PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 58, from the Senate, for the relief of Thomas Aimer Shields.-Mr. Hudson.
Bill No. 59, from the Senate, for the relief of Roderick James Ellis.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 60, from the Senate, for the relief of Florence Mann.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 61, from the Senate, for the relief of Samuel John. Pegs, junior-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 62, from the Senate, for the relief of Harry Hambleton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 63, from the Senate, for the relief of Izzie Klinmentz otherwise known as Izzie Climans.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 64, from the Senate, for the relief of John Hutchison Durnan.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 65, from the Senate, for the relief of Richard James Wright.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 66, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Ellen Ayre.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 67, from the Senate, for the relief of Helen Marie Pritchard.-Mjr. Garland (Carleton).

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: Resolved, by the House of Commons,-That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty between His Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America, for the further demarcation of the international boundary between Canada and the United States, laid upon the table of the House on Thursday, the 26th of February, 1925, which was signed at Washington on the twenty-fourth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House will observe that following this resolution on the order paper there is a resolution asking the approval of parliament of the Convention and Protocol between His Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America, for regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods. It might be well were I to take advantage of the opportunity on the first of these resolutions to say a word as to the use of the word " treaty ", in the case of the one resolution, and the words " convention " and " protocol " in the *case of the other.
International agreements take on a great diversity of forms, for example: Treaty, convention, acte final, declaration, agreement, protocol, exchange of notes, and so on. Of these, the treaty and the convention are the more formal, and are used for more important matters. In British practice, treaties and conventions are made between heads of states, while agreements, may be made between governments without the issue of full powers.
As between " treaty " and " convention ", the distinction is not definite. They do not differ as regards their structure. The terms are frequently used interchangeably, but as a rule a treaty is considered a more formal document than a convention; it is always used in making peace, and it is generally used in agreements as to boundaries. The agreement of 1908, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, as to the Canadian boundary line, was styled a "treaty", and so is the document now under consideration -Boundary Demarcation Treaty-the Lake of the Woods agreement has been styled a " convention ".
It also makes use of the word "protocol." Protocol is a term used in different senses; it may mean a preliminary agreement to be embodied in a convention or treaty later, or an agreement on certain temporary or supplemental measures to be taken to carry out the intent of the main agreement. It is in the latter sense that it is used in the Lake of the Woods agreement: The protocol here provides for engineering reports on plans, representation on a temporary damages tribunal, and so on.
Coming now to the resolution which is before the House, as is indicated it asks the approval of this House in the first instance to the treaty between His Majesty in respect of Canada and the United States of America for the further demarcation of the international boundary between Canada and the United States. A copy of this treaty was laid on the table of the House on Thursday, 26th February, 1925. The negotiation and signature of this treaty has been in accordance with the practice which was laid down at the Imperial conference of 1923, and which has been followed with respect to other recent international agreements between the United States and Canada which have been before this parliament during the last year or two. The Halibut convention, the convention for the suppression of smuggling operations along the border and the convention for the extradition of traffickers in narcotics, were other international agreements that have been
Canada-U.S. Treaty

approved by this House and by the Senate. The latter two are about to be ratified. This treaty respecting the demarcation of the international boundary was signed at Washington, as I have mentioned, on 24th February, of the present year. It was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, Minister of Justice, who received full powers from His Majesty to sign in his name on behalf of Canada. It was signed on behalf of the United States government by Secretary Hughes. This treaty was ratified by the Senate of the United States on March 12. After its approval by both houses of this parliament ratification in the name of the king will be sought and obtained and when ratifications are exchanged the treaty will then become binding upon the two countries.
The purpose of the treaty is to readjust the boundary line between Canada and the United States in three respects, and to provide for a continuance of the commission appointed under the treaty of 1908 to mark the boundary in certain areas. With respect to the readjustment of the boundary the details, I think, can be given in a few words:
First of all, article (1) of the treaty relates to the	boundary	line along the Lake ofthe Woods	and	the	northwest angle.	Theboundary line from the mouth of the Pigeon river to the northwest point of the Lake of the Woods, as defined in article (5)	of	the	treaty of 1908,	intersects at	five	points the boundary	line
from the northwest point of the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky mountains as provided in article (6) of that treaty, and leaves two small areas of two and a half acres of United States waters entirely surrounded by Canadian waters. It is proposed to make the southernmost intersection the meeting-point of the two boundary sections, instead of the northwestern point taken in the treaty of 1908, thus leaving the water area in question a part of Canadian territory. It takes certain waters that at the present time are practically surrounded by United States waters, and brings them into Canadian territory.
Article (2) of the treaty relates to the boundary line from Lake of the Woods to the Rocky mountains. This line is defined in the boundary treaty of 1908 as consisting of a series of curved lines joining adjacent monuments, each following the curvature of the forty-ninth parallel. It has been found that such a curve, though small, not exceeding four inches in the one and one-third miles between monuments, is not as practicable a

boundary as the straight line which has been adopted in all other sections of the international boundary. The treaty therefore provides for straight lines between monuments. This involves a cession of some twenty-two acres of land all told to the United States.
The third article relates to the boundary line at Passamaquoddy bay and Grand Manan channel, New Brunswick and Maine. It is found by surveys that the terminus of the line in Grand Manan channel, laid down in the treaty of 1908, is less than three miles distant from the shore lines of Grand Manan island and of the state of Maine, and leaves a small zone of waters of controvertible jurisdiction between this terminus and the high seas. It is therefore provided that this line Should be extended 2,383 metres further through the middle of Grand Manan channel to the high seas.
The second part of the treaty relates to the continuance of the work of the boundary commission to be found in article (5). The original work assigned the commission, consisting of one Canadian and one United States commissioner, in marking the boundary, is nearing completion. It is, however, desirable to provide for its continuance, in order to inspect and keep in repair or relocate the monuments and buoys and keep open the boundary vistas. The boundary line between the United States with Alaska, and Canada is 5,520 miles, and is marked by 7,734 monuments; approximately 1,070 miles are timbered areas through which a twenty-foot vista has been cut. Experience shows that boundary monuments deteriorate and vistas are closed by growth unless inspection is continued. By article (6), the provision for the continuance of the commission may be terminated by twelve months' notice, any time after six years.
As to expenditure, there would be no outlay for salaries on Canada's part, as the office of boundary commissioner has been merged with that of the Director General of Surveys, and the other staff will be provided by the Topographical or Geodetic surveys. Any outlay woud be for actual work done in the field in repairing or relocating monuments, and might run from $2,000 to $10,000 in any year.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the essential features of the treaty which the House is asked to approve. Needless to say the matter has been the subject of very careful negotiation more particularly between the Minister and officers of the Department of the Interior of Canada and the Secretary of State and offi-

Canda-U\S. Convention
cers of the corresponding department of the United States, and it brings to a final conclusion or removes finally from the arena of future possible discussion some minor points that are of real significance with respect to the international boundary and which if left unsettled might come to create confusion or discussion in the future, but which if settled in the manner here proposed cannot do other than help to further the good relations which so happily exist between the American republic and our own country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours that this House has adopted the above resolution and requesting that their Honours will unite with this House in approving the above mentioned treaty, and that the clerk will carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved, by the	House of Commons,-That
it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Convention and Protocol between His Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America, for regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods, and of identical letters of reference submitting to the International Joint Commission certain Questions as to the regulation of the levels of Rainy Lake and other upper waters, laid upon the table of the House on Thursday, the 26th of February, 1925, which was signed at Washington on the twenty-fourth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
He said:	This convention provides a
settlement of negotiations which have been under way since 1912, when the two countries, the United States and our own referred the question of the regulation of the level and outflow from the lake of the Woods to the International Joint Commission. The commission reported in 1917; Canada accepted the recommendations in 1919; the "state of Minnesota objected; a conference was held in Ottawa in 1922; further negotiations were carried on at Washington in 1923, and the present convention was drafted. The Canadian government accepted it, but the United States took no action, mainly due to local Minnesota opposition, until February, 1925, when the Secretary of State stated that this government was prepared to accept.
This treaty was ratified by the United States Senate, March 14, of the present year.
The purpose of the convention is to raise the level of the lake of the Woods and maintain it at as uniform a level as possible, mainly in order to increase the power development on the Winnipeg river, flowing out of the lake of the Woods. The dams and other control works, and the enlargement of the outlet from the lake, are being carried on at the instance of the Canadian government, under the recent Norman dam agreement effected by the Minister of the Interior, and to which Ontario and Manitoba have consented. It is, however, necessary to secure the consent of the United States, as these developments may involve flooding of the low lands on the south United States shores.
The convention provides, briefly:
i.	For the establishment of a Canadian Lake of the Woods control board andi afeo an international board of two engineers, to regulate the level of the lake when it rises or falls below certain levels, with appeal if necessary to the International Joint Commission.
ii.	Enlargement of the outlets, by the Dominion.
iii.	Assumption by the United States of liability for flooding United States lands, up to certain level of lake, and for certain protective works and alterations.
iv.	Agreement by Canada to pay the United States in consideration of these undertakings $275,000, and half of any additional sum expended within five years, two-thirds of these amounts to be assessed on the power companies benefited.
v.	No diversion of water to any other watershed except by agreement.
Accompanying the convention is a protocol, providing:
i.	Submission of Canadian outlets plans to the international board of control.
ii.	Submission of United States protective works to the international board of control.
iii.	Representation of Canada on tribunal to assess land damages.
iv.	One member of Canadian board to be also a Canadian member of the international board.
At the same time it is proposed to refer to the International Joint Commission, by identical letters of reference, certain questions as to the possibility of regulating the levels of Rainy lake (following into lake of the Woods) and other upper waters, the cost, the proper apportionment of the cost, and the nature and extent of interests benefited by
Canda-U jS. Convention

the present developments on Rainy lake and Kettle falls.
This Mr. Speaker is a pretty complete summary of the convention and the protocol. As hon. members are well aware, this matter also has been the subject of very careful examination and consideration by Canadian ministers of the crown and by officers of the Department of the Interior and members of the administration and corresponding departments of the United States, and the government believes that in the agreement that has been reached a further advance has been made in carrying out the original purpose of the establishment of the International Joint Commission, under which the sources of possible differences between ourselves and the United States are removed by resort to reason, rather than by any thought of an appeal to force. The treaty marks one further step along the path of international peace and goodwill of which we on this continent have given so happy an example to the rest of the world.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The previous treaty did
not appear to be of such importance as to require very prolonged consideration on the part of the House, but this treaty is of real significance. I do not now feel as familiar with the subject as I once was, but the treaty *in question is a result of a submission which was made nine or ten years ago to the International Joint Commission of certain differences which had arisen and problems that were on the horizon with respect to the lake of the Woods and adjacent territory, the inlet and the outlet. Canada's case was very thoroughly presented before that tribunal, as was the American case, and a finding was made in which the Canadian commissioners concurred and the American commissioners as well. But a very strange incident occurred with the American commissioners. While concurring, all or some of them submitted as well a sort of subsidiary report, and the concurrence with the majority or the unanimous report was subject to whatever results might flow from the submission of these subsidiary recommendations. Anyway, the consequence was that the United States did not approve of the finding of the international board, and thus there has been a delay extending over all these years. What I would like to be clear on, first of all, is as to what concessions have been made, if any, to the United States, in order to induce them to concur in the treaty. That is to say, what is there embodied in this treaty that is in the nature of a concession, a change

from the original terms of the finding of the international board. In view also of the rather involved character of the arrangement now come to, embodied in this convention and in the protocol which subjoins it, it does seem to me the House owes it to the importance of the subject to go into committee of the Whole, so that we can get more detailed information. Possibly it would be better-although on this I do not insist-to go into committee of the Whole at another date, when such information as we can get now can be studied with the treaty itself, and we prpbably can make more rapid progress. The consequences of the treaty are very great, or rather the importance of hon. members understanding its terms is quite considerable. The great power interests which depend on the outflow of the lake of the Woods will in future rest their lights on the terms of the treaty and, as well, on its fairness will depend in considerable degree the presence or absence of friction between the two countries in years to come.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The request,
or the suggestion rather, my right hon. friend has made, that the House go into committee of the Whole on this resolution will require the unanimous consent of the House, if we are to conform to the rules covering the consideration of the resolution as it appears on the order paper. I may say, speaking for the government, we have no objection whatever to adopting the course mv right hon. friend has proposed. Indeed, I think it is a wise suggestion, and has much to commend it, and I shall be very happy if the House will agree to permit the resolution to be considered in committee of the Whole. If unanimous consent is given we can so arrange. I understand, if we adopt the suggestion, another resolution will have to be drawn.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It can only be done by
unanimous consent. Is it the wish of the House that the Prime Minister shall have leave to withdraw the present resolution?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that this resolution be taken up on Monday next?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved:: That it is expedient that the final report of the special committee of the House of Commons which was ap-

Old Age Pensions
pointed at the last session to make an inquiry into an old age pension system for Canada, be referred to a special committee of the House for examination and report with reference to the correspondence which has occurred since last session with the several provincial governments arising from the proposal of the special committee for co-operative action between the federal and provincial authorities on the subject of old age pensions.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I am not rising at all to question the desirability of this motion. I wish, however, to ask the minister a question and to direct his attention to one or two matters. In the first place, I notice that this is a motion to refer the report made in the previous session to a special committee of this House. Is it the intention that such special committee this year shall prepare and suggest to the House legislation necessary to give effect to the substance of the report, and is it the intention of the government to bring in such legislation this year?


