[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 220, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 221, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Elizabeth Ethel McSherry.-Mr. White.

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

Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	When was the embargo on Canadian cattle lifted by the British government?
2.	For what length of time was the embargo on Canadian cattle in force?
3.	Since the lifting of the embargo how many cattle have been shipped to Great Britain?
4.	What was the value of the cattle shipped by Canada to Great Britain since the removal of the embargo?
5.	What sums were realized (a) by the Canadian
railways:	(b) by the shipping companies for the
transportation of the cattle in question?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	First of April, 1923.
2.	Thirty years and five months.
3.	Up to May 31, 1925, 156,875.
4.	Estimated value in Canada, $14,135,715.
5.	No information.


MR. RATHBONE
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	Is Mr. Rathbone secretary of the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3. Is it any part of his duties to give interviews to the press telling the government's policy on grain matters ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,960 per annum.
3.	No, nor has the department any information that he has done so.


RURAL CREDITS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 237 to authorize advances to assist agriculture by providing for long form farm loans.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read the second time, will the government say that it is the only legislation of the kind that they have in mind, and if they intend' to christen it with the title, Rural Credits?


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for agricultural credits largely along the lines of the recommendations of Dr. Tory who made a report upon the subject to the Banking and Commerce committee. The fundamental principle of the bill is co-operatior. between the Dominion and the provinces. The bill provides that no advance shall be made to any province unless the province agrees that such advance shall constitute a debt of the province to the Dominion, secured by bonds of the province to an. amount equal to the advance. There is also a provision that as a condition of the advance the province shall provide by law a summary means of collecting both interest and principal satisfactory to the Governor in Council, and that no charge, lien, or other encumbrance representing any tax or other claim shall rank ahead of the first mortgage. This will probably require in some provinces a change in the provincial law.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has carefully dodged the question. May I put it this way: It is really only a joke to call this legislation Rural Credits. It is a loan to the provinces. Has any province asked for this?


James Alexander Robb: There have been representations made to us in this House by the representatives of different provinces.


Arthur Meighen: Have the representatives of any of the provincial governments asked for this legislation?


James Alexander Robb: I am coming to that in a moment. I am bound to admit that there is some division of opinion on the matter among the different provinces. Some already have a rural credit scheme, while others have a farm loan scheme; some have proved profitable, others not so. We advance this as a measure satisfactory to those hon. gentlemen who have been urging it upon us, and it will be for each province to determine whether or not it will enter into the scheme.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Have any of the provinces asked for this legislation? The question has not yet been answered.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, possibly I may be able to enlighten mv hon. friends to the right. The province

Rural Credits
of Alberta has passed legislation respecting long term rural credits, but the minister in charge, Hon. Mr. Brownlee, made it quite clear before the measurp passed the local house that to make it operative it would be necessary that they should be able to raise money by cheaper means such as through the Dominion government, than they are now able to do as a province. Whether the proposal of the minister will have this effect or not I cannot tell. All I have to suggest at the present moment is that if the loans to be advanced are not at any one time in the whole life of the scheme to exceed the sum of ten million dollars-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, for he is undoubtedly exercising his rights, but if there is no objection to the principle of the bill perhaps it would be wiser to go into the committee stage at once. Is that the desire of the House?


Arthur Meighen: I am content, as the bill has no principle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Edward Joseph Garland: I am willing to concede the government credit for savi lg itself in this matter, but frankly I do not look upon the measure as by any means ample enough to meet the requirements of an agricultural loan scheme for the Dominion. In fact, it will not meet a fraction of the needs. I am, however, not at this moment objecting to the little bit that is offered, especially as I hope that further reasons in the future will induce the government to realize that a ten-million-dollar loan will not in any way effe.t what is the chief purpose of the bill-the reduction of the interest rates on long tern mortgages. In Saskatchewan, under the run! credit system something over nine million dollars has already been loaned without materially, or indeed appreciably, producing any effect upon t'he level of interest rates on long term loans in that province. Dr. Tory, in cross-examination before the committee on Agriculture of 1924, made it quite clear that in his opinion it would require from sixteen to twenty per cent of the total amount of money now outstanding in farm loans to be loaned in competition under some government scheme to be effective in reducing interest rates.


Mr. EULER:: What sum would the hon. member suggest as being adequate to meet the situation?


Edward Joseph Garland: At this moment it would be impossible for any individual or for any government to determine exactly the amount of money that may be required.


William Daum Euler: Could the hon. member state approximately?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, not even approximately. Under the legislation now before us it is declared there Shall be a maximum amount, including principal and interest, of ten million dollars. I assert that that sum is inadequate.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. gentleman state the maximum sum?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I would put no maximum sum. I would leave th:s entirely to the discretion of the Treasury board.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad to note the renewed confidence of my hon. friend in the Treasury board.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend's confidence is based on something different from mine. I am satisfied that before very long the Treasury board will be acting along lines that hon. members in this corner of the House have advocated for some time.


An hon. MEMBER:: A new government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Possibly a
new government, too. But I would rather leave it to the discretion of the Treasury board to determine the amount of credit that should be extended to any province for a scheme of this kind. Other factors besides the mere provincial security would be taken into consideration. I do not want to delay the passage of this bill, but I wish the minister would give us the assurance that the amount of $10,000,000 is not to be regarded by him as sufficient to meet the competitive requirements of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. IRVINE:: Did not Dr. Tory estimate
the mortgage debt of the farmers of Alberta alone at something around $100,000,000 and suggest that it would require at least $20,000,000 to carry their current requirements?


Edward Joseph Garland: No. I
think the hon. member has in mind a statement that was made by the Attorney General of Alberta in the local House, Hon. Mr. Brownlee, who estimated two years ago that the outstanding long term farm loans in Alberta amounted to $100,000,000. Of course it was an estimate. Dr. Tory has estimated, I

Rural Credits
4S81
think, the mortgage indebtedness of the three prairie provinces at $250,000,000. If 16 or 20 per cent of that would require to be provided under some competitive scheme established under governmental jurisdiction, then certainly the measure before the committee is not adequate, if the $10,000,000 is to be a maximum at any one time, including both principal and interest. I trust that the minister will be able to give the assurance that he does not regard the $10,000,000 as being adequate to meet the amount that may be required to create competitive rates in mortgage loans.


William Irvine: Suppose that $10,000,000 is
put out under this scheme at approximately 7 per cent; twenty years from now we shall have over $10,000,000 in interest, so that would mean we are only lending the interest. If you keep on doubling the amount, I do not know what kind of system it will be.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Will not the interest have been paid year by year?
Mr. McTAOGiART:	Some provinces may
desire to take advantage of this scheme and others may not. Is provision made for a maximum amount which may be advanced to any one province?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Is it not a fact
that the provinces already have power to borrow money by loan upon the farm credit or rural credit system? If so, what is the object of this government borrowing money to lend to the provinces? Has any province asked for this legislation?


James Alexander Robb: I understand that seven provinces have rural credit schemes. It has been represented to us that money might be secured at a little lower rate of interest with the Dominion credit behind the bonds.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What provinces have
provision for rural credits?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the list before me.


Mr. VIEN:: All except Quebec and Prince
Edward Island. I know that New Brunswick has a different system from the other provinces.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In view of the statement made. I would like to quote the New Brunswick Act, because New Brunswick as a province has not a rural credit act. It passed an act in 1923 giving the municipalities authority to issue bonds and borrow money and set up municipal farm loan organizations. The thing was so impracticable that no municipality would undertake it. It would mean we would have fifteen farm loan organizations in the little province of New Brunswick, each with an overhead which would make it impossible to handle a farm loan scheme with any hope of success.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will admit that in New Brunswick the scheme was not a success because the municipalities refused to undertake the responsibility for the payment of capital and interest advanced to the farmers under the scheme.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the hon. member suggest that the municipalities take up a scheme like that?


Thomas Vien: Somebody should be responsible for the repayment of capital and interest.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The fact is that the
government of New Brunswick "passed the buck." I went before the provincial government three years ago with one of the biggest delegations that ever appeared before them for any purpose, to ask them to pass a farm loan act, and this is the gist of the act they passed:
Any municipality desiring to borrow money for the purpose of lending the same to farmers in such municipality may do so upon passing a resolution at any regular meeting of the municipal council of Buch municipality, or at a special meeting duly called for that purpose, setting forth that the municipality wishes to borrow a sum of money, not exceeding a specific amount, repayable annually at the rate of five per cent per annum.
The province did not even propose to lend money to the municipalities.


Mr. HOEY:: Did the province guarantee the municipal bonds?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, they simply granted the municipalities the right to issue bonds and go into it on their own account-a power which I think they had in any case. As I say, it was simply a matter of passing the buck.


Thomas Vien: Somebody has to hold the buck.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The expression is not a very elegant one, but if any more inelegant expressions were allowed it could be used in reference to this deplorable action on the part of the provincial government. Under this scheme our province will not get the benefit of this proposed legislation.


Thomas Vien: Why?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Because a government that will pass an act of this kind-and it is entitled the Farmers' Relief Act-


Thomas Vien: But they will adopt legislation if they choose.
Rural Credits


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am afraid they will not choose to; they never have chosen before. We asked our provincial government for bread and they gave us a stone. I am much disappointed. I thought from the research work that had been carried on by Dr. Tory and from the recommendations from the Banking and Commerce Committee along this line, this government would bring down a real rural credits act of its own, to be administered, possibly, by provincial boards. But this act will be of no benefit in New Brunswick, and I doubt if it will to any of the Maritime provinces. It may be of some benefit to some provinces that have rural credit acts in operation; it will enable them to secure additional money to carry on. I am surprised that there is not some limit set to the amount each province will be allowed to get from the Dominion government under this act. Suppose Ontario makes an application to-morrow for $10,000,000 under this act, what is going to happen?


James Alexander Robb: It will be at the discretion of the Treasury board, in which the hon. member for Bow River has such great confidence.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If that is the case, I have no fear of their getting too much money. In fact, I was surprised that the hon. member for Bow River would leave it to the discretion of the Treasury board, because if that is done. I do not think they would even get $10,000,000.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Dr. Tory was employed by the government to make a study of rural credits: he made a report, and in addition gave evidence before the committee on Agriculture. The suggestion that the federal government should go into the rural credits scheme on their own responsibility would meet with some opposition from provinces that are carrying on schemes of their own. ^In fact, that became evident to the government when this matter was being discussed, and the government thought it well to come to the assistance of those provinces who are desirous of getting help financially and who have rural credit schemes in operation.


William Irvine: Just in what way does the federal government through this bill help the provinces? As I understand it the provincial bonds are accepted by the Dominion government, and then the Dominion government issue other bonds to carry the debt. Why this double transaction? Why could not the provincial government issue their own bonds direct? If that is all the Dominion government is going to do, what is the advantage?
JMr. Vien.]


Charles A. Stewart: There is no advantage except that the credit of the Dominion government is behind the issue of the bonds, and that will reduce the interest charge for the borrowers. The whole hope of the scheme, if it is of any value at all, is that it will reduce the interest charge to the farmer borrower.


William Irvine: What is the difference at the present time between the interest rate paid on Dominion government bonds and on provincial government bonds? When we know that, we shall be able to estimate the amount by which the interest charges will be reduced by borrowing under this scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: If the provinces were to issue farm loan bonds of which they were the sole guarantors, my hon. friend might find the interest rate considerably higher than if those bonds were backed by the credit of the federal government. I think it goes without saying that the credit of the federal government will reduce the interest rates. If not, then I will say at once that there is no need of the federal government going into this field at all.


William Irvine: Is not that a matter that might be easily estimated?


