-	25,456	28.472	28,003Syphilis	4.953	5,171	5.421Gonorrhoea	5.070	6,680	6.865Chancroid	244	401	240
When social diseases of this character have become so prevalent as this it would seem as if no expenditure is too great to be made in the effort to eradicate a disease which will poison the future generation of Canadians. One thing that appeals to me in the work that has been carried on is the stress that has been laid on the educational side of the work. A good many of the hon. members must have come in contact with the various exhibitions that have been put on, through which the public are being educated as to the seriousness of the ravages of these diseases.

Supply-Re-establishment
Moreover, a .large number of the younger people in the community are being taught something of the dangers on every side, and I hope are being warned in such a way that before very long expenditures for cures will not be quite so necessary. I hope the minister will see to it that in some form or other this grant may be materially increased.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I have much pleasure in endorsing what has been said in support of this vote. It is rather regrettable that it has been found necessary to make this cut. In view of the splendid organization that has this work in hand, with proper financial support a great deal of very valuable work could be accomplished. I would point out in this connection what has already been done in the handling of diseases in the lower animals. By the expenditure of money, by proper organization and the efficient carrying out of this work we have been able in Canada, in past years entirely to wipe out some of the diseases affecting the lower animals. By means of a thorough study of the difficulties surrounding that work I think there is every possibility of making great progress in handling other diseases affecting the human race. I wish to endorse the excellent work that has been done in this connection and also to call for all the support possible in carrying it on in the future.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nothing that the hon. gentlemen have said on this subject is out of place. I realize as they do the importance of the work that has been carried on in the provinces to prevent the spread of venereal diseases. The original vote in the main estimates was $100,000, and as a result of many representations which were made to the government by different bodies throughout Canada, especially by the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, we found it advisable to increase the amount by $25,000 in the supplementary estimates. Besides that, we have added to the ordinary grant to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council the sum of $5,000 in the supplementary estimates, so that we come very near appropriating the amount which was provided last year. I confess that if the financial condition of the country warranted the amount would be much larger. At all events I accept with pleasure the remarks that have been made in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-unemployment reflief, $200,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think that amount is sufficient?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, I do not think it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think so either.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In this -connection we have entered into an agreement with the rehabilitation committee in Toronto which has -created wide interest. A certain number of gentlemen in Toronto have got together, and have decided to make a serious attempt to provide employment for disabled ex-service men. The head of this committee is Mr. Melville White. He is supported by a number of prominent men, -mainly manufacturers, who have lent their good will, as it were, in -order to provide employment for these disabled ex-service men. They desired, of course, the co-operation of the government, and they formed a board of trustees -composed of Mr. Melville White, Mr. Staples, and Mr. Qunn, who carry on the administrative work. They have already placed quite a number of returned men. On the 30th of April they had placed permanently 285 men, which I think is quite an -achievement. The expenditure is about $30,000. Unless you have the goodwill and -co-operation of the employers, it is almost impossible to succeed. We have -a similar committee in Montreal, though -not on so lar-ge a scale, Sir Arthur Currie being on that committee, and another committee in Edmonton which has done very good work. In Montreal they are just starting. In time these committees may be extended to Hamilton -and other cities. At first the experiment was more expensive, but now we -have reached the point where we pay only one man, whom we plac-e at the disposal of the Industrial committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The item we have here, as I understand, is item 288. My hon. friend is addressin-g his remarks more to one phase of the activities in the cities, where you have these committees of employers who are co-operating, -and very properly so, with each other, for the purpose of doing what everybody ought to be pleased to do, and th-a-t is to see that the returned -man gets the first chance of employment and of rehabilitating himself if at all possible. My hon. friend mentioned three cities where that arrangement has been made. I hope that during the present year we shall no longer be left in that position, but that these activities will be extended to every place in the -country where -there is considerable employment. We should n-ot have the three cities my hon. friend refers to standing ou-t by themselves. At the same time, this work of organization and of getting employers interested in this most necessary movement is going along very slowly, if we
Supply-Re-establishment

have it started in only three cities. But that, after all, is only one branch of the work. I said I thought the vote was too small, and my hon. friend agreed with me. What amount does my hon. friend think would be fair to take charge of soldier unemployment for the year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have provided $150,000 in the supplementaries. We thought we would require more money especially on account of the strike in Nova Scotia. As a rule this unemployment among pensioners ceases almost entirely during the month of May, but this year in the strike area we have been spending a large amount each week, maintaining all the pensioners there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure the country will not begrudge, and certainly the opposition will not withhold any support, in looking properly after unemployment among the soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war and active militia, $34,000,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is always a big item It is to provide for pensions in connection with the European war and the active militia. There is an increase of $1,000,000 over last year, but it must be remembered that the time within which claims had to be presented for pensions expired on the 1st of September, 1924, and naturaily a large number of claims were filed before that date with the pension board, and as a consequence, more awards have been made than in the usual course. In addition to that, the appeal board has also reversed a certain number of decisions, 190, I think, up to the 1st of April, and arrears have had to be adjusted, and still are being adjusted.
Mr. ROS8 (Kingston): Has the minister considered making any change in the regulations in regard to a pensioner in the active militia who, having secured his pension, deserts his wife and family? According to the regulations the pensioner is entitled to keep all his pension and leave his wife and children behind without support. Several have deserted their *wives and families in Canada and are now over in the Old Country, retaining their full pension, and leaving the wife and family to be supported by public charity.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend refer to the active militia or to the expeditionary force?


Arthur Edward Ross: The permanent
force. There "was some suggestion that the law

should be changed. Has anything been done in that regard?


Henri Sévérin Béland: As my hon. friend is aware, the Militia Act is not in my department. I do not know that any change has taken place.


Arthur Edward Ross: The payment of the pension is in your department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: And the minister still has to continue paying that pension, while the man's wife and family are supported by public charity.


Henri Sévérin Béland: All that is at the discretion of the board, which examines into each individual case.


Arthur Edward Ross: Several cases of this kind have been brought to the attention of the board, and they have ruled that they cannot interfere.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They refuse to pay any part of the pension to the wife and children?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, till the law is changed.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The question of militia pensions has been dealt with by the Department of National Defence. The point my hon. (friend mentions has been brought to our attention, and we were considering introducing an amendment to the pension law this session to deal with that and some other points, but it has been decided not to do so until next year. I hope we shall be able to deal with the matter next session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
European war and active militia-further amount to meet the requirements of Bill No. 70, George V 15-10, 1925, sections 6, 8 and 10, $1,276,000.
Mr. BELAND. In view of certain amendments to the bill which have not passed parliament the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) moves that this item be reduced by the sum of $276,000.
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
To meet the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Pensions and Re-establishment, George V. A. 1924. Sessional papers 203a, pages 74 and 75; to provide for the purchase of lands and the cost of erection of houses at Kamloops, B.C., for tuberculous exmembers of the forces, $15,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This amount is for the
purchase of land and the cost of the erection of houses at Kamloops, British Columbia, for tuberculous ex-members of the forces. This is in pursuance of a recommendation of the

Supply-Interior
parliamentary committee. It is more or less an experiment and is recommended by the royal commission and by several parliamentary committees. It is a very small amount and provides for 5,000 men who will be afforded the opportunity of living in these houses. The amount will be placed at the disposal of the Red Cross at Kamloops. They are going to supervise the building of the houses and they will also administer the rent and insurance. The amount that will be paid as rent will be sufficient to cover the interest on capital expenditure, the insurance and the depreciation, the total amount being met in twenty-five years.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for expenses in connection with a trial shipment of Alberta coal to Ontario, with the object of deteirmining the actual cost of carriage by rail, by payments to be made to the Canadian National Railways at the rate of $1 per ton, $25,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the minister explain
this item?


Charles A. Stewart: This money is to provide for an experiment to ascertain the cost of carriage of 25,000 tons of coal from a central point in Alberta to some central point in Ontario. The initial cost of $7 per ton is to be paid by the operators. If it should happen that the cost runs to $8 the federal government will pay $1 per ton and if as estimated by the railways the cost should be 89, the Alberta government will also contribute 81. That is the basis of the arrangement and a check is to be kept both by the Alberta government and by the rail-wa5's.


Arthur Edward Ross: I thought this proposition had fallen down.


Charles A. Stewart: I had not
been notified to that effect, but a few days ago Siir Henry Thornton made the statement that owing to the fact that there was a reorganization in freight rates he would not be able to carry out this experiment. Qf course, if the arrangement does not go through we will not use the money. I have been accused of being somewhat recreant in my duty, it being said that I had not accepted responsibility in this matter. Now I do not want to be deprived of the necessary funds in case the arrangement should be revived and the shipment made.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is a suspicion that there will be a shortage of coal in Ontario. I think the minister should be urged to see that something is done to carry out this experiment.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). I have been extremely anxious to have it done. The arrangements were made three weeks ago and there has been a great deal of criticism on account of the delay both in Ontario and in the mining area, but I have been in no way responsible. I did not have the money voted but we had provision for it in the estimates and that is why I am asking that the vote be put through.


William Findlay Maclean: Is everything
ready now for the experiment?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Then go ahead
so far as I am concerned.


Eugène Fiset: Wall the minister
be kind enough to tell us what action has been taken in connection with the proposed legislation with regard to the production of coke from Canadian coal?


Charles A. Stewart: I am anxious to go ahead with this bill but there have been difficulties in two directions. Those who desire to have the matter gone on with feel that the assistance is not sufficient. On the other hand there was very strong opposition from some sections in this House to assistance of any sort being given, but I want to say frankly that if Nova Scotia coal, quite irrespective of the difficulties now prevailing, is to compete with the American product in the territory which belongs to it, some help will have to be given, and I am quite prepared to give the situation further study and make further recommendations. I thought the assistance was on fairly generous lines, but apparently there is some criticism of it. On the other hand there seemed to be some considerable opposition in the House to assistance of any sort. I do think that Nova Scotia coal has to have something to assist it if it is going to get into the market which rightfully belongs to it in this part of the country.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister has told us something about the tripartite agreement between the federal government, the* government of Alberta and the Canadian National Railways. I would like to know if it is in writing or if it is a verbal agreement, because I do not see how the Canadian National Railway Company can withdraw. I wish the minister would give particulars. I think if Sir Henry Thornton or the Canadian National have withdrawn, they should be urged to reconsider their position because, as was suggested by one hon. member, the position in Ontario may, in view of the possibility of an
Supply-Interior

anthracite strike, be very serious indeed. Alberta is anxious for the experiment and prepared to spend some money in the event of the cost being above a certain amount, and Ontario is prepared to assist. It is a valid agreement, and I think the Canadian National Railway should not fall down as far as they are concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no agreement, but there is a letter signed by Premier Greenfield, Sir Henry Thornton and myself.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It ought to be binding.


Charles A. Stewart: I had nothing to do with making the arrangement, it was made by the railway company and the Alberta government.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It ought to be binding.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister
inform me if it is his intention to consider resolution No. 46 on the orders of the day and take steps to encourage the production of coke from Canadian coal. I wonder if the minister would also inform the House whether it is their intention to proceed next year with the legislation which has been suggested, with reference to this question?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
not the intention to go on with the legislation this year, but I pointed out that I was making a further study to see if I could meet the situation-because I admit it is a difficult one-and render assistance to establish those industries. I have no doubt a coke industry will be established in the eastern area without any assistance from anybody, but it will be coke manufactured from American coal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I could answer the question asked by the hon. member for Rimouski as to what happened with this legislation. I thoroughly believe the Minister of the Interior was quite sincere in introducing the legislation, and that the Minister of National Defence was also sincere in his desire for it, but I know it is a matter of common gossip that it was never going on, that it would be withdrawn after the local election, and I do not think it ought to have been so withdrawn. I think that if there is one thing which above all other things is necessary to be done it is to take seriously this coal question. The proposal to establish coking plants which has been referred to has apparently been abandoned. I am sorry but I am not at all surprised. I thought it was going to happen, and just as soon as the local election was over it did happen. It is a great pity that

it has been abandoned. It has very real , merit in it, and there is a great national asset down in Nova Scotia with which we are doing, nothing. If we were to do something with it, it would not merely help Nova Scotia and hon. gentlemen should not think it only in that sense. Why, one of these up-to-date gas plants in Montreal, where there is a large market for the by-product, would be just as good for that city as it would be for the mines of Nova Scotia. In fact, I believe they would make more money out of it. I believe there is more money to be made out of the by-product in connection with the gas proposition than is to be made out of the mines. I think they have an absolute law in Germany that no coal should be burned at all, and it is illegal to do it simply because the value of the byproducts is so very great. I am sorry that the minister is not proceeding with that legislation, because failure to do so is not only bad for Nova Scotia but for central Ontario generally. It is bad for all of us. It is necessary that we should just as quickly as we can put ourselves in the position that we will be able to heat our houses and look after ourselves. The coal down there is first rate coking coal. I can assure the House that after the next election coking ovens will be plentiful in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think it is very wonderful to find, at the tail end of the session, my hon. friend coming along with such beautiful suggestions in favour of the proposition of producing coke from coal; but when the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) was before the House I do not think I heard any such proposals. However, I am very glad, on behalf of the government, to have his assurance that legislation of this character will have his support. As to the introduction of the legislation having anything to do with the provincial election, I want to assure him that the issues in the election in the province of Nova Scotia had not anything to do with the doings , of this federal parliament. I repeat I am glad to know the government have the assurance of my hon. friend's support, because in certain sections of the House there were members who were not inclined to vote subsidies which would enable Canadian coal to be manufactured into coke to warm the peoiple of Ontario, and propositions of this kind were not altogether favourably received. The situation in regard to the matter is not so easy as my hon. friend imagines. To work out a proper scheme of assistance whereby coal transported from Nova Scotia or from Alberta can be