James Murdock: That would appear to be a matter for later consideration when the report of the committee has been received. The proposal of the special committee last year, which proposal was adopted by this House, was for co-operative action between the federal government and the various provincial governments on an old age pension plan, and the federal government was to take the matter up with the provincial governments. That has been done. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard of March 2, 1925, he will find a brief outline of the answers received from the various provinces, or I can read them to him now, if he would like to have them on Hansard again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should be glad if the minister would do so.


James Murdock: These questions were
asked and answered on March 2, 1925:
1.	Has the government communicated with the provincial governments in connection with the old age pension scheme, which was recommended to the House in a report brought down July 1, 1924?
The answer given was: Yes. The second question was:
2.	If so, what was the result of these communications?
The answer given was:
2. British Columbia. A resolution was adopted by the legislature approving of the principle of old age pensions and advising the enactment of legislation by the Dominion government to bring the same into effect; the government of British Columbia also expressed the opinion that the matter of old age pensions was one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament.
Alberta. Consideration promised.
Saskatchewan. The reply of the provincial government spoke of the difficulty of adopting any suitable
scheme of old age pensions by provincial enactment alone, and referred to the differences in climate between the variqjis provinces as rendering a joint scheme between the Dominion and the provinces difficult of attainment. The opinion of the provincial government was that an old age pension scheme for Canada could best be adopted by the federal authorities alone. Manitoba. Promised consideration.
Ontario. Promised consideration.
Nova Scotia. Promised consideration.
Quebec. The provincial government intimated in its reply its inability to comply with the proposals of the Old Age Pensions committee.
New Brunswick. No reply has been received as yet.
The third question was:
If not, has the government decided to do anything during the present session as suggested by the report?
The answer given was:
The matter is under consideration.
Now the proposal is to submit this question to a special committee, having regard to the attitude of the provincial governments as it is before us, for further consideration and report to the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope the minister will not misunderstand me. I am not for one moment seeking to raise this matter for the purpose of questioning the desirability of the resolution. I am asking this question because of my intense interest in the subject-


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am asking a question.
In view of the fact that these answers reveal -what shall I say?-an intention on the part of some provinces, at least, not to do anything at all which would make it possible for provinces who were willing, to act, and in view of the fact that some of the provinces State that this is the duty of the federal government, indicating, therefore, their lack of inclination to co-operate, would it not be better for the federal government to take full responsibility in the matter and to bring in the legislation this session?


James Murdock: That, I think, would
be a proper question to determine after a special committee had considered the question again in the light of changed conditions. Last year a special committee indicated-and its report was adopted by this House-that the question was one to be dealt with jointly between the Dominion and the provincial governments. Now, it would seem proper to ask a special committee and, I would hope, the same special committee, to deal with the situation having regard to the changed circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the special
committee business, in my judgment, has

Old Age Pensions

been overdone in this parliament many times over. We have special committees sitting on this, that and the other thing all the time. The standing committees are also sitting, with the consequence that it is very hard to get attendance in parliament. Parliament is getting a reputation throughout the country for non-attention to its duties, when, as a matter of fact, hon. members are spending, and I fear, in many cases for which they are not responsible, wasting time on special committees. This is a case where it is very difficult to see what the purpose of a special committee can be. If a special committee has any function, it would be to conduct certain inquiries, to get information, to ascertain facts, so as to enable a recommendation to be made as to policy. What inquiries are to be conducted here? What information is to be secured? What facts are unknown? I know of none. According to the minister's statement, at all events, they are all known. What is to be referred to to the committee is this:	Certain letters indicating the attitude of the provincial governments. Those are in the possession of the government. The old report of last session is to be referred. That is also in the possession of the government. In a word, to enable the government to determine its course, everything is before it. But the government says:	Instead of our determining our course, we shall just have a special committee come and think this thing out and take it off our shoulders. It will not be off the shoulders of the government at all ultimately, and all that a committee can do is to delay the matter. The committee can succeed in delaying progress but what else they can succeed in doing passes my comprehension. Here is the attitude of the British Columbia government, here is the attitude of the governments of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick; here is the fact that some other government has no attitude at all: all that will go before the special committee. And what will the special committee do? One member may think one thing and some other member may think another thing, but there is nothing to find out ; there is no fact undisclosed, or at least there is not suggested to be any. In a word, the government after it has the report will be just where it is to-day.


James Murdock: Does the hon. member
realize that there are only three provinces that have stated their position in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: Well now, that is more
interesting still. The committee will have 
the findings of three provinces, and I presume having that information they will say-well, really, one does not know what on earth the committee could say. Two of these provinces declare it is federal business while one says otherwise, apparently. Where will the committee be at all? I presume that after the committee submits its report, if it can ever frame a report to mean anything, then the matter will stand until next session and we shall have a couple more provinces declaring themselves, in consequence of which another committee will be appointed; and so on until all the provinces have indicated their views. Now, is it not Sheer humbug? For the life of me I do not see what else it is. And besides, it is occupying the time of hon. members of this House to absolutely no purpose when already we are so surfeited with committees that we can scarcely get an attendance in the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot agree with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in the view he takes. If there was any advantage at all in having a committee of the House originally to deal with the matter, surely there is an advantage in continuing the same committee when it is now possible to obtain the information which it was found impossible to get at the time the committee made the previous inquiry. As hon. members of the House know, this matter of old age pensions has up to the present been considered one in which the provinces as well as the federal government are interested. It is all important that before any action is taken by the federal administration we should understand very fully and finally the attitude that the several provinces will take on this particular question. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has mentioned, some of the provinces have not given any adequate expression of their view, or any expression at all. I should imagine that the committee would now feel that they would desire to have appear before them some official representative of each of these particular provinces who will be in a position to state the view which that province takes on these matters, and also that it would be an advantage to the committee possibly to bring representatives of all the provinces if need be.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: My right hon.
friend suggests that the committee could enforce the views of a province through the machinery of the committee. Under what power could that be done?

Old Age Pensions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend, has the idea of force in mind. The whole purpose of the committee however is rather to adopt the opposite method of " sweet reasonableness " instead of attempting to get the information by force. It is not to be assumed that the provinces have not replied because of some desire to ignore the importance of the question, or that those that have replied in the way they have done may not be very glad to reconsider the position they have taken if they get further light as to the attitude of other provinces.	The
matter is one in regard to which much better headway could be made by means of conference and joint discussions than by correspondence between the different governments. All hon. members who have had any experience in the matter of correspondence between different departments of the federal government and the provincial governments are aware that such negotiations are apt to be of a most formal and limited character. The government is really desirous of getting if possible co-operation between the federal and the provincial authorities, believing that the matter is one which, if .it is to be worked out satisfactorily, will demand such joint effort. And it has been with that end iD view that the Minister of Labour has felt, with the information he can now place at the disposal of the committee, that he would like to have the same committee re-convene and discuss the subject in the light of this wider information. I think it is entirely in the interests of the subject to which the resolution relates that this course should be adopted.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I am very much disappointed with the procedure which the government intends to follow in respect of old age pensions. I had looked forward to seeing this question settled in some way at this session. Last year the committee appointed to deal with the matter went into the consideration of old age pensions fairly thoroughly, securing all the information that was available, and the recommendation that the provinces be consulted was not of first importance. The recommendation of the committee last year was that legislation providing for old age pensions was desirable; the suggestion that the provinces should be consulted and that some measure of responsibility should rest upon them in the matter of old age pension legislation appeared to me at that time as perhaps only a way of retarding developments. And subsequent events have proved that. I do 175i
not know what the intention of the government really is in regard to this legislation, but if the intention is to shelve the question for another year this is the best way I could conceive of doing it; and at the same time it would enable the government to report progress to the public outside. But indeed there will be no progress, and the report, u there is one, will be all that we shall have. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has clearly pointed out, the only thing that this committee can do under the resolution is to read over what the Minister of Labour has just read, to the effect that some pn>
vincial governments are not considering the matter at all, believing that it is entirely one for federal action, while others are prepared to consider it further. When we have gone over that information the only thing that can be done will be to re-recommend what was recommended last year.


James Murdock: I think my hon. friend was on the special committee last year. Did the committee not decide that if an old age pension scheme was to be adopted it should be under a joint arrangement with the provinces?


William Irvine: I have just mentioned that this was part of the recommendation of the committee. But surely the Minister of Labour does not conclude from that that since some of the provinces are not prepared to follow that suggestion Canada should forever be without am old age pension scheme. We might go on making inquiries of this kind for the next fifty years and still find some of the provinces unwilling to take action. Apparently therefore it would be the duty of the federal government to make some move now since the responsibility is ultimately a federal one. My purpose in rising is to urge the federal government to take that responsibility now. If this resolution were to instruct the committee to draft the necessary bill, I could understand how some progress mishit be made; I presume, however, that that would be the prerogative of the government itself. I would suggest that instead of ithe government letting this matter go to the committee for another few weeks of fruitless consideration, it should bring in legislation as soon as possible providing for old age pensions. If this matter goes to a committee now, and is considered for two or three weeks or more, no matter what the composition of that committee is and no matter how favourable a report it might make, it is not likely that we will have any legislation this session.
Old Age Pensions


James Murdock: If the federal government did what my hon. friend suggests, would that not be acting contrary to the report of the special committee appointed last year as adopted by this House?


William Irvine: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The committee merely recommended this interprovincial inquiry as part of their suggestion to the government. The committee felt, I think, or if it did not it turely ought to have felt, that some of the provincial governments might not entertain the idea.


James Murdock: If that is his view my hon. friend should read the report of his own committee last year.


William Irvine: I have read the report,
Mr. Speaker, I had something to do with the discussion which took place on it, and I think I am familiar with it. I am not speaking for the minds of the individual members of that committee, but surely when that committee suggested that there should be cooperation between the provinces and the Dominion in the drafting of this legislation and joint responsibility for carrying it out, that committee did not conclude that if one or two or more of the provinces refused to take any action there would 'be no old age pension legislation. If the committee had entertained that opinion, I think it would have voiced it, and I do not think that the Minister of Labour or anybody else had a right to assume that that was the committee's view.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, the answer my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave me is quite correct, and I only put the question in view of the previous statement made by him, which was to the effect that this committee could bring before it the officials of those provinces that as yet had not declared their position. My right hon. friend's explanation of course shows that that could not foe done. This being so, the first part of his reasoning fails. But he gives another reason, which may be entirely correct, that this matter is to be approached in a spirit of "sweet reasonableness." I suppose that is the only way it can be approached. There is no question in the world that when the Dominion government goes to the provincial governments seeking to get
4 p.m. them interested in some joint venture, the best way to obtain results is by the exercise of the spirit of "sweet reasonableness," and I entirely agree with my right hon. friend that if he is to accomplish 
anything it must be by the exercise of this spirit. But that provokes a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker,-whether the government is bereft of this spirit of "sweet reasonableness." Is it quite sure that the provincial governments would be more likely to co-operate when so approached by the Dominion government than if they were met in that same spirit of "sweet reasonableness" by a special committee? I do not like the suggestion that the government is bereft of that spirit of "sweet reasonableness," that it is absolutely necessary to erect a committee at this stage of the session for the purpose of functioning in that spirit which the government lacks. Now, how much better it would be if we could just have a little bit of frankness one with the other. We all know that if this report is referred to a special committee the chances are very, very slim that anything can be done with it this session. What objection is there to the government in this particular case announcing its policy, and submitting that policy to the committee, with instructions to lick it into shape? Then something might be done. Of course, in that case it would not be possible for the government to play both sides against the middle; they would have to say something, and they would have to stand upon it. But, after all, is not this question really serious enough, vital enough and human enough to be dealt with one way or the other and not played with? There is just another thing I would point out. I think we have a special committee on which labour is specially represented in one of the standing committees now provided for by the Minister of Labour.


James Murdock: The committee on International and Industrial Relations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. I take it that that committee is not very much overworked with international matters at the present moment; if it is, my hon. friend will correct me. I would remind the hon. minister that we now have so many committees meeting that it is not at all unusual to have five functioning on the same day. I know that so far as I myself am concerned, usually I am supposed to be present at four different committees every single day, and the heavy work there takes up practically all my time, so that I have not been able to be in the House for a considerable period now owing to my attendance on those special committees. I think the government might well consider whether this special committee business is not really getting a little bit played out. Either

Old Age Pensions
that, or else the members will be played out if on the one hand they are going to try to do their duty in this chamber and at the same time be in attendance at three, four and sometimes five committees when the House is in session.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps noteworthy that every hon. gentleman who has spoken this afternoon urging the government to plunge immediately into a policy of old age pensions, without assistance from the provinces-which would of course involve an enormous expenditure- were a few hours ago condemning the government for not reducing expenditures.


Arthur Meighen: Who have urged that?


Alan Webster Neill: That I gathered was the
general tenor of eyeryone who spoke.


Arthur Meighen: Can you name one?


Alan Webster Neill: A few hours ago they voted
for an amendment to the budget condemning the government for not reducing expenditures. Now, so far as the committee is concerned, I do not think it would be wise to remove the duties which were imposed on the committee appointed last year and place them in the hands of another committee, because the gentlemen who composed the committee last year are naturally cognizant of the subject, and I think they were all very keenly interested in it and could be relied on to take an active interest again, in spite of the numerous other committees that demand their attention. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) took a point which I think he was mistaken in, that inasmuch as one province at least has refused to have anything to do with the joint scheme, therefore it was impossible to go further. But the report of the committee of last year specifically recommended that the bill, if introduced, should be of such a character that it would be open to any province to co-operate should it choose to do so, much in the same way, I imagine, as in the case of the legislation regarding grants for good roads of which certain provinces took advantage, and others did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask a question?
-and this is not asked with any desire to embarrass; I am quite serious. Assume, we will say, that six provinces adopted it and three refused-already three have indicated that it should be done by the federal authorities- and legislation was passed in those six provinces on the matter; would there not be a tendency for the indigent aged to drift into those provinces that had provision for an old age pension from the provinces where the old age pension provisions did not exist? Take
Alberta and British Columbia, for instance; if one had an old age pension scheme, and the other had not, would not the aged in the province without the provision have a tendency to drift into the other province with the old age pension scheme, and thus saddle that province with unfair and undue burdens?