Charles A. Stewart: I know what is in my hon. friend's mind, I think. His point is that the provincial bonds are selling almost on a par with federal bonds, and that therefore in the issue of farm loan bonds there is no advantage in having the federal government as guarantor. That, of course, is very largely a matter of opinion. My own opinion is that there will be advantage in having the backing of the federal government in the issue of these bonds covering farm loans.
But what I wanted particularly to say is this. I am more attracted to the scheme suggested and discussed and written about at some length 'by Mr. Petersen of Calgary. His scheme would provide for a system of rural credits that would be financed largely by the people themselves. Still, I know the difficulty in the inception of a scheme of that kind.
I do believe, however, that if the rural sections of Canada are to be successful in securing cheap money, it will have to be done in some manner other than continually leaning upon the credit of the provinces or of the federal government. We have a serious situation in Canada, particularly in western Canada, where the interest rates are much higher than in any other part of this country, where money is dearer, and transportation and living costs are higher, and relief in this direction I think should be extended to these provinces. I do

Rural Credits
not think it should be extended to them to an extent beyond what their credit will warrant. Under this bill the government are not taking any chance of having losses, but this step is being taken for the time being in order to inaugurate a system of this kind. We are loaning our credit to the extent of $10,000,000. It is true that $10,000,000 will not go very far in a scheme of this kind, but I think it will go far enough to meet the requirements at least of this year. It will take some considerable time to get the negotiations worked out between the provinces who are desirous of obtaining loans and the federal government. No one would argue that $10000,000 would be of any advantage at all if it were to be confined to that. I think Doctor Tory is well within the mark when he states that the farm loan indebtedness of the three prairie provinces is well over $200,000,000. Some years ago when I was premier of the province of Alberta-at the time, by the way, when our farm loan bill was passed-the indebtedness of the province of Alberta alone was then $60,000,000, so that to suggest that $10,000,000 would meet the situation is an utter absurdity. But I would like in the intervening period between this session and next to make some further study of the scheme. I see no difficulty in encouraging under provincial auspices, backed by the credit of the federal government farm loan societies much along the same lines as our rural credit societies are being carried on to-day. That is what I would like to see done, but I do think it is important that the credit of the federal government be behind the scheme in order to get the money at the cheapest rate.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not the minister aware that the legislation now on the statute books of Alberta proposes to do just that very thing-the organization of local credit societies with provincial backing, providing they can get money in co-operation with the Dominion government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask again what provinces have requested this assistance.


James Alexander Robb: I have already stated twice that representatives from different counties in different provinces have from their place on the floor of this parliament made representations to us in this matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Am I to assume, then, that there has been no formal request from the government of any province for this assistance? I would like to have the minister answer the question, yes or no.


James Alexander Robb: I am not going to make a reply to that question without reading carefully through my files again.


Arthur Meighen: The minister thinks possibly he could dig up some letter from a government. He knows just as well as he knows he is sitting in his seat that no government in the world has asked for this. He knows it is nothing more or less than grotesque for the government to introduce this as a rural credit scheme. A rural credit scheme is one thing, and a farm loan scheme is another. It would be almost a joke to describe this as anything at all, but the last thing in the world you could describe it as is a rural credit scheme. Manitoba has a rural credit scheme, and a farm loan scheme too.


James Alexander Robb: This act is to provide long term farm loans.


Arthur Meighen: Why all the use of this term "rural credits"? This has nothing to do with rural credits as commonly understood.


Thomas Vien: My right hon. friend is wrong.
The title of the act is "An Act to authorize advances to assist agriculture by providing for long term farm loans."


Arthur Meighen: I am quite aware that when it came to the title of the act the government got away from rural credits, but this was announced in the House as a rural credit scheme. The Prime Minister announced the government was going to introduce one. The government has not done so at all. This has no more to do with rural credits, as rural credits are understood, than has the bill about the Petersen contract.


James Alexander Robb: What is my hon. friend's idea of the difference between rural credits and long term farm loans?


Arthur Meighen: If the minister has not that in his own head he has not given much study to this subject. Rural credits in Manitoba are based on the idea of government cooperative units. They have been assisted by the provincial government and a special act is passed to provide for the administration of the funds entrusted to each on a co-operative basis. I know it has been a failure. I know that fifty-odd out of seventy-four are now in the hands of the provincial government as liquidator. But that is the rural credit scheme, good or bad. They have a farm loan scheme too, and I am not sure which has been the greater failure, the farm loan scheme or the rural credit scheme.


Mr. FORKE:: I think the farm loan scheme is all right.
Rural Credits


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me this
measure should have been entitled " An Act to relieve the Loan Companies of Bad Loans."


Robert Forke: That is all wrong.


Arthur Meighen: They were very, very
wretched loans, and I do not think the scheme has done any substantial good at all. It may not have been quite the failure the rural credit scheme was-the general impression in the province is that it is not-but, the rural credit scheme has been a grotesque proceeding in Manitoba. This government proposes to borrow ten million dollars to lend to the provinces, in order that the provinces will be ablp, I presume, to launch on the farm loan scheme, in the loaning of money in competition with loan companies. In the first place it resembles nothing so much as an attempt to ladle out the ocean with a spoon. Hon. gentlemen to my left should not take this too seriously, or be too technical in their objections to the different clauses. It will only be a waste of time. I wonder if anyone seriously thinks there will be a dollar loaned under this scheme. Look at the minister smiling. He has not the faintest notion of lending a dollar.


James Alexander Robb: I am listening to the argument of my right hon. friend. That is why I am smiling.


Arthur Meighen: He has no notion of
lending a dollar to any province under the bill. There are clauses in the bill which give him the absolute control, and he can sit tight and do as he likes, which will make the province hang right back and not even apply.


Robert Forke: What clauses?


Arthur Meighen: This measure says that the loan which the province makes is going to rank ahead of taxes and liens of any kind. How many municipalities are going to stftnd for that? However, we might as well pass the bill and get through with it. The result will be the same as if the bill were defeated. We can pass it and in that way defeat it. Hon. gentlemen probably desire to get home. This is so much propaganda, to cover the event of a possible election, so that the government will be able to say that they met the demands of the hon. gentleman from Bow River (Mr. Garland) for a rural credit scheme. That is the purpose of the legislation, no more and no less.


Robert Forke: The right hon. leader of the opposition is very sarcastic this morning in regard to this bill.


Arthur Meighen: Wait and see.
[Mr. Forke.J


Robert Forke: I think he is wrong in regard to the Farm Loan Association in Manitoba. I am fairly well acquainted with the work of that institution, and I think its loans have been made with just as much care as the mortgage companies loans have been made, and perhaps the association is in better condition as far as the farm loans are concerned than the majority of the mortgage corporations in Manitoba.
The rural credit scheme is on a different footing. I have no fault to find with the Rural Credit Act in Manitoba, but I have fault to find with the way it has been worked out. I do not care what laws or what acts you have, there is always a human element-that enters into it. and that is where the Manitoba rural credit scheme has fallen down. The local board has been t-oo sympathetic and too ready to make loans. There is another situation that has rather worked against the successful carrying out of the act. The act came into force at the time when prices were very high, and loans were largely made upon the valuation put upon the property by those seeking the loans. While the loan was perfectly safe at that time, according to the valuation that had been made, in a year or two, when values had shrunk very rapidly the loans were not so well secured and no doubt there has been a loss. The weakness of the whole situation has been that the local board has not been selected with sufficient care. I do not think it is wrong for me to say here that in some cases local merchants and others who were interested in collecting the debts from those who were borrowing money were on that board, and a favourite arrangement was to advise the borrower to consolidate his debt. That is to borrow sufficient money to pay off bis local debt, and then apply to the rural credit society. Hon. gentlemen can see how it worked out. He paid the debt, but left a large debt to the rural credit society, and they made failures, while the merchants got their money.
I have something to say about the trouble in borrowing money. The trouble in the west is that the security is not always good. You cannot expect to borrow money unless you are able to put up security.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: I think that is correct.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Everywhere.


Robert Forke: And that is really the crux of the whole situation. The serious state of the agricultural industry, and the difficulty in making agriculture a paying proposition

Rural Credits
brings up a serious difficulty in borrowing money for agricultural purposes. Loan societies, governments, or any other institutions like to see how their loan is going to be repaid. We find the west has got into difficulties. Farmers have got into difficulties and municipalities, provincial governments and other institutions, have tried to ease the load of the farmer as far as possible. We find the provincial government passing laws one after the other to prevent foreclosure, to make sure that those 'who have loaned money in any way can get it back at some future time. Consequently when you have that state of affairs interest immediately rises, and a difficulty in securing loans occurs. I do not think that we are ever going to have any successful borrowing or loaning institutions until we get things put on a more profitable footing.
Then the difficulty arises with regard to the occupation of agriculture. How are we going to put agriculture on a safe basis, unless we have funds? I hoped the government would have some scheme to bring before the House in order to show us some way out of the difficulty. There is nothing in the scheme that I can see to help us out, for the simple reason that if the security is good the provinces can borrow the money themselves, and if they have to become good for the money they might just as well borrow in the first place. I do not see that there is anything in this bill. I do not like to condemn it. It may be an honest attempt to relieve the situation. Ten million dollars may be only a beginning. The only point in my opinion is that if the Dominion government can borrow much cheaper than the provinces, it might be an advantage for them to borrow the money and loan it to the provinces. That is the only advantage that I can see in a scheme of this kind, but I do not know that they can borrow it so much more advantageously than the provinces. I agree with the criticism that has been made of the amount-ten million dollars.


Mr. McKAY:: What scheme of rural credit would my hon. friend advocate?


Robert Forke: I am not advocating any.
I know that it is very popular in some quarters. The only plan that I think would be feasible is the amortization plan of long term loans at low interest; but you must get security to carry out that plan, and that is why we emphasize so much in this part of the House the tremendous necessity of putting agriculture on a prosperous basis. The whole question arises simply because there is so
much difficulty about security. I seriously think the ten-million^dollar proposition is just a joke; it would not begin to do anything, so far as rural credits are concerned.


Matthew McKay: Referring to the system
adopted in the United States, of long term credits, can my hon. friend tell me how much the United States advanced to the federal
farm loan boards?


Robert Forke: I think that is a different scheme altogether and is not in the same position as this at all.


Matthew McKay: Why not advocate the same plan in Canada?


Robert Forke: That is a different thing.
The only proposition that I would advocate in the way of Dominion government loaning would be to loan, not ten million, but probably a hundred million-I would not like to mention the exact sum-and to loan that money under the amortization plan, namely loqg term loans at low interest. Perhaps it could be loaned at five per cent for twenty or thirty years on fairly good security. In that way I think something could be done to help the west. No ten-million-dollar scheme is ever going to accomplish anything at all. The Minister of the Interior says that this is a trial. Well it is a failure to begin with, if we only start with ten millions.


Matthew McKay: I have never spoken in the House before, and I only do so now because I have always looked upon the farmer as the Atlas, from an economic viewpoint, of the industry of the whole world. Holding that view, I think I should for a short time deal with the proposition before the House. Several hon. gentlemen have spoken slightingly of the amount proposed in the bill

S10,-000,000. If they would give some consideration to the long term credit system of the United States, they would think $10,000,000 would be ample to sustain the long term credit of the Dominion of Canada. I have before me the report of last year, that is Dr. Tory's first report, and I find that twelve federal land banks were established in the United States, these banks coinciding in position with the twelve federal reserve banks. I find the capitalization, money advanced by the federal government of the United States for each of these banks, was $750,000, making for the twelve banks a total of $9,000,000. That would appear to be a small sum to finance a mortgage scheme on the amortization plan for the whole of the United States, a country with about 115,000,000 people. But that grant has been ample. I 'hold in my
Rural Credits

hand t/he last report from the Secretary of the Treasury, and I find in it that the net mortgage loans to-day amount to $927,000,000 odd. The liabilities of the institution are farm land bonds outstanding, $914,000,000 odd. And the only capital held by the United States in these banks is $1,670,000. At no time have the United States been asked to advance more than their initial loan of $9,000,000. How has that been done? It has been done by a revolving scheme. I can illustrate that in a very few words. When a man gives a mortgage for $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 on his farm, that mortgage is turned into what is called a mortgage bond. Those mortgage bonds are sold' and, according to a letter I hold in my hand, those mortgage bonds in the United States are picked up like hot cakes. They have met with a ready sale from the very inception of .the scheme; so much so that many of those who hold mortgage bonds in the United States to-day can sell them at a premium.


Robert Forke: Why do those mortgage bonds sell at a premium.


Matthew McKay: Because the security is good.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not also because they are tax free?