Supply-In tenor
manufactured into coke involves consideration of a great many problems. As the Minister of Mines has said, after this legislation was brought down those interested in the legislation vigorously protested that the assistance was not sufficient to enable them to make the necessary expenditure to provide for the erection of the coke ovens. The minister has gone into the matter carefully, and I desire to say on behalf of the government that at the next session legislation will be introduced by the government providing for assistance to be given to establish coke ovens for the manufacture of coke.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is sincere about it. I wish his colleagues were just as sincere. Why should he not be sincere?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to
help the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and I want to keep them warm.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister
is able to do missionary work in the cabinet he will see that a resolution is not brought down to be thrown into the discard, and that something will be done. He is entirely mistaken as to my attitude. I have always taken the same position as to coking.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not
hear my hon. friend say anything in the House in regard to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have never
taken a contrary position. I have said that anything that could be done to look after Canadian coal should be done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am glad
to hear it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have always
held that view.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member kept it under his hat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. minister is entirely wrong. His memory is not very good. I have always taken the same position and have always supported such a proposition, and further I went this far in the House, despite my hon. friend's convenient memory-'that I challenged a division in this House on that very policy when the government wanted to get away from the proper consideration of that question of the duty on coal and coal policy. I am not saying anything about his memory. It will get better when he looks over Hansard and studies that division when there was a solid vote on this side for the coal and a solid vote on that
side against it. Apart altogether from these little pleasantries of party politics, there is a real interest here that ought to be served and the difficulties are not so great. I admit frankly there are difficulties about starting . anything, but this is not new. Up-to-date and proper gas plants have been going on for years. Germany has made a tremendous success of this simply because she says: You shall not burn coal; you must bum coke. In that way she has acquired a monopoly of that enormous dye business that depends upon coal tar. I am glad my hon. friend assures me that so far as he can see to it there will be no more withdrawals of this sort of legislation next year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will recall that on the division to which he refers his leader spoke against-


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was last
year. My hon. friend's memory is very bad.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is one thing I vividly remember. This is the first time I ever heard my hon. and genial friend make a proposition in favour of assistance to the Canadian manufacturers of coke from coal, I am sure Hansard will support me on that point. There are those who advocate assisting the industry by way of a bonus. There are those who urge that the assistance should be rendered in the form presented in the legislation. The problem is not an easy one to solve. This government is concerned with a solution of the problem, because it involves a solution of the method under which central Canada can be assured of being heated in the cold weather. The supply of anthracite from the south is liable to be cut off at any time. A threatened coal strike there might result in a situation that would bring the matter imminently before us and I am glad we shall have my hon. friend's support on the subject.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In regard to the experiment in connection with the movement of Alberta coal, an hon. gentleman asked the minister as to the position taken by Sir Henry .Thornton, referring to the fact that Sir Henry Thornton was reported in the newspapers as having said that, as a result of governmental legislation, all these matters were before the board and he could not bring the rates in or words to that effect. I can hardiy think Sir Henry Thornton is correctly reported. Those matters are no more before the board now that they were previously. They have always been before the board. As
Supply-Interior

regards the question of a coal rate, there is no further consideration of the question now than there was at any other time. There is absolutely no reason why the company could not go on with what it said it would do and the experiment certainly ought to be made. The Minister of Railways and Canals ought to assure us that the experiment will be made.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give us the statement as to what, if anything, he has done since that report was made in the press?


Charles A. Stewart: The arrangement was made strictly between the Alberta government and the railway. I was asked for assistance and I gladly agreed 12 m. to give it, with the consent of the government, of course, to the extent of a dollar a bon. The first proposal was for a 100,000 ton movement. I would have welcomed very much more, but on that movement I proposed at the time to give them fifty cents a ton. For some reason they cut the quantity down from 100,000 to 25,000 tons. On the 25,000 ton movement we had a definite arrangement made for that movement on the basis which I have outlined. Personally, I will do anything in my power to get the movement under way, because if coal can- be moved in large train load lots, that can be done only in the slack season on the railways, and that is in May and June or June and July before the wheat movement starts, so as to get plenty of time to move the cars back for the heavy wheat movement which would occur later. That was all that was asked and that is the very slack season in our mines. Last year I went and discussed the matter with representatives of the mine owners in Drumheller, and I said to them:	If we put up a substantial amount to guarantee this movement and to keep a check upon it, you ought to undertake to cut your production costs very materially. They agreed to do so if this was done at this particular time of the year which was a slack period. I have made this somewhat extended explanation, because I want the committee, and particularly our western people who are anxious about this matter, to know that so far as we are concerned, we are ready to do anything we can to forward this movement.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The ex-Minister of Finance
(Sir Henry Drayton) has suggested that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), perhaps, could give some assurance in connection with this matter. If there is any failure of the plan, it is apparently on the part of the Canadian National Railways. It is

very important that the experiment should be undertaken now. We would be delighted to have from the Minister of Railways his assurance that he is prepared to do what he can to see that the experiment is carried out pursuant to the arrangement made.


George Perry Graham: The Canadian National
Railways are working under a statute passed by parliament, and the Minister of Railways has no authority except his good influence in the matter of advice.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That is what we want.


George Perry Graham: I discussed this just the
other day. I do not know anything about the details of the arrangement. I believe it is an arrangement made between Mr. Greenfield and the Canadian National Railways. I understand Mr. Greenfield is in Montreal now.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Would the minister use his
good offices with Sir Henry Thornton to see that this experiment is carried out?


George Perry Graham: I would very much like to see it carried out, and I have told the railway company I would like to see them give rates whereby this experiment could be carried out. I cannot go any further than that,


George Gibson Coote: As regards the movement
of steam coal from Alberta to Winnipeg, the freight rate, I think, is $5.15 per ton.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman is speaking outside of this item. This is Ontario. That is not in this vote.


George Gibson Coote: It is the same at the other
end. The coal is from Alberta. I will take only a minute if you will allow me. The question was brought up here in regard to coking Canadian coal. There is a good market in Winnipeg for coke made from Canadian coal if the railways could be induced to lower the freight rate by seventy-five cents a ton. The present rate is pretty high, and all I am asking is that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Railways, who are both here, might take that into consideration and take it up with the railways. They might be induced to grant a cheaper rate to Winnipeg for the summer months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To cover unprovided items 1923-24. as per Auditor General's report, part a, page 3, 1923-24, $130,442.08.
James Alexander Robb: It is to cover the usual statutory items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those are really the auditor's adjustment items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Labour
James Alexander Robb: I wish to make a correction. Last night I explained to the committee that the increase in the Auditor General's department was something like $40,430. Things were going so well that I did not get to the decreases made in the department. These bring the actual net increase to a little over $3,000.
Superannuation-to provide for retiring allowance? to former employees of the Department of Printing and Stationery $34,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that some years ago a certain group of men were retired from the Printing Bureau just before regular provision was made for pensions. These men, I believe, have been drawing pensions up to the present time, but these now lapse. Is any provision being made to cover their cases?


James Murdock: No. Those employees were retired in 1919 and 1920 under certain orders in council just prior to the Calder Act coming into effect. They were retired on a certain uniform basis having regard to their respective ages and length of service, the retiring allowances running from one year and one month to five years and one month. For the last two or three years I have had the matter before me, but no action ha? been taken to continue the allowances. Some of these employees are more than sixty-five years of age, and others have twenty-eight to thirty-one years of service to their credit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Their claims would be as good as those of the individuals who would be provided for by the item under discussion?


James Murdock: They have so argued, and that might be favourably considered. Under all the circumstances, in view of the general cry for economy and retrenchment, this government did not feel that it should revive superannuation allowances which had elapsed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise-
Amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be whoffy excluded from said act; also to provide for expenses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws.$350,000 00
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act-and
temporary buildings and rentals. 70,057 39
Miscellaneous-printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for customs officers.. ..	5,502 28
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
I notice that the government is making another of its characteristic inroads on the Civil Service Act.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know which hon. minister said that, but I should like to be able to distinguish him as being really honest about this and unwilling to continue the farce of pretending that the government is still in favour of non-patronage.


James Murdock: It was not a minister that said "hear, hear."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry-the sham is to continue for the entire outfit. But the fact is the government is pyramiding the number of offices that it takes out of the control of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Chairman, I protest against this policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. POWER:: We think he doth protest too much.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friends
laugh-the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). They both see the joke of this thing. The hon. member for Quebec South is at least sincere; he believes in wiping out the Civil Service Commission altogether.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is another; we have two sincere gentlemen on thait side. I wonder if we could get a third.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are three; can we not have a fourth?
Mr. CANiNON: There are only three commissioners.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the idea Of the Liberal [party. Well, we are always learning something.

Supply-Customs


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend were .occupying the position he formerly held in the government of which he was a distinguished member he would support this vote. Smuggling has been increasing enormously in recent years. High powered automobiles have been used in -this traffic, and the fact that the United States was dry and that there was a temptation to smuggle liquor one way and bring back cigarettes, tobacco and silks has been a contributing factor. In fact, the whole service appeared to be demoralized, and the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise has had to let out some officers who had been trusted but who had been tempted by this traffic. A committee representing importers urged us to apply more strictly the customs laws and prevent smuggling, and it was decided that the minister should be enabled to put on men, known perhaps only to himself and his deputy, not only to watch the smugglers but to see that the officers within the department did their duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not object-ting at all to the taking of steps to prevent smuggling. I know there is a great deal of smuggling of whiskey into American territory-


James Alexander Robb: And into Canada-both ways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I do not know to what extent my hon. friends have allowed this matter to drift or how alarming the situation is. I am not objecting to anything being done to put down these offences, but I did rise to object to the appointment [DOT]of officials other than in the legal manner. Of course, if, as the minister says, these officers are to be temporarily employed in protective service; if they are not to go on the pay list in the ordinary way, it is a different matter.


James Alexander Robb: That is the idea.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But thait is not the way it is worded. This looks as if we are making a lot of new permanent positions and removing them from the operation of the Civil Service Act. If that is so, I have no hesitation in saying it is wrong.


James Alexander Robb: That is not the intention at all.


Mr. CARDIN:: All these positions will be temporary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How temporary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As long as we are satisfied
with their services.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That will mean a life job in some cases at least.


Ernest Lapointe: That is an admission on my hon. friend's part.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I admit it will be a short period, 'because when we get back into power we will see that this thing is done legally and not in the manner my hon. friend suggests. But when my hon. friend says that, he means they will be permanent so far as he can effect it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Those who have been asking for these appointments have asked that they be made by the minister and not subject to the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. MiEIGHEN: I do not doubt it-chiefly, I suppose, the ones who want the appointments.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, resolutions of boards of trade.


Charles A. Stewart: If we are to have a detective service of any value to be used against smugglers, its personnel must be changed frequently.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to protest against this further extension of the practice of appointing men altogether outside the Civil Service Act. Something like thirty-three per cent of the total personnel in the public service is to-day more or less subject to patronage, notwithstanding the fact that a few years ago we thought we had gotten rid of patronage in this country. In connection with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment there are some 3,094; in the Soldier Settlement Board, 618; in the Income Tax department, 1.211; and then under order in council P.C. 1053 we had 12,804 brought in, a total of 17,727, and under the votes that have been put through a very considerable number of employees are exempt from the Civil Service Act. It seems to me this is a tendency which ought to be checked. With regard to these proposed appointments I should like to quote a paragraph from aD editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 10 last:
The United States presents an experience parallel to that now being put through in the House of Commons. Appointments to the Prohibition Enforcement Bureau in that country were exempted by the terms of the Volstead Act from the provisions of the civil service law\ In "Good Government," the organ of the National Civil Service Reform League, the president of the league is reported as follows in regard to the nature of the appointments made by the politicians for prohibition enforcement:
"Everyone knows that a large proportion of that force is composed of grafters, thugs and miscreants, who not only take bribes, but are guilty of unlawful acts of violence. Whether the Volstead Act can ever be fully enforced or not, it certainly cannot be so enforced so long as a substantial part, if not the majority, of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
its enforcement officials make enormous sums of money by conniving at its violations. In the beginning the league pointed out the probability of this result if the positions were exempted from the provisions of the civil service law, and has endeavored constantly to procure an amendment of the law which would classify the entire prohibition force without covering in the present members. . . . Certainly a force appointed after competitive civil service examination, and investigation of the character of the applicants by an independent body such as the Civil Service Commission, would eliminate a large proportion of such scalawags as are now appointed on political recommendations, and would vastly improve the character of the service."
It would seem as if we might very well profit by the lesson which the United States has to offer us in this regard. They have made an attempt to do this work by the method we now propose, and to a very considerable extent they have failed. Why should we not use the Civil Service Commission in making these appointments? Is there anything peculiar about the character of the work which these men are to be asked to do?


Charles Gavan Power: Outside of fiction, has the hon. member ever heard of men whom we commonly call '"spotters" being men of very high character?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that we have, and that may be the cause of their failure. But it is all the more reason why these men should be appointed-


Charles Gavan Power: Informers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Informers-very
well.


George Perry Graham: Advertise them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put them in uniform.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not necessary to put them in uniform. If, as is suggested, we propose to secure for this work men who are not of very high character, we .are not going to get effective service. We will have a condition of affairs such as has been referred to by the article which I have just read.


Mr. CANNON:: Would you have a B. A. sweep the streets if he could do anything else?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suppose a B. A.
may sweep the streets, and I hope as well as some others.


Lucien Cannon: He will do something
better if he can.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no particular reason why a body such as the Civil Service Commission might not be entrusted with the task of selecting these men. I think they are quite as capable of selecting them 321i
as anyone else. The examination in this case might be of a different character from that which is conducted for other classes of civil servants, but it is absolutely ridiculous to expect to secure results if we pick up men here, there and yonder whose qualification is that they lack anything like character, and who are appointed simply as a reward for political services past or for political services they may be expected to render in the days to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence-amount required for repairs to dredging fleet and to expedite dredging operation- revote of unexpended balance appropriated under vote No. 459 in supplementary estimates, 1924-1925, $51,750.
Arthur Meighen: How does this come in
the supplementaries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a revote of money not expended last year.


Arthur Meighen: That is all the more
reason why it should be in the main estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We did not know the exact figure in time.


George Perry Graham: The main estimates were
made up in January.


Arthur Meighen: But the revotes run all
through the main estimates.


George Perry Graham: They did not get it
expended by the end of the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for compassionate allowance to Chas. H. Lake, father of John Lake, former employee of the Radio branch of the Department of Marine, $1,500.
Arthur Meighen: What is this for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a compassionate
allowance for the father of a boy in the Radio branch who was killed.