Alan Webster Neill: There might be a danger of
that kind, but I think it could be largely avoidable. The same objection has been raised in connection with the Mothers' Pension Act, but that objection has been met by suitable regulations. I do not think the inducements offered by any old age pension scheme, such as we could afford to provide, would be of such a character as to lead people to drift very far, but it could be easily regulated by requiring a certain number of years' residence in the particular province before qualifying for the pension. I was only explaining the matter to the hon. member, because I know he was not a member of the committee, and I wanted to point out that we are not precluded from going on with the legislation this year because one or more provinces have refused to have anything to do with it. The recommendation of the committee was of an optional character.
With regard to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that there was no more knowledge to be acquired by the committee, it might well be, if it was found on a consideration of the reports that have been made, and others yet to be obtained from the different provinces, that united action was absolutely impossible or practically so, that it would be necessary to seek to formulate some other scheme. I saw in the press yesterday, for instance, that the British government are starting out with a new insurance system of a very extensive nature and of a contributory character-I do not think that ' would be adaptable to our conditions here, yet in default of being able to devise a scheme along the lines the committee recommended, it might be that we would have to consider something of that character. The committee would be able to obtain that information, and its report might be of some value to the government in formulating its policy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the House
would give unanimous consent we might appoint the committee now, just naming the same committee as was appointed last year. I think there is a general agreement that if any committee is to be considered, it should be the same committee.
Dominion Lands Act


Arthur Meighen: Very well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the
unanimous consent of the House I move:
That a special committee be appointed to make an inquiry into an old age pension system for Canada, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that the said committee do consist of the following named members, namely, Messrs. Fontaine, Irvine, Logan, McConica, Munro, Neill, Preston, Raymond, Robichaud, Sexsmith, Spence and St. Pere.


Arthur Meighen: Could there not be
further words to this effect?-"and that there be referred to such committee for examination and report the correspondence which has occurred since the last session between the several provincial governments."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I thank
my hon. friend for the suggestion. I move to amend the motion accordingly.
Motion as amended agreed to.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1908, and the acts in amendment thereof, by providing,-
(1)	That notwithstanding anything contained in the waid act, no person shall be granted entry for lands situate within that part of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta south of the south boundary of township 16 in the Dominion lands system of survey unless such person submits evidence satisfactory to the Minister of the Interior that he or she is in permanent residence and conducting farming operations upon a farm of not less than eighty acres distant not more than nine miles in a direct line from the parcel for which entry is desired, exclusive of the width of road allowances crossed in the measurement, or that such person is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a settler in permanent residence and conducting farming operations as aforesaid;
(2)	That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the said act, the minister may sell school lands required as right of way for any project or for reservoir, church, cemetery or hospital sites, at a price to be fixed by an officer of the department as the actual market value of the land, and upon such terms of payment as the minister may prescribe, provided that the government of the province in which the land is situated expresses its approval of the sale and price in each case;
(3)	That where an application is made by the holder of unpatented school lands purchased under the provisions of this act prior to the first day of January, 1923, or by the legal representative, or registered assignee of such holder, the minister may, with the consent of the government of the province in which the lands affected are situate, rescind such contract, or contracts of sale, as to any portion thereof and in such form and area as the minister may prescribe.
Upon such rescission the holder or his legal representative, or registered assignee, shall be held to be indebted to the crown for principal and interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
original contract, or contracts of sale, in respect only of the area to which such contract, or contracts, have been confined, and the account, or accounts, of the holder, legal representative, or registered assignee, in the books of the department, shall be adjusted accordingly. In such readjustment, any moneys paid on the original contract, or contracts, may, in the discretion of the minister, be applied in satisfaction of the principal and interest owing, or principal accruing under the contract, or contracts, as amended; provided that there shall be no refund of any moneys.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Arthur Meighen: It would help the discussion when we get into committee if the minister would at this stage tell the precise intent of each of these clauses. I think I understand them fairly well, but I am sure many hon. members will not.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: With reference to clause 1, as hon. gentlemen know, we have a regulation that prohibits the homesteading of land south of township 16 in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Arthur Meighen: For how long?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give my hon. friend the exact date.


Arthur Meighen: About when did it go into effect?


Charles A. Stewart: I think
about two years ago. That area of land which is known generally as the diy belt should not be turned over to agriculturists, it should 'be retained as far as possible for grazing purposes. But it is desirable that the relatives of residents should be given the privilege of homesteading available land keeping in mind the provision of the Dominion Lands Act that at shall be within nine miles of the home of the parents or relative. We are having a good deal of pressure brought upon us to open up these areas. I do not wish to do so because I think it is costing the country a considerable amount of money to move people out of these localities. Opening up these areas should only be done with the utmost care and only in cases where there appears to be real necessity to meet the demands of relatives or children of parents who are in the locality. For that reason I am asking in section 1 of the amendment the privilege of granting to the persons mentioned the right to take homesteads in that area.
Then, with reference to the second amendment the amendment to the School Lands Act, hon. gentlemen will remember that last

Dominion Lands Act
year objection was taken to this when the minister was asking for power to sell right of way and reserve sites for the purposes mentioned here-church, cemetery, or hospital. As hon. members will know, under the provisions of the law school lands, if sold, are to be sold at public auction, and any one who has had any experience in the department knows that from time to time school lands are required, sometimes for a gravel pit and frequently for a right of way on a railway crossing. In these eases some doubt has arisen as to what would be a reasonable price for the land. In order to make it.clear that these transactions shall meet with the approval of the provincial authorities, I have inserted a provision in this section this year that this consent of the provincial authorities must be obtained for the sale of school lands of this character.


Arthur Meighen: Could the minister say
what the privilege has been before this? The minister has not been powerless to sell land for some of these purposes previously without auction?


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite true, but last year when I sought to extend that provision my right hon. friend himself took some exception-


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: -and I have now inserted the proviso that the provincial authorities shall be satisfied with the sale- that the matter shall be referred to them and their approval obtained.


Arthur Meighen: I am not clear as to
what the difference will be between the present law and the law as now proposed.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
happen to have the section before me but I will get it for my right hon. friend when the matter comes up again. The third section is new, and I may say for the information of the Housei that I have consulted the provincial governments with respect to this change in the law as it affects the sale of school lands, and have their consent to what I think wall be a very great advantage to the holders of school lands who are in arrears. Hon. gentlemen know, particularly those who come from the western provinces, that at auction sales of school lands held on formeT occasions, very many purchasers purchased more land than they actually required, and they found themselves considerably embarrassed. Indeed almost daily there are cancellations of school lands going through our office, which means of course that any moneys
that were paid in by the purchasers of the school lands are forfeited. I made a proposition to the provincial governments who were interested that I might have the authority to cancel a portion of the sale and apply the payment on the purchase price on the portion retained by the purchaser, thereby saving him from the loss of his money and giving him an opportunity to pay up for the balance of the holding. This very frequently happens in the case of the sales of half sections and greater amounts. It is not proposed that we split the quarter section in two, but that we Shall be able to cancel the sale of a half section and apply such moneys as have been paid in on the purchase price on the quarter section that he will endeavour to retain and pay for.


Arthur Meighen: A very serious step.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
agree with my right hon. friend. I think that, rather than cancel the sale in its entirety or confiscate the money paid in by the purchaser, it is a much more reasonable thing to allow him to retain one-half of his purchase, with no change so far as the contract is concerned, simply applying such moneys as he has paid in on the purchase of a quarter section rather than a half section, the other portion reverting to the crown.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In regard to paragraph 2, does not the paragraph simply provide for an addition to the present regulation for the sale of school lands, or can you under this regulation sell school lands for any other purpose than that provided for in the regulation?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Supposing someone wanted to buy school lands in that district for farming purposes what would be the process?


Charles A. Stewart: We could
not sell them to him. They are sold under a regulation which is now in existence which means that the consent of the provincial government must be obtained before the lands are put up, and they must be sold by public auction.


Hewitt Bostock: I suppose that unanimous consent should be given for questions to be asked at this stage of the proceeding. All these questions can be brought up in committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Canada Highway Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the time within which the various provinces of Canada may earn and be paid the sums allotted to the said provinces under the provisions of the Canada Highways Act, chapter 54 of the Statutes of 1919, as extended by chapter 4 of the Statutes of 1923, be extended for a further period of two years.
He said:	I may say that this resolution
merely extends the operation of the Highways Act for two years to allow those provinces which have not already done so to earn the amount of money voted to them under the act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend state what the provinces are and how much money they can get?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I will tell my hon. friend when we get into committee.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Perry Graham: In reply to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the provinces that have earned the full amount of their appropriation are, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. In Ontario $300,000 has been held back to ensure completion. The following provinces require additional road making seasons to earn the full amount:	Saskatchewan, three yeans;
Manitoba, two years; Prince Edward Island, two years; Alberta, three years. Quebec is to complete her work this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
money is being paid in each province, and how much money will be paid under the extended period which has been provided for?


George Perry Graham: To get at that properly,
I give first the amounts appropriated. The allocation of the $20,000,000 is as follows:
Alberta	 *1,477,810
British Columbia.. .	  1,251,955
Manitoba	 1,602 205
Nova Scotia	 1,468.720
New Brunswick	 1,163,845
Ontario	 5,877,275
Prince Edward Island	 603,455
Quebec	 4,748,420
Saskatchewan	 1,808,255
I give now the expenditures as against the amounts appropriated: There has been $16,784,825.82 paid. Of the remaining $3,215,174.18 there is $869,187.25 in the course of

audit and preparation for payment, leaving a balance of $2,345,086.93 yet to be earned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
trouble in connection with those unascertained amounts? Do I understand there is an arbitration or a settlement which has been arrived at?


George Perry Graham: No, they are auditing. An agreement has been prepared for each province. Perhaps it would be interesting to read it. It is as follows:
Alberta had its general plan, under the Canada Highways Act, approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals on May 11, 1920. No expenditure was made, however, under this plan and, after a change in government, a highways commission was appointed for the purpose of considering the whole question of the reads to be improved by the provincial government under the Canada Highways Act. This commission recommended some additions and slight changes in the original plan, and in March 1924 asked for the approval of an amending plan; this was approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals in April, 1924. Active work has been carried on by the province during the past season. Under the act Alberta is entitled to $1,477,810. Up to date the province has earned $274,292.11 and has been paid $210,585.93; the balance is now being adjusted for payment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This will give Alberta how many more years in which to earn the balance?


George Perry Graham: It will give her this year
and two years more. The act does not expire until April, 1926, but they must know this year when making their plans for next year that the arrangement has been extended. The agreement continues:
Saskatchewan's appropriation under the act is *1,806,-255. To date this province has earned $1,495,594.68, of which $1,434,484.11 has been paid and the balance is being adjusted for payment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A comparatively smaill sum.


George Perry Graham: Yes, they can work theirs out in three years. The agreement continues: Manitoba's allotment is $1,602,285. Of this amount $1,222,149.79 has been earned, although a part of it ($68,209.39) is yet to be adjusted for payment. Manitoba's earning of subsidy averages about $200,000, so that about two further seasons will be required to work out its balance of about $380,000.
Ontario's appropriation is $5,877,275, and this province has practically earned the whole of its appropriation although some money (about $300,000) is being held over for the completion of two or three specific contracts. It is expected that these contracts will not be finished in less than two road-making seasons.
Quebec's appropriation is $4,748,420, under the act. This province still has about $100,000 to earn. This balance will be taken up this season.
Prince Edward Island's appropriation is $603,455. To date this province has earned $554,387.45, of which $408,273.69 has been paid. I consider that it will take two working seasons for Prince Edward Island to work out the balance of its allotment as it is considering the importation of gravel from the mainland.

Canada Highway Act
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia have earned the full amount of their appropriation under the Canada Highways Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before we leave this, can my hon. friend tell me how much money is still held over that has already been earned? How much money was earned under last year's contract which has not been finally paid?


George Perry Graham: There would be $300,000 due Ontario under the specific contracts which have been entered into; that is not under audit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not
earned yet?


George Perry Graham: No, it will not be earned for a couple of years. I will get those figures.


Mr. McTAGGART:: Would the minister
tell us the situation in Saskatchewan and Alberta with regard to new projects coming under the agreement between the provincial and Dominion governments? Will it be possible for, say, the province of Saskatchewan to bring further new projects under agreement between the provincial and the Dominion governments?


George Perry Graham: Out of $1,806,255 they have earned already $1,495,594.68, which would leave a little over $300,000. I imagine there would be some new projects, but I could not say positively until I compare the applications that have already been made by Saskatchewan for approval.


Neil Haman McTaggart: The thought in my mind was that possibly new projects could not come under the agreement. The act has been extended for two years only.


George Perry Graham: Any projects that do not exceed the amount appropriated for Saskatchewan can be considered, but anything outside of the present appropriations in the way of new projects could not be considered, because there is no money for it. In other woi'ds, if the projects already approved of for Saskatchewan, or the bulk of those approved of, reaches the limit of the appropriations for that province, they could not get anything further. But my own opinion is that the projects they have now before the department will not reach the full amount of their appropriation.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Could the minister tell us how the allocation is arrived at? Was it per capita of the population, or per mile of road in the different provinces?