Matthew McKay: I am aware of all those facts. I am well aware of the fact that the $9,000,000 advanced by the United States was advanced to the farmers free of interest. I am well aware of the fact that the bonds sold are free from federal, state and municipal taxation, indeed all taxation of any description whatever. Further, I know the Unites States government makes no demands in connection with the dividends accruing through this system. They have placed the farmers there on a very good basis. The money that was advanced to them cost the farmers not one cent of interest to the United States government, notwithstanding the fact that it cost the United States government between 3i and 4 per cent to raise the money. Why should any hon. member in any comer of this House object to that? That was something given to the farmers of the United States; were they not deserving of it? Could the man who is doing business under the sheltering aegis of a tariff of thirty-five or forty per cent complain? Certainly not. I advocate here today and I believe this $10,000,000 will be all that this government will be asked to advance. I would ask for the advance of that money without charging the farmers of this country one cent of interest. I would also advocate the American system of tax exemp-
tion on all bonds connected with a system of this kind. How can this be done? Every province, by this initial move, can stand on its own- feet as an individual unit. Why cannot the provinces institute a bureau in connection with their individual treasury departments? Why cannot they take these long term mortgages for twenty, thirty, forty or forty-five years, turn them into mortgage-bonds and sell them? Why cannot a scheme similar to the revolving system in the United States finance itself? I feel safe in saying that an average advance of $1,000,000 to each of the provinces will be amply sufficient to finance this whole scheme and bring relief to the farmers of the Dominion.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the hon. memfoer advocating the establishment of a rural credit system or a long term farm loan system similar to that in the United States?


Matthew McKay: I am confining my remarks
-and I thought I was quite clear-to what we call long term credits on the amortization principle. While on that point I should like to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that what we call the short term credits and intermediate credits, which are in existence in the United States to-day, have been in existence for only a little over one year- not two years yet. I have evidence in a work which I hold in my hand that the system so far, as the writer says, has not . proved an unqualified success. Hence I would not at the present time advocate a system of short term credits or intermediate credits as that system in the United States is now only on trial, having been instituted less than two years ago. I have a letter from a gentleman known to almost every member in this House, Mr. Tom King, and th:s is what he says:
Now, as I wrote you, the mortgages held by the federal farm loan boards only amount to $1,300,000,000.
That was the amount of mortgages held by the federal farm loan board in the United States. The farm mortgages in the United States amount to from $13,000,000,000 to $18,000,000,000, so that only a small part of the indebtedness is carried by the farm loan boards at the present time. As a matter oi fact, I believe it is only about seven per cent. Let me read from this communication from Mr. King. He says:
From the standpoint of the farmer, of course, it has been a great success. But you will be told in Canada that the United States treasury has been-depleted to lend all this money. Now, as a matter of fact, out of the nine million dollars voted less than. $2,000,000 was furnished bv the United States government.

Rural Credits
488?
I call attention to that fact:
When the banks were organized, the government *subscribed for stock to the amount of $9,000,000.
I would emphasize this point. All the stock has been retired with the exception of $1,870,000. At the inception of the organization the farmers were loaned $9,000,000; that was the limit. And of this amount the United States government advanced not more than $2,000,000. The farmers have paid back the whole amount advanced them, and they owe only $1,670,000 to the government. So that it is only a matter of two or three years until the system is self-sustaining, passing out of the hands of the government altogether into the control of the farmers. The scheme was so managed that the farmers were put in a position to finance it themselves within a short time, and will control it from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does the hon. member contend that this legislation now before parliament will inaugurate such a scheme as exists in the United States?


Matthew McKay: I am not pretending that for a moment, although as a matter of fact I think that you are getting something better. I believe that the $10,000,000 provided for in this bill is quite sufficient. There should be no necessity to call upon the government to advance one more dollar if each of the provinces adopting the scheme would establish a bureau in connection with the provincial finance department to manage the thing, as they will have power to do. No large organization will be necessary, and there is no reason why the scheme should not be successful if run on the same lines exactly as the one under the federal farm loan board of the United States. To me it is a simple matter. By converting the mortgages into mortgage bonds and selling the bonds the scheme can be made selfsustaining and more than self-sustaining.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member know that by this very legislation the money to be provided here is forbidden to be used in the way the United States board uses its funds?


Matthew McKay: I do know that the long
term credit scheme in the United States has so far proved an absolute success. There may have been a few foreclosures, but this is bound to happen anywhere, and the generai result has been so satisfactory that the organization has lost nothing.
We have in Ontario both a long term and a short term system and in connection with the long term loans there has not been the loss of one dollar on the part of the provincial government. I would however advocate a system somewhat different. The land is valued in Ontario by one valuator and improper valuations are apt to be made in some cases; but in the United States three members of the local board appraise the land, and in addition there is a federal appraiser who visits the various units and makes an independent valuation. The long term system in Ontario has been an undoubted success, and I see no reason *why this scheme should not be equally satisfactory, especially if we adopted some system such as they have in the United States. It would take some time to organize it properly but we have the United States model to copy from. And they have the best rural credit system in the world.


Robert Gardiner: Would the hon. member call the United States rural credit system a national or a state system?


Matthew McKay: It is of course a national scheme, but I am convinced that the plan proposed in this legislation will be successful. So far as I am aware, there is no demand on the part of the Ontario government for any help or direction from this parliament, nor is there such a demand from the province of Quebec. Indeed, I do not think that there is any practical demand from any province of the Dominion for federal control. Some of the provinces may be so wedded to their own schemes that they would not care to adopt a federal system, and I do not think that the Dominion government would be acting wisely if it superimposed any national scheme upon the local units. I am sure that if we adopted in each of the provinces some system corresponding to the federal system cf the United States, the small sum of $10,000,000 would be ample to finance the individual undertakings in such a way that the active units would be able to pay back the money to the Dominion in a few years, become self-sustaining, and pass entirely into the control of the farmers themselves.


Mr. SPENCER:: I want to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on bringing down this bill, but I must express regret that he has seen fit to introduce, forty-eight hours before prorogation, a measure of such importance. A better act than this has been asked for during the past three years by members of western Canada and it is not in the interests of the country that legislation of this importance should be brought down in the last hours of the session and possibly of this parliament. Rural credit legislation is asked for by the people of the west particularly, for the simple reason that

Rural Credits
the present banking facilities are not in the best interests of agriculture. The time limit on notes is too short, the interest rates are too high, and the renewals are too uncertain. With regard to chattel mortgages, also, the time is too short, the interest rates and expenses are too high. It is for these reasons that for some years past there has been an agitation for a system of rural credits. We have continually asked this parliament for a measure of relief. We all know that agriculture has been going through a very strenuous time during the past several years. We have asked for bread; in this bill we have been given a stone. As the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says, it is doubtful whether a single dollar will be asked for under this legislation, surrounded as it is with so many restrictions.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) wanted to know if the provinces had made any demand for such legislation, and the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. McKay) asked the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) if he had any scheme to suggest. Now, I am going to place before the House a very carefully thought-out scheme that has been put forward by the Alberta Provincial U.F.A. Convention, -which has been asking for rural credit legislation, but before doing so I want to refer to the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Renfrew that for a rural credit scheme we should issue tax-free bonds, x do net agree with him. I think tax-free bonds are absolutely wrong. It simply means that men with surplus wealth would invest in those bonds, their investment would not be taxable, and the extra taxation would have to be paid by the masses of the people who cannot so well afford to shoulder the burden. The scheme to which I referred was put forward by the United Farmers of Alberta at their annual convention, extending from January 20 to January 23, 1925, and is contained in the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:
Whereas the question of rural credits and the relief of agriculture by providing cheaper money for farmers, has become within the past ten years one of the chief economic problems of this continent, and in this country has now reached a condition so acute as to become a national crisis; and
Whereas, efficient methods of meeting this situation can only be inaugurated by action by the Dominion parliament; and
Whereas the Finance Act, 1923, provides that advances of Dominion notes may be made to the chartered banks by the Treasury Board on the deposit of approved securities, among which as listed and actually received by the board, provincial bonds are deemed to be of the first rank as security, such securities held by the Treasury Board taking the place of any gold

redemption reserve in so far as such issues of Dominion notes are concerned, and
Whereas, such provincial bonds when deposited with the Treasury Board by the province are of exactly the same value as securities as when deposited by a bank;
Be it therefore resolved that this convention urge upon our federal representatives to use every effort to have action taken at the coming session of parliament to inaugurate a system of rural credits embracing the following principles:-
(a)	That the provinces be given the right to obtain from the Treasury Board, on the deposit of provincial bonds as security therefor, advances of Dominion notes for the purpose of rural credits.
(b)	Such right of a province to obtain such funds to take effect only on the passing of a resolution by the provincial legislature in favour of such action.
(c)	That interest on such advances be paid by the province to the Dominion at such rate as may be agreed upon, having in view the cost of establishment and operation of the system, such payments to be applied on the reduction of our national debt.
(d)	Such funds so obtained to be loaned to actual farmers on first mortgage security under strict .government supervision and appraisal up to fifty per cent of the appraised value of the land, such appraisals to b - based on the productive value of the land.
(e)	Such funds to be loaned at a rate of interest not exceeding one per cent greater than the rate paid by the province.
(f)	Loans to be made on a long term amortization plan of such length that the combined payment on principal and interest shall in no case exceed an additional payment of one per cent of the total indebtedness.
The United Farmers of Alberta have for several years past gone on record as advocating that a provincial bank should be established to relieve agriculture in the province. But it was recognized from what took place before the Banking and Commerce committee in 1923 that even if a charter was asked for to establish such a bank there would be very little chance of getting the measure through this parliament, and that was one of the reasons why at their last convention they decided to ask for relief through some other channel. Hence the resolution which I have placed before the House.


James Alexander Robb: Is that a provincial or a local body?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Provincial. It was the intention to send a copy of the resolution to the Acting Minister of Finance, but it was thought that as the matter would probably come up before the Banking and Commerce committee it would be preferable to have the federal members from Alberta bring the scheme before the committee for discussion there. Unfortunately, we did not have that opportunity. I sincerely hope the Acting Minister of Finance will give the resolution his careful attention.

Rural Credits


James Alexander Robb: But my hon. friend admits now that the resolution was never sent to the Department of Finance.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Usually copies of all resolutions passed by the provincial association at their conventions are sent to the ministers of the various departments in Ottawa. If this course was not followed with respect to the resolution it was an oversight.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the minister upon the great courage he has had in bringing this legislation before the House and calling it a national farm loans scheme. As far as I am concerned, this legislation does not begin to touch the question at. all, and I do not think the minister realizes the tremendous problem that we have in western Canada to secure money for farmers at reasonable rates of interest. True, this measure may be a beginning towards that desirable end, but, not having any idea as to what is the ultimate intention of the minister, it is hard for me to accept his proposal as being even a beginning in the direction of long term farm loans.
Under our banking system, to all intents and purposes we turn over the total credit of Canada for the use of the banks, and in that connection we have what is known as the Finance Act of 1914. Under that act, which came into force because of war conditions, the chartered banks were empowered to obtain in advance of Dominion notes on depositing certain approved securities with the Treasury board. In the first place, these dominion notes are issued against the total credit of Canada, and all the producers in Canada are responsible for the creation of that credit. The basis of real credits in this or any other country is the ability to produce and deliver goods and services, and just to the extent that Canada can produce and deliver goods and services, to that extent only has Canada a real credit. Take agriculture, for instance; we probably produce very nearly half the real credit for Canada, yet when we want to put a portion of that credit into circulation we must go to a bank or some other financial institution, we must do that before we can use the real credit that we have produced. Under these circumstances it is impossible for agriculturists in Canada to get money at a reasonable rate of interest. In view of the fact that the banks have the privilege of taking provincial bonds to the Treasury board and securing an issue of Dominion notes against that provincial security, why should it not be just as feasible to allow the provincial government to place their bonds with the Treasury board and
receive a similar issue of Dominion notes for the purpose of making long term farm loans? Is there any reason why the provincial government should not do that? By that means the man who produces the real credit, the farmer himself, would be in a position to put a portion of his credit into circulation, and he could put it into circulation at cost. We have a financial system here in Canada that is laying a heavy hand upon the producers, and I am satisfied that before very long we will have to take drastic steps to get away from the heavy load we are carrying. I am willing to accept this legislation as far as it goes, but unless it is followed by something more effective it will not begin to cure the disease we are suffering from at the present time. This country is spending annually something like $3,500,000 to bring in immigrants, and what position are they in when they come here? If they have a little capital and desire to take up farming, they immediately become indebted to these loan companies for advances of money at high rates of interest. I am satisfied that no immigration scheme, unless it is linked up with a reasonable measure of rural credits in order to give these people a start, can be the success that we would like it to be. While this legislation is a beginning, I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration to a greater extent than he has done in the past and see if he cannot evolve some national rural credit scheme that will give the farmers the money at a reasonable rate of interest.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: In venturing a few remarks on this bill I hope the minister will not regard my comments as being of a destructive nature. I propose to deal with it from what I consider a constructive standpoint. The necessity for some form of rural credits is universally recognized in Canada. In his report Dr. Tory said:
It must be obvious to any one who gives this question serious consideration that some immediate improvement in methods of agricultural finance is imperative if Canada is to maintain her place in world agriculture. .
I notice a great deal of propaganda in the press lately condemning the principle of rural credits. It is pointed out by representatives of the mortgage companies that there is no necessity for a rural credit system because there is plenty of money on the market today. I do not think that is denied; I think we all recognize that there is sufficient money in Canada. But that is not the problem that the farmer has to face; the point is that he has to pay eight to ten per cent for the money, and that is the great problem that he
Rural Credits