Arthur Meighen: Was the father dependent on him?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for compassionate allowance to Elzear Martineau, former boilermaker's helper at the Quebec agency of the Department of Marine, $1,018.33.
Arthur Meighen: Why is the minister's
compassion not as great for this man as for the other fellow?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This man had applied for
superannuation, but his papers had been lost in the department, and we found them too late. The time within which he could be superannuated had expired.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: The act has been extended for a year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He was going to be superannuated under the Calder Act.


Arthur Meighen: Why is he not superannuated still? The time under the Calder Act has expired?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: This really is his retiring allowance under the Calder Act?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for compassionate allowance to Mrs. Margaret R. Cullum, widow of the late William Cullum, former steamship inspector, Department of Marine, $3,240.
Arthur Meighen: What happened here?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This man died when he
was preparing his papers.


Arthur Meighen: How is it she gets so
much more than the other?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends on the salary
he was receiving.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For assistance to cold storage warehouses and precooling plants, further amount required, $40,000.
Arthur Meighen: When did the minister
decide he wanted this money?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It is the same
amount we had in last year for pre-cooling plants, principally in British Columbia. One was established at Kelowna, another at Salmon Arm, and another in Chilliwack.


Arthur Meighen: This is for cooling previous to shipment?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. These packing plants are already established, and this is for installing pre-cooling rooms in the packing plants.


Arthur Meighen: Why was not this in the main estimates?


William Richard Motherwell: We did not have
it in the main estimates last year, and we were discussing this matter with the Fruit Growers' Association to see whether they would require anything further than was done last year, and we found that they did.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Agriculture-salaries, $711,855; contingencies, $135,000.
Arthur Meighen: The minister is going
about his estimates back foremost. Has he any object in that?


William Richard Motherwell: No. There is a
decrease of nine, but the personnel is practically the same.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: But the minister's work has decreased in greater proportion than that, because the general vote is away down. The work of the department has contracted a great deal more than the personnel.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think the worfc has contracted. In certain particulars it has expanded, particularly in the Health of Animals branch in connection with the export of cattle.


Arthur Meighen: What about agricultural education?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but that did
not take very many men. That was a straight grant to the provinces, and they administered it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Justice-salaries, $226,355; contingencies, including $2,000 for the Solicitor General's office, $32,500.
Arthur Meighen: Has Mr. Edwards been made deputy minister?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: With the full approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not consulted my colleague as to that.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister was well advised not to ask him. Does he draw the same salary as Mr. Newcombe?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, $10,000.


Arthur Meighen: Who are the two Assistant Deputy Ministers of Justice?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chisholm and Mr. Renaud. They were promoted.


Arthur Meighen: Who are the senior officers now?


Ernest Lapointe: There are Mr. Plaxton, Mr. Bill, Mr. Miall, and Mr. Varcoe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of litigated matters-Department of Justice, $38,000.
Arthur Meighen: Does this include fees paid to outside lawyers?

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, when they are not paid by the departments requiring their services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the revision of the Dominion statutes. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $35,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is this a continuous
job?


Ernest Lapointe: No; we expect that the revision will be completed in 1926.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been
spent since 1921?


Ernest Lapointe: The work started only last year.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It was started before the government came in. We had Mr. O'Connor at work and he did an enormous amount of work under Mr. Doherty and Mr. Bennett. The minister cannot smile at Mr. O'Connor's work on statutes. I do not care who has been advising him; I know something about it myself. I do not know any man who is more thorough in that kind of work. The minister knows perhaps that he is the author of a very valuable treatise indeed; and as a framer of statutes, if the minister had had some experience with him I do not think he would have introduced a great many measures in the way he has done. There have been some awful draftings submitted to the House that he would not be guilty of. I know who has advised the minister, and while I have the greatest respect for the man who has done so, at the same time he is wrong. He is very prejudiced in the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Who is he?


Arthur Meighen: I refer to Mr. Newcombe. Mr. O'Connor's work in this matter has been very valuable and it has been discarded.


Ernest Lapointe: Has my right hon. friend seen his work?


Arthur Meighen: I have not dug into it and reviewed it but I know something of its character. Right after the government came into power they appointed a string of men on this work. It must have been about 1922.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: When was the board appointed?


Ernest Lapointe: The board was appointed at the last meeting of council attended by my predecessor in the department.


Arthur Meighen: There was a reconstituted board appointed.


Ernest Lapointe: No; the full board was appointed at the last meeting' attended by Sir Lomer Gouin who retired in 1923. I took charge of the department in January 1924 and the secretary and translators have been appointed by myself since then. So that the board has worked only since January 1924, about a year and a half.


Arthur Meighen: How many are on it?


Ernest Lapointe: Five.


Arthur Meighen: Who are they?


Ernest Lapointe: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Mr. MacGregor, of Toronto, who took the place of the late Mr. Hartley Dewarl, Mr. E. J. Daly, of Ottawa, Mr. F. R. Russell, K.C., and Mr. L. A. Rivet, of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know the last named gentleman but I know the political stature of the others. I do not know their legal stature but I suppose that does not matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt they have sound ideas on politics.


Arthur Meighen: I think there is only one
man on it, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. If he is doing the work the work will be done properly. Is he doing it?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.	'


Arthur Meighen: What will the others get?


Ernest Lapointe: The president is paid at the rate of $4,000 per annum. Mr. New-combe was vice president, and when he was appointed to the Supreme court, he was replaced by Mr. Cameron. Each of the other commissioners get $2,500.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think this idea of having a sort of corporation to revise the statutes is a proper one. That is the work of a man with an assistant.


Lucien Cannon: It is always done in this way. It is the only way to do it.


Ernest Lapointe: It has always been done in this way. The revision of the statutes of Ontario, under a government friendly to my right hon. friend, was done in a similar way.


Arthur Meighen: When?
Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: Two years ago. This work is costing a good deal less.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think there has not been a revision in Ontario for many years.


Ernest Lapointe: Same way here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To increase the salary of J. E. Tremblay, secretary-clerk to $3,960, $600.
Arthur Meighen: This is some more invasion of the Civil Service Act?


Ernest Lapointe: In the Justice department, in order to get a promotion, a man has to be a lawyer. This is a special case of a very old employee who has given his services for a very long time, and I feel it my duty to propose this.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly have nothing to say against Mr. Tremblay. He is an efficient man, but I do not know why he cannot abide by the Civil Service Act the same as anybody else.


Ernest Lapointe: He could not.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose he could not get any more money.


Ernest Lapointe: He could not get a promotion as law adviser or chief adviser in the Justice department as he would have been able to do in some other department. He is not a lawyer and he is precluded from promotion. He is a valuable man as any one who has had anything to do with the Justice department knows, and I think it is only fair to grant this increase.


Arthur Meighen: A valuable man.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries-
Kingston	 $419,000
St. Vincent de	Paul	 385,500
Dorchester	 241,500
Manitoba	 203,600
British Columbia	 151,000
Alberta	 3,000
Saskatchewan	 245,000
General	 1,400
Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to bring to the minister's attention in connection with this item a matter we have already discussed once or twice; that is the question of a few employees who have served a great many years in the penitentiary and who, if they elected to come in under the Superannuation Act, would have to put up more than they can possibly spare. For example, some of them would have to put up $1,400 or $1,500 in a bulk sum in order to qualify under the {Mr. Meighen.j
Superannuation Act; or to qualify by payments from year to year, say ten, twelve or fifteen years; they would have to put up $300 or $400 a year. That is a hardship for men who have served 20 or 25 years. The situation with regard to these men is peculiar, in that while they have not been under the Superannuation Act, they have been in a position where they would get a gratuity; but that gratuity is also in a peculiar position in this way; that they might put in 25 or 26 years good, faithful service, and by some little slip would lose the whole gratuity which they believed had been accumulating for themselves or for their widows or children. I think there are two or three similar cases. For instance, there is now under item 398 an allowance for the widow of the late John L. Berrigan. He had served in the penitentiary for a very long time. He was taken ill, and died suddenly. His widow is now being given a compassionate allowance of about $900, whereas had Mr. Berrigan lived he would have been entitled to $1,800. There is also the case of another man who served a great many years; he would have been entitled to $1,800 but while his papers were going through he died. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that to-night there was a small vote put through, item 489, in a similar case. If this can be done in one department, I think it should be done in another. In this ease the widow gets $3,240 gratuity as a matter of compassion, because her husband died while the papers for his superannuation were going through. I would like the minister to take into consideration these few old employees who must now lose superannuation or else be able to put up a bulk sum of $1,400 or $1,500. Could the minister not suggest to the commission that, as there is a gratuity now which would amount to about $2,000 for these employees, about $1,500 of that should be laid aside, to be contributed to the superannuation fund as their share, and permit them to share in the benefits of the fund?


Ernest Lapointe: As to the employees
referred to, my hon. friend spoke to me about them, but I am afraid that under the law as it stands we cannot come to their assistance. They have everything they are entitled to. We are giving the children half of what the father would have been entitled to if he had resigned under the law. This is according to precedent, what had been paid by my predecessor in the department under similar circumstances. I think Mr. Doherty recommended this practice when he was in charge of the department.

Supply-Justice


Arthur Edward Ross: Then service seems to count for little. The man who enters the service can get the benefit of the Superannuation Act, while those who have given twenty or twenty-five years of good, faithful service cannot.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows
they are in exactly the same position as other members of the service. They have to pay certain amounts if they want to come under the act. The other employees are doing that, and I do not see how we can dispense with it in their case.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know they do,
but it strikes severely upon those who have now just four or five years to complete their service before they could retire with a gratuity.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with that.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think they are
so few the government could consider some change in the act or some favourable agreement with them. Otherwise, one or 1 p.m. two will share the fate of Mr. Berrigan who had earned $1,800. If he had been informed that his illness was serious, he could have retired and secured the $1,800 which he had faithfully earned. It was his, but just by a little mishap his widow will lose $1,800.
The other case I want to refer to is that of a man who had served his whole time, Mr. Young, and who, when his papers were going through for his resignation, died and nothing was done. This is a very similar case.


Ernest Lapointe: How long ago is that?
Mr. ROSS (Kingston)): Some years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: About fifteen years ago, I understand. My hon. friend may be assured that I will take every word he has said into consideration and discuss with the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the possibility of an amendment to the act.


Arthur Meighen: I notice all excepting one of the penitentiaries are increasing their working expenses. What is the reason?


Ernest Lapointe: It is for remodelling of
the buildings. During the war this had been neglected.


Arthur Meighen: How is the penitentiary
population compared with that of previous years?
[Mr Lapointe.]


Ernest Lapointe: There are 2,345 inmates
in the penitentiaries at this time. At the end of the fiscal year, 1924, there were 2,373. There is a decrease of 28.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To pay a compassionate allowance to the children of the late John L. Berrigan, guard, Kingston penitentiary, $905.
To increase the pension of William Patton, ex-guard, Kingston penitentiary, to $47 per month, $312.
Arthur Edward Ross: I appeal again to the minister. This man Berrigan should get a little better treatment than that. He should have known that he could not recover and he should have been permitted to resign. In that case he would have had $1,800.


Ernest Lapointe: Berrigan died suddenly on May 24. He had not resigned his position at the time. Really, what we are giving is by way of a compassionate allowance. Under the law we would not be bound to give anything. His children are grown up. I think my hon. friend will agree with me as to that. I understand the youngest is nineteen years old.


Arthur Edward Ross: I quite agree with that, but Berrigan did not die suddenly. He was sick long enough to know he could not recover. Charity applies in this case. Berrigan had earned his $1,800 and he had also been injured.


Ernest Lapointe: We are doing pretty well by giving this compassionate allowance. There was no obligation to ask him to resign.


Arthur Edward Ross: What was the cause
of his death?


Ernest Lapointe: Pneumonia, I understand. He got three months' salary apart froiq this
allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-salaries and contingencies, $46,980.
Arthur Meighen: How many provinces are the police used in now?


Ernest Lapointe: In all the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: The government has seen a new light on that subject.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether I should say it, but I am free to admit I have come to learn that they are doing a splendid work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have the officers of the police military rank at the present time?
Supply-Mounted Police


Ernest Lapointe: They have honorary
rank.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
Minister of Justice why it is that we need to have men, who were organized first of all for work on the frontiers, doing duty here around the capital of an altogether different character, duty which originally, I understand, was performed by the Dominion police force? It seems very strange that stationed around the doors of government buildings and in the art galleries and other public places we have members of the mounted police. In the art galleries I have visited in Europe I usually found some old pensioners on guard or perhaps pointing out to tourists the paintings and other interesting objects, and doing subordinate work of this character very well indeed. Here we have the "riders of the plains" performing these duties. Why is it necessary?


Ernest Lapointe: The conditions my hon.
friend describes have arisen since the union of the mounted police and the Dominion police in 1920. If he thinks the statute should be changed he will have to move accordingly by way of act of parliament. I think the present system is preferable to that which obtained prior to 1920.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
inquire further with regard to the activities of the mounted police in industrial areas. I have very good reason to believe that there in more or less a steady surveillance maintained over labour organizations-that mounted policemen, either in uniform or in plain clothes, make it a point of being present at labour meetings. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary, at least in times of industrial peace, that one particular -group of the community should be subject to an indignity of this character.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong. The instructions issued to the mounted police ars not to interfere with any legitimate labour activities. Labour is on exactly the same basis, so far as the mounted police are concerned, as any other class of the community. Of course, it is part of their duty to see that the federal statutes are enforced and that order prevails. I think there have been industrial conflicts of late of a very difficult nature, but I have not heard a word of complaint about any interference by the mounted police. If there had been, I know my hon. friend would have taken good care to warn us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do know, however, that Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen are present at labour meetings.


Ernest Lapointe: They are present probably at labour and other meetings. The mere fact that they are men of the mounted police does not preclude them from going where other citizens have a right to go.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but they go
to these meetings and afterwards present their reports to their superior officers, and so, as I say, maintain a certain surveillance over labour organizations, which fact is resented by the labour people.