George Perry Graham: I will read this from the act:
For the purpose of constructing and improving highways in Canada the Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada of the sum of twenty million dollars during the period of five years from the first day of April, 1919.
Subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned, such sum shall be allotted and paid as follows:-
(a)	Eighty thousand dollars shall be paid each year to the government of each province.
(b)	The remainder of such sum shall be allotted and paid to the governments of the respective provinces in proportion to the populations of the said provinces respectively, as determined by the latest federal census of each province.


Mr. DOUCET:: Whilst the province of
New Brunswick has earned its full quota, will the minister say if they have been paid the full amount so earned?


George Perry Graham: I have no reason to think they have not been paid. The provinces generally put in their application for the money as soon as it is earned, and then they have only the routine of the auditing and inspection by the engineers. As soon as that is done, the money is handed over.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are there any instructions under the act as to what road that shall be paid on, or does the province decide the system of roads? Must it be paid on provincial highways, or can the provinces allocate it to any roads they like within their own province?


George Perry Graham: Without going over the
act, I think the province make certain allocations, and the federal government's power is to approve the class of road on which they will give 40 per cent. I think the federal authority has not interfered in any way with the allocation of roads by the province.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 68, to extend the period of the Canada Highways Act.
Motion agreed to and 'bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a resolution providing for the construction of a line of railway, Canadian National Railway from Sunnybrae to Guys-borough, N.S.
CJV.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
to ask my hon. friend whether there are any new additions or whether the proposition will be as it was last year?


George Perry Graham: I think it is in the same
identical terms as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
(1)	Tliat it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction or completion prior to the thirty-first day of August, 1928, of a line of railway between Turtleford and a point in township 48, range 12 West of the Third Meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan, by the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the "National Company" and the Canadian Northern Railway Company (hereinafter called the "Northern Company"), jointly or severally;
(2)	That a part of the cost of such construction and completion, as specified approximately in the schedule hereto, shall be provided by the Northern Company from the proceeds of issues of debenture obligations heretofore made, and now standing subject to certain trusts, to the credit of the Provincial Treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan (hereinafter called "trust funds"), and the balance, also as specified approximately in such schedule, shall be provided by the
National Company. To enable such balance to be provided, the National Company may, subject to the provisions of the proposed Act, issue notes, obligations, bonds and other securities (hereinafter called "securities"), and the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee of the principal and interest of such securities. The said companies shall be authorized to take all necessary steps, jointly or severally, to enable the trust funds to be used as herein provided.
(3)	That provision be made for the issue of certificates as to mileage by the minister, and neither the minister in the issuance of such certificates, nor the said companies in the performance of the work of construction and completion, or the National Company in the issue of its securities for the balance of cost after deducting trust funds available shall, unless by consent of parliament, exceed the estimated distance expenditure and average expenditure per mile, and the estimated amount of trust funds available, by more than fifteen per cent, and if upon final survey it appears to the said companies or either of them that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure estimated, the said companies shall not commence nor proceed with the works without first obtaining the approval of parliament ;
(4)	That the nature, terms and form of securities to be issued and guaranteed in respect of the balance of money by the National Company shall be such as may be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance;
(5)	That to enable the work of completion of the said line of railway to proceed forthwith, the Governor in Council, pending the issue and disposal of any such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the said companies, or either of them, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty from the first moneys available therefor;
(6)	That the minister shall annually present to parliament a statement of the work and expenditure, advances and amount of advances reimbursed, and all such other information as he shall require or direct.

[Stage Direction]
Location.	Mileage already graded.	Estimates	Mileage including existing grading.	To be expended.	Average expenditure per mile.From Turtleford easterly and southerly to a point in Township 48, Range 12, West of the 3rd Meridian in the Province of Saskatchewan	
To be provided by the Northern Company from trust funds, as specified in Resolution 2 and pursuant to chapter 2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1924, approximately	23	67	$ 1,871,000	$ 27,925801,000 1,070,000 S 1,871,000	To be provided by the National Company as the balance of cost as specified in Resolution 2, approximately	
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: Hon. members will remember that last year a bill was brought in for the construction of this line to a certain point. The bill passed the House of Com-

mons and our Railway committee, but it did not pass the upper House. It was for a line of railway running a longer distance than the present resolution calls for. I may say that I intend to send all these bills to the Railway committee for full discussion, but I

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
think it is fair to explain that the Saskatchewan government issued certain securities for the construction of lines in that province, and by recent legislation they have made it possible to release these securities to apply to the construction of this line and another one that I have before me, the Bengough-Willowbunch branch. This bill is the same as the bill of last year except as to distance, and as to this point that I have now suggested, that we can utilize the money provided by the Saskatchewan government and held in trust for the construction of certain lines. Perhaps it would be wise, so that I may not make any error, if I read the memorandum which the solicitor of the Canadian National Railways has placed in my hand:
This bill is a little different from those of last year, in that it provides for the utilization of trust funds in the hands of the provincial treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan to the extent of $801,000. The total cost of the Line, as shown in the schedule, is $1,871,000, which leaves a balance of cost to be raised by the Canadian National Railway Company of $1,070,000.
We have not carried the branch line this year as far as Hafford, for the reason that after discussing the matter with Premier Dunning and Mr. Hungerford it was suggested that the main purpose was to get some part of the line constructed in the present year, and the present mileage-67 miles-carries the line as far as what is known as Meeting lake.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What point did the bill of last year stop at?


George Perry Graham: Quite a distance beyond
Meeting lake.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No work was
done on the bill of last year?


George Perry Graham: It did not become law.
There has been under discussion for a great number of years the building of a line from Shellbrook across to Meeting lake, and the scheme of the present branch line bill is to enable the line to be built as far as the junction point where the Shellbrook line would meet, if the Shellbrook line is ever built. The portion between Meeting lake and Hafford has not been abandoned. We wi!ll come back with that proposition later on. In the meantime, Mr. Hungerford wishes to have this lower part of the line between Meeting lake and Hafford reconsidered for the purpose of determining just where the junction point with the main line should be. He thinks that instead of going directly south to Hafford it should bend more to the west, since his view is that grain from this district will probably move by the Alberta gateway instead of via Fort William.
This bill does not differ very materially from the standard bills of last year. The principal difference is that it is made abundantly clear in this bill that the National company can only issue securities for the balance of cost after deducting the trust funds, and it is provided that the two companies, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian National, are authorized to take all necessary steps, jointly or severally, to enable the trust funds to be used as herein provided. It will be appreciated that the trust funds belong to the Canadian Northern system,
that is, they were obtained by the issue of securities of the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan and the Canadian Northern.
The line, of course, is to be built as a Canadian Northern line in order to enable the trust funds to be applied thereto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose there is not much doubt as to the position of the trust funds. If I remember rightly, under the old Canadian Northern Saskatchewan system which was operating on the provincial charter, there were at one time numerous railway proposals some of which-I think I am fair in saying, all-were floated by government guarantees.


George Perry Graham: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know of any that build themselves; I think the money all came from the people.


George Perry Graham: From one government or
the other.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend might tell us what line this particular guarantee was for in the first instance.


George Perry Graham: I cannot give that at
the moment; I have the information at the office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We can get that later on. But under the arrangement entered into the guarantees were all based on the bonds of the system, endorsed by the province and placed in the hands of the trustee to be earned by the railway as construction took place. So that the present proposition is that instead of doing our own financing we should take advantage of provincial financing already done-


George Perry Graham: Yes, that is part of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -to the extent stated by the minister. We realize of course that the addition at once becomes a part of the capital charges of the system.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
exact difference, if any, between operating under the provincial guarantee and operating under that of the Dominion?


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend mean from the point of view of interest?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is more than that involved in it. Some of these guarantees have certain conditions attached as to obligation and the like. Some of them make a special provision for interest, perhaps more or less provincial as against Dominion. The blouse should know, before embarking on the
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

principle of building Dominion lines under provincial guarantees, just what the conditions are, because this railway will now be the property of the country, and the people ought to know not only what interest charges will be involved but also what the original terms were under which the securities were given. I would suggest that it woulid be very much better if we did not start complicating the accounting of a system, already very complex, by bringing in this question of old provincial guarantees. Under the agreement between the province and the local railway, I would assume that the interest has been running on these bonds, from the time the money was raised.


George Perry Graham: That would be reasonable, of course.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And who is paying that interest at the present time?


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, these bonds are practically carrying themselves, although I am not sure about that; it is information I should have to get. Perhaps I could get it from the provincial legislation, in which I imagine all these things would be dealt with. And in the preparation of this bill I should think that it would be necessary to have all these details. My hon. friend suggests a point I had not thought of seriously, that there might be some conditions in the old guarantee outside of interest altogether, which would make it embarrassing or expensive,-or onerous, to put it mildly,-for the Canadian National Railways to operate the road, which would not be the case if the railways borrowed their own money directly. I shall try to get this point cleared up before we, go much further.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there not usually
a provision in legislation dealing with matters of this kind that the interest shall be paid out of the proceeds of the bond issue while the work is under construction? I know that this is so in the case of the harbour commissions and other matters of that nature, but I do not know whether it applies to the railways.


George Perry Graham: We issue the bonds and
sell them and we put the proceeds in the hands of the Receiver General at a certain rate of interest. We could put them in the bank if necessary but the usual method in the federal financing of undertakings of this kind is to put the proceeds of the bonds in the hands of the Receiver General and draw a certain rate of interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The point made by the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) is right, 
but I do not know that it applies to our railways. What he is referring to is a provision usually found in all trust instruments. Under trust instruments the trustee has the right to pay interest during a certain fixed period which is supposed to represent a reasonable time within which construction should take place before operation begins. In connection with the government roads we have no trustee and on that account we save certain costs. The moneys instead of being placed in the' hands of a trustee are placed with the Receiver General who allocates them at the request of the company, as from time to time it is necessary; and he allocates them either as for interest or as for principal. As I recollect, there is an item of $56,000 in this year's accounts for interest on the cost of these branch lines under construction. I am not quite sure, it may be for something else; but the principle is the same. I should just like to ask my hon. friend to further consider this question in the light of his own statement. He says he thinks these bonds are carrying themselves.


George Perry Graham: Approximately, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If so, no one is losing any money. If we have no money lying idle as the result of these provincial obligations, surely it would be much better for us to keep all our activities in our own hands, instead of building a branch line here or a branch line there guaranteed by the province. It does seem to me to be the most absurd turning of things upside down to have the Dominion-because it is the Dominion- building branch lines with the guarantee of the province. I do not know what some people will think of it, but probably the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) would consider it as rather an absurd proposition, and that in the interest of the country's credit abroad it was an exceedingly bad precedent to adopt. It does not look very well for the Dominion to be putting itself in this position, that so far as the outside world is concerned -which understands nothing about the real situation-the Dominion is driven to carry on its financial operations in connection with its railways, in part, not with the gifts-because she would have the right to take those -but with the guarantee of the province, which in turn the Dominion becomes liable for and has to pay interest on.


George Perry Graham: I think quite a few of
that kind were taken over with the system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a very different thing. That building was done by

CJV.f?.-Branch Lines
the railway company; we were legatees, and we took it with all its burdens.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But here we
are putting ourselves in that position. Frankly, I think that some thought should be given to the adoption of that principle, just from the aspect of the country's finances and its credit.


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position
to discuss that point intelligently until I have before me all the details in reference to the legislation of the province of Saskatchewan. For two years that province has been very anxious to have this money utilized for the construction of railway lines, as the provincial government had guaranteed these
5 pan. bonds for construction, and it does not look unreasonable, if that money can be utilized for the purpose of building lines within the province, even if those lines will be under the Canadian National, that the money should be used. What will the province do with that money? It can be used only for the purpose of constructing railway lines within the province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to
refer my hon. friend to his own remark not more than ten minutes ago, that those bonds were carrying themselves.


George Perry Graham: I said I thought so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is so,
the province is now using that money.


George Perry Graham: I will ascertain that.
But I do not see how the province can eventually use this money for any purpose but railway construction. They have the securities. If they are using them it must be only for temporary purposes until such time as they can be applied to railway construction. The whole question at issue, to my mind, is whether it is good financing for the Dominion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is right.


George Perry Graham: The legislature of Saskatchewan has, I believe, without any opposition, passed legislation making it possible to have the Canadian National Railways use the money raised on these securities for the purposes outlined in this resolution. Just what the further complications might be I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend will find that this is the situation, but I hope he will make sure:	First, that he has
got a trustee; secondly, the trustee has control of this money; thirdly, the trustee, during
the period which must elaspe before the moneys are applied to this railway construction, has the right to place them in any safe guaranteed investment which the province approves of; fourthly, that the province today, in all likelihood, is using its own moneys, which is a perfectly proper thing for it to do. in connection with its own financing.


George Perry Graham: Would they be allowed, without legislation, to use the money for any purpose except railway construction?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not for any
capital purpose. My hon. friend will find that usually there is a reasonable provision inserted, which with a certain amount of judgment by the trustee in some cases, of course, plus the consent of the guarantor, allows the money to be deposited in different ways. Why, my hon. friend has no difficulty in using money here; it just goes into the Receiver General's funds. There is no difficulty about it. I should think the position would be the same in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the point raised by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) resolves itself into this:	Can the federal government
secure this money from the province as cheaply as it can from some other source? With regard to the money being used otherwise, I think the hon. member is absolutely right. I know the province of New Brunswick some years ago issued bonds for a certain railway, and these bonds were deposited with a trust company. When we wanted the money to build the road we found the trust company had invested it in a South American railway, and we were unable to proceed with our construction because the investment was not liquid, and I do not know that we have got all the money back yet. The trust company was also financially embarrassed, and was not able to dig up the money for us from some other source.