has to grapple with. I notice that the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Association, whose head office is in Toronto, presented a memorandum to the government some time ago setting forth certain reasons why in their opinion the government should not undertake anything in the way of rural credits. This association of mortgage companies has been more concerned, I think, in maintaining high rates of interest than in trying to assist the country generally. It is commonly said-and I notice it is set forth in this memorandum presented to the government-that the farmers to-day are suffering from too much credit rather than not enough. I do not know that that is denied. There was a period during the war and immediately succeeding the war when there was too much credit in the country, and that applied to manufacturers, to business men and to railway corporations as well as to farmers. Then there was a period when our currency 'was inflated to such an extent that there was a surplus of money in the hands of these corporations, and they had to get it out. They got it out in the best way they could, and succeeded in getting the whole community into debt. What we are trying to deal with to-day is not to secure more money for the farmers. I want to make it clear that the farmer is not asking for more money, and I do not understand that it is the policy of the government to lend more money to them. The idea is to give the farmer an opportunity to borrow the necessary money to pay off his present indebtedness and spreading it over a long period of years at a greatly reduced 'rate of interest. I appreciate, of course, the fact that the government have done something, and I appreciate it more because it is a recognition of the necessity for rural credits measure than for what is actually contained in the bill before us. I hope it is the beginning of a larger plan that will eventually solve the problem so far as our farmers are concerned. Dr. Tory, in his report presented to parliament in 1924, dealt particularly with land bank system of the United States, and I think he made it clear to anyone who has intelligently studied that report that the problem has been dealt with very efficiently in the United States. He points out that the mortgage companies in Canada to-day are operating under a tremendous expense. They are suffering from what the Iron, member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has repeatedly pointed out in this House that the railways are suffering from-to much duplication. You will find five, six, seven or eight, sometimes nine or ten mortgage companies operating around one small village in western Canada, 
with seven or eight different appraisers going into that district every year to collect, to appraise the land and generally to oversee their business. That, to my mind, is the fundamental problem. Now, by pooling all these organizations their expenses could be cut down to a very great extent, and that is the principle on which the land bank system of the United States is based, namely, to cut out duplication by consolidating all these organizations and thus to reduce the cost of interest to the farmer. Now, in dealing with the land bank system of the United States. Dr. Tory said:
I think it cannot be denied, referring especially to Western Canada, that the mortgage business is conducted in an exceedingly expensive manner, and that reasonable co-op ration between land companies might greatly reduce the present cost of administration. The federal land banks of the United States are to-day conducting their business on a margin of one per cent and are setting aside out of that a considerable margin for possible losses.
He points out further that every country in the civilized world has ultimately been compelled to take such steps as this. He points out also that the federal land banks have conducted the business at a cost of one per cent and have paid back, in addition to interest on the capital stock which is held by farmers, almost the entire loan advanced to the land banks by the federal government. Now, my complaint with regard to the policy adopted by the minister is this: that the farmer is put in the humiliating position of borrowing money direct from the government treasury. I do not think that is a sound principle. I do not think the farmer should be loaned money direct by any government. What they are asking for and what Doctor Tory particularly recommended is that legislation be put through this House that would enable the farmer to stand fairly and squarely on his own feet, that would enable him to pool his own credit. The question may be asked, why cannot the farmer do that to-day, why cannot he do it without coming to this House for legislation? He cannot do it for the simple reason that the government has been responsible for a bank act which gives a monopoly of the handling of money to certain corporations, and before we can build up this land bank system it is necessary to have some legislation that will enable the farmers to do what the farmers of the United States have done in recent years, and what the farmers of Germany did over a century ago. This land bank system would 'be built up entirely by the farmers themselves. Each farmer asking for a loan would be compelled to leave five per cent of that loan in the

Rural Credits
treasury of the bank. Now that becomes capital stock. The farmer would be given a stock certificate for the amount, and when loans are asked for, a bond issue would be floated at the most convenient point in the country, the point where money was the most plentiful, and the loan would be issued, not against one farm mortgage-there would be no loan to one farmer by a man purchasing a bond direct-but the loan would be against the pooled credit of thousands of farmers.
Now the difference between such a system and the way the present mortgage companies do business is this. The mortgage companies loan to one single farmer. That farmer may be a poor farmer, he may fail completely, he may allow his taxes and interest to run into arrears until finally, when he is closed out, the mortgage company suffers a heavy loss. On the other hand, he may be a good farmer; it may be that he has done everything that he could possibly do, but that his particular district has suffered from hail, or frost, or rust, or some of the other thousand and one ills that agriculture is heir to. Under the particular system I suggest the purchaser of a bond in Montreal or New York would have as his security, not the earning power of one particular farmer, but the joint earning power of thousands of farmers, and if one of these mortgages had to be foreclosed, the loss spread over thousands of cases would be so small that it would be infinitesimal so far as the bondholder is concerned.
In addition to that, each farmer would have five per cent of his loan as stock in the bank. That is additional security, because the assets of the bank stand behind these bonds. That looks to me as a perfectly sound principle, a principle under which the farmer is enabled to stand fairly and squarely on his own feet, dnd not to have to lean on either the provincial or the federal treasury. The government would simply provide the necessary legislation to enable him to do that, and instead of having half a dozen or a dozen loan agents travelling around one little district in western Canada as they are doing to-day-I have seen as many as three at one time at a little country hotel doing the work that one could have done-instead of that, you would have one big organization controlling it all, thereby cutting out all this unnecessary duplication. That, to my mind, is a sound principle and that is really what the farmer is asking for to-day.
In the papers in eastern Canada-because I realize this is not so much a problem in eastern Canada as it is in the west-there is 312
a continual propaganda being carried on to make it appear that the federal government is simply bonusing bankrupt and down-and-out farmers of western Canada, and complaining of the injustice that is done to people in this section of the country in having to lend money to these men, who, they say, have squandered their holdings in riotous living. These articles in the papers in eastern Canada put the farmers of western Canada in a most humiliating position, a position they do not want to be in. I am quite sure that if the government built up the system that Doctor Tory suggests, the farmer will have to come here only when he has good security to offer, and he will secure his money at a very much reduced rate of interest and have payments spread over a long period of years. I do not know why some such system should not have been adopted. I appreciate the fact that it will take a considerable length of time to build up this land bank system, and probably the Acting Minister of Finance has decided in his wisdom that his present plan is merely an emergency measure, and that later on the question will be dealt with in this more constructive way. But I want to point out to him that we are losing valuable time. Doctor Tory points out that it is impossible for western agriculture to get on its feet and become re-established until some such system as this is evolved, and I think we all realize that. We spend days and days in this House discussing the tariff and a good many other things that, after all, are secondary to this question of rural credits in so far as western Canada is concerned. It is not much use to hold out a reduction of the tariff to a farmer whose debts are all due, and whose interest rates are eight and ten per cent, and who knows that possibly next year or the year after he will be forced off his farm, that the mortgage company or the bank is waiting for some immigrant with a few hundred dollars to come in to whom they can resell his farm. The only thing that can appeal to that man is some system under which his debts can be spread over a long period of years and his interest rate be greatly reduced.
It is pointed out by Doctor Tory that the difference between the current rate of interest and the rate that is secured by the farmers under the land bank system in the United States-we will say 5i or 6 per cent-would in the course of thirty or thirty-five years pay off the whole principal; that is, if the farmer in western Canada who is paying 8 per cent on a loan to-day had that interest reduced to 6 per cent, and he still continued



Rural Credits
paying the same amount that he is paying to-day, that difference of 2 per cent applied annually on principal would in that period pay off the entire loan. That is the principle on which the land bank system is based. I hope that in dealing with the question, the government has not acceded too readily to the demands of the mortgage companies because, after all, these mortgage companies are not going to go out of business. If they have funds to invest, and most of them have funds that are handed* to them by insurance companies and trust funds of various kinds, these funds can still be invested in the bonds of the land bank system, and they will not have to have this expensive field service which they are now maintaining. I believe in the end they will be just as well off. The insurance companies and the trust companies would have their money invested in a much sounder and safer way than they are to-day. The farmers would be welded together in one great organization where they would have to stand or fall together. The farmer who. perhaps, was a little more farseeing, had a little better business judgment than his less fortunate neighbour would be obliged to keep supervision over that neighbour because under this plan he has some interest in his neighbour's loan. That is a sound principle, and I would heartily recommend to the minister that he consider this at some future time and try to build up a system on the basis of the American land bank plan.


Mr. JELLIFF:: This subject of rural credits which the government has introduced at the close of this session is a topic so large and important that the country in general should have a full knowledge of it and it should have thorough consideration on the part of this House. I do not understand the measure which is before us as a Dominion long term loan scheme at all. I think the minister has been a little unfortunate in choosing the title to his bill. I look upon it simply as a tender of more or less assistance to the provincial systems that are already operating, that are having difficulties at the present time in obtaining the funds for that purpose. As such, I want to commend the minister for bringing in this measure so far as it goes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where does it go?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I agree with the hon. member that it does not go very far, but I believe it will give considerable assistance during the present year if it is carried out. At any rate, I am going to commend the minister for taking some action in the matter.
TMr. Campbell.]


James Alexander Robb: I appreciate the kind words
that have been said. I notice this measure meets with very mixed support. The hon. member for Bow River would have no limit placed on the amount that we should lend.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister misrepresents me. I did not say I would place no limit on the amount to be lent. I said that I wouid leave the amount to be lent to the discretion of the Treasury board. That is quite a different thing.


James Alexander Robb: It is a different thing, as I will admit at once. The official leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) admits the want of success of some rural schemes and organizations in the west. He points out that one of the difficulties is lack of security. He looks upon the proposition now before the committee to lend $10,000,000 as a joke, and he goes so far as to say that the amount should be at least $100,000,000.


Robert Forke: I do not think I said that
exactly. I mentioned $100,000,000.


James Alexander Robb: I took the notes down. The
government, however, has put this measure forward in good faith after consultation with officials of the department as laying the basis for a long term loan act that would be advantageous to the farmers, particularly the farmers of western Canada. We have some other measures that are delayed. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


Robert Forke: I want to make a correction. I would not like it to go out that I said rural credit was a failure in Manitoba. The act is first rate and the system is all right. The local boards began inexperienced at a very difEcuE time and they made some very bad loans. There is no doubt about that, but the act is a good one and it will work out successfully in the future.
Progress reported.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 20 consideration in committee of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 21-Interval between nomination and poll altered.
The CHAIRMAN:: I think the other
sections up to this point have been dealt with. Section 21 has been allowed to stand.

Elections Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest that we should now rise. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has been going into this. He knows about the bill. I think he has been in conference with the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), and if he were here, I do not think we would have much delay in regard to it.


Mr. COPP:: I was going to suggest what
my hon. friend says, but it is clause 5 that we were in consultation about. We were agreed in regard to clause 21.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I move:
That section 21 be amended by adding the following words after the word "out" in line 29:
And further except those mentioned in schedule 5 a day twenty-one days before polling day to be named for the nomination of candidates in the electoral districts set out in said schedule 5.
In order to make that elfective it would be necessary to strike out the Athabaska and Peace river electoral districts in schedule 4. the two constituencies where only three weeks are given between nomination day and polling day. I have already pointed out that some polling districts have had trouble in getting ballot boxes in two weeks, and in the interest of all in all sections I think they should be given three weeks because of occasional bad roads and conditions which make it impossible to supply all polling districts with ballot boxes on certain occasions.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think my
hon. friend's point is covered by a previous clause which has been enacted and which enables the appointment of returning officers considerably before any election. The idea there was to meet the kind of problem my hon. friend has in mind, letting the returning officer get his ballot boxes and have everything on hand.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No. I
would like to explain to the Prime Minister how this works. Take for instance the last election in West Edmonton. The ballots have to be printed after nomination day, and we have a two-days-a-week service from Edmonton north over the railway running into northern Alberta, either to Waterways or Peace river. Going one hundred miles down the Peace river, by sleigh or otherwise, there is a period in the fall when the river is not open and the boats are unable to navigate, yet the ice will not bear a team. During that period it is very difficult to make the trip in ten days or even two weeks. In the spring when the ice is breaking there is the same trouble. That is the reason, I understand, that at the last election three or four 312i
polls down the Peace river did not secure ballots, although they had two weeks' time.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: My hon.
friend will realize that in the last election the returning officer did not know he was going to be appointed to that position until a short time before polling.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Oh, yes.