James Murdock: As a member of a
labour organization for more than thirty years, I can assure my hon friend that I have kept closely in touch with the point he raises, and I may state that during the past three or four years no espionage has been maintained over reputable and responsible labour organizations. I realize that my hon. friend may regard as labour meetings gatherings of men who are first, last and all the time advocating the overthrow of constitutional government If he argues that espionage is maintained in such cases, he is right, and I say that it is proper that it should be maintained, because I do not believe we want such men, under the guise of labour, gathered together for the purpose of plotting the overthrow of constitutional government and doing away with certain conditions that Canadians love and respect and are ready to fight for. There has been no action taken by the police in any of these cases that I am not heartily in accord with, and I am ready to go into any body of organized labour, properly constituted, and defend the action thus taken. I could give my hon. friend some very interesting information about the attitude and actions of some gentlemen who pretend they are representing labour. They are doing no such thing when they are undertaking to undermine the constitution and thwart the laws of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of
Labour says he wants to be protected against the actions of certain classes of gentlemen, unnamed. I have had the experience myself of having mounted police present at meetings which I hiave been addressing, publicly called meetings, -at which I have been trying to say some of the things that I have been saying on the floor of this House, and I have had an officer of the mounted police attempt to trap me into saying something that he thought might possibly lead to trouble. Now, Mr. JUNE 26, 1925
Supply-Miscellaneous
Chairman, I object to thiat kind of thing. I have a right, as a member of this House duly elected, to address any public meeting without having an officer of the mounted police present to note what I have to say; much more have I a right to speak without an attempt being made to trap me into saying something that might be construed to be out of harmony with what he would consider to be the right policy to be presented in this country. It is that kind of thing to which I object and to which a large number of labour men object, and I should like here to voice their objection.


Ernest Lapointe: I must say to my hon. friend that as Minister of Justice I never received any such report against him. I am sure if any officers of the police attended meetings addressed by him they were edified by what he said, and far from being scandalized.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope they were. I have always been very glad personally to see them present, and to welcome them to my meetings. I hope to make them into thoroughly good labour supporters in the future. But that does not touch the point. It is not fair to a section of this community that is just as earnest and is doing just as good service to Canada as any other section, that they should be constantly under suspicion of being disloyal and they should be under certain ser-veillance by the police. I do not want to go into past history, but my statements are absolutely corroborated by the revelations of the trials which took place a few years ago in Winnipeg. We have that evidence as given before the courts, and the minister will not deny, if he looks into the matter, that very full reports concerning myself are in the Department of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will admit that there were certain gentlemen in Winnipeg in 1919 who were worth watching and who were advocating principles entirely contrary to the laws ,of this country and not in the best interests of the citizenship of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I was supposed to he one of them, a matter of which I am very proud.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $5,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: I have communications from some ex-service men in which they refer to the question whether a royal proclamation has ever been issued in regard to
pre-war defaulters who gave service overseas, which would restore them to their full citizenship, and, among other things, permit their names to be enrolled in the list of those who will be placed on the roll about to be placed in the tower of this House of Commons. I think it is a matter between the Justice Department and the Secretary of State.


Ernest Lapointe: I will submit the matter to the department concerned. It does not come under the Justice Department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the matter been considered by this government, and has it been considered by other nations?


Ernest Lapointe: It may have been considered, but not by the Justice department. As to other countries, I could not say.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
consider it?


Ernest Lapointe: I will, certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives, $85,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is an increase of $9,500. What is the reason?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, a new wing is being opened, and with the enlargement of the Archives building itself a good deal additional work is being undertaken. That is my understanding of it. A number of important original manuscripts have also been purchased both in London and in Paris.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much of it is new work and how much for manuscripts?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is for salaries, permanent and temporary, outside service; statutory increases, travelling expenses outside of Ottawa, purchase of manuscripts, books and pictures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that is as definite information as we can hope to get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's contribution towards the maintenance of the Permanent Secretariat of the Leagye of Nations, 5163,656.38.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We had a good deal of discussion at one time in connection with this item. I remember the time when there was very fierce criticism from this side of the House as to the amount of the subscriptions that were paid by the different countries. My idea always was that we paid too much. My own view always was that in connection with the immediate resources of the country, its population and the like, we
Supply-League of Nations

were placed in an absurdly high position, and there I agree with my hon. friend. At one time we did think quite anxiously of reducing our percentage. I think at the time we had so much discussion about it-I speak subject to correction, because I have not the figures before me, and I have not looked them up- the vote was about $186,000. It is very little smaller now. There has been no radical change at all. I would like to find out on what basis we are now paying, and whether the original basis which we all thought was not fair at the time has been departed from.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What was the basis?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Our contribution was based on the postal union arrangement, which had absolutely nothing to do with the possibilities of taxation and that sort of thing in Canada as compared with other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been
a considerable improvement along that line. The contribution for 1925 is $4,696 less than in 1924, and $32,000 less than in 1922.
Canada pays 35 units out of a total of 935; the larger contributors are as follows:
Units
Great Britain	 88
France	 78
Italy	 61
Japan	 61
India	 60
China	 50
Spain	 40
Canada	 35
Argentina	 35
Brazil	 33
Czecho-Slovakia	 33
Roumania	 27
Australia	 26
Jugo-Slavia	 25
Poland	 25
Netherlands	 20
The present scale of contribution is a temporary compromise, based on revenue, population, and other factors; the question of agreeing upon a permanent scale is to be considered by the next assembly. The present scale, while not satisfactory to Canada, is much better than the original provisions, which applied the Universal Postal Union scale; in 1921 Canada had to pay 4.54 per cent of the total budget, in 1925 3.74 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this question to be taken up in the near future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the next
assembly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the basis which in the opinion of the government ought to be urged as a permanent basis for contribution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the different factors that I have mentioned, revenue, population, and the like, would be considerations to be urged.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will eee that that does not quite synchronize with his previous remarks. He has pointed out the adjustments that he considered had been given effect to, but he was not satisfied with the result. My question was, what basis and what percentage is it the view of the government should be urged when these negotiations are taken up at the next meeting? What is the government's stand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that previously the area of a country was taken into consideration. We have already urged that area is not a proper basis, that population and revenue should rather be the determining factors. I think my hon, friend will agree that the place w'hich Canada holds on the list I have given is relatively where she should foe.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says now we are about where we should be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say relatively.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend's terms. I will take it whatever way he puts it. Before he was not satisfied. Is he now satisfied?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was pointing out that Canada is on the same basis as Argentina. I do not think that that is doing Canada an injustice. The next countries below are Brazil and Czecho-Slovakia. I hope we are about equal to either of those countries. There is a difference of only two units between Canada and those two countries. Roumania comes next. We are surely in a little better position than Roumania among the nations of the world. As to the other countries, the larger contributors, Great Britain, France and Italy might be paying a little more on the basis of their population and revenue than they are now, but that is a matter that will have to be taken into account in relation to the actual figures.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is the expense of maintaining this office increasing or diminishing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The expenses
of the office of the League of Nations were reduced last year by some two or three hundred thousand dollars.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think there is a matter which is far more important than the mere proportion of expenditure, and that is the question whether or not we are getting anything like

Supply-League of Nations
the value for the expenditure that we make. I feel there is a growing conviction-I will not say as to the futility altogether-but certainly that we are not getting the maximum usefulness from this particular organization known as the League of Nations. I am not going to argue the thing now. I think it is rather unfortunate that to the question of our external relations we pay but little attention. I remember reading a statement of Vincent Massey, of Toronto, in which he pointed out that of 534 days of discussion in the last five sessions preceding this parliament, we spent only some 13^ days altogether covering the whole field of trade treaties, external department estimates, and all other matters that had even the remotest relation to external affairs. I do not want to discuss that particular matter now, but I do want to challenge the attention of the Prime Minister, and I cannot do it better than by reading two or three extracts from the first volume of a book by Kellor, entitled "Security against War." Dealing with the career of the League of Nations he says:
There have been recorded thirty-seven disputes which threatened a rupture or to disturb international peace and good understanding. Of these disputes all but four have been in some form before either the assembly or council, so a fair test of the practical value of the covenant has been afforded.
Of these thirty-seven disputes, resort was had in fourteen instances to some form of aggression in which military force was used, either before, or without, resort to the conciliatory methods of the covenant. Among these are major disputes involving territory and reparations. In thirteen o-ther disputes resort was had to political interevention. These, with the exception of Upper Silesia and Iraq, constitute minor disputes involving small territories and minorities.
It will be observed from the table that in the fourteen instances where resort was had to force, vhe question has been definitely settled, in nine of which (namely, the Burgenland, Polish-Russian War, Vilna, Corfu, Memel, the Rhur, Fiume, Teschen and Eastern Galicia) the aggressor was either rewarded with a slice of territory or with reparations. In the other instances, Greece lost its conquest over Turkey and Albania, Russia did not seek territory in Persia, and was only pursuing General Deniken, Yugo-Slavia lost its conquest over Albania and Panama lost its territory to Costa Rica as awarded by the White decision. In one other instance, upon the threatened return of ex-King Charles to Hungary, the Little Entente threatened to use force.
Of the fourteen instances in which resort was had to conciliation six (Upper Silesia, Hedjaz and Lebanon, Hungarian frontiers with Yugo-Slavia and Czechoslovakia, the Aaland islands and the return of ex-King Charles) have been definitely settled; four remain unsettled (Bolivia, the Bulgarian disputes and Hungarian optants), two have been withdrawn from the league and are in process of settlement (Iraq in the Lausanne treaty and Peru before the United States), and two have been the subject of conquest after or without political intervention (Armenia and Georgia). In four of these instances the people most vitally concerned either lost their independence or their territory (the Aaland islands, Armenia, Georgia, Hungary), and in another instance they were divided (Upper Silesia).
And may I interject, one of the real danger points of the world.
In one instance (Lebanon) the people received autonomy under a French protectorate, and in Iraq a similar provision is made under British protection.
Of the nine questions referred to the Permanent Court, only six have any direct relation to the maintenance of peace; in four of these the court rendered an opinion and in one a judgment which constituted the basis for peace and security, namely, in the instances of the nationality decrees, Polish-Czecho-slcvakian frontier, the two questions concerning German settlers, and in the Kiel canal case. The Eastern Carelian dispute was outside its jurisdiction and remains unsettled.
From the following table it appears that of the thirty-seven disputes, thirty-three were the subject of negative, neutral or affirmative action in either the assembly or the council. Of the thirty-three disputes, the council took decisive action which was accepted by the parties in four instances, the Aalands islands, Upper Silesia, Jaworzina and Memel, the initative in each instance being taken by an allied power or the conference of ambassadors. Of the remainder, eight questions have been referred to the court. In five of these an opinion has been rendered which has been accepted by the parties. In two opinions relating to minorities in Poland, that state has accepted the opinions in principle, but their application is encountering obstacles; while in one no relief was afforded.
That short statement is a challenge to the League of Nations to justify its existence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Even at this late or rather early hour of half past one in the morning, and with only about thirty members present, I feel we ought not to pass this item without some little discussion as to the league itself and the responsibilities which we have as a member of the league. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us early in the session that an opportunity would be given for a discussion of the protocol and the work of the league. So far that opportunity has not been given and we are now at the very last hours of parliament. Surely we ought to recognize the very decided obligations which may at any time arise because of our membership in this league. I know that at the present time a very considerable proportion of the people of Canada are not par-ticuiarly interested. Some of them are inclined to ask, What have we to do with Europe? Yet we are to-day carrying a terrific load simply because we found a few years ago that we had to go to Europe under the circumstances and with the commitments that Great Britain then faced. I do not think we should simply pass these things by with indifference. I should like to take a few minutes to make a few observations with regard to this matter and I do so in the hope that another year, if any of us are here, opportunity may be given very early in the session for the discussion of such questions. As I suggested once before, the committee

Supply-League oj Nations
which was set up last year on industrial and international relations might very well be given the opportunity of reviewing the policy of this Dominion with regard to foreign affairs. I would urge that as at present constituted1 the League of Nations can be given only a very qualified support; ^and without developing the argument. I should like to enumerate one or two of the points which seem to me to justify such a statement.
First of all, as at present constituted, the league affords no guarantee of peace. We are told by its advocates that we ought to support the league; but, I repeat, there is no guarantee that we shall have peace. In fact, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) told us a day or so ago that his visit to Europe convinced him that we were in very imminent danger of a new war. Sir Arthur Salter, director of the economic and financial section of the League of Nations, in a lecture last summer at Williamson Institute of Politics said of the league:
It is essentially an organized system of conferences designed to facilitate agreement.
That is all it is. In holding conferences the league undoubtedly is performing a very important function. But the fact that we have a mechanism for the holding of conferences with the existing state of affairs gives us no guarantee whatever that we may look forward to any lengthened period of peace. It would seem to me that the league, if it is to become at all effective, must be dissociated from the iniquitous treaty of Versailles.	I do not propose to examine
that treaty at any length, but I should like to quote one clause of it which in my opinion obligates us very definitely. In the covenant of the league in clause 10 we find:
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Anyone who has studied the map of Europe as it exists to-day must surely be convinced that the present situation cannot very long endure. I had hoped that the member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) might have carried out his purpose and exhibited that map to this House and shown something of the difficulties which face European statesmen at the present time. The point I want to emphasize to-night is that under clause 10 of the covenant of the league, we in Canada are intimately interested in this question. We cannot escape our responsibilities and we are obliged to maintain what can only be termed

an absolutely impossible position. Further, I would urge that if it is to be effective, tiye league must be enlarged to take in all rations. I was very much interested the other day in noting that the so-called "Fidae", the InterAllied Veterans' Society, were urging that the veterans of Germany and Austria should be given the privileges of membership within a year. One of their planks, No. 5, was to re-order the League of Nations, eliminating America's objections to membership, so that the United States may become a member. In view of the very prominent position which the United States occupies to-day because of her financial and industrial importance in the world, it would seem as if no organization such as the league could ever carry out the work for which it was originally designed without the inclusion of the United States. The United States has certain definite objections and I do not think that this country is justified in contributing its support to the league without protesting steadily against the things that would in any way bar the entiance of other nations. From the information that we have been given it would appear that Germany is shortly to be admitted. I believe that, according to the newspapers, that is a part of the arrangement that is now being made. I submit that we should have some statement from the Prime Minister as to what attitude Canada is taking with regard to the proposed security pact It seems to me it is only right that the members of this House and the people of Canada should be informed as to the position of the government in regard to this situation. I would urge further that not only Germany be included in the league, but also Russia. It still seems to be almost a dangerous thing to mention Russia, and yet any student of world affairs must recognize that Russia occupies a strategic position at the present time. We go no further than to call the attention of the House to a treaty which has been made recently between Russia and Japan, which is of very far reaching consequence. Decidedly we cannot hope to re-establish peace conditions on a permanent basis in Europe unless the great country of Russia is included. Now may I quote two or three very brief statements in regard to the condition of that country given us recently in an official report of the British Trades Union delegation to Russia in November and December, 1924? I do so because in this country there has been so much adverse propaganda that the great majority of the people are still under the impression that conditions over in Russia