George Perry Graham: Will it cost the Canadian National Railways more to issue its own bonds?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But eventually it means the government and the people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister find out?


George Perry Graham: I will find out all about it before we get in committee on the bill.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Turtleford and a point in Township 4S, Range 12, West of the Third Meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend to give us the information he has promised before this bill goes into committee.


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REGINA-A VONLEA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and! Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved (1) That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction or completion prior to the thirty-first day of August, 1927, of a line of railway from a point about five miles south of Regina to Avonlea in the province of Saskatchewan, by the Canadian National Railway Company;
(2)	That the company may issue notes, bonds and securities in respect of the said construction, and the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee thereof;
(3)	That provision be made for the issue of certificates as to mileage by the minister, but neither the minister in the issuance of such certificates nor the company in the performance of the work of construction and completion or in the issue of its securities shall, unless by consent of parliament, exceed the estimated distance, expenditure and average expenditure per mile by more than fifteen per cent; and if upon final survey it appears to the company that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure estimated, the company shall not commence nor proceed with the work without first obtaining the approval of parliament;
(4)	That the nature, terms and forms of securities to be issued and guaranteed shall be such as may be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance;
(5)	That to enable the work of completion of the said line of railway to proceed forthwith, the Governor in Counoil, pending the issue and disposal of such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty from the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of such securities;
(6)	That the minister shall annually present to parliament a statement of the work and expenditure, advances and amount of advances reimbursed, and all such other information as he shall require or direct.

[Stage Direction]
Location.	Mileage already graded.	Estimates.	Mileage including existing grading.	To be expended.	Average expenditure per mile.From a point about five miles south of Regina to Avonlea, in the province of Saskatchewan	0	33	$ 941,000	$ 28,51
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister had better not go on with this resolution now. It is highly contentious.


George Perry Graham: I know it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know that a
great many of the representatives from the west desire to be present during the whole time the resolution is being considered, and many of them are not here.


George Perry Graham: I want to make some advance with this proposal so that it may be taken up by the Railway committee. I am not as well informed on this bill as I am on some others. However, I know it is very contentious, and I should like it to be put through the necessary stages so that it might be sent to the Railway committee. There are people who wish to be heard with respect to the proposal, and I thought we might advance it and get it before the committee so 
that it might be fully investigated there. If my hon. friend will allow the measure to be advanced the necessary stages there will be every possible opportunity for discussion. I know that there are members on both sides who wish to discuss the bill when the proper stage has been reached. I may say that the resolution provides for the construction of a line of railwTay from Avonlea to a point about five miles fiom Regina. I know it will be a contentious bill in its present form, but we cannot discuss it at the present stage, and I am anxious, as rapidly as possible, to reach the stage where it may be discussed.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Perry Graham: This is the situation. As a matter of fact the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had entered into an agreement with the city of Regina to do certain things. I

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
think there are four companies included in this agreement-the Grand Trunk Pacific, Branch Lines Company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the Canadian National Railway. They are really a quartette in one, but these different entities have signed an agreement with the city of Regina. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had agreed, either by itself or through one of these other companies, to do certain things in the city of Regina, one of which was the construction of a hotel. The parties met after a good deal of negotiation and came to an arrangement by which Regina relieved the railway company of several things, and the railway company relieved Regina of several items under a former agreement. One of the former was the relief of the railway from the portion of the agreement which provided for the construction of a hotel under one of the paragraphs in the agreement which pertains to the construction of this line, as a quid pro quo in part for the concessions that were to be given by the city. The Canadian National Railway Company agrees to give reasonable support to any movement on the part of the city or of the province of Saskatchewan for the construction of a connecting line of railway from the city of Regina to Avonlea in the province of Saskatchewan. I have a memorandum here, which points out that this proposed line is thirty miles in length, and some details as to the traffic that would come to it. But the chief point that we have to discuss, I think, is whether this line should be constructed at the present time. I will read that clause again so that hon. members will know what effect that agreement would have on the construction of the line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps it would be fair to everybody if the agreement were placed on Hansard, provided it is not too long.


George Perry Graham: I would be content to put the entire agreement on Hansard. The essential point is that the Canadian National Railways have agreed to give reasonable support. The reasonable support they have construed into recommending that the line be constructed. I would like to get the bill before the Railway committee if I could, because I know there would be people there who would wish to discuss it. Perhaps the city of Regina might want to be represented and the Canadian National also, and there are members from different sections who feel strongly in regard to this road. I will be glad to place it on Hansard, so that hon. members will
have a copy of the agreement when we come to discuss it in committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree
that we should have full discussion and that the matter should be ventilated. I would suggest that by consent the agreement now go into Hansard. The minister might in the meantime move that the committee rise and report progress with the understanding that he can move the House into committee on Monday. But in the meantime every hon. gentleman will have a chance of reading the agreement and understanding it.


George Perry Graham: I am not pressing the
point, because I know it is contentious. There are hon. members on both sides who would rather have it go to the Railway committee where they can thresh out the details with all the cross-firing that will take place. But I am not bound in any way and I have an open mind on the matter.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I think it is just as well
to follow the course suggested by the hon. member for West York. A number of western members are opposed to going on with this road. The member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Hopkins) is one of them, and there are strong protests from the city of Moose Jaw, the board of trade and other organizations. I think the agreement had better go on Hansard, and that the matter should be left over until another day.


George Perry Graham: Are these gentlemen who
are opposed to the measure not here.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: No.


Mr. KNOX:: We have been trying to get
them, but it is impossible to locate them. I think it would be better to follow the suggestion that the agreement should go on Hansard.
The agreement referred to is as follows:
Memorandum of agreement, made in quadruplicate, this	day of	A.D. 1925;
Among:
The Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, (hereinafter called "the Branch Lines Co.")
of the first part,
The Grand Trunk Pacific Development Co., Limited,
(hereinafter called "the Development Company")
of the second part,
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, (hereinafter called "the Pacific Company")
of the third part,
The Canadian National Railway Company, (hereinafter called "the National Company")
of the fourth part;
and
The city of Regina,
(hereinafter called "the city")
of the fifth part.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Whereas by an agreement in writing, dated the 30th day of November, 1910, and made between the Branch Lines Company of the first part and the city of the second part, the city covenanted with the Branch Lines Company inter alia to grant to the Branch Lines Company certain right of way through the city and certain other lands in the city; and to close certain Streets for the use of the Branch Lines Company, all as shown on the plan referred to in said agreement; and the Branch Lines Company covenanted with the city inter alia to erect a passenger station on blocks 453, 454, and 455, at the corner of 16th Avenue and Albert street, or on some part thereof, adequate in all respects to meet the requirements of traffic at Regina, and affording ample accommodations, and also to erect and maintain a first-class hotel with all modern appointments in the vicinity of the said passenger station;
And whereas by another agreement dated the 18th day of October, 1912, entered into between the Branch Lines Company of the first part and the city of the second part, the Branch Lines Company covenanted to erect and have completed by 1st November, 1914, a hotel of an area of 160 square and not less than seven storeys in height with provision for 225 guest rooms, the whole to cost in respect of construction and equipment approximately one million ($1,000,000) dollars; and the city covenanted with the Branch Lines Company to lease to the Branch Lines Company for a term of ninety-nine years froni 1st November, 1912, at a rental of $25.00 per annum for the purposes of the aforesaid hotel a parcel of land containing 1.43 acres in section 18, township 17, range 19, west of the second meridian, and also to grant to the Branch Lines Company certain exemption from taxation in respect of the said parcel of land and the buildings to be erected thereon, all as more particularly specified in said last mentioned agreement.
And whereas in pursuance of the said last mentioned agreement the city did lease to the Branch Lines Company by a lease dated the 16th day of September, 1912, the said parcel of land containing 1.43 acres for a term of 99 years from 1st November, 1912, at a rental of $25.00 per annum, subject to the condition inter alia that the Branch Lines Company, or any other company owned or controlled by the Branch Lines Company, would erect a hotel of the character provided for in said agreement of 18th October, 1912;
And whereas the Branch Lines Company assigned the said lease and all its right therein and thereunder to the Development Company, and the Development Company is now the registered owner of the said leasehold;
And whereas the making and execution of the said agreement of 18th October, 1912, and of the said lease were authorized by by-law of the city council number 675.
And whereas the said agreements of 30th November, 1910, 18th October, 1912, the said lease of 16th September, 1912, and said by-law number 675 were all ratified, confirmed and validated by act of the legislature of Saskatchewan, being chapter 65 of the statutes 1912-13;
And whereas by another agreement in writing entered into between the Branch Lines Company and the city, dated the 3rd day of October, 1913, certain portions of Argyle and McTavish streets closed by the city in pursuance of the said agreement of 30th November, 1910, were re-opened by the city, which agreement was ratified, confirmed and validated by act of legislature of Saskatchewan, being chapter 88 of the statutes of Saskatchewan, 1913;
And whereas by resolution of the council of the city, dated on or about the 3rd day of July, 1911, the city agreed, on the application of the Branch

Lines Company, to close certain other streets and lanes in the city, namely: 15th Avenue, north of block 49 in the C.P.R. annex. Edward street, west of lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, block 47, in the C.P.R. annex. The lane east of lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, block 46, and lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, block 47. The lane through block 48, and the lanes through block 50 all in the C.P.R. annex.
And whereas the said last mentioned streets and lanes though physically closed have never been legally closed in accordance with the City Act;
And whereas by another resolution of the council of the city dated on or about the 3rd day of July, 1911, the city on request of the Branch Lines Company, agreed to close a portion of the 17th avenue in the city where the same was crossed by the Branch Lines Company's railway as shown on the plan referred to in the said resolution, in lieu of a portion of 18th avenue where crossed by the Branch Lines Company's railway (which latter portion of the city had, by said agreement of the 30th November, 1910, agreed to close) and to leave open the said portion of 18th avenue where the same was crossed by the Branch Lines Company's railway.
And whereas in pursuance of the said agreements and lease the Development Company commenced the erection of an hotel on the said parcel of land containing 1.43 acres and continued said work until the outbreak of the European wrar when the work was suspended.
And whereas the construction of said hotel has never been resumed and the said hotel is still in an unfinished state
And whereas the management and operation of the Pacific Company, the Branch Lines Company, and the Development Company, is now co-ordinated with the management of the National Company;
And whereas for financial and economic reasons the National Company, the Branch Lines Company, and the Development Company, deem it inadvisable to carry out certain of the undertakings entered into by the Branch Lines Company and the Development Company under the said agreements and lease hereinbefore recited.
Now therefore this agreement witnesseth as follows:
The city agrees:
1.	To release, as it hereby releases, the Branch Lines Company of its obligations under the said agreement of November 30th, 1910, (a) to erect and
' maintain a station in the city of Regina, either at the corner of 16th street and Albert street or elsewhere, (b) to erect and maintain a hotel in the city of Regina; and/or (c) to erect and maintain railway terminal facilities other than those already constructed.
2.	To release as it hereby releases the Branch Lines Company and/or the Development Company from the obligations of them or either of them under the said lease to erect an hotel in the city of Regina, either on the said parcel of land containing 1.43 acres or elsewhere.
3.	To co-operate in every reasonable manner with the National Company, the Pacific Company and the Branch Lines Company in the extension of the Canadian National Railway system in the city of Regina and in the development of its traffic.
4. To forthwith grant and convey to the Branch Lines Company in accordance with the said agreement of 30th November. 1910, the right of way and lands particularly described in clause 3 (a) of the said agreement.
5.	To join with the Branch Lines Company, the Development Company, and the National Company in an application to the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan for an act ratifying, confirming and validating this agreement and declaring to be legally closed the following streets and lanes-15th avenue, north of block 49, in the C.P.R. annex. *