William Irvine: What difference does that,
make in regard to the ballots?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A great deal of difference, for the simple reason that if you have a permanent returning officer, such as described by the act. he will have to pick out his deputy returning officers for each poll.


William Irvine: You do not keep the ballots on hand?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, we do
not keep them on hand. My hon. friend is getting too gay.


Mr. SHAW:: Is it not a fact that the ballots will have to be printed after nomination day?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: And it is suggested that there will be a difficulty in getting the ballots to the polling place.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite apprehend that. My hon. friend said ten days might be occupied in doing that work.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The point
that must be kept in view in regard to that is this: Suppose all returning officers in Canada were appointed next month, they would have iall the preliminary work done and arrangements made. In addition to that, under former conditions, no returning officer could be picked out beforehand. Under the new act all that can be arranged and all preliminary matters provided in such a way that only under the most exceptional circumstances would it be possible that the ballots could not reach the polling place in time. It does not seem wise to butcher up the act by making exceptions for conditions which only arise under the most unusual circumstances.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should
like to point out that in this case the returning officer in the last election, Mr. Hunt, of Edmonton, knew his business, and it was not through any neglect or lack of knowledge or anything of that sort, 'but arose owing to the difficult conditions of travel from the city of
Elections Act

Edmonton to the Peace river and Fort Vermilion down the Peace river. We have a large settlement there, large enough to have an experimental farm, and they have a right to be protected so far as it can be done. In a constituency where to certain points the distance to be travelled is 650 miles from the point where the returning officer is located, it is not unreasonable to ask for three weeks' time, especially where the ballot 'boxes must be delivered by team.


William Irvine: Would the fact that the
returning officers are to be appointed beforehand make any difference?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: None whatever, because in this case the returning officer knew his 'business.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is t'he objection to the six weeks period we have had in the past?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have not had it in the
past, except in the last election, where it was provided that two weeks should expire between nomination and polling. Representations have come from a great many constituencies that that period is too long. Before the election of 1921 we had only seven days between nomination and polling and that provision was changed in 1921. In the great majority of constituencies throughout Canada it was recommended that seven days was a long enough period, but some of the larger constituencies such as those mentioned by my hon. friend are exceptions, and to take care of those constituencies the period is left at two weeks; in all other constituencies it is seven days, and that seems to be the consensus of opinion.


Mr. BRETHEN:: The minister said that
certain representations have been made for a change. What are they?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It was thought advisable, I understand, to have all the elections on the same day. That is why the period of fifteen days was put in the statute instead of seven days, which has always been the period since confederation. Why should 220 constituencies of Canada suffer by reason of the fact that in fourteen or fifteen constituencies seven days is not sufficient delay? It has been thought advisable to have the same system as prevailed in some other provinces. In the province of Quebec, in the large constituencies, nomination takes place seven days before nominations are made in the other ridings; so that the same end will be obtained and elections will be held on the same day. In some fourteen or fifteen constituencies
(Mr. D. M. KenneUy.l
nomination will take place seven days earlier. Surely fifteen days is sufficient time between nomination and polling, and I cannot believe that my hon. friend is serious in asking that three weeks should elapse between nomination and polling day. He does not want to be electioneering all the year.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am
serious, all right.


Mr. EVANS:: My hon. friend says 220
constituencies would suffer. In what way?


Ernest Lapointe: Because df the increased expense and trouble. Everybody knows that the real election starts on nomination day in most constituencies. Perhaps this is not the case in my hon. friend's constituency, but the big work is done between nomination and polling. We have to hold our committees in all the different places, and it is expensive for poor men like myself.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I desire to point out some objections I offered in the special committee to which this bill was referred. I think it is desirable that the day of nomination throughout the Dominion should be uniform, as is the day of election. The Elections Act as it stood before provided for fourteen days between the day of nomination and the day of polling, but the act as reported by the committee reduced it to seven, except as regards certain large constituencies named in the schedule. I contend that fourteen days is short, enough in any case. Let us see what the returning officer has to do. He cannot assume until after the nomination that there will be a contest. It is true, as pointed out by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou), that he can make a certain amount of preliminary preparation, but there is much to be done and much that cannot be done until after nomination. He must get. his ballots printed. Suppose there is no printing office where the returning officer lives-and this is not at. all improbable-he will then have fo get in touch with one probably some distance from his residence. As we all know, printing offices at election times are crowded with work; they have more than they can do. There is therefore always a delay in the printing of ballots at these smaller offices. When the ballots are returned to him, after perhaps two or three days' delay in the printing office,

Elections Act
the returning officer must stamp every one of them with a special stamp. Then he has to sort them and get them in their proper quantities for distribution to his deputies. He must also distribute his ballot boxes to the deputies, and the instructions contained in the act require that the ballot boxes shall be distributed by -mail wherever this is possible. Then he has to swear in his deputies and make all preliminary arrangements for the poll. If there is bad weather and the roads are in poor shape there may be delays in the mailing of the boxes, which must reach the deputy returning officer in time. This is unfair to the deputy returning officer, because if we allow only seven days between nomination and polling it will leave practically no time for him to become familiar with all his duties. And the act is not at all easy to understand, nor is it easy to comply with all its requirements. Formerly when the seven-day period was allowed, we all know, it often happened that the deputy did not get the ballot boxes until midnight of the day before polling, and he went into the polling booth poorly equipped for his duties. That will happen again. I fear therefore that we shall have very serious errors some of which probably will invalidate elections. There is not enough time if you reduce the period from fourteen to seven days.


Arthur Bliss Copp: As to the instructions to the
returning officer, they are given as soon as the writs are issued.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He will have,
no doubt, a certain circular containing instructions, but he will not have all the material necessary to equip himself properly for the discharge of his duties. There are certain other provisions of the act with reference to nomination day which I submit cannot be complied with in seven days. The statute provides that at least two days before polling the boxes shall be delivered to each returning officer. That cannot be done if we allow only seven days between nomination and polling; the returning officer will not have sufficient time to have the ballots printed, stamped and distributed in four days.


Ernest Lapointe: Plow was it done
formerly? In Ontario the time allowed was always seven days until the last general election. Were any elections invalidated as a result of the shortness of time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But this act is
much more complicated; there is much more to be done by the returning officer.


Ernest Lapointe: Not so far as the
printing of the ballots is concerned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has to stamp all the ballots, and that is a comparatively new provision; it was not done many years ago. I would refer the committee to page 125 of the Elections Act and the instructions therein given. It is there declared that two days before polling day the ballot boxes shall be delivered; and that cannot be done. The registrar is also required to deliver a list on nomination day; so the candidate will have it only seven days before the election. Schedule (a) of rule 15, at page 128 of the pamphlet copy of the act provides that on the twelfth day before polling day the revising officer shall perform certain duties, but he cannot perform those duties if nomination day is only seven days before polling.


Mr. HAMMELL:: Those would apply to
the old act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, they still
remain in the act.


William James Hammell: Are they not to be
changed according to the amendments?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If that seven
days stands, there must be a change, but the act does not refer to that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What section is my hon. friend referring to?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To rule 15 of
schedule A. It says that:
On the twelfth day before the polling day the revising officer shall,-
(b) deliver or mail by registered letter to each of the candidates a statement of such changes,-
And so on. The printing of these voters' lists is not to be done until after nomination day. How is that possible if the seven-day period stands? This whole act is framed on the'basis that fourteen days shall elapse between nomination and polling, and the duties are to be discharged on that basis. Rule 5 at page 135 provides that:
Every registrar having revised and corrected such retained copy of the voters' list compiled by him shall write at the foot of such copy and close to the last name thereon, on the ninth day before the polling day, a certificate in the form of (the certificate contained in said form No. 11 to this act. He shall also on rhe same day deliver or mail by registered letter to each of the candidates a statement of the additions made to and of the changes made in the list retained pursuant to these rules.
How can he do that if the nomination is not until seven days before the election? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it should be at least fourteen days as in the old act.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I had
something to do with this act when it was originally prepared and passed through the House, and at that time, after careful calcula-
Elections Act

tion, it was considered that fourteen days was the least time that could elapse between nomination day and polling day. The idea in the first instance was not to change the old seven-day limit, but it was found that the act could not be worked out in seven days, and consequently fourteen days was inserted. Personally, I am in favour of the seven-day limit if the act can be made workable under it, (but I see the difficulties which my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) has pointed out in regard to the duties which must be performed by the deputy returning officer twelve days before the poll and nine days before the poll. We shall not know twelve days before the poll who the candidates are if the seven-day period is allowed to remain. I discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer when the original bill was before parliament, and I also had a word with him on the subject yesterday. He seemed to think that the provisions of the act could be worked out in the seven-day period, but I must confess that in our discussion we entirely overlooked the provisions of rule 15-at least I did not bring it to his attention, nor did he bring it to mine. If rule 15 is to stand, certainly we must have longer than seven days between nomination and election. My own preference is for a seven-day period if it is possible.


Mr. OOPP:: Rule 15, schedule A, has been
amended, apparently with the intention of making it apply, but I fear the change has not been made satisfactorily.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would point
out that on occasions prior to this act which we are considering, our voters' lists were complete, in the rural districts at least. Under this act provision is made for the candidate to get the voters' lists on nomination day. What position is he in seven days before election? Fourteen days is short enough. I think it was very wisely provided that there should be a lapse of fourteen days in fairness to the candidate, to the officials and to the public.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Rule 15 in the old act reads
as follows:
On the twelfth day before the polling day the revising officer shall,-
(a)	initial all changes or additions made by him to each list of a polling division, and shall write and sign at the foot cr end thereof the words following-
And so forth.
(b)	deliver or mail by registered letter to each of '.be candidates a statement of such changes or additions as he has made in the lists of voters on appeal.


Hugh Guthrie: There will not be any
candidates then.
(Mr. Guthrie]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not only that,
Mr. Chairman, but following what the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) has just mentioned, there is clause (c):
-cause to be printed such number of such lists as the returning officer may advise-will be sufficient for the purpose of the election.
Now, he does not know that there will be an election. Only one candidate may be nominated, and therefore it would not be necessary to print any lists at all. The clause proceeds:	[DOT]
Such printing shall be superintended by the revising officer's clerk.
It would be unworkable. If this change is made we could not carry out either the provisions or the spirit of the act.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like again to make a plea for some of the constituencies in western Canada where I think the returning officers will find great difficulty in getting the ballot printed and distributed to all the polls within seven days after nomination. The constituencies of Maoleod, Red Deer and Strathcona run right west into the mountains, and in case of bad weather, some of the out-lying polls will have to be reached by team.	I do not see how it is going to
be possible in quite a number of cases to get the ballot printed and distributed to those outlying polls within seven days. I believe that we are simply inviting trouble if the government insist on the section going through as drafted.


William Thomas Lucas: Does the act state how many days must elapse between the date of the proclamation and the polling day?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no definite provision
in regard to it.


William Thomas Lucas: Did I understand rightly in
the debate the other day that an election might be held within forty-five days after
proclamation?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Forty-five days would be the
shortest possible time.
Amendment (Mr. Kennedy, Edmonton) negatived: Yeas, 28; Nays, 66.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In order to carry out the views which I have expressed-


Ernest Lapointe: I think I can make an
explanation which will meet my hon. friends objection. Rule 15 says:
On the twelfth day before the polling day the revising officer shall,-
(a)	initial all changes or additions...
(b)	deliver or mail by registered letter to each of the candidates a statement of such changes or additions as he has made in the lists of voters on appeal;

Elections Act
(c) cause to be printed such number of such lists a3 the returning officer may advise will be sufficient for th<* purpose of the election.
These are preliminary lists. Rule 16 says:
Upon completion of printing the revising officer shall carefully compare the printed lists with the originals in h-s hands, and make all necessary corrections. . . .
And twelve copies of such printed lists shall be sent to each of the candidates or their agents-that is, after the printing is done. Then, rule 17 says:
The revising officer shall so provide that the printing of such lists shall be completed and copies thereof be delivered to the candidates or their agents at least four days before the polling day.
These are the complete lists. I would point out that under paragraph (b) of section 2 of the act, the word " candidate " does not necessarily mean one who has been formally nominated on nomination day; it means one who has announced himself or has been announced as a candidate by his friends after the writs are issued. Under paragraph (b) of rule 15 these alterations and changes are to be sent by mail to persons who are known as candidates by the revising officer, and the printed lists are sent after nomination day to the candidates who are in the field. I do not think there is any conflict in the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How can the
returning officer know who is to be the candidate before the official nomination?