Supply-League oj Nations
are very deplorable. I may say that the gentlemen who made this report were rather conservative in type, well-known trades unionists, and one may not be afraid of being accused of being very disloyal to the Empire when we remember that Ramsay MacDonald and the members of the British Labour party advocated closer relationship with Russia. In making this plea to-night I am but carrying out the avowed policy of the Labour party of Britain. The following is the considered conclusion of the delegates who spent some time in Russia:
Finally the deflegation is of opinion that the Soviet system of representation and its scheme of constitutional and civil rights, so far from being undemocratic in the widest sense of the word, given in many respects to the individual a more real and reasonable opportunity of participation in public affairs than does parliamentary and party government. . . .
Under that constitution there are certainly as great- and possibly greater-possibilities than elsewhere in respect of popular government, political peace, and social progress.
And again with regard to the general social conditions that exist the delegates state:
The conclusion reached by the delegation in the matter of law and order is that public order is now un a footing well above that in most continental countries; that justice is equitably enforced in the new courts, and under new cedes that constitute a judicial system still in its youth, but adequate for its present purpose.
And then in conclusion, after presenting a vast amount of statistical data, very carefully prepared, these delegates sum up in a paragraph their general impression:
Final Conclusion to General and Labour Reports
In view of the information contained in the preceding chapters-all of which has been obtained by themselves from sources and through channels that convince them as to its general accuracy-the delegation has come to the following conclusions. That the U.S.S.R. is a strong and stable state; that its government is based firstly on a system of state socialism that has the active support of a large majority of the workers and the acceptance of an equally large majority of the peasants and, secondly, on a federal structure that gives very full cultural and very fair political liberties to racial and regional minorities, together with full religious toleration; that the machinery of government though fundamentally different from that of other states seems to work well, and that the government it gives is not only in every way better than anything that Russia has ever yet had, but that it has done and is doing work in which other older state systems have failed and are still failing; that these good results have reconciled all but a very small minority to renouncing rights of opposition that are essential to political liberty elsewhere; and that this causes no resistance partly because these rights have been replaced by others of greater value under the Soviet system, and partly because recent movements have been steaddy towards their restoration; and finally that the whole constitutes a new departure of the greatest interest that is well worth foreign study and a new development that may be greatly benefited by foreign assistance.

This report is signed by the following well-known Labour men of Great Britain:
Herbert Smith, Ben Tillett, John Turner, John Bromely, Alan Findlay, Albert Purcell (Chairman), Fred Bramley (Secretary), and Harold Grenfell, A. R McDonell, George Young, Advisory Delegates.
Now without going further into the situation in Russia, I would urge that we should take our part together with other forwardlooking nations, and together with the progressive sections of our own Empire in asking that the league should include in the near future, not merely the allied nations, but all the nations of the world, as was the original intention. It is only on that basis the league can be made effective. Again, I would urge that the league must be democratic in its organization. The assembly at the present time represents some fifty nations and the council represents four great powers and six other countries. This means that the council composed so largely of the great nations is able to impose its will on the assembly. I cannot think that is in accordance with the general principles of democracy, and undoubtedly it is this weakness that has led to the failures referred to in the article read by the hon. member for West Calgary. Why should we urge that disputes should be brought before the league and then refuse in many instances to refer disputes with which as an empire we are closely connected? I need not go further than to refer to the Egyptian situation, but there are many others. Why should we set up a league that is supposed to preserve peace, which we proclaim to the world ought to adjudicate in cases of dispute, and then reserve to ourselves the right to withdraw certain cases from the jurisdiction of the league?
One other point. There is a very great danger that the league should become little more than a tool of the great international financiers. In connection with the Dawes report, I am sure that many hon. members recall the words of Lloyd George who stated that the report was the work not of Mr. MacDonald, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, or of Monsieur Herriot, Premier of France, but that essentially that report was the work of the international financiers. Surely such a statement coming from such a source ought to give us all pause. Further than that we have been frequently told of the great benefit which has been conferred upon Austria and Hungary by the loans which have been made to those countries. I think perhaps the true situation might be very well indicated by the following paragraph from
Supply-League of Nations

a correspondent in Budapest, Mr. Fred Hank-inson. In speaking of Hungary which he observed right on the spot, he says:
The League of Nations commission has been here, and curiously enough prices rose all the time and the kronen depreciated. I feel with you that a foreign loan is only a palliative, and the country accepting such a loan becomes part of a financial gamble in Wall street and in London. If Hungary, like Austria, accepts the loan it may help for a time, but it only postpones the evil day and lays Hungary open to the craft of the international financiers and exploiters.
An editorial on this paragraph comments:
Exactly! Why fool ourselves? Mr. Bertrand Russell, in a recent address, pointed out with admirable cogency, that it is not necessary any longer to conquer a country militarily, or to annex it politically. All advantages of conquest and dominion can now be obtained by making a loan, and establishing the required financial control to see that the loan is safeguarded and its obligations met. Austria and Hungary are to-day colonial dependencies of the Allies. They have disappeared as nations. And, what is worse, not even by this process has anything been done to bring permanent relief to Europe.
I would! urge that we are now far enough away from the war to enable us to see the situation in something like its true perspective, and we ought to set ourselves very definitely to reorganizing the affairs of Europe and the world on an altogether different basis. Some of us may be ridiculed as visionaries and impossible idealists or dangerous radicals. We shall have to endure such terms, I suppose and the opprobrium which attaches to them. But the situation is to serious for us to remain silent. We believe it is possible to reorganize the affairs of the world in such a way that devastating wars will be abolished. I would urge that if this league, to which we are contributing and of which we form a part, is to accomplish its true purpose, it must devote itself to a reorganization somewhat along the lines which I have ventured to indicate.
May I ask again, in closing, that we might have from the Prime Minister, some statement, however brief, as to the attitude of the government with regard to the security pact? Personally, I am very thankful because of the attitude which the government took in regard to the protocol. I know that protocol was fostered and put before the world by the labour Prime Minister of Great Britain. None the less I feel that we in this country could not endorse it, and I am glad the government has not asked us to do so. I think, however that at this time we ought to know something at least as to the government's attitude towards present developments in Europe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The security pact, as my hon. friend is aware, was a matter of negotiation primarily and essentially
rMr. Wood-sworth.]
between the governments of Great Britain, France and Belgium and the German government. The Canadian government, with the government of the other self-governing dominions, have been kept informed 2 a.m. of these negotiations which have not developed beyond the discussion of a principle and an endeavour to find out how far these respective countries might be prepared to go with respect to certain matters which are confined entirely to Europe. At no stage of the negotiation has any intimation been made to the governments of the self-governing dominions by the countries that I have mentioned in the nature of asking us for an opinion or making any request. We have been kept informed, as I have said, but we have not thought, under the circumstances, we should either offer advice or take exception to anything that was being done, having no reason to take exception as we are not participating, but reserving always, in the light of the information that was given to us, a freedom of expression if we thought it was required on the part of the country. I gather from a statement which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has issued in the British parliament that Great Britain will not be committed without the approval of her own parliament with respect to whatever the nature of the obligations may be that Great Britain is prepared to enter into. The same intimation has been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the dominions, that no dominion government will be asked to do anything without the full sanction of its parliament. That is the attitude which we would expect the British government would take towards any action that might be either expected or anticipated with respect to Canada. Whether or not we shall be asked to become a party to an agreement that may ultimately be reached, I cannot say. It is quite conceivable that an agreement may be reached wholly independent of our parliament, but one thing I feel perfectly sure of is that no agreement will be reached which will commit in any way our country without the explicit condition that this parliament approves whatever action is taken. I think my hon. friends may rest assured that the government is not likely to sanction a course which it has not good reason to believe will be wholly in accord with the wish and the will off the people of Canada. I would point out to my hon. friend that the objection to discussion at any length of matters of this kind is that it is so largely a European affair that, for us to attempt a discussion while parties in Europe are negotiating, is only

Supply-Miscellaneous
possibly to throw into the arena of European discussion some element that might be capable of being misconstrued and do more harm, than good. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that the government is following the whole negotiations with great care that thus far it has reason to feel that what these European countries have been seeking to do is all to the good, and that, as regards our Dominion, no step is being taken which will in any way occasion concern to the people of Canada.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Do 1 understand from the Prime Minister that no obligation will be assumed without the approval first being had and obtained of the Canadian parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I have in my hand a despatch which was sent yesterday from London. I could not do better than read it because it sets out in an authentic way the position to date: It comes from the Secretary of State for the Colonies and it gives a summary of what- took place in the British House of Commons on the 24th instant in regard to the security pact. After mentioning that a copy of this debate is being sent to the government in full, the despatch states:
In the course of his opening speech and reply to points raised in debate, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made it clear
(1)	That what the House had to discuss was not a treaty, since there is no treaty or draft of treaty in existence, but mere preliminary statement of principle and of what countries concerned feel it would be possible for them to undertake and in what direction they think they can make an advance.
(2)	That no obligation will be undertaken on behalf of this country except subject to the approval and ratification of parliament.
(3)	That dominions have been kept fully informed of policy of His Majesty's government but that with the exception of New Zealand which has expressed its complete confidence in policy of His Majesty's government and its readiness to leave decision in their hands they have not yet declared themselves.
(4)	That no dominion can be committed except by its own government acting with consent of its own parliament
I think that covers the point raised by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for expenses of Canadian delegates to the League of Nations, $15,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is being
taken up this year, and who are the delegates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not yet appointed delegates for the present year. It is the regular annual meeting of the league.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have no
special side show this year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-mental hygiene comity, $10,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this
organization, Mr. Chairman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is of a similar category to the tuberculosis and social hygiene associations, only it realates to mental diseases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For reception of the Interparliamentary Union for Peace, $10,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this
organization?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an association of members of parliament of the different countries of the world. I understand they are having a meeting in the United' States in the fall and intend to visit Canada for a few days. The government thought it would be in every way appropriate and desirable that these gentlemen should be invited to visit Canada and be our guests while here. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is vice-president of the association.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is an extension of the visit to the United States, as my right hon. friend has pointed out. A large number of questions are discussed at the conventions of the association, and it may be looked upon as a useful auxiliary of the League of Nations. As a matter of fact, it started the idea of arbitration in the first instance. These members of parliament from all over the world meet together, and the social reactions result in a better knowledge of each country's troubles and difficulties, and as a result they are in a far better condition to consider any international questions that may arise.


John Jabez Thurston: How many countries
are represented?


Henry Lumley Drayton: A great number. There are no bars to membership.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Where was the convention held last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection
is that it was held in Geneva.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with U.S.A.-further amount required, $9,000_
Henry Lumley Drayton: Some years ago I remember we had an arbitration board looking into pecuniary claims, but their sittings
Supply-Miscellaneous

were interrupted by the war. Is it functioning again?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
they are meeting again this year at Washington.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are our
representatives now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that Msr. James White is making researches into matters pertaining to the commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would be more familiar with the matter if I knew it was in the same position as before. The item is "further amount required." What have we already voted for this?


George Newcombe Gordon: Five thousand dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The item has been put in by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Perhaps my hon. friend would allow it to pass and get an explanation from the minister when he comes back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my right hon. friend cannot give us any information I think we may as well let the item pass. We may make a mistake if we expect the Minister of Justice back quickly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Memorial Tablet to the late Allan Crawford. Commander, 'Wrangel island expedition, 1921, $1,000.
John Jabez Thurston: Where is it proposed to erect this memorial?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No place has been decided on as yet. I should think an appropriate place would be the University of Toronto, from which he graduated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canadian representation on Imperial Economic Committee, $4,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the Prime Minister explain this? It is a new one to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
committee which was appointed last year, the outcome of a recommendation made during the Imperial Economic conference. It has been appointed to consider the possibility of improving methods of marketing dominions products in the United Kingdom, and of increasing the dominions' share of the market in the United Kingdom for foodstuffs supplied by importations from abroad. Attention is being paid in the first place to meat and fruit. The United Kingdom market is represented by four members, and' each dominion by two, the Canadian representatives be-

ing J. Forsyth Smith, of the Canadian Trade Commissioner service, at present Fruit Trade Commissioner in Great Britain, and L. C. MdOuatt, of the Live Stock branch of the Department of Agriculture. This vote is for payment of their travelling and living expenses. The committee is sitting at present and will probably sit until August.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Conference between federal and provincial governments to consider amending the British Norfh America Act, with respect to the constitution and powers of the Senate and in other particulars, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Can we get the
agenda of this conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No agenda is prepared as yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought we had the first item on the programme two nights ago. I thought that the interests of the Home Bank depositors had been jeopardized with the idea of getting item number one on the agenda, for that conference. Is that not the case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any time fixed for the meeting?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will it be held this year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so, before the next session in any event.


Arthur Meighen: Will the government undertake that it be held this year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the next session of parliament, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Matane-amount required to complete hart>our improvements, the Ham-mermill Paper Company of Erie, Penn, contributing $100,000-1140,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is for the celebrated Matane wharf. It is to drag $140,000 out of the treasury in one gulp and $4,660 in another. My information about this is that it is absolutely worthless; that not only is it worthless as an enterprise had it been properly handled, but that it has been bungled. What has bean built is now dilapidated, and when it is constructed it will be of use only to the Hammer-mill Paper Company to carry our pulpwood out of Canada and to lose traffic to the Canadian National Railways. I cannot think that even at this sacrifice there is any possibility of electing the hon. member for the constituency.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really do not think it is fair to the hon. member (Mr Pelletier) that he should not be allowed tc make his speech on this subject. I think we should hear from him. He is the only one who can possibly give any justification for this vote.
M. PELLETIER: Monsieur le president, jo remercie mon honorable ami de m'avoir invite a diseuter Litem 438. Je dois vous dire qu'il est certainement de l'interet, non pas uniquement de Matane, mais aussi de toute cette region, que ce montant soit vote, afin de venir en aide a la population non seule-mernt de ce district mais meme a celle de la cote Nord.	*
Mr. Chairman, three years ago we had a vote for this work. There was a revote two years ago, a revote again last year, and part of this is a revote. I have already stated that this work is in the interests of my district as well as in the interests of the north shore. My right hon. friend states that it is only in t'he interests of the Hammermill Paper Company. I do not agree with him.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. memfoei
say on the north shore?