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Edward street, west of lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 block 47 in the C.P.R. annex.
The lanes east of lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, block 46, and lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 block 47.
The lane through block 48, and the lanes through block 50, all in the C.P.R. annex.
And that portion of 17th avenue where the said 17th avenue is crossed by the Branch Lines Company's railway.
This agreement is subject in all respects to such act of the legislature being obtained ratifying, confirming and validating this agreement and declaring said streets and lanes to be legally closed.
The Branch Lines Company and the Development Company agree:
6.	To surrender to the city free of all encumbrances all the right, title, and interest of them or either of them under the said lease of 16th September, 1912, and the said agreement of 18th October, 1912, in and to the said parcel of land containing 1.43 acres and in and to the buildings and erections on the said parcel and the appurtenances thereof, and to execute such other surrender of said lease as may be requisite.
7.	To sell, assign, transfer and set over to the city the unerected steel and any other building materials presently stored on the said hotel site as set out in the inventory hereto attached.
The National Company, the Pacific Company and the Branch Lines Company agree:
8.	Forthwith to enter into and prosecute negotiation with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and in the event of the failure of such negotiations to make application to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada with a view to securing the right to operate into and out of the present Canadian Pacific Railway Company's station in the city of Regina, all the passenger trains of the Pacific Company and the Branch Lines Company, running into or out of the city and (upon securing such right) to thereafter run such passenger trains into and out of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's station.
9.	Forthwith to enter into and prosecute negotiations with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and, in the event of failure of such negotiations, to make application to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada with a view to the establishment of the said Canadian Pacific Railway Company's station as a union station for the accommodation of the traffic of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway with suitable terminal facilities to take care of the passenger and general traffic (other than freight) of the Canadian National Railways System.
10.	To join with the city in an application to the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan for the purposes specified in clause 5 hereof.
The Branch Lines Company Agrees:
11.	That upon the acquisition of the rights referred to in paragraph 8 and 9 hereof (and subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and the Lieutenant Governor in Council) it will discontinue the use of its right-of-way in blocks 447 to 455 in the city of Regina, also its station m block 455, and will take up all its tracks in said blocks and quit-claim to the city all these portions of streets and lanes in or abutting on said blocks which were closed for the purpose of the Branch Lines Company's railway in pursuance of the said agreement of 30th November, 1910.
The National Company Agrees:
12.	Subject to parliamentary control to adopt as part of its policy for the development of its railway system in Saskatchewan the making of the city of Regina its principal railway centre for the southern part of the province and to give reasonable support to any movement on the part of the city or of the province of Saskatchewan for the construction of a
connecting line of railway from the city of Regina to Avonlea in the province of Saskatchewan.
It is Mutually Agreed:
13.	That except in so far as same is hereby modified the said agreement of 30th November, 1910, is hereby ratified and confirmed.
In witness whereof the Branch Lines Company, the Development Company, the Pacific Company, and the National Company, have caused to be hereunto affixed their respective corporate seals under the hands of their respective proper officers; and the city has hereto affixed its corporate seal under the hands of its mayor and city clerk, the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of:
The Grand	Trunk Pacific Branch
Lines Company
By Gerard Ruel,
Vice-President.
Secretary.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, Limited
By Gerard Ruel,
Vice-President.
.	Secretary.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
By Gerard Ruel,
Vice-President.
Secretary.
The Canadian National Railway Company
By Gerard Ruel,
Vice-President.
Secretary.
Approved,
Sgd. Geo. P. Graham,
Minister of Railways and Canals.
Receiver
This is Exhibit "A" referred to in the affidavit of E. J. Hungerford. Sworn before me this 26th day of January, 1925.
Sgd. Douglas B. Smith, Commissioner, Superior Court, District of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister
would tell) us when the government's mind reopened on the subject after deciding to reintroduce the legislation. The minister said his mind was open in regard to this bill. I should like to know when the government's mind re-opened., after deciding to reintroduce this legislation.


George Perry Graham: This government always has an open mind. It is -one of the good characteristics of this government.


Arthur Meighen: O.pen at 'both ends.


George Perry Graham: I have some correspondence, and I wanted to hear the members interested in the matter without any restrictions.

Pension Act

If the members are not here I would' not for a moment think of proceeding with it.
Progress reported.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

Hon.  H. S. BELANID@Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment: Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act, and the amending acts, and to provide,-
(1)	For pension to be awarded for total disability at the time of discharge to an ex-member of the forces suffering from venereal disease who saw service in a theatre of actual war;
(2)	For extending the period during which the dependents of a man in receipt of a pension-classes 1 to 5-may be pensioned after his death;
(3)	For a definite pension irreducible for two j'ears in cases of pulmonary tuberculosis;
(4)	For what the final payment shall be in cases of disability between five and fourteen per cent, and what conditions may affect such final payments;
(5)	For amending section 27 of the act to make provision for payment not provided for in the existing statute;
(6)	For conditions under which pension may be continued to dependent parents;
(7)	For the awarding or refusal of a pension to a widow of a pensioner taking into consideration his condition at the time of marriage, and under what conditions pensions may be paid to prospective widowed mothers;
(8)	For non-cancellation of pension for immoral conduct until after an opportunity for defence has been given, and for reinstatement of cancelled pensions in certain cases;
(9)	For increased pensions to mothers whose husbands are physically helpless or in a dependent condition;
(10)	For the amendment of the schedules to the . act in such a manner as to make pension equal to
the actual rate plus bonus, and to make an equitable division of childrens' pensions;
(11)	For the reappointment of retiring members of the Federal Appeal Board and the continuation of three as a quorum.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Would the minister in
charge indicate what changes, if any, there are in the proposed bill from the bill of last year?


Mr. BELAND:: In a general way the bill
founded on this resolution contains the provisions of last year's bill, with a few other provisions of a minor character which will be more readily understood when the bill is distributed. As probably it will be more convenient for hon. members to discuss every clause of the bill in committee of the Whole after the second reading, I might perhaps suggest that we adopt this resolution immediately and that the bill be read a first time and be put down on the order paper for second reading, so that at the next sitting of the House, that is next week, we might be in a position to discuss the bill because hon. members will then have bad time to see the different clauses.


James Arthurs: The point I was trying
(o raise was not what changes there were

in the proposed bill from the old act, but what differences there were, if any, between the proposed bill and the bill of last year. If the minister will come prepared to do that at a later stage, I am quite agreeable to allowing the resolution to pass and the bill to be introduced.


Mr. MANION:: I am perfectly agreeable
also with my hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) and the other members to facilitate matters and allow the resolution to go through so that we can get into committee on the bill at the earliest possible moment. I would like to go on record, however, as saying once for all, in contradiction of any statements that may be made-which statements were made in fact-that we were in some way holding up this bill, that at no stage of the procedure have hon. members of this party done anything to hold up this legislation. We have not had, and we have not now, any desire except to facilitate the passing of this legislation, and send it on te the Senate as quickly as possible, so that there can be no holding of it up. There was nc desire at any time on our part to obstruct. We did deal at some length with some questions, because they were important, but with no desire whatever to obstruct. At this time also it is our absolute desire to assist the minister in every wav in getting the bill into committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Belaud thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70 to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We are ready to go into
committee now.


James Arthurs: At the next sitting of the House.


Robert James Manion: Just because we have not
seen this bill at all until this very minute.



CANTEEN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the disposal of the Canteen Funds.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Central Board of Trustees.
Robert James Manion: I would ask the minister
to make a statement in connection with this

Canteen Funds
clause, which we have discussed at some length.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was understood that we
would amend clause 3 in order to cover an amendment which I promised my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Black) we would be ready to make in connection with the share of the Yukon territory. If it is at all desirable, and I think it is, to -make provision for a special share for the Yukon, we will have to amend clause 3 to provide for the creation of a board of trustees for the Yukon territory. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the bill provides for the appointment of a board of trustees for the provinces, and it was originally intended that the province of British Columbia would include the Yukon territory. By understanding we have altered the original proposition, and we intend to have the Yukon share as a province. For that purpose it will be necessary to amend clause 3 so that it will read about as follows, and if hon. gentlemen will follow clause 3 as it appears in the bill they see what additional words are inserted:
There shall be appointed by the Governor in Council a central board of trustees consisting of three members who shall serve without remuneration for the period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment, and there shall also be appointed by the Governor in Council a board of trustees for the Yukon territory consisting of three members who shall serve without remuneration for the period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment.
This simply makes applicable to the Yukon territory the provision for the central board of trustees. I therefore move in amendment to -clause 3, Mr. Chairman, that the following words be added after the word "reappointment:"
-and there shall also be appointed by the Governor in Council a board of trustees for the Yukon territory consisting of three members who shall serve without remuneration for the period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to provide for the Yukon board under section 4 which relates to the appointment of provincial boards. The Yukon board corresponds to a provincial board, and provincial boards are provided far by section 4.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In the Yukon there is no
provincial government which we could vest with the power of appointing this board. That is the only reason why the appointment is left to the Governor in Council. When there is a provincial government it comes under the general provision for provincial appointments.


Robert James Manion: As to the central board
of trustees-I am not questioning the Yukon 176i
provision at all-I remember that when we were discussing the matter before, the proposition was put forward that the appointment be made in a certain manner and we on this side put ourselves on record regarding it. It was suggested that Sir Arthur Currie should be one member of the central board of trustees, that a second trustee should be appointed by the different oragnizations of war veterans in the country, the third to be chosen by these two or in some other acceptable manner. I remember hoping at the time that the minister might have worked out some scheme along these lines for the bill itself. Has the minister made any progress in that direction?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have taken some steps
in regard to the suggestions made by hon. gentlemen opposite to ascertain whether it would be agreeable to Sir Arthur Currie to serve on the board, for instance as chairman, and I am pleased to convey the statement to the House that Sir Arthur Currie expressed his readiness to serve in that capacity. In the course of conversation he naturally inquired who the other members of the board would be, and I intimated to him my intention of selecting one of the other trustees from a recommendation made by all the veterans' associations. I made it plain to him that such a man would not be appointed as second trustee until he, Sir Arthur Currie, was satisfied that all the soldiers' organizations were duly represented in effecting the nomination. As to the third member of the board the idea was to select one from the governing body of either the Canadian Red Cross or the Patriotic Fund.


Robert James Manion: Speaking for myself I wish to say that this arrangement is not altogether in -agreement with what we lhad suggested, but it is so eminently fair that I do not think anybody -can raise any objection to -it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as -amended1 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On- section 5-Majority to be ex-members of forces.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I think we should amend this section somewhat, but as to that I am in the judgment of hon. -members of the House. The amendment I w-ouild suggest is this:	It
has been brought to my attention that this clause provides for the appointment of a majority of ex-members of the forces, and that the canteen fund is a fund that was got together by men who served overseas only. I do not think I am mistaken in that; it is an overseas men's fund, and it was suggested to
Canteen Funds

me-I do not remember by whom-that instead of "ex-members of the forces" we should say "ex-members of the forces who have seen service overseas." If it is agreeable \ would move that these words be added1 to clause 5: " who have seen service overseas."


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are you going far enough in proposing to make that amendment? For instance, we bad certain officers who only went to England! and did not revert to the ranks and go to the front as privates as a great many of the officers did. I think possibly if the minister is going to make this amendment ihe should make it go all the way and apply it to men who had seen active service in the theatre of war. I do not think there is very much difference between the officer who served in Canada and the officer who went to England and stayed there. In fact I think the officer who stayed in Canada possibly performed the most onerous service here drilling men and was possibly more or less misunderstood, while the man who only went as far as England got a certain amount of glory out of it, that the officer who stayed in Canada did not get. I think that if the minister is going to make such an amendment he should make it go all the way.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I might explain to my hon. friend that there is a difference, and a vital difference between a man who has served in a theatre of actual war like France, and the man who has served in England only. But- and I speak subject to correction-the canteen funds were collected from men who were overseas regardless of whether they served in France or in England. My hon. friend1 perhaps will agree with me that it would be somewhat unfair to exclude from the possibility of being appointed to this board those who served in England.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not insisting on the point. I realize possibly that a large part of the fund was accumulated in England.


Robert James Manion: I remember that on a previous occasion amendments were moved from this side to secure a change, but it seemed to be the desire of the minister for the clause to remain as he had it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Allotment of funds.
Henri Sévérin Béland: In this connection the member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) suggested that the provision for the allotments in paragraph (e) of this clause should be altered in order to provide for a special share for the Yukon.

It will therefore be necessary to amend 'paragraph (e). The amendment I have is couched in the following words:
(e) The residue shall be divided into ten different allotments in the proportion indicated by the following percentages:
The word "allotment" is put in in place of "provincial allotments" because the Yukon is not. a province. That is the only reason for making the change; it does not make any difference so far as the provinces are concerned; it is a general and a generic term. As amended1 the section will read:
The residue shall be divided into ten different allotments in the proportion indicated by the following percentages:
Per cent
Alberta	 7.752
British Columbia and the Yukon	 10.944
Manitoba	 10.654
New Brunswick	 4.072
Nova Scotia	 5.549
Ontario	 41.237
Prince Edward Island	738
Quebec	 11.622
Saskatchewan	 7.162
Yukon Territory	269
And on appointment as hereinafter provided of a provincial board of trustees, or of a board of trustees for the Yukon territory, the provincial or Yukon allotment shall immediately be paid to such board.
The latter part of this section is altered or modified just to meet the case of the Yukon territory. I have already explained how the Yukon territory share was arrived at. It is a generous allotment, but not too generous, and I think it should be accepted by hon. members.


Mr. LADNER:: May I suggest to the
minister that after the word "percentages" he should add the words "for the provinces or territories herein specified." The minister will note that when he takes out nine additional allotments he does not relate the allotments to the jurisdiction. He simply divides them up without specifically relating them to some province or jurisdiction.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no objection to
that amendment, but I do not think it is necessary.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The schedule of the agreement sets out the distribution, but the clause which is operative in distributing the fund is the first three lines, and that does not relate to any jurisdiction or province. I suggest that after the word "percentages" these words be added: "For the provinces or territories herein specified."


George Black: Would the minister tell us how the percentages are made

Canteen Funds
up in the ease of the Yukon and British Columbia? As I make the calculation, on the basis used by the Ralston commission, on whose figures I believe the calculation is made, the percentage will work out, when you separate the Yukon allotment from that of British Columbia, as follows:
British Columbia 10.710, Yukon .503, instead of the figures given by the minister of 10.944 British Columbia and .269 for the Yukon. The calculation is based as I understand it on the percentage of enlistments, that is, as the enlistments 51,430 from British Columbia are to the enlistments for the Yukon, 2,327, so is the whole amount of 11,213 for British Columbia and Yukon combined to be allocated. And that works out at .503 for the Yukon, instead of the amount which the minister gives, which is not more than half.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I appreciate the desire of
my hon. friend to increase the allowance to the Yukon. I may tell him that I was actuated by a desire to make the Yukon share as large as possible, but the percentages were arrived at in every province by taking the enlistments, discharges and the pensioners. In the case of the Yukon we have no figures of discharges, apparently no discharges have taken place in the Yukon. And so I was face to face with this situation: How could we arrive at a reasonable average for the Yukon? As the Yukon was together with British Columbia in the first instance, I thought that if we applied to the Yukon the same proportion betwen enlistments and discharges as exists in British Columbia proper it would.be eminently fair, and I asked one of the officials to work it out. He has worked it out, and it comes to the percentage I have given, that is, .260. That will give the Yukon $6,321. We must bear in mind that the population of the Yukon has decreased considerably. In 1911 the population of the Yukon was 8,512 and in 1921 it 'had been reduced to 4,156. It is only reasonable to presume that the population of the Yukon today is less than it was in 1918 and 1919 when the discharges took place. The number of the pensioners in the Yukon territory is only nine. I doubt if there is a very large number of returned men in the Yukon, and if my hon. friend will accept the advice I received from officials who have looked into the question carefully he will be satisfied that the share of the Yukon, everything considered, is larger in proportion than that of British Columbia. I do not begrudge it, and I do not think hon. members from British Columbia begrudge it. We are very generous in this regard. I think the percentages have
been arrived at in a very logical and reasonable manner.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister has stated
that the proportion allotted to the Yukon is already larger than that given to British Columbia. My question is, how much larger is it proportionately?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are no figures of
discharges available for the Yukon; so that if you take zero as the number of discharges, it reduces immensely the average of the Yukon by probably two or three thousand dollars.