Ernest Lapointe: The bona fide candidate will let it be known to the revising officer that he is a candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit that that is not the meaning of the act. We must have something definite; we cannot leave it in the hands of the revising officer to send this to whom he desires and then say he did not know who were candidates. If we are going to have the seven-day term we will have to amend these rules, and that may be possible. But do not let us have a slipshod, slovenly way of dealing with a very important clause in the Elections Act.


Ernest Lapointe: The word "candidate"
under that rule has the same interpretation as it has in all the other clauses of the act.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that, but
there is no candidate legally until the nomination is made, and the act has been drawn with that end in view.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The returning
officer is required to print a certain number of lists which he may think necessary for the election and he is to do that on the
twelfth day before polling day. That provision was put in on the assumption that he knew fourteen days before the election day how many lists would be required or whether there would be a contest at all. He cannot know until the nominations are made whether or not any lists are going to be required.


Ernest Lapointe: It says:
-cause to be printed such number of such lists as the reiurning officer may advise will be sufficient for the purposes of the election.
Surely that is broad enough.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why should he
incur the expense of printing if one candidate is nominated?


Mr. NEILL:: Rule 15 applies only to urban districts; therefore the contention that seven days is not enough in country places does not appiy. It would be in order, therefor, to change " twelve " to " six ". That would meet the objection of my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I move that
section 21 of this bill be struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: A motion cannot be
made to strike out the whole section. Hon. members who desire to do so may vote against the motion of the minister that the section be carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The effect of
doing away with the section would leave it as it is in the act, namely, fourteen days before polling.	.


George Gibson Coote: Do I understand that the
amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Stewart, Leeds) is not accepted?
The	CHAIRMAN: He suggested an
amendment to strike out the entire clause.


George Gibson Coote: Then I would move that
section 21 be amended by striking out the word "seven" in line 25 and substituting therefor the word "fourteen." My only reason for submitting this amendment is because I have not yet heard any suggestion from the government as to how the difficulty is going to be met in the large constituencies that are not included in the schedule. I am very much afraid we are going to have trouble there, that it will not be possible to get the ballots printed and in the hands of the returning officers within seven days after nomination, and I do not see any better way in which I can put my views before the committee than by presenting this amendment. I do not see why it should not be accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend's views will be met by striking out this section
Elections Act

altogether, because it would then be fourteen days in all constituencies.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this is too important to let go through without consulting the Chiel Electoral Officer. If we are going to amend the rule, well and good, but I am satisfied the rule will not work under this clause. I want to see the seven-day clause retained. I want to see a workable act. This says that on the twelfth day before the election the returning officers shall do something in respect of the candidate, and on the ninth day before election he shall do something in respect of the candidate. Let us assume that there are no candidates announced on the ninth day before the election, how is he going to carry out his duties? On the 7th day we will say there are a dozen nominees.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He would send out the lists
as soon as he knew about them.


Hugh Guthrie: Then he would not be
complying with the law and anybody with a candidate could object that in his election he did not receive the list twelve days before the election. That is a practical difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: That is an extreme case. Has my hon. friend ever known of an election in which there was no candidate announced before nomination?


Hugh Guthrie: I have known elections
where there were candidates brought out on nomination day, and if that candidate can say that the election law has not been complied with, that on the twelfth day before election he did not receive a list which he was to have received, I dt>
not know but that he could object to the election. We have a practical difficulty here. It is no use passing a new clause when your rules do not apply to that clause.


Mr. McTAGGART:: I think we should
appreciate the fact that there are in Canada, particularly in western Canada, a large number of rural constituencies. I do not know whether rule 15 applies to other than urban constituencies, and if not, I am not particularly concerned because I have the honour to represent a rural constituency. I think however, it would be impossible to get the ballot boxes distrubted to the various polls in seven days, and before we vote on this amendment I would like to have some assurance from the minister that where there are large rural constituencies,, they will be added to the schedule when we come to section 38.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That might happen in some
districts, but rule 15 does not apply to rural
(Mr. H. A. Stewart.]
constituencies at all. In reply to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) it is the desire of the government and of the House to get a workable elections act, and as I think the majority are in favour of seven days between nomination and polling day, I would suggest that we carry the section and leave the bill in committee till the Chief Electoral Officer, who happens to be away to-day but who will be back to-night, is here; and if it is necessary to amend the rule we will do it.


Hugh Guthrie: Some of us may be badly surprised if on nomination day we are met with a new candidate, and he takes objection to the whole election.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We will not take it out of committee entirely until the Chief Electoral Officer comes back, and if it is necessary to amend the rules to apply to the section we will do it.


Arthur Meighen: Why not let this thing
stand, too? Once it passes there would be no possibility of having an honest election at all. If I were running and I felt I was not going to win, and1 I wanted to take advantage of the act, I would get another candidate out on nomination day.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, well-


Arthur Meighen: The minister says, "Oh
well." I fancy he would be surer to do it than I wmuld be. He would get a candidate out on nomination day, and that candidate could upset the election.
Amendment (Mr. Coote) negatived.
Section agreed to: Yeas, 60; Nays, 48.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 5-Use of provincial voters' list.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a rather difficult clause, and I am very much confused in regard to it because it affects almost entirely the province of Ontario. The act as passed in 1920 provides that in every province the provincial lists, where there are provincial lists, are to be taken as the basis for the preparation of the voters' lists. The registrar is instructed to take that provincial list and from it to make up his preliminary list for further revision. During the last election the Chief Electoral Officer had some difficulty in regard to Ontario. Personally, I have not the knowledge as to how the provincial lists are made up in that province, but the Chief Electoral officer informs me there was considerable difficulty, when he came to prepare a list

Elections Act
in Ontario, in getting proper provincial lists from which to make up the preliminary lists for the election. The reason, I understand, was that there was no provincial list that wa3 less than two years old. I think the act provides that any provincial list that is less than two years old can be used as a basis for the preparation of the list. I do not know what difficulty they had or how it was rectified, but I think there was some understanding in some sections, if not throughout the whole province, in regard to it. The Chief Electoral Officer drafted clause 5 in the bill in order to get over this difficulty. After some consultation, he admitted that he was somewhat in doubt whether this special clause actually provided the proper machinery from which to prepare the list. When the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) came to see me and Col. Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer, we talked the matter over and one or two amendments were suggested that might be used to cure the difficulty. As I say, personally I do not know the intricate work of making up the lists in Ontario, and I shall be glad to consider any amendment that may be suggested to overcome the difficulty which the Chief Electoral Officer has found. I shall be pleased to hear from any hon. gentleman from that province who understands the situation.


Hugh Guthrie: The Secretary of State is
quite right in saying that when the act was passed in 1920, the intention was to utilize the provincial lists, where provincial lists were in existence, as the bas:s for the preparation of the Dominion list, and the clause was inserted in the act providing that where provincial lists existed that were not more than two years old, they should be accepted as the basis for the Dominion list. Two years was fixed upon having regard to the time limit in Quebec in connection with the revision of lists. It was the present Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) who made the suggestion and the government of the day adopted the two-year term. In the amendment as prepared to-day by the Chief Electoral Officer, the two-year clause is omitted, and it leaves Ontario in this position. ,Under the provincial law the voters' lists are prepared in three parts, parts I and II apply to municipal voters and provincial voters. Part III of the Ontario list applies only to provincial voters or manhood franchise voters. Part III is a list which is never actually completed unless a provincial election is pending. It is the duty of the municipal clerk annually to prepare such a list as part III, but until word is received from the Provincial Secretary, the list is not printed. It
30 happens that last year, while there was no provincial election, there was a provincial plebiscite, and the clerks of the municipalities prepared part III and part III was printed. But it was printed for the purpose of taking the vote on the Ontario Temperance Act. I believe it was looked upon as a very complete and excellent list. The vote upon that list took place on the 23rd October of last year and it is still available, I believe. But the trouble is this. Municipal clerks, in many instances in Ontario, have treated that as an ejection list although it was only for the purpose of a plebiscite, and they have not this year made up part- III at all. In some municipalities part III exists, but in others it is said that part III has not been prepared and will not be printed or available until probably December 1 of the present year. It is rumoured that we might posibly have an election this year, and if that election comes before 1st December, I doubt if there would be in existence provincial lists containing part III which is the large body of manhood franchise voters. The list prepared last October is available and could be used if the language of the amendment now before us were directed to its use. I had the benefit of a talk yesterday with the Chief Electoral Officer on the subject. He recognized the difficulty. The clause which he prepared, and which is in the bill before us, permits the use only of a list which is prepared for provincial election purposes. The Ontario Temperance Act was not prepared for an election in the province and it cannot be used unless we authorize its use. We drafted some amendments to get over the difficulty and I think the minister has them. I have gone over them very carefully and I think they cure the difficulty. The department of the Secretary of State in Toronto has also communicated this difficulty to the Chief Electoral Officer. His suggestion to cure the matter is as follows and if the minister would move it, I think the committee would do well to agree to it:
(4) The lists used for the purpose of a plebiscite held on the 23rd day of October, 1924, in the province of Ontario, may be used at any election in the said province, provided
(a)	That no later lists, which would be used under the laws of the province at a provincial election commenced at the same time, have been subsequently prepared under the said laws; and
(b)	That the writ for the Election under this act is issued on or before the 22nd day of October, 1920. The Chief Electoral Officer shall direct when the provisions of this subsection are to apply.
Then the Chief Electoral Officer intimated to me and the minister that he also thought he should have a discretion as to a right to rule what this should apply to, and he
Elections Act

has drafted another clause in the following language as subsection 3:
(3) If any question arises as to whether any list, or which of two or more lists, prepared under the laws of a province, should be used pursuant to such laws **t a provincial election commenced at the same time as the election under this act, the Chief Electoral Officer may direct the use under this section of such list as should in his opinion be used, and such list shall be used accordingly.
This applies only to urban municipalities, towns or cities having a population of over five thousand. The difficulty in large cities will be very grave if we have no voters' lists. It will be well nigh impossible to register the number of voters entitled to register in cities like Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto or Ottawa unless there is a basic list, and the basic list has been part III of the provincial voters' list, which unfortunately, in) many instances, in many years does not exist and in many instances will not be issued before December 1. If the government assures us there will not be an election before December 1, this discussion will be unnecessary, but if there is a fall election, we shall have trouble in Ontario unless some such clause is inserted as that suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Does the hon. member
think the lists made up at the time of the plebiscite will be reliable lists? There will be the difficulty, for instance, of municipalities which were in favour of the drys and where the officers might have prepared the lists accordingly; in other communities there was a strong feeling towards the wet ticket. Lists are not always fair that are prepared for a plebiscite. There is, therefore, very grave danger of such a list being a poor list.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not the conclusive
list. It is only the basis of a list. It is the list which the returning officer takes in the first instance and places on his voters' list. There is power to strike off or to add. In the city which I have the honour to represent that list comprises over 2,000 names. In larger cities it runs into 10.000 or 20,000 names. If you have no basis and all these voters have to be registered, there will not be time to do that. There is no unfairness in taking that as a preliminary list with power to add or to strike off.


James Malcolm: Would it not be better
in rural districts to make up a new list altogether?


Hugh Guthrie: This only applies to
cities of five thousand and over.
[Mr. GuthrieJ


Mr. HEALY:: What would be the objection to using the municipal lists as the basis?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be used under
part I and part II. They are printed and all ready. I have been informed that in the city of Windsor they will not have any list under part III, taking it for granted that the last list printed in October for the plebiscite was the right list. Part I and part II are completed, but part III is not.


William Daum Euler: According to many reports
of which I have no definite knowledge, the list on which we voted on the plebiscite last fall were made up quite unfairly in many instances. We saw reports in the newspapers in regard to the plebiscite vote that in certain cities in. Ontario thousands of names were placed on the lists that should not have been there at all. I think we would be on safe ground if we took the lists that are absolutely unassailable, prepared for example by the municipal authorities. I tbink I would prefer that in the cities and towns the municipal lists should be taken as a basis and such other names added as might be found necessary. I should like to say to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who tells us that if thousands of names were placed on the list when we voted on the plebiscite last year, those names may be struck off. But if thousands of such names appear on the list we will find a very practical difficulty in having them struck off. It will be difficult to find the names of those who should not be on the list. For that reason I would feel inclined to submit a motion that would have the effect, of making municipal lists the basis in urban districts; and in the rural districts if you like, we could have entirely new lists made up. Then we will be sure of having a voters' list to which no possible exception could be taken.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Would that not
answer the purpose in the rural parts as well as in the cities and towns?