Mr. PELLETIER:: I state that companies are operating on the north shore, and they want to have their goods come through Matane. Everybody knows, except my right hon. friend apparently, that Matane existea before I came here. Apparently he did not know that.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes I did, and Matane will exist long after the wharf has rotted, for I am told it is half down now.


François Jean Pelletier: It might be half down but neither my right hon. friend nor I can prevent rough weather. The work was done according to the plans and specifications, and I am not to blame for that, nor do I blame my right hon. friend. At the same time I want to see that district developed, and I endeavour to do the best I possibly can to come to the assistance of all concerned. Matane was the first harbour to open in March. On the 21st of March the first 'boat came into Matane.


Some hon. MEMBER:: A row boat?


François Jean Pelletier: No, it was not a row
boat. I am absolutely sincere in this matter. There are five or six different companies operating on the north shore, and from the 21st of March to the 11th of April sixteen vessels came from the north shore to Matane, with 1,700 passengers. There were no other 322
ports open then. Had it not been for the fact that we had begun the work and the improvements, these men who came across from the north shore to Matane would have starved, for the simple reason that they had been on rations for three weeks. I want to state fairly and squarely what the facts are. I have a report here from the collector of customs which I am willing to show to my right hon. friend if he wishes to see it. If my right hon. friend insists on being pessimistic so far as Matane is concerned, I am ready and willing to discuss this matter with him.


Arthur Meighen: I never said anything
pessimistic about Matane. The information I get is that the wharf is absolutely worthless, and it does not matter how many people come to Matane. This is to get the pulpwood of the Hammermill Paper Company across and into the United States, to be manufactured there into pulp and paper, and if it did not go over that wharf, it would go over the Canadian National railway, and we would at least get the freight out of it, even if we would lose all the work of manufacture. I am told besides there is some other concern there for which something has been built, purely assistance to private enterprise, and that a mess has been made of the construction, even though the purpose would not justify its construction. A mess has been made of the whole thing, and now the wharf is dilapidated, half of it down-


Thomas Vien: Does my right hon. friend not know that the freight rates on pulpwood from that, point would be absolutely prohibitive, and that consequently the Canadian National line do not lose any freight?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, they do carry it,
and lots of it. I only wish the rate was prohibitive, then we would manufacture our own pulp and the province of Quebec would get the work. The hon. member knows that the Canadian National and other railways carry very large quantities of pulpwood, and carry pulpwood right from here. That is going now to be exported from this port, if the wharf is ever built to be any good. In a word, the more use is made of the wharf, the worse for Matane and the district, but, of course, if a mess is made of the wharf, there will be no use made of it. The information I get is not from any distant quarter; it is right from there. I would like to know how much money has been sunk into this thing already If it were any good for Matane, that is in proportion to its cost, nobody would oppose it. I do not think the district gets any too



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
much, but I do not like to see money wasted that might be used usefully for the district.


François Jean Pelletier: I fail to see where it is money wasted. My right hon. friend claims that this is in the interest of a private company, but I fail to see that. It is not in the interest of a private company.


Arthur Meighen: The estimate says they
are contributing $100,000 to it. I do not think they would do that if it was not.


François Jean Pelletier: Well and good, but
would my right hon. friend blame me if I went to a company and obtained $100,000 from them in order to come to our assistance?


Arthur Meighen: No, I would not. I wish you would get $200,000.


François Jean Pelletier: I want to develop my own district. What am I here for?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really think
we should yield to that last appeal, but I think we should point out one or two things first. I really do not like to see such a mind as that of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) labouring under such a sad delusion as to freight rates on pulp and pulpwood. If he had noticed what the railways are doing, he would have found that in a year of sliding tonnage they were carrying more of pulpwood on our railways, to the United States, of course-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not from Matane.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not care where it is from. Of course, they cannot carry it from Matane because hon. gentlemen are making sure the railway cannot get the business. They are making sure that the business will be taken away from the railway and be carried by water. The fact is the railway records show, and we all know it 'if we pay any attention to the country's business, that there has been a big increase in this traffic. My hon. friend the genial member (Mr. Pelletier) has really a splendid procession here. He says this year, last year, for four years we have gone over all this. Yes, we go over it every year. It is a regular procession. We say there is something wrong with this wharf, although it is such a new wharf. As my right hon. friend ha3 said it is rotting, more or less, and each time it gets a punch from a storm, more of it goes. The hon. gentleman says the wharf is made from plans, and we know how these plans work out.


François Jean Pelletier: I did not make the
plans.
I Mr. Meighen.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I am sure
my hon. friend would not make sure that improper plans were used. It is the ordinary plan, and we have been voting money for this work year after year. The hon. member, of course, will do what he can to further the interests of his district. The item reads:
To pay Messrs. J. R. & J. E. Boulanger, contractors, for construction of wharf, their claim for damage to the uncompleted work, caused by a storm of unprecedented severity on 9th December, 1924, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the contract as originally entered into.
This declares that the damage is due to an unprecedented storm; but every hon. gentleman who has been in politics any length of time knows that there is a reason for items of this kind. Every now and then some favoured contractor is let off; if anything goes wrong he gets special relief. In these contracts there are clauses protecting the country on the one hand and the contractor on the other, and it is provided that, when the work is in the hands of the contractor, if there be any damage he shall be responsible. If that were not so the contracts would not be so worded. They are framed in this way so that irrespective of what his competitors might tender every contractor knows just what the terms are. Otherwise we might as well not have a contract.


François Jean Pelletier: Suppose the department was responsible for the delay? My hon. friend says that the Canadian National Railways will be losing on the transportation of pulpwood; but are we not making up the difference in having a harbour at Matane to accommodate traffic coming from the north shore? The traffic is better now than it was prior to the time the work was begun.


Arthur Meighen: Are they carrying goods
to build the wharf?


François Jean Pelletier: They are carrying
goods and passengers. The hon. member referred to the amount paid to the Boulangers. There is no doubt whatever that the damage was due to the storm we had last fall. But who is to blame? It was simply an act of God and the damage must be repaired.


Arthur Meighen: I suffered a lot from
that storm myself. Can I get damages if I engage the influence of the hon. member?


François Jean Pelletier: The hon. member
suffered in 1921 and if he comes to Matane he will suffer again in the .coming election.


John Jabez Thurston: The hon. member should not be held responsible for this item in the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
estimates. We should have an explanation from the deputy minister.


George Newcombe Gordon: He is not in a position to speak.


François Jean Pelletier: This situation was
explained last year and the year before, and the special claim for damages in this item is due to the storm.


Mr. McTAGGART:: We should have a
general explanation of the necessity for this long list of wharf repairs. I presume that these supplementary estimates are based on the recommendations of the departmental engineers, and apparently the main estimates are based upon the investigations of the engineers last summer. At what time did the engineers cover the ground and make their recommendations in regard to these particular affairs? Was it done in the summer?


Arthur Bliss Copp: They make their surveys and
gather information and they send in their reports from time to time.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Have all these items
been recommended by the departmental engineers?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, every one of them.


Arthur Meighen: We have not yet learned how much this wharf has cost. It has been in the estimates now for three or four years and if there is no election this year it will be in the estimates next year again. What has it cost to date?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The total to date is $86,773.


Arthur Meighen: And $140,000 more for
this year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The sum of $100,000 is paid
by the company.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then why vote $140,000?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Department of Public
Works in their arrangement with the company insisted that they deposit $100,000. So that as a matter of fact the government is providing only $40,000.


Robert Gardiner: Is the government to
be held responsible for damage sustained during construction under these contracts?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The contractor is held responsible of course but in any storm of unusual severity he can hardly be held liable.


Arthur Meighen: Was the department in -default? Was there any error or laches on the part of the department?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, the department made no
mistake. It was an act of God.


Arthur Meighen: We pay the damages
for the act of God both to ourselves and to the contractor.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the contractor?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Boulanger.


Arthur Meighen: What is the name of the
inspector?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Pelletier, is the name.


Arthur Meighen: Is he a son of the late Postmaster General or of the member for the riding?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: Inasmuch as the Postmas: er General never had a son, I do not think it is likely that this man was his son. He may be a son of the member for the riding.


Robert Gardiner: What was the estimated damage by the engineers of the department on this particular work?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The amount asked for in the
vote.


Robert Gardiner: Do the contractors bear any part of the damage at all?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We are relieving the contractor from the damage for the reasons I have stated. He did his work properly and efficiently.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-
Bronte-wharf repairs	 4,900
Burlington-breakwater extension	 9,800
Burlington channel-repairs to north pier ..	3,100
Chatham-repairs to revetment wall-further
amount required	 7,500
Chute a Blond eau-wharf reconstruction..	7,600
Collingwood-breakwater reconstruction ..	35,000
Honey Harbour-wharf	 11,600
Laurenson Lake-dredging	 2,000
L'Orignal-contribution towards cost of shore protection, the province of Ontario to contribute a like amount and the municipality-$1,000	 2,000
Meaford-breakwater repairs	 9,000
Midland-dredging	 58,000
Midland-wharf-further amount required	45,000
New Liskeard-wharf repairs	 3,650
Owen Sound-harbour wall	 15,000
Port Stanley-harbour improvements and
repairs-further amount required	 10,000
Rondeau-dredging	 32,000
Saugeon River-repairs to harbour worksfurther amount required	 4,000
Sault Ste. Marie-dredging slip	 61,000
Windsor-wharf repairs	 3,000
324,150
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give
the committee information with regard to the Collingwood breakwater.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This amount of $35,000 is required to provide for the construction in concrete of 400 lineal feet of the north breakwater at the outer end and varying in width from 22 feet to 70 feet at the headblodk. This is for reconstruction and repairs.


Robert Gardiner: Is this work let by contract?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Who are the contractors?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is just voting the money and the contract will be called for later on. It has not been let.


Neil Haman McTaggart: This is a new item
for Honey Harbour. Is there any accommodation there at the present time?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The amount of the vote is


Arthur Meighen: I must enter a protest
against this habit of bringing down supplementary estimates in batches-all sorts of works here, there and everywhere. There is no use in having these items in the supple-mentaries. The only object the government had was to spring the news gently, get the country to think there was not very much being voted, and then bring batches in at the last.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Can the minister tell us
where Honey Harbour is?


Mr. HAMMELL:: I will tell the hen.
gentleman the reason why this item was not put in the main estimates. Honey Harbour is quite an important place on the Georgian bay, and until the present season the people had been served at a private wharf. During the past winter the owner of this wharf notified the people that they could no longer use it. There are about 2,500 people to be served by this wharf, and there is no other wharf in this locality.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Has there ever been a government- wharf at this point?


William James Hammell: No, for the simple reason that the locality has been served by a private wharf. But the business has increased so much of recent years, that a private wharf cannot accommodate the people.


Robert Gardiner: Is it tourist traffic?


William James Hammell: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bootleggers?


William James Hammell: No, we have no bootleggers up there.


Arthur Meighen: I am protesting against
this long string of supplementary estimates. We cannot get details. There is nothing to show us what was voted last year in any case. These items are all thrown at us in a lump. It is utterly unfair to parliament.


Charles Gavan Power: Was it unfair five years ago
and ten years ago?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it would have been unfair then, but it was not indulged in at that time.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member must
not make that statement. On the night before prorogation in 1921 we passed estimates to the amount of $400,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: We did nothing of the
sort.


Charles Gavan Power: We passed all the supplementaries, and we had about ten additions to the supplementaries, to the best of my knowledge. We got a new sheet about every hour.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
sitting up too late. His constitution does not fit him to be up so late. The supplementaries in those days were never so protracted as these. What I am complaining of is that there is a long string, page after page as to one province, a whole batch by itself, and others almost equally long, of items that should have appeared in the main estimates if they were justifiable at all.


George Perry Graham: They never do.


Arthur Meighen: They should have.


George Perry Graham: It has never been the
practice.


Arthur Meighen: Yes it has.


George Perry Graham: I have been here longer
than the hon. member.


Arthur Meighen: What is the explanation of the $140,000, for Matane wharf in the supplementaries and nothing in the main estimates? That has been going on for years.


George Perry Graham: The sum of $100,000 is
being contributed by the Hammermill Paper Company.


Arthur Meighen: It certainly should have
been in the main estimates. I dio not think there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members that it is just in the supplementaries in the hope that on the last

Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers
night there will be no opportunity of review. No other explanation can be given.


Charles Gavan Power: Was that the plan followed by the right hon. member's government?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Charles Gavan Power: It was the only good thing
they learned from his government.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is a good deal in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says. There is a larger vote coming in the supplementaries. Just in reference to a vote which we have in the supplementaries for Collingwood harbour and which is a fairly large vote, $35,000, while that vote properly should have been in the main estimates, in order to explain why it is in the supplementaries, I am going to read the report of the district engineer, Mr. Wilson, of Toronto. His report was submitted on the 28th March, 1925, and we all know that was too late for the main estimates. This is a reconstruction of a breakwater in the harbour of Collingwood and this is what he says about the work:
Unless this breakwater is repaired and made sound again before another winter passes, it is quite possible that the damage already done to it would be increased to such an extent as to imperil the harbour itself.
There is already a great gash in the exposed side of the breakwater some thirty or forty feet long, the interior of the cribwork being quite exposed to the seas and the alignment of the superstructure at this point is thrown out some twenty-four inches. The maintenance of this breakwater is essential to the existence of Collingwood in that its one chief industry is that of shipbuilding. The cost due to delay in this matter would increase entirely out of all proportion to any saving in moneys not expended.
There is a little summary regarding the harbour itself and a little report from the Customs and Excise department as to the receipts. The figures for last year are as follows:
Customs and excise receipts	 $49,545 16
Tonnage	of vessels arrived	
96,456Tonnage	of vessels departed	
117,723Tonnage	in and out	
214,179
The quantity of grain handled at the elevator is small because of lack of accommodation in that elevator. The elevator is an old elevator of the Grand Trunk and I think its capacity is only 160,000 bushels. Last year 2,000,000 bushels of grain were handled there. As regards the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, the average annual work that is done in that plant including building new boats and repairs to boats-and it is quite a centre for repairing boats-amounts to $1,500,000. I just want to refer to this so that there will be no misunderstanding. This was not held back for the supplementary estimates at all in the hope that this was 323i
something that would slip through. It is a very necessary work and it was delayed just on account of the lateness of the report of the district engineer, Mr. Wilson, of Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the report could have been asked for sooner.