George Black: The minister said
on previous occasions when the matter was being discussed as regards taking the figures of the Ralston report, that the calculation is based on enlistments, that is the enlistments in British Columbia as against the enlistments in the Yukon. If that is the basis it does not work out to the result the minister has given.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does it not?


George Black: No, the enlistments as given for British Columbia are 51,430 and for the Yukon 2,327. I take these from the department's figures. The Yukon and British Columbia combined get a percentage of 11.213 but in the proportion of 51,430 to the 2,327, it works out at 10.710 for British Columbia and .530 for the Yukon, making the total of 11.213. I am certain my calculations are correct as I have worked them out on that basis a number of times. I would like an opportunity of checking up with the minister's officials-if he will allow that-these calculations before this section goes through.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The figures of the Ralston report have been altered somewhat because, at that time, the figures for discharges were not complete. Since then they have been adjusted by the Department of National Defence under the Hollerith system. The figures upon which these percentages have been based have been supplied to us by the Department of National Defence, and they are considered to be absolutely accurate.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not some kind1 of
composite figure of enlistments, discharges and pensioners that is worked out?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. These are the figures that have been supplied to me, and I have no reason to believe they are not accurate. In British Columbia the total enlistments were 51,438. Is that right?


George Black: I have 51,430.
Canteen Funds


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have eight more than
my hon. friend. The figure for discharges is 32,621. Do we agree there?


George Black: I did not understand that discharges were -being taken into consideration in the calculation, as there were no discharges in the Yukon.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are being taken into consideration. In order to arrive at an equitable average for the Yukon, we had ito apply some figures of discharges. How could we arrive at a figure of discharges? We arrived at it by applying to the Yukon the same proportion as existed in British Columbia proper between enlistments and discharges. Applying this -proportion to the Yukon, though there were no discharges there, we find that there should have taken place in the Yukon 1244 discharges.


Mr. CLARK:: Is the minister crediting
the Yukon with discharges that should have taken place there?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, based on the same
ratio as in British Columbia.


John Arthur Clark: Under those -circumstances,
the percentage given to the Yukon is certainly fair.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not only fair, but generous.


John Arthur Clark: I have no objection to the matter being reviewed by the department, but if so, I think British Columbia -members should be given full information and an opportunity of being consulted.


George Black: British Columbia
is getting the credit of -practically all the discharges, because the Yukon men for the most part took their discharges in British Columbia, and British Columbia is being credited with discharges of men who did not come from British Columbia at all.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I realize that.
Mr. MAuNIO-N:	Clause 6 covers all the
sub-clauses. I want once more to put on record my opinion, that of the -hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), the -hon, member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), I think the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) and several others, that this $100,000 item should not have been taken from the canteen fund it all. But some adjustment bureau is necessary, and that adjustment bureau really should be paid for by the people of Canada generally. We are not, however, intending to fight the matter, but we wish to reiterate our attitude that this $100,000 Should have been

left with the remainder of the canteen fund to be distributed with the canteen fund as a whole.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not a fanatic on the subject either, but it is introduced in the bill because it was so recommended by the Ra-lston commission.


George Black: I would not wish to delay the legislation at all, but if it can be done without such a result, I would like an opportunity ,of checking up the Yukon item before this clause of the bill finally goes through.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We will hold- it for the third reading.
Section 6 as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Regulations.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will be necessary to
amend this -clause in order to fit in with the rest of the bill as regards the Yukon territory. If 'hon. gentlemen will follow me, I will read clause 8 and1 they will note where the additional words are puit in:	.
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the guidance and direction of the Central Board of Trustees and for the guidance and direction of the board of trustees for the Yukon territory, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the guidance and direction of the provincial board of trustees of his province, provided that the duties of the provincial board of trustees and the board of trustees for the Yukon territory shall be to receive and hold the provincial allotment or the Yukon allotment, as the case may be, and to ascertain by such method as may appear to them most feasible, the wishes of those most interested and residing in the province, or in the Yukon territory, concerning the disposition of such allotment, and following this, to determine the object to which the allotment should be devoted, and, as far as may be necessary, to administer the same for such object or to provide for such administration by others and to do such other things as may be indicated in the order in council appointing them.
It is the same section with the additional words which 'have reference to the Yukon territory.
-Mr. LADNER: The section -is not altogether clear as to what the Governor -in Council does. It says:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the guidance and direction of the central board of trustees.
Why would the Governor in Council -make any regulations at all beyond putting tihe money into t-he hands of -Sir Arthur Currie and his associates, the trustees? They would be the parties to make the regulations as to its distribution, after investigation, or in the case -of a province, the trustees of the -province, having received the money under the conditions of trust ehou'ld be .the ones wlho

Canteen Funds
should make the regulations. This section as it stands gives wide-Qpen authority to both the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unlimited regulations. In fact, they may even prescribe the way in which the money shall be expended. The whole idea of having this independent board is to detach the expenditure of this money from governmental control or influence.


Mr. BEL  AND@: I think it is customary to provide such a clause in every bill, that the governor in council shall make the regulations. It is not the desire of the government, nor do I think they would have the power, to direct what the board of trustees should do in the distribution of the money. The nature of the work to be undertaken with the money in their hands would be entirely for the board of trustees to decide, but the regulations will set a certain procedure to be followed, which I take it would not in any degree interfere with their free action.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As I understand it, the purpose of these regulations is to prescribe in a more or less routine manner the method by which the money shall be placed in the hands of the trustees. I take it that the regulations will not control either the destiny or the expenditure of the money but that this will be left to the board of trustees in the discharge of their duties under the act.


James Arthurs: When this matter was up before, I stated that I was strongly in favour of the act as it stands and that I thought there should be as few restrictions as possible of the actions of the board of trustees. As I said then, and as I repeat now, we have had great difficulty in this House in deciding how to dispose of these funds which have been a trust with the government for some years. I would point out however that when these regulations are mentioned absolutely nothing is said about the amount of $100,000 for the adjustment board; no regulations are prescribed governing the manner in which that money should be spent. As an hon. member has said, we object strongly to that section, and I personally think it is a mistake that any portion of the money should be used for the purpose provided; it should be a general charge on Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Expenses charged to allotment.
Henri Sévérin Béland: It will be necessary to make a slight amendment to this clause. The section as amended should read:
The expenses incurred by the central board of trustees, and the board of trustees for the Yukon territory, and any provincial board of trustees in connection with the said trust shall be a charge on the allotment.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Wherein does
section 9 differ from sub-section (b) of section 6?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It differs inasmuch as it
adds the Yukon territory.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The change made in section 8 is I presume to meet the new idea with regard to the Yukon?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the only change.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Vacancies.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I move that section 10 be amended to read as follows:
Any vacancy in the membership of the central board of trustees, or of the board of trustees for the Yukon territory, due to death or resignation, may be filled by the Governor in Council, and any vacancy similarly caused in the membership of a provincial board of trustees may be filled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-General principles of allotment.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I move to amend the first paragraph of this section to read:
Without limiting the powers hereby conferred on the Governor in Council or on the Lieutenant Governors in Council, the following general principles shall govern any distribution or apportionment of the amounts allotted to the board of trustees for the Yukon territory or to the said provincial boards of trustees.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
i
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-Reports to minister.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I move to amend this
section to read:
A report shall be made as of the 31st day of March in each year to the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment by the central board of trustees, by the board of trustees for the Yukon territory, by the provincial boards of trustees, and by any other bodies or organizations to whom allotment has been made, setting forth the work accomplished during the preceding twelve months, the amount expended and the balance on hand.
"Other bodies or organizations" probably includes the Red Cross in the United States to which a certain allotment is made by the bill.
Bill reported.
Annuities Act



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT 1908 AMENDMENT

James Murdock: That it 'is expedient to amend The Government Annuities Act, 1908, to provide that an annuity shall not be granted or issued for an amount less than ten dollars a year.
He said: At present, Mr. Speaker, the minimum government annuity that can be purchased is $50. The proposal is to permit the purchase of a government annuity of $10, one of the important reasons being that we find a number of employers throughout the country would like the opportunity of purchasing, for an old and valued employee maybe as a Christmas present, a straight $10 annuity, but $50 they consider a little too large. Preparatory to such an amendment as this, we have had on deposit for quite a while from one concern alone a sum of money for the purchase of these smaller annuities, and we think it will enlarge the usefulness of the Annuities Act to make this amendment.


Arthur Meighen: There seems to be no
objection to the amendment, except that it will doubtless add substantially to the clerical work.


James Murdock: I am told that it will
not. I have before me a brief statement of the single cash payment required to be made on plan "A", "B" or "10-year guaranteed" which I think would be of interest to hon. members.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest that the minister place the statement on Hansard.


James Murdock: It shows the cost of a $10 or a $50 annuity under the various plans.


Arthur Meighen: What is the interest
basis?


James Murdock: Four per cent. I will
place this memorandum on Hansard if there is no obj ection:
Memorandum of the single cash payment required to be made on plan "A", "B", or "10-year guaranteed" by a man of 21, 26, 35 or 45 to secure at 65 an annuity of $10 or $50.
		$10			$50	
Ago	"A"	"B"	"10-year Guar."	"A"	"B"	"10-year Guar.'21	$15 70	$ 8 25	$18 65	$78 51	$ 41 25	$ 93 2426	19 10	10 38	22 69	95 52	51 89	113 4335	27 19	15 83	32 29	135 96	79 14	161 4545	40 25	25 88	47 80	201 25	129 38	238 99
Under plan "A", in event of death before 65, the purchase money with 4 per cent compound interest will all be returned to the purchaser or his legal representatives. After 65, annuity ceases with the last payment received by the annuitant prior to his death.
Under plan "B", in case of death before the annuity begins, there will be no return of any part of the purchase money.
Under the "10-year guaranteed plan", in event of death before 65 the purchase money with 4 per cent compound interest will be returned. If the annuitant lives to be 65 the annuity will be paid in any event for 10 years, and will be continued as long thereafter as he may live.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Murdock thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71 to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1,908.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. '


Hewitt Bostock: It is six o'clock. Shall we adjourn?


Arthur Meighen: I hope the government does not propose to ask members 6 p.m. to come back to-night. We may come back physically, but we would' hardly come back with our faculties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there are a few resolutions on the order paper that we wish to deal with.


Arthur Meighen: Why not go ahead for a little while now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker, if the House approves.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent,
we will go ahead for a little while.



PUBLICATION OF THE STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41 respecting the publication of the statutes.
Arthur Meighen: The minister may have explained this bill before, but I could not have been here. What is the nature of the bill?


James Murdock: I am told by the King's Printer and others having to do with the publication of the statutes that in a number of particulars the present act is obsolete and unworkable and has not in some particulars been observed in accordance with the actual text for a number of years.


Arthur Meighen: Could the minister give an example?

Publication oj Statutes


James Murdock: For instance-


Arthur Meighen: The Wheat Board Act would be an example, would it not?


James Murdock: No. This bill of course would not have to do with that measure.


Arthur Meighen: I meant an example of a statute that never had worked and was unworkable now.


James Murdock: No, I think a little later we may be able to show that that act has worked to some extent. But We are not dealing with that now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is optimistic to-day.


Arthur Meighen: That act is dead now.


James Murdock: For example, section 7 of the act is said to be out of date, and it is proposed to insert these words:
The clerk of the parliaments shall also furnish certified copies of the acts hereinbefore mentioned to any department of the public service of Canada or of any province or territory within Canada, or to any person applying therefor.
Then in section 10, which provides for the printing and binding of the statutes, the underlined words "part" and "parts" replace the words "volume" and "volumes", and the word "and" replaces the word "or". For many years the practice has been to bind1 only one volume but occasion may arise when it will be necessary to have, a second volume bound and the change has been made accordingly.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Certified copies of acts to be furnished on application.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a change in this section that might be explained.


James Murdock: That is the change I referred to a short time ago. It is desired to make clear to whom the clerk of the parliaments should furnish certified copies of any of the acts mentioned in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Certificate to be inserted at the foot of every copy of acts required to be certified.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no change in this, I think?


James Murdock: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Certified copy of every statute to be furnished to the King's Printer.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a change in this.


James Murdock: There is a slight change. The words "part" and "parts" are inserted for the "volume" and "volumes".


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is section 10.


James Murdock: Subsection 2 of section 10.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Acts to be printed in two separate parts, what each shall contain.
Arthur Meighen: What is the effect of the Change in section 10?