William Daum Euler: I understand the lists there are not quite as up-to-date.


William Anderson Black: That has always
been the contention in the rural parts of the province.


William Daum Euler: If we did that with regard
to the rural parts, I think Ontario would be on exactly the same basis as the prairie provinces.


William Anderson Black: I think it has
always been the desire with us to take the clerk's list.

Elections Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
a message has been received from the Senate stating that they have agreed to our request for a conference in regard to amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 182. It would facilitate matters if we could hold the conference this afternoon and I would ask that the [DOT] committee rise and permit the Speaker to read the message. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


HOME BANK DEPOSITORS
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
inform this House that a message has been received to acquaint this House that the Senate doth agree to their request for a free conference desired with the Senate for the purpose of communicating the reasons which induced the Commons not to concur in the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill No. 182, intituled: An Act for the Relief of the Depositors of the Home Bank of Canada; and have appointed the honourable Messieurs Foster (Alma), Foster (the right hon. Sir George), Black, Lougheed (Sir James), Ayles-worth (Sir Allen), and Beique, as managers on their part at the said conference and also that the managers of the free conference on the part of the Senate will meet in Senate Committee room No. 262 at five o'clock this 25th day of June, 1925.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That Messrs. Graham, Murphy, Lapointe, Robb, Macdonald (Pictou) and Malcolm, be appointed Managers on behalf of this House of the free conference with the Senate with respect to the amendments made to Bill 182. An Act for the relief of the Depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
That the Clerk of the House do carry the said mes-jge to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MURPHY:: The objection taken by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) to using the lists prepared for the referendum vote last October is an objection which will apply only to this province. The newspapers of the time drew attention to the fact that the list in question contained the names of a great many voters who had either
long since ceased to exercise their franchise or who were unknown in the particular localities in which their names appeared on the list, as well as a variety of other people who, under ordinary circumstances would not have their names upon the list. For that reason it would in my judgment be a mistake to make such a list the basis for a list under this act, and the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman might be followed. My hon. friend from South Wellington pointed out that under part III the old lists may not be available in Ontario, but as the section under consideration applies only to cities it does not seem to me to be an insuperable difficulty, if it is decided to have some system of registration or an adoption of the municipal lists used in the last municipal election immediately preceding the Dominion election.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How would they get the information for registration?


Charles Murphy: Might a list not be prepared covering the point under consideration?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It involves
thousands of voters who ordinarily would appear in part III of the list, and the preparation of such a list would entail a tremendous amount of work. If there is a list available why not adopt it and so avoid extra work?


Charles Murphy: I do not think there is
available any list in regard to which there would be a consensus of agreement. I know from experience that there is a great deal of work connected with registration, but this is a practical difficulty which must be met in a practical way, and unless some effective method can be devised I think it might be well to adopt that or some other method akin to it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the cities
there is a list which is as complete as, and perhaps more complete than, the list that would be used at an election, namely, the list used in a plebiscite, which involves questions of just as much importance and interest as any ordinary election. Why not use that list as a basis?


George Arthur Brethen: I believe that in the
rural districts the lists used in the last plebiscite in Ontario were quite accurate, and practically every name was registered, even on the sworn testimony that those whose names appeared were eligible to vote. Some question was raised in the cities owing to the fact, as alleged, that large numbers that required to be registered within the time at the dis-
Elections Act

posal of the officers were not sworn to by anyone. That was not true in the rural districts. I believe that the plebiscite lists there were as accurate as any lists could be in a rural district, and I think they should be accepted as the basis to go on.
Subsection (1) agreed to on division.
On subsection (2)-Printing provincial lists.


William Daum Euler: There is a good deal of
doubt in the minds of Ontario members in regard to this subsection. I suggest that it be allowed to stand for the time being.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
only clear part of the thing.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If there is any doubt we can
let the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 38-Schedule four.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I move that the constituency of Maple Creek be added to the schedule in the list under Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I move that the constituency
of Provencher be added to the Manitoba list


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. STIRLING:: I move that the constituency of Yale be added to the list for British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Gibson Coote: I move that schedule four
be amended by adding the constituency of Macleod to the Alberta list.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no information regarding this and some of the other constituencies that have been added to the schedule. I may explain that as regards the constituencies of Provencher and Maple Creek, hon. gentlemen representing these ridings interviewed me and explained the necessity for adding them to the schedule. I accepted their explanation. There has been no intimation however regarding the others and clearly we cannot go on adding constituencies indefinitely. If this is the last one I do not mind including it in the schedule.


George Gibson Coote: I have already three times
pointed out the necessity for this addition and I was afraid that the committee might be impatient if I spoke again on the question. The constituency of Macleod is bounded on the west by the Rocky mountains for a distance of 160 miles and there are a number

of polls that are difficult to reach on account of the mountain trails. If the weather is bad, they must be reached by horse and buggy; in the last election some ballot boxes were sent part of the way by horseback. The reason for asking that this constituency be added to the list is much the same as might be given in the case of any other constituency. I am afraid that in the limited period of seven days some of the polls will be left without any ballot boxes on election day and that is my only reason for moving this amendment.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If this is the last one I accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the bill be amended by adding thereto anot.ncr section, to be known as section 39, which shaft! provide as follows:
Section 21 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following:
"Provided that for any general election not less th ,n sixty days shall elapse between the date of the issue of the writs of election and the polling day."
The amended section would then read:
The writs for an election shall be in form No. 1 and be dated and returnable on such days as the Governor in Council determines, provided that for any gene*al election not less than sixty days shall elapse between the date of the issue of the writs of election and the polling day.
The other day we debated the advisability of providing that not less than sixty days be allowed to elapse between the issue of the writ and the polling day. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee by again debating this point, but I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that the act applies not only to constituencies in western Canada, where they are very large, but to many in other parts of the Dominion where I believe the campaign cannot be carried out in less than sixty days. In the amended bill we have provided that the machinery necessary for the conduct of an election could be put in action and the campaign completed in less than sixty days. This amendment which I am moving would provide that the full sixty days shall be allowed, regardless of the time that may be necessary for the transaction of the various matters of business that are provided for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the following information, I think, should be sufficient to convince the committee of the undesirability of this amendment. The other day I asked the Chief Electoral Officer to find

Elections Act
out what time had elapsed between the date of the issuing of the writs and the date of the poll in every general election since confederation. The first three elections having taken place on different days, it was not possible to give the figures, but he has supplied me with the following information:	In the
election of 1878 the writ was issued on August 17 and the date of the poll was September 17 -31 days. For the other elections the respective dates were: 1882, May 18 and June 20-33 days; 1887, January 17 and February 22-36 days; 1891, February 4 and March 5- 29 days; 1896,-hon. members will recall that the Tupper administration had stayed in office the full five years, and they stretched the interval to the full sixty days; this is the only occasion where sixty days have elapsed between the issuing of the writ and the date of the election, the respective dates being April 24 and June 23; 1900, October 9 and November 7-29 days; 1904, September 29 and November 3-35 days; 1908, August 3 and September 21 -49 days; 1917, October 31 and December 17 -47 days; 1921-the last election-October 8 and December 6-59 days. Now, my hon. friend from Humboldt suggests that we should make the period sixty days. Well, I ask the committee if that would not be an intolerable situation? It does not follow, as has been said repeatedly, that because the writs must issue on a certain date the elections will necessarily be limited within that period. The last election began in the month of August and ended on December 6. According to the statement of the Chief Electoral Officer forty-five days is the least possible time within which the polling could take place after the issuing of the writs, assuming that everything goes without a hitch. The government in planning the date of the election unquestionably will be governed by the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, and with forty-five days as the minimum, and nothing to restrict us in the other direction- to take as many extra days as we want, I submit it would be very foolish for the House to bind itself to a period of sixty days.
May I again remind the House that there is a certain obligation on our part to the business community not to have the country in a state of turmoil over an unnecessarily lengthy period, and while sixty days might serve a useful purpose on one occasion, on other occasions it would be altogether too long a time. Having regard to the circumstance that in all the previous elections, with the exception of the one that I have referred to, sixty days has been found unnecessary and has never been used, I submit that there is
no necessity at this stage of our development to alter our election law in that regard. May I point out this further circumstance, that in the early elections the constituencies were much larger than they are to-day, that they were more sparsely settled, and that the means of transportation did not begin to be what they are to-day; we had fewer railways and the automobile was unknown. Why should we at this time want to take up a period for election purposes that all our governments since confederation have found wholly unnecessary and inadvisable?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I desire to point out two or three respects in which our election machinery has changed over the period referred to by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us change the machinery and not the period.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is good
reason for lengthening the period because the machinery has changed. The right hon. gentleman will recall that in the earlier years we had a Dominion franchise that differed from the provincial franchise; and we had our own lists which were prepared and ready in advance of an election. I think it would be about 1900, or some time shortly after, that the Dominion franchise was repealed and we adopted the franchises of the various provinces, and also their lists. The last act provided for bringing the lists down to date by registration in towns and by enumerators in rural districts, and a great deal of machinery was set up, involving a lot of work in connection with elections to-day under this act that formerly had not been necessary. All this work has to be done from the issue of the writ, everything dates from that time, and really sixty days is not too long an interval within which to accomplish it. Any shorter period does not give the candidate an opportunity to take all the steps in connection with his campaign to which he is entitled and which are necessary. I think sixty days is not at all too long between the issue of the writ and the polling.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart, Humboldt) negatived j ysss, 46 j nays, 78.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to be permitted to revert to section 3 for the purpose of making an amendment. This is the same amendment I moved a few nights ago, but owing to a mistake the vote was not taken. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, there was the usual noise going on. There was no opposition to my amendment and I presumed that it was
Elections Act

going through unchallenged, and when the chairman said the " nays " had it I understood him to say the " ayes " had it, and I did not challenge the vote. It is a very important matter for British Columbia, and I hope the committee will see its way to allow the vote to be taken now.


George Newcombe Gordon: I may say to the committee that there was an error on that occasion. Some confusion occurred as to the amendment submitted by the hon. member. He spoke to me immediately after the vote had been taken, and apparently the result of the vote was not understood either by him or by others.


Alan Webster Neill: If I may be permitted. I
will present the amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) to amend section 30, subsection (g) by striking out all the words after the word " act " in the fifth line. As I say, this is a very important matter for British Columbia. The Dominion Elections Act as it stands at present gives a certain number of orientals in British Columbia the right to vote-those who had a discharge from the army during the late war. That feature is very objectionable to British Columbia. because that province does not allow any oriental, for any reason whatsoever, to vote in the provincial elections, and does not want anything of the kind carried into the Dominion elections. I wish particularly to avoid introducing into this discussion any altruistic consideration as to whether it is Christian, or wise, or right, or friendly, or kind, to refuse to a naturalized British subject the right to vote. We do not need to go into that, because the matter has been discussed and decided again and again. Let me quote one sentence from a member of the late government which puts the matter in a nutshell. I quote from Hansard of April 29, 1920. He says:
There is a popular impression both in the House and outside that in some way or other the mere fact that a man is a British subject entitles him to vote. That is wholly a wrong impression. British citizenship carries with it no right to vote. So far as I know citizenship in no country carries with it the right to vote. The right to vote is a conferred right in every case.


Mr. CRERAR:: From whom is my hon. friend quoting?