Arthur Edward Ross: Perhaps so. One
reason for the lateness of that report was that last fall, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) was making a tour of the bay ports and he managed to get around some of them.
Then he was called away and 3 a.m. Owen Sound and Collingwood were the two which he did not manage to visit. It was hoped that he would visit this harbour later on in the fall because we wanted him to come and see for himself the situation and the necessity for the work. This accounts for the delay in putting in the requisition.


John Jabez Thurston: Most of these items are worded so as to lead one to think they are for the completion of work formerly started. As regards Owen Sound1 harbour wall, is this a new work? Is this amount required to complete it?


Mr. DUNCAN:: The elevator at Owen
Sound is being built by the town itself. It is not a government elevator. There is a suction dredge there which is putting the material over the land and this wall is to save the material from going back into the harbour.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
why the hon. member for East Simcoe should get such plums as these, two or three of them, $58,000, $45,000 in the supplementaries and I do not know how much in the main estimates?


Matthew Robert Duncan: As regards the item of
$9,000 for breakwater repairs at Midland, there was a storm which damaged' the breakwater and the boats cannot get in on that account.


George Black: There are items of $7,000, $4,800 and $2,700, all having nothing whatever to do with the Yukon system; they are British Columbia lines pure and simple. They have no more to do with Yukon than with New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from committee of Supnlv	[DOT]
Supply Bill
Hewitt Bostock: I shall dispense with the usual reading of all the items of the estimates, main and supplementary, since it was decided by my predecessor in office, the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, that such motions are considered as non-debatable; I will give only the numbers of the resolutions.
Resolutions reported, read the second tijne and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1926, the sum of $184,922,314.28 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1925, the sum of $341,422.08 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 240, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending respectively March 31, 1925, and March 31, 1926.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the amendments made by the Senate, as amended in accordance with the report of the managers of the free conference, to Bill 182, an act for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, be agreed to_
I may say that while agreeing to the amendments that 'have been made, the government still maintains its position and reserves its right to discuss at some future time the constitutional question that may be involved with respect to the right of the Commons in the matter of money bills. Hon.

members will have noticed that when the (measure was before the House on June 23 I said in the course of my remarks:
It is important the government should place its position clearly on record. It may well be that the conference that will take place between members of this House and members of the Senate, should such a conference be held in further discussion of the reasons alleged here for not accepting the amendments, will not enter into a full discussion of the constitutional relations of the two Houses, but it may nevertheless be sufficient to decide what is the answer with respect to this measure. It is important, however, that the government's position should be clearly stated and of record for all time in the future.
At the conference it was made apparent to the government that no matter how much the Commons might insist on further amendments, their honours of the Senate would not agree to any modification beyond that which had been made. An important modification was the withdrawal of the preamble which the Senate had inserted and which rather emphasized a different point of view from that taken by the Commons as to the basis on which relief would be granted. There was also a further modification which permits all persons in necessitous or straitened circumstances to obtain the benefit of relief, and the managers of the conference on the government side felt that they had pressed the matter as far as it was possible to press it with any hope of gaining consideration. Under the circumstances, seeing that the session has reached the point that it has, it was thought unwise to take any other course with a view to gaining further relief for the depositors of the Home Bank. I may say that on June 20 I received an official communication which I shall read to the House in order that it may be on record. It is as follows:
June 20, 1925.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Qnt.
Dear Mr. Premier:
Confirming our conversation with you this day in reference to the action of the Senate upon the bill regarding relief to the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, we beg to say that we accept the measure of relief thereby accorded to us.
Signed on behalf of the depositors:
W. T. J. Lee,
Chairman,
Home Bank Depositors' National Relief Committee.
H. H. Higginbotham J. F. Treacy G. G. Henderson
These gentlemen representing the national committee were very strong in the point ol view which they presented, to the effect that the government should not jeopardize the possibility of relief being granted ito the

Home Bank
depositors by pressing the matter unduly if it were likely to have that effect. The government feels that in the course it has taken it has gone as far as it would be prudent to go if relief is to be given immediately. I may say with respect to the bringing in of an estimate, that while there appears to be precedent in the British parliament for bringing in a bill to replace a bill that has not attained the object that was aimed at, there does not seem to be any precedent for bringing down an estimate to attain the object of a bill which had been previously introduced. It is quite possible that it is wholly within the competence of the Commons to do that; on the other hand I understand that a doubt has been raised with respect to the matter, and it might be raised in this instance. I might further mention that were the government to bring in a further measure of relief by way of an estimate, in view of the stand which the Senate has taken on this matter there is no guarantee that the Senate itself would accept it; they might reject it if brought in as an extra supplementary estimate-that is, assuming that such estimate were to pass the Commons. We feel we have pressed' this matter as far as we can without jeopardizing the relief to those who will receive relief-and they constitute about eighty per cent of the depositors-under the bill as amended.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister say what is the value of those words, "straitened circumstances''? The words) preceding are to the effect that those who show need arising from the loss may be given consideration. What is the value of saying "straitened circumstances" as well? I cannot see that it changes the meaning at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill as amended by the Senate, as I recall it, permitted the granting of relief up to the extent of $500, that is, to those whose deposits amounted to $500 or less. But the amendu ment as now drafted permits others who have larger amounts to appeal before the Exchequer court, I think, and intimate that their circumstances are such as to render it necessary that, they receive aid. In other words they would be in straitened circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no; the Prime Minister has not the effect of the history of the thing at all, if he has done justice to himself in that answer. The bill as amended by the Senate provided first of all that need should be the basis upon which anybody could get
any money, but in order to save the investigation of every single case it said that need should be presumed if the deposits were $500 or under. The effect of the whole thing was that need had to be shown; it was presumed in the case of deposits of $500 or under, but it had to be shown in the case of deposits of larger amounts than $500. Now, the conference, following the rejection by this House of the Senate amendments, added the words "straitened circumstances" after "need". I do not know the difference between a man in need and a man in straitened circumstances. I do not think the amendment meant anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to my right hon. friend that the amendment originally proposed was "special need," and the substitution has been "special need or in straitened circumstances."


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think probably it gives a little more in the way of latitude to the commissioner in granting relief.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot see it. It may
be the fine mind of the president of the Exchequer court can, but I cannot see it makes a hit of difference at all.
The next question is this: The Senate, I believe, has undertaken to abandon the preamble. There was no preamble in the bill that passed the Commons, but I have been looking up the records, and I find there is a preamble in the resolution the government introduced. The government, when the Senate put this preamble in, said1 they had no authority to assert what was in the preamble, but I have looked the matter up and see that the preamble the Senate put in is just the preamble the government had in the resolution. So what is the use of having the preamble struck out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not in the bill.


Arthur Meighen: It was in the resolution preceding the bill which the government introduced.


Thomas Vien: Not the same.


Arthur Meighen: It is like the difference
between "special need" and "straitened circumstances."


Thomas Vien: It is more than that. There
is the question of moral claim. This is totally different.
Home Bank


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference?
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) knows that the effect of this bill is to abandon all pretence of moral claim.


Thomas Vien: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Why, of course. The
bill is on the basis of relief and nothing else now, so there was nothing to be objected to in the fact that there was no moral claim.


Thomas Vien: The Senate has now dropped
the preamble in which they contended it was a measure of relief only.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but the
bill itself, no matter whether there is the preamble or not, makes it absolutely manifest to everybody that it is on the principle of compassion, whether it is recited or not.


Thomas Vien: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the use of the
member saying that to the House? Everybody knows it is exactly on the principle of compassion. It does not need to be recited. We all know it. So what was the value of dropping the preamble? It is purely academic; it does not amount to a hill of beans.


William Findlay Maclean: I
hope the House will pardon me if I refer for , a few minutes to the incident now before us. I have sat in this House a good many years, and have seen a number of disputes between the Senate and this House in regard to money bills and other questions. I ask the House if this is not something in the way of a solution of these difficulties, especially in view of the fact that a conference has to be called in regard to our constitution.
In regard to our Senate, I would have the constitution as written in the British North America Act amended in the direction of making seats in our upper house elective or appointive, for fixed terms, with the right of re-election or re-appointment at the end of the term.
And I would have their election or appointment rest in the legislatures of the provinces, not in the gift of the Govemor-in-Council, or as a matter of fact in the gift of the Prime Minister, who may disappear any day as a responsible factor in the political life of the country. By this change the senators would always be responsible to their legislature, not as most of them are to-day to Prime Ministers or governments no longer in office.
In no parliamentary constitution outside of Great Britain does anything like so irresponsible a Senate exist as we have in Canada; and while the House of Lords in Great Britain

is hereditary the party in office there can in a political emergency create new peers to overcome any holdup of their legislation, more important still of their money bills.
In the great democracy alongside of us the Senate of the United States is chosen by the voters of their respective states for fixed terms.
But it may be said that our Mother Country is a monarchy, not a federation. True we are a federation, and like the federation of the United States, our provinces, like their states, ought to choose senators for a limited period. Until we have this reform Canada has neither responsible nor autonomus government in the broad progressive parliamentary sense of that term.
May I add that our Governor-General is appointed for a fixed term, this House of Commons is elected for a fixed term, the legislatures and the lieutenant-governors of the provinces for fixed terms just as is the case in the United States. Our senators are appointed for life.
Otherwise, I respect the rights of the Senate. We need a second chamber, but one responsible to someone. To whom is our upper chamber responsible? Only to men out of office or long dead. And we must have the rights and duties of our Senate in regard to money bills limited to the full limit of modern parliamentary practice. In respect of responsibility and in regard to the rights of the lower house in money bills, we have neither of these things.
That is my proposal to cure the difficulties that have been occurring in this country, and the main difficulty is that we have a Senate that is not responsible. It ought to be responsible, as is the case in all other parliamentary institutions in the world that are recognized, and the only way to make them responsible is to have them elected for fixed terms, and the ones to elect them are the legislatures of the country, rather than electing them in the irresponsible way in which they are chosen now. The Prime Minister now appoints them. Well, Prime Ministers disappear, and then there is no one to hold responsible. A crisis has arrived. I have seen it coming for many years, but it is now more pressing than ever, and it must be cured. If this parliament, this House of Commons and the Senate, fails to tackle that question, we shall end up in annexation or drift to some other country where there is responsible government. I have every respect for the Senate. They are in office by law, but surely this country living alongside the great democracy to the south of us, should have a more democratic Upper

Home Bank
Chamber, especially in view of the fact that the very things of which we complain to-day are about to be cured in the Mother Country by legislation that I think will soon be introduced by the Baldwin government. The way they are going to cure it there is to substitute elective representatives in the House of Lords. They are going to have them elected for fixed terms, and the legislation will be proposed within a year. If I may quote authority, I will quote the authority of Lord Birkenhead, who had to lead with this question. The way to make the Senate more responsible is to elect the senators for fixed terms, and to have them selected by some responsible body, by the legislatures of this country.
I have had the courage to deal with this question, like I had the courage a little while ago to deal with the railway question, and only yesterday I got the endorsement of my position in regard to the railway question from this very Senate we are criticizing here to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: (West York):
I am somewhat disappointed at the way matters have gone in connection *with this Home Bank legislation. I pointed out to the government at the time what the effect would be of these claims touching constitutional questions. My view of this whole matter has remained unchanged; it is precisely the same now as it was when first the subject was broached. It has been my view all along that the matter should be treated from the standpoint of necessity and compassion and with the object in view of extending aid in such a way that there would be as little suffering as -possible as a result of the failure of the Home Bank. But that principle has not by any means been entirely carried into effect; instead of that we find the matter dealt with apart from any consideration of necessity among those who have suffered most. I would have had the payments so made as to apply in ease of the cases where the greatest need exists. I would have had them apply to eleemosynary institutions such as churches, unions anid the like. I pointed out to the government when the question was first brought up just what was likely to happen, and what I said on that occasion has proved absolutely true. Instead of going to the Senate on the question on the merits of the legislation, that of giving a larger share of the grant to those who most need it, hon. gentlemen opposite elected to go rather on the question of cold constitutional procedure. Tor some reason or other the human element,
the real consideration that should move any of us in connection with this legislation, was entirely overlooked. I did not vote against the measure, because I did not want to do anything that would in any way interfere with the position of the depositors. But the government has chosen to act solely on constitutional grounds instead of being moved by considerations of relief. What chance had they of getting any recognition of the merits of the question when they went to the Senate with a chip on their shoulder? They have had no relief; nothing whatever has 'been done. The result is just what they had a right to expect. The government's interest in this matter from start to finish has been political, from the very first order in council; and everyone knows it. They laugh now, and that shows the extent of their sympathy in the pain and suffering that have come to those who have suffered by the failure of this bank. Hon. gentlemen when they treat this matter lightly are not doing either themselves or their party justice. What I said on the previous occasion has proved to be absolutely correct. We have had a sham battle between this House and the Senate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us have a live
one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What hon. gentleman expresses that wish? It is the ever ready aid that comes to the government from British Columbia, and the hon. member is running true to form. He is looking for a Liberal nomination at the next election.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not referring to the hon. gentleman but to the member sitting next to him.


Alan Webster Neill: You looked at me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend's
eyesight is at fault to-night. If the House is in the proper condition, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.