James Murdock: This provides that the
two parts referred to in subsection 1 shall be bound together in one volume unless it is impracticable or inconvenient so to do; in such case the King's Printer may authorize the same to be bound in two or more volumes. It simply gives the reasonable latitude that has already been allowed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the practice now?


James Murdock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-How statutes shall be printed and bound.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we changing the type at all?


James Murdock: As hon. gentlemen will
see by the marginal note, the amendment discards obsolete printer's phraseology and substitutes modern trade terms. The reference to binding conforms to the practice of the past few years. The quantity to be bound in half-calf will be specified by the Governor General in Council, the joint committee on Printing having taken no action upon these lines for many years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the
minister tell us whether in changing from old terminology to modern terminology we are going to change the character of our printing? I apprehend not, but I want to know from the minister.


James Murdock: Not at all. We are simply legalizing by the act what is now being done and has been done for years.
Publication of Statutes


Arthur Meighen: Was not the act more
thorough as it was originally?


James Murdock: No. It is thought that
this is more concise and more nearly in accord with existing practice.


Arthur Meighen: This act seems to be
for the purpose of legalizing violations of the law which have taken place for years.


James Murdock: The right hon. gentleman may be right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Payments to be made by a promoter.
Arthur Meighen: Who fixes the charges
for the statutes?


James Murdock: The Clerk of the House.


Arthur Meighen: The House of Commons?


James Murdock: The House in which
the legislation is introduced.


Arthur Meighen: No, I mean for the
revised statutes.


James Murdock: Those will be fixed by
the committee on Printing and Stationery I think, and approved by the Governor in Council.


Arthur Meighen: Does the statute fix,
and if so in what section, who are entitled to the statutes free? If the statute does not fix it, who has authority to do so?


James Murdock: I am not just clear
about that. I am of the opinion that it is fixed under another regulation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I recollect
it, the statute does not cover the question of cost at all. As we have it to-day the question of cost, I think, has to be fixed at the time the private bill is submitted. I think that is correct; I do not think it is in the statute anyway. I suppose the change here transfers the authority to fix the amount to be paid for private legislation from the King's Printer to the Clerk of the House, who is in custody of the legislation. Am I right?


James Murdock: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is the practice
now as to the distribution of the statutes year by year, and as revised? There are certain parties who get them free and others who cannot. How is that regulated?


James Murdock: By the committee on
Printing and Stationery. There is also, I believe, a regulation prescribing to whom the King's Printer shall issue the statutes free and whom he shall charge.


Arthur Meighen: Then, as a matter of
fact, the list of those entitled to free distribution of the statutes is under the control of the joint committee on Printing?


James Murdock: No, I would not say
that. The regulations governing the King's Printer determine who is entitled to free distribution.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I think the Revised
Statutes Act mentions certain classes of persons to whom the statutes are free, members of parliament, for instance-


Arthur Meighen: That is what I thought.


James Murdock: Clause 16 only provides for the publication of the statutes. It does not deal with the question that my right hon. friend has raised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hesitate to
take issue with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice upon a purely legal point with which he is very familiar, or with the minister in charge, but if we look at section 10, it will be seen exactly who is entitled1 to distribution, and' it will also be seen that the whole matter is in the hands of the Governor in Council, not the King's Printer. The Governor in Council has the responsibility thrown upon him under this legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is 'Covered by section 10. Those entitled are members of the two houses of parliament, "who shall each be entitled to receive such number of copies as is, from time to time, directed by the Governor in Council." I fancy everybody should have the same right. I do not know that the Governor in Council should have the right to give one member a dozen copies and another member none. Then also such public departments, administrative bodies and officers throughout Canada as the Governor in Council from time to time directs may receive free copies. That is quite right, but I think (3)
(a)	should be changed so as to give every member the right to one set of statutes.


James Murdock: I understand that is the regulation now, and this does not change that in any way. Each person entitled to one copy of the statutes now would still under the paragraph my right hon. friend cites be entitled to receive one copy.


Arthur Meighen: What I mean is it should not be put under the Governor in Council,

Publication of Statutes
it should be statutory, one copy for each member.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the order in council applies to all the' members and not to any special number of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really thought my hon. friends were so afraid of this order in council regulation and that sort of thing that they would like to get rid of it if they could. I merely point out that the Minister of Labour is not quite correct when he says this is the present practice, because if he looks at the note on the opposite page of his own bill he will find this provision:
The members of the two Houses of parliament respectively, who shall each be entitled to receive such number of copies as is, from time to time, directed by joint resolution of the said Houses, or in default of such resolution, as is directed by the Governor in Council.
That is how the matter has been dealt with before.


James Murdock: I think my hon. friend will find that this government, since taking office, has made no change in the regulations governing this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Cost of printing.
John Arthur Clark: What progress is being made with the revision of the statutes?


Ernest Lapointe: That is a question which should be addressed to me, although it has nothing to do with this bill. However, the revision is progressing favourably.


Arthur Meighen: Favourably for the commissioners or for the country?


Ernest Lapointe: For the country, I hope.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister say on what date approximately they are likely to be published?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say definitely now, but I hope to be able to give an approximate date before the end of the session.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say whether the work that was done-very intensive and I think very thorough work-by Mr. O'Connor has been cast aside or has it been utilized?


Ernest Lapointe: It has not been.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


Ernest Lapointe: For certain reasons. One of them is that we would have to pay to get the material from Mr. O'Connor.


Arthur Meighen: It would be far better to pay for the material than to get it all done over again.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the opinion of the officers of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. OOPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 47, to repeal the War Charities Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Act repealed.
Arthur Meighen: In introducing this bill
the minister explained that the act was intended for war-time only, or rather for the time usually embraced in that term, and that its usefulness had now been extinguished by time. The purpose of the law was, as I recall it, to keep some supervision over the creation and operation of various charities which were making insistent appeals to the public under the pressure of war influences, and imposing in very considerable degree upon the public. The act provided for registration of those societies, for returns from time to time of what they were doing, and generally protected the public against unnecessary and perhaps dishonest appeals. The minister explained that there was now only a small portion of these societies in existence which sprang up in that period, and of that small portion a great part was composed of the
I.O.D.E.'s-Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire. I quite agree that, as respects that association, at the present day there would be no need of supervision, but there might be need as to others. Perhaps the minister would tell us how many others there are, what they are, and about what the extent of their operations is.


Mr. COPP:: My hon. friend is right in
regard to the purposes of the act. It was intended during the war to keep a supervision over the operations of these various charities and to prevent them making appeals for charitable purposes and perhaps defrauding and imposing upon the public. During the time the war was on there were 846 charitable associations registered in the department for
Publication of Statutes

this work. Since the close of the war 631 have been removed from the register, leaving outstanding 175. Of these outstanding 143 are chapters of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. Thirty-two others are outstanding.


Arthur Meighen: What are they?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the names of the
organizations. Officials of the department tell me that there is very little being done in any of the organizations except the Daughters of the Empire, and that there will be no need to continue the supervision provided for by the act. The act imposes considerable work on these organizations. They have to make returns to the department every six months of the money they collect and what they do with it. It was thought it was no longer necessary to continue it in force. It is imposing a burden upon the associations.


Arthur Meighen: I can see the wisdom of relieving the Daughters of the Empire of an unnecessary obligation, but I should like to know what the other charities are before taking the hand of control off them altogether. There is no doubt at all that some years ago there was a great deal of imposition on the public- and there would be yet if there were not supervision-by these various charitable organizations. A large section of the public and unfortunately the very best section of the public, is very readily imposed upon; and, without question, the control which was exercised protected many people against possible fraud and certainly imposition approaching fraud. It may be quite true that very little is done now, but is it not likely that that is due to the fact that the supervision and control is there, and consequently people do not try to continue in that line? Would it not be better to pass legislation enabling the Governor in Council to relieve the Daughters of the Empire from the obligation, and at the same time maintain the power of control in the way in which it at present exists? I do not see any need of repealing the whole act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no particular need
of repealing the whole act, if the House thinks it better to have the control of these few other organizations outstanding. I have not the names of the organizations, but I shall be glad to get them for my right hon. friend on the third reading, if that is satisfactory, or if ihe so desires, I have no objection to letting the bill stand.


Arthur Meighen: We might rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again, for this reason. If the minister brings the list of
[Mr, Copp.j
these organizations, it might appear that the wise course would -be to give the Governor in Council power to relieve from making report such organizations as he decides. I know that would enable the Governor in Council to repeal the act; but if the list were before the House, the House might see fit to leave the control as respects all and sundry and' especially as respects new creations, because without question there would have been many more of these organizations over the 800 if it had not been for the check placed upon them by the statute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just reminded that
to-day or yesterday in the mail I received a circular-and this is a typical illustration of the point to which my right hon. leader is referring-of some institution or association in Toronto appealing for funds for the relief of starving children in Armenia. What struck me when I received this circular was this. I suppose the most notorious impositions and frauds have been perpetrated upon the people of Canada by persons purporting to be sponsors for the relief of Armenians. I do not know of any part of the world in connection with which more fraud has been perpetrated in the name of charity. Of course in some cases, perhaps many, the objects are ven meritorious and deserving. I wonder if the minister has received a similar circular, and if this is one of the charities that is now under control or license or whatever the form is. I wonder further whether any officer has actually investigated these people-they may be first class; I know nothing of them -to see whether they are truly meritorious. As I have already intimated, a frightful amount of fraud has been perpetrated on the people of Canada by spurious institutions purporting to be working on behalf of suffering humanity in some part of the world.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A copy of this circular may have come to the department, but I have not received one. I have no desire to press this legislation. My object is merely to get what would be best for all the charitable organizations that are doing work in this country and to protect as far as possible all the people who are giving to charity. The suggestion made by my right hon. friend might be a very reasonable one, to consider changing the act to such an extent that the Governor in Council could relieve certain organizations from giving reports. My right hon. friend desires to get some information with regard to some 32 organizations. In the meantime we can report progress.

Dairy Produce Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to make a suggestion in connection with the Daughters of the Empire. The position of my hon. friend, I understand, is that the reason this bill is brought forward is that the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire have many different organizations, and it is a hardship upon them and an expense to them to be compelled to make these reports.


Mr. OOPP:: One hundred and forty-three.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course we
know this is a very meritorious institution. The act itself defines war charities, mentioning " any fund, institution or association, other than a church or the Salvation Army." It starts out with some exceptions, and perhaps there are some later on. What I would suggest to my hon. friend is that he could well amend his bill and do what he wants to do in respect of helping the Daughters of the Empire by inserting after the word " army " in the second line of paragraph (b) of section 2, the words: "The Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire ". This would exempt them from the provisions of the act.
Progress reported.



DAIRY PRODUCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Dairy Produce Act, chapter 28 of the statutes of 1921, by providing that the Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations for refusing to grade dairy produce and for withholding grade certificates.
Arthur Meighen: I really do not know
whether this is very contentious or not, but coming as it does from the Minister of Agriculture, the presumption is that it is.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I do not think it
will be contentious.


Arthur Meighen: The present moment is
not a good time for precipitating this in the House. I presume all the minister wants is to get it to the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: I have discussed it
on the estimates before and the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) is quite agreeable to it.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will give the House the assurance that the hon. member for Victoria City approves it?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and I will
give the further assurance that I will refer
all these bills to the committee on Agriculture so that they will come back to the House.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair:


William Richard Motherwell: This is merely to
legalize what we are doing already, where a creamery individual persists in breaking the law, that is in adulterating either butter or cheese. Reports have come back from Great Britain that a few of our exports of butter and cheese have been adulterated. It sometimes pays the offender better to pay the fine than to stop the adulteration, and we want authority to refuse to grade these articles because we find that is very effective. We are doing this now, but somebody may challenge our right and we want to have that right.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister assure us that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is in favour of this legislation too?


William Richard Motherwell: I think he is. He is a good dairyman.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell, thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72, to amend the Dairy Produce Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT, 1907, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act, chapter 27, of the statutes of 1907, by providing,-
(a)	That, for the purposes of the act, canned foods shall include foods that have been preheated, cooked, preserved, condensed, evaporated, dehydrated, dried or otherwise processed or prepared for food, and are placed in any closed can, bottle, package or container;
(b)	That all canned fruit or vegetables or products thereof, or any food or food products which may be named by the Governor in Council, shall be offered for sale only in such cans or other containers as the Governor in Council may by regulations prescribe, and such cans or containers must contain the quality, quantity or weight prescribed by the regulations.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: I think we have rushed
through about as much business as we are justified in passing to-day. I do not like to take too much responsibility in this regard. Can the minister say that lhe has discussed this matter with the hon. member (Mr. Tolmie)?

Meat and Canned Foods Act


William Richard Motherwell: No, I did not discuss it with him but he is quite familiar with the act. This is not a new law; it was administered 'by his department. The amendment merely proposes to Change the basis of the can from so many cubic inches to a specific weight.


Arthur Meighen: It is impossible for one not recently connected with agriculture- and my very close connection with it ceased a little while ago-to measure the real importance of a resolution of this kind. Probably there are hon. members who can, but there are some hon. gentlemen who ought to be here when such a resolution is being considered and who are not now present.


William Richard Motherwell: I may tell the hon.
gentleman that I intend to ask that all these bills shall go to the Agricultural committee after the second reading. Thereafter they will come 'back here and go through committee of the Whole.


Arthur Meighen: I Shall be prepared to
let this resolution have the second reading but I hope that the government will not ask us to pass any other measures to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the reference to
canned foods in this resolution include canned salmon or canned fish generally?


William Richard Motherwell: No, that comes
under the Minister of Health.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister make
sure of that?


William Richard Motherwell: I will.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 73 to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act, 1907.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.
Monday, May 4, 1925