James Murdock: "Condition" is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen's conduct shows plainly what hope we may have that the real merits of the question will be considered. The Prime Minister says that the matter has been pressed as far as it could be and that the bill must be accepted. What has been pressed upon the Senate? Look through the reasons passed by this House. What has been pressed upon them? The merits of the depositors' claims? Their necessities? Not a word of it. Forgotten entirely. It was
Home Bank

solely the question of constitutional rights, and my right hon. friend gets off just where he commenced. What has he done, Mr Speaker? He has commenced a constitutional contest. That contest had for its object the determination of the question as to whether the Senate had any right to interfere with a financial bill or not. How did it end? It ended by my right hon. friend accepting the position taken by the Senate? Why, we might as well have had no conference and saved this time and this fawce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend could have been in the House when I spoke.
Sir HENRY DRAYTOiN:	Yes, and I
heard what the right hon. member said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member has forgotten it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I have forgotten very much. We have here the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is something which my right hon. friend may be able to distinguish, but I do not think the people of this country axe going to worry very much about it. The fact remains that the real issue was as to whether or not the Senate had the right to amend a financial bill. And the real result is that today the Prime Minister says they have the right, and let us accept it. And there it stands. It is done. There is really nothing else. What was the object olf all those reasons for adoption by this House unless that was the object? What was the reason of forgetting all about the merits of the case, unless that was the object? We have this difference now, so far as the real issue is concerned; we have the preamble dropped, and every lawyer in this House knows that the preamble is a matter of absolutely no importance.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May it not be of some value in interpreting the bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend, with his customary gallantry, is coming to the assistance of the government who sorely need it now.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will allow me-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will not. We have had a suggestion and I can deal with it at once. My hon. friend from Lotbiniere noiw wants to speak. What is the matter with the Minister of the Interior? He is making an exhibition of himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An absolute exhibition of himself.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is ignoring everything that was staled by the Prime Minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am coming to it just as quickly as my hon. friend wants it. The preamble is not the operative part of any statute. The preamble is of use-and here I think I carry with me the judgment of my gallant friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw)-in icase there be any real doubt as to the meaning of any section of the act as indicating what the object of the act is. We have a change in that preamble. Now did my right hon. friend the Prime Minister indicate more changes in the preamble than that change and the change in relation to "straitened circumstances"? If there be anything else I confess I did not hear it, and I am going to ask the Minister of the Interior what else was said.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member is ignoring the principal statements made by the Prime Minister.
Sir HF*NTRY DRAYTON: What were they?


Charles A. Stewart: That is for you to say.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of the Interior knows full well that when I state there was a change made in that preamble, and when I state there was the addition of the words "straitened circumstances" I have covered everything.
'Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil): I call attention to the faJct that not more than three minutes ago my hon. friend said there was no change in the preamble.
Sir HENRY DRAYTOiN: My hon friend is entirely wrong, I did not make that statement. The statement I made was that the change in the preamble was of no material consequence.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member made the statement a few minutes ago.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member said it had no importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I still say so.


Thomas Vien: It has.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I still think it has not. I do not mind the chorus at all, and if we have another one I do not care. I rather like the chorus. It just shows how far

Home Bank
hon. gentlemen are prepared to go for the purpose of preventing anything like a fair discussion of this question.


Thomas Vien: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not at ail disturbed by the chorus. I invite more of it.


Thomas Vien: We invite fair discussion, not that kind of thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hot), member from Lotbiniere goes too far. He is talking nonsense.


Thomas Vien: The nonsense is not on my part.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to ask the Minister of the Interior what changes were made in this bill, except the change in the preamble and the change by adding the words "straitened circumstances."


Charles A. Stewart: The only
observation I have to make is that my hon. friend said three minutes ago there was no change at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never said that and the hon. gentleman ought to be able to know I did not say that. He knows very well I did not say it. I could not have said it.


Charles A. Stewart: Look in
Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will forget what has been said, and I now ask the Minister of the Interior what changes were made, except the change in the preamble and the addition of the words "straitened circumstances." What else was there?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend admits that and sticks to that ground I have no complaint.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the only ground I have ever taken-nothing else. I have dealt with the preamble.


Mr. POULIOT:: Does the hon. member
think the preamble is material or immaterial to the bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have already tried to make plain that the preamble in the legal sense may be of great importance. It is a matter of great importance where there is a question as to the proper interpretation of the clauses of the act. In that case it is important.


George Perry Graham: Is not the preamble really the foundation of the bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all. If my hon. friend is right in that, the bill is no good without a preamble, because it is without foundation, and in that case it is useless. My hon. friend is entirely wrong; but in this case-and I am now addressing myself to the hon. member who asked me the question-in this case there is no question of doubt as to the terms, and therefore, there is no importance in the preamble. The act will be construed exactly the same with or without the preamble. Now I come to the other point-


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the hon. member
think it is better to have a reason to do something than to have none?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman is quite right. It is better to have a reason. I would be pleased if we could always have the reasons stated fairly and honestly by this government. I have no doubt as to my reasons and where I stand. I would commend1 my hon. friend to turn his hand to preaching the gospel to this government.
I come to the second point. What is the difference between " need " and " straitened circumstances"? Anybody that is at all honest with himself knows there is no difference. Not a single extra depositor of the Home Bank will get five cents as a result of that amendment, and no one knows that better than the government itself. The signal for retreat is sounded. The flags 4 a.m. are furled. The government come back. We have to take just what the Senate says. All opportunity has been lost of having in that conference a real consideration of the claims of the depositors, and everything that I said before this question went over to the Senate has been proven to be true. I want to see these depositors helped. As a result of the position which my hon. friend has deliberately placed himself in, I do not see how we can get anything more for them now unless, of course, another estimate were submitted. But as the matter stands now, even at the expense of the constitutional claims of this chamber being flouted, there are the compelling rights and needs of 80 per cent of the depositors, and as a result of the manner in which the government has handled the constitutional question on the one side and the claims of the depositors on the other, I have no objection to action being taken now along the course that is indicated.
,5062
Home Bank

Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I will not say much, because very little is required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: , We will give the right hon. member a proper hearing in any case. We shall perhaps show some of the right hon. gentleman's followers what they should do.


George Perry Graham: I think the dropping of
this preamble by the Senate is of more moment than my hon. friend suggests. One of the points in the preamble to which strong objection was and ought to be taken is that the upper chamber presumed to speak for the government. Let me read the preamble:
Whereas certain creditors of the Home Bank of Canada have by their petition to the Governor in Council represented that they have, by the suspension of that bank, sustained serious losses which they are ill able to bear, and have prayed that pecuniary aid may be afforded them on the grounds of commiseration and of an alleged moral responsibility of the government of Canada, for the causes of sudh losses; and whereas such responsibility is not admitted, but it is expedient to afford pecuniary aid to certain of the said creditors as provided, by this act: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
With that amendment inserted, the position of the Senate would be confirmed that they practically had a right really to initiate a money bill on behalf of the government. I say that to get the consent of the Senate to remove that preamble altogether was a very long step towards the contention of this House as presented to the Senate in the objections raised by this House to the acceptance of the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Imagination.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend says "imagination.'' We have had enough imagination. I am going to stick to facts. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made a statement that, I think, cannot be borne out by the evidence, that is that there had not been any attempt on the part of this House to change the mind of the Senate on any essentials.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the merits.


George Perry Graham: I will take the merits
then. He was not at that conference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am taking the reasons. I have a right to do so. They are in writing.


Arthur Meighen: The point is this. The
conference could not take up anything except what was urged in the Commons resolutions, and they did not go into the merits at all.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is
wrong. He is like the man ,in gaol. Noth withstanding the fact that his lawyer told him he could not be put there, he was there. Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. friend says that we could not discuss in the conference the merits of the case, we did discuss them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did you get any
results?
, Mr. GRAHAM: That is not the question. My right hon. friend says that no suggestion was made as regards the merits.


Arthur Meighen: You could not get any
results because they were not in the resolutions.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid my hon.
friend is breaking his promise to me that I would get a hearing. As a matter of fact, the managers of the conference representing the House of Commons urged upon the managers representing the upper house the advisability of raising the amount, of making $1,000 the minimum to be paid in full instead of $500. They urged upon that conference the wisdom of including churches, societies and unions in the class that was to be paid in full; but they were told very frankly by the managers from the Senate with no suggestion of ill temper, that those terms and amounts of payment could not be changed, or the Senate would not carry the bill. Therefore, the managers from the House of Commons were up against this proposition-it was that or nothing as regards the depositors. What were the managers to do? If the ex-Minister of Finance had been there and he had acted as he talked to-night, the ill-fated depositors of the Home Bank would not have got a farthing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend is talking nonsense now.


George Perry Graham: The managers of the
upper house told us quite frankly as regards the amounts and terms of payment that they would make no change and, if a change was made, the Senate would defeat the bill. Under those circumstances, the managers from the House of Commons, having the preamble deleted by the consent of the Senate, having the words " in straitened circumstances " added as causes for paymen' of demands over $500, secured for the depositors the sure payment of the amounts named in the bill as now to be accepted. Otherwise the depositors of the Home Bank would not have got one farthing.

Home Bank


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain the difference between a man in special need and a man in straitened circumstances?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the ways of
our legal men are beyond the understanding of laymen.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: We were told by eminent lawyers in both Houses who understand the meaning of legal terms that the adding of these words enlarged the scope and would enable the commissioner, .the preamble being deleted, to take perhaps a broader view of the cases that might be referred to him either ' for great need or for straitened circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any
objection to telling us who were the lawyers?


George Perry Graham: I do not wish to be
personal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
name them.


George Perry Graham: If I named them I think they would stand up in the company of the hon. gentleman as men of high legal attainments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Name them.


George Perry Graham: I would not name them
at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nor would I.


George Perry Graham: Nor would I-but not
from the same cause as my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I knew you
would not; you cannot.


George Perry Graham: If the member for West
York had attended the conference, and had acted along the lines he advanced to-night, the Home Bank depositors would not get a farthing.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister be fair enough to the member for West York to repeat what it was he said which, if he had pressed it in the conference, would have resulted in the Home Bank depositors getting nothing?


George Perry Graham: He ridiculed everything
that was done in the conference from start to finish, and said that not one thing had been pressed upon the Senate representatives on the merits of the case. Indeed, he pointed out that the whole thing had been a farce.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
was referring to the reasons adopted in the House. I did not know what took place in
the conference. I was supposing that the members of that conference behaved themselves in the manner in which this House indicated that they ought to behave themselves, and made the claims that this House instructed them to make. That is what I expected.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of the conference, let me say to my hon. friend that we urged upon the members from the Senate in the strongest possible way that the amount to be paid to the depositors should be increased, as my colleague has said, and it was intimated to us that not one cent would be agreed to by them or voted by the Senate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend point out any single ground adopted by this House on that point?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is getting off on a technical discussion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am explaining what went on at the conference. When the right hon. gentleman intimates to this House that we did not discuss the question as to whether more money should be paid or not, I say to him that we did discuss it, we urged it upon the members, of the Senate, and they intimated to us that they would not increase the amount by a single dollar, and that unless we accepted the proposals in regard thereto the bill would be defeated.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister not
see that by the resolutions they adopted they made it impossible for the conference to act on any objection that they urged there, no matter what stand they may have taken?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The members of the conference representing the Senate took no such ground.


Arthur Meighen: It was manifest to everyone.


George Perry Graham: 
Arthur Meighen: Why did not the government put in the resolution some of these reasons which they pressed on the conference?


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, the resolution
passed by the House in no way constituted instructions to the managers that discussed the matter on behalf of the Commons. When this House was requested by the Senate to agree to the amendments, we passed the resolution stating the reasons why this House could not concur. After that, when the Senate advised this House that they would insist on their amendments, we decided to appoint managers, but, I repeat, our managers were in no wise restricted by the terms of the resolution. They were given an absolute mandate, unrestricted by the terms of the resolution, to press for the withdrawal of the Senate amendments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I answer my right hon. friend's question as to our not including what we said in the resolution? One of the reasons given is, "because the title, principle, policy and economy of the said bill as passed by the House of Commons has been completely altered." That includes absolutely everything.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It includes the poiicy of the bill, the economy of the bill- everything.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1924, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 239, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 233, to constitute an audit board.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker,
may we learn what the amendments are?


George Perry Graham: The following words are stricken from section eight:
-with respect to the audit of the public accounts of Canada or any detail thereof
The whole section reading, without these words:
Nothing herein contained shall impair the authority given by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act to the Auditor General of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
effect of the change?


George Perry Graham: I think the Senate considered these words superfluous and that under the Audit Act the Auditor General has full power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No limitation?


George Perry Graham: Nothing.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. CO-PP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 148 to amend the Dominion Elections Act, as amended.
Henry Lumley Drayton: May we learn, Mr. Speaker, what the changes are?


Mr. OOPP:: There is a very slight amendment changing section four regarding the appointment of the returning officer. As we passed the section the Secretary of State would make the appointment. The Senate have added the words:
The Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
The provision that the returning officer shall be appointed for one year is amended by providing for appointment "during pleasure".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To permit of patronage if another government should come into office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my right hon. friend serious in that remark? It seems to me that he has all the patronage he wants; he is taking all he can get, here, there and everywhere, by proceeding without regard to the Civil Service Act wherever possible. If my right hon. friend is serious, why does he accept this amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He wants to get through the session.

Prorogation


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be an excuse, or it may be a reason.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is a
pretty good one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of National Defence says it is a good one. I have no doubt he wants to get down to Nova Scotia and repair broken fences. The Prime Minister says the Senate wants to restore patronage. Well, only one meaning can be drawn from my right hon. friend's remark; he knows full well that after the next election the reins of power will be transferred from trembling hands into stronger hands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said, should there ever be a change.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, what my right hon. friend said was this-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not be too meticulous at this time of the morning.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend, I am afraid, is not drawing the necessary distinction between a matter meticulous and a matter of truth. Now, what was said was that the effect of this amendment was to restore patronage, and I submit that there is no foundation for that remark.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not worry
about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of National Defence is right; there was nothing to the remark, and we will not worry about it.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, seconded by Mr. Graham:
That on Saturday the 27th of June 1925, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning; that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock; and that the order of business and procedure shall be the same on that day as on Friday.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


Arthur Meighen: Before I consent to this I want to know what the purpose is and what the intention is as to business to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is only to ensure that the Commons will be assembled in the morning at eleven to receive the message from His Excellency when he comes to prorogue parliament, either in person or by his deputy.


Arthur Meighen: There will be no further business than that of prorogation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No further
business.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 4.20 a.m. (Saturday).
Saturday, June 27, 1925.