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who was Solicitor General in the late government when he used that language. Thirty years ago British Columbia passed an act in which it was provided that no oriental should vote. It was
(Mr. Neill.]
(a very important decision and the Japanese nation appealed it through every court in the land, and finally took it to the Privy Council. A written decision was given by the Earl of Halsbury who was one of the ablest jurists of that century. I shall not, quote his judgment, but it was in the case of Cunningham vs. Tomy Houma in 1903. He reiterates what the hon. member for South Wellington said, and he deals fully with the subject. He points out that it has been recognized in all times, even under the British constitution for many years, that the right of a naturalized British subject does not carry with it the right to vote. So we may take it for granted, on the authority of the highest courts of the empire, that British Columbia has the right to refuse a naturalized alien subject the right to vote. We need not, therefore, discuss that issue; in any case, it is not the point of my argument. Now, as regards these returned men, we dealt with that subject fully in the British Columbia legislature in 1919. At that time the Franchise Act was being amended. A committee of these Japanese returned men met a committee of white returned men, members of the House and members of the government, and they came to the conclusion, which was unanimously adopted, in the Franchise Act, that whatever British Columbia owed these men it was not wise and not in the interests of both races-that was emphasized-to give them the vote, because it would lead to friction, entanglements and trouble in ways that I will indicate later on. In addition to putting it in the Franchise Act they adopted the following resolution uninmously:
That this legislature is strongly opposed, on econom c and social grounds, to allowing any oriental to vote in this province, either in provincial or dominion elections, and therefore urge the Federal government to take no steps that would interfere with the undoubted right of the province to prescribe the form and extent of its own franchise, and further urge the government uf Canada, when defining its Dominion franchise, not to enfranchise orientals.
This is not some opinion of my own; it is a resolution unanimously adopted by the legislature of British Columbia, numbering, I think, forty-eight members elected from all over the province. Then there is the usuat paragraph with regard to copies being forwarded to the Dominion government. Now we have not done an unfair tthing by these returned Jap men. For a number of years, as the committee is aware, the policy of the government has been to restrict the number of Japanese holding fishing licenses in British Columbia in favour of white fishermen, and they are gradually being eliminated. But the

Elections Act
government, at the request of the members from British Columbia in this House, made the provision that that exclusion would not apply to a Japanese fisherman who was a returned soldier. So as long as they live these Japanese will have the right to fish, a right that is not given to a white man simply because he is a returned man. That is a consideration which, capitalized, is worth perhaps a couple of thousand dollars to each man. I only mention that to show that the British Columbia members have not been prejudiced or narrow or unfair in their treatment of this matter, but they agree with the legislature that it is not wise, that it is not in the interests of either race, to begin to open the door by giving to orientals the right to vote. These are the indisputable facts; they can be easily verified.
Now, our claim is that that same restriction which we impose in British Columbia should be carried into the Dominion Elections - Act. I should like to quote a sentence or two from the utterances of prominent statesmen of Canada bearing upon this subject. Here is one of them:
It is well known that the dominion franchise is in principle based upon the franchise acts which exist in the various provinces throughout the country.
The dominion franchise is based in principle upon the provincial franchise.
The effect is to recognize the right of the province, to make its own franchise and the principle of the provincial franchise is the one we adopt.
Again we find another man saying:
It was a settled matter that we should adopt the provincial qualification with as little variation as it was possible to allow. I think that it is the opinion of the House and the people that we should have regard to the wishes of the province of British Columbia in this matter.
And here is the opinion of a man that will not be challenged in this House, that of the present Minister of Justice:
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I favour the adoption of the provincial franchise for Dominion elections.
Here is another one:
All that is asked is that parliament shall respect the franchise law of British Columbia, as it respects the franchise law of any other province.
Mr. Bureau: Hear, hear.
I find that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said the franchise originates in the province, and must be carried into the Dominion. The right hon. leader of the opposition spoke as follows:
Does the hon. member say that in British Columbia there has been a breach of faith because for years past if not since the birth of that province they have refused the franchise to British subjects naturalized by the very same certificate, the Japanese and men of alien birth?
Is it a breach of faith that those two provinces
have done thus for years? There is not a shadow of a breach of faith.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: Finally I have the right hon. Prime Minister speaking along the same line:
Our Dominion is a federation of provinces, that in the distribution of seats in this House regard is hid primarily to the provinces, each province being allowed a certain proportion in relation to the others, and thut at all times the provinces of the Dominion have had regard for each other's problems, that nothing could be more unfortunate than that an effort should be made on the part of any province or group of provinces to coerce, so to speak, any other provinces in regard to any matter which was of great concern to it, that the federal government could not afford to ignore tiie prevailing sentiment in any province.
My amendment simply carries out the views I have quoted of the statesmen of the present day in Canada, that and that only. It affects Orientals only.
Now, the suggestion is made that this may create friction in Japan. Is it better to create friction in Japan, or to create friction in British Columbia? But there is no reason under the sun why there should be any friction in Japan. It is in the very best interests of the relations between the two nations that my amendment should carry, for this reason: If this amendment is not adopted, there will be friction and riot, and possibly bloodshed, in British Columbia. I know of what I speak. It very nearly happened at the last election. A bunch of husky loggers came to the poll at ten minutes to six and found ten or fifteen Japs there waiting to vote. They were not familiar with voting, they had never voted before, and these white men were anxious to cast their ballot. There was a good deal of friction, and it might have led to bloodshed but for the good sense of the returning officer, who broke the law and said, "I will put my watch back ten minutes and let you all vote." There is the danger of friction arising in British Columbia, and we do not want that.	[DOT]
Another thing:	Have the Japanese asked
for this? Not at all. Has their government asked for it? No. They were content with taking the test case to the Privy Council in 1903, and when they found that the highest court in the British Empire decided as I have indicated, they have since then made no application.
Now, what is the situation in Japan? Can a wdiite man vote there if he is naturalized, if he is a returned man? Not if he were a whole regiment of returned men in his own person. Not only can he not vote for a member of parliament, but he cannot vote in the most trivial election in a village or a rural district. He cannot even become a member of a chamber of commerce in Japan. Japan-I have a
Elections Act

synopsis of the Japanese law here-very properly says, at least it is within their power to do so:	We do not think a naturalized subject
has the same patriotic instinct in him as the natural born. They are perfectly within their rights in doing that. They say no naturalized white man shall even be eligible to be a member of a chamber of commerce, let alone vote in an election. I am. only asking that the Oriental in British Columbia shall be put on the same plane in regard to federal elections as he is on, and has been on for almost thirty years in regard to provincial elections in British Columbia. I am only asking that he be put on the same plane as the white man is put on in Japan. I am (only asking that British Columbia's wishes as expressed in the unanimous resolution of the legislative assembly should be carried out. I am only asking for what I think is British Columbia's right to be allowed to prescribe its own franchise as indicated by the British North America Act and confirmed by nearly fifty years of precendent.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Do the Hindus in the province vote in the provincial elections?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How many oriental voters
would there be?


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad the hon. member
mentioned that. There are under two hundred, and that two hundred are scattered over British Columbia, so this amendment would not affect my political fortunes, for instance, and even if it did, the country could get along without my being elected, but this is vital for British Columbia. It is not the number who will vote here or vote there, but the principle of the thing, because if these men are allowed to vote it will be said oy-and-bye, why not their sons, their brothers and so on? It is the friction that will be produced that we are afraid of, the fear that there will be friction between the two races as a result, as has been the case before in a serious race riot in British Columbia.


Mr. BELAND:: I must say, in the first
place, that I regret extremely that I have to differ with my hon. friend (Mr. Neill) in his intention that the orientals who have thought proper to join the colours and fight the battles of Canada and the empire should be denied the exercise of the Canadian franchise.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Was it not the
battles of Japan they were fighting?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not at liberty to
express a definite opinion upon that point.
fMr. NeiU.] .
I am willing to believe, since they have lived in Canada, and many of them, I understand, were naturalized British subjects, that they were fighting the battles of Canada and of the British Empire. However that may be, I have no brief to defend particularly the orientals in Canada. I know that in certain parts of this country there exists a very strong sentiment that our immigration laws should be so framed as to preclude oriental immigration entirely. It has been admitted by the previous speaker (Mr. Neill) that in point of numbers, their right to vote could not be considered serious. In answer to a question which was put to him he said that probably not two hundred orientals would be affected by his amendment, should it pass this committee and the House. I agree with him that in point of numbers it is not a serious matter. On the question of principle I do not agree with him at all. because the real principle which is involved in his amendment is the depriving of the right to vote naturalized British subjects who have shared in the battles of Canada and the British Empire. I say it is proper that these men should exercise the right to vote in a Dominion election.
Representing in the government the returned men more particularly, I would really feel it a slur upon the men who have shared in the Canadian Expeditionary Force if at any moment it was proclaimed not only throughout Canada but throughout the British Empire and the world that in this country men were found good enough to go to the front and expose their lives for the sake of the country, but that when they came back here they were denied the most precious privilege that can be bestowed upon a Canadian citizen, that of the exercise of the franchise.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not make it apply to
Americans also?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Americans are not British
subjects.


Alan Webster Neill: Some of these Japanese are
not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure they have the
right to vote. Any man coming from the United States, living in Canada, having served in the Canadian expeditionary force and being a British subject is certainly entitled to vote at a Dominion election.


Alan Webster Neill: He cannot be a British subject if he is an American. I said:	Why
not make it apply to Americans also? Why not give the same right to American citizens, many of whom served in the Canadian expeditionary force?

Elections Act


Henri Sévérin Béland: The primary qualification
of a man who can vote in a Dominion election is that he must be a British subject. My hon. friend has said-and I speak with all due deference; I respect his opinion-that the provincial franchise prevents orientals from voting. That may be so. I am not quarrelling at all with the provincial franchise. But what obtains in this parliament is the Dominion franchise. Moreover, my hon. friend has said:	This will not cause any ill-feeling or
friction in Japan. I am certain that with his keen intelligence and his deep understanding of international matters, he will admit with us all that any such movement or action on the part of the Canadian parliament, calculated to deprive former Japanese subjects who have become British subjects and who have fought in the Canadian army under the British flag, of the privilege to exercise their franchise, is likely to develop in Japan a very strong sentiment and to bring about friction which would be utterly undesirable. What I think should be done is, at least, that public recognition be given through parliament to those men who, regardless of their origin or race, fought under the British flag, if they live in Canada and if they are Canadians in the proper sense of the word. The consequences which would attach to an action of this parliament in compliance with the hon. member's amendment are very considerable and serious, and I would think the returned men generally throughout Canada would interpret any such action on the part of parliament as a reflection upon them all individually. That may be pretty strong language, but I am inclined to believe it is warranted by the circumstances should they develop as my hon. friend wants them to develop. Under the circumstances, I would beg hon. members not to support my hon. friend's amendment.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to
support the position taken by the minister (Mr. Beland). The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) argues that British citizenship does not carry with it the right to vote. It seems to me that if that is so British citizenship becomes an absolutely empty thing, which none of us wants to see. In democratic countries, we believe each citizen ought to have a part in the conduct of the business of the country, and the citizen who is denied the right to vote is thereby precluded from having any voice in the conduct of the affairs of the country. Under such conditions citizenship would seem to be absolutely of no use.
With regard to the men who fought overseas, in Stanley park there is a very fine monument to the Japanese who fell during the war. We 313
heard a good deal of criticism last night of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) because she suggested that we should have other types of monuments than those of stone. I presume there is no objection to having that stone monument to the Japanese who fell. But I would suggest that a much finer monument that could be erected side by side with it would be to give those who returned the right to take their share with the rest of us in the affairs of Canada, the Canada in whose interests they thought they were fighting. Now we understand that these men are to be rewarded by receiving some fishing licenses. Is that any reward for the risks they took or the part they played? I imagine a large number of returned men throughout the country would not be satisfied that some little material concession such as a fishing license should be considered a suitable reward for the action those Japanese took at that particular time. I would rather see an exhibition of what some of us have been instructed is British fair play, some little sense of gratitude in this regard, and a recognition of services rendered. Personally, I would by no means confine the voting privilege to this particular class. If Japanese are to be allowed to enter into our British citizenship at all, they should be allowed all the rights and privileges which ga with that citizenship. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi has referred to the irritation of some loggers at the polls when some Japanese were trying to vote. I would suggest to him 

and I think I know the loggers on the Pacific coast fairly well, that a large number of them are quite sympathetic with their fellow workers, the Japanese. I know they do not want a lowering of their standards. I know that in the past oriental workers have been imported in the attempt to lower the standard of white workers. I join with them in insisting that the standards of white workers ought to be protected. I would protest against tha recent action of employing orientals at Nanaimo to help break the strike. But if these men are to be allowed in and to take part in building up our country, they ought to be given their rights. This is not entirely a provincial matter. I take it that citizenship in Canada ought to extend as far as Canada extends, and that the man who has a right to vote in Alberta, a Chinese or Japanese resident, if his business causes him to go to British Columbia, ought to retain that right in British Columbia. I hope the time may come when we shall amend our present laws so that citizenship in any part of Canada is good in all parts of Canada and carries

Elections Act

with it all the privileges which it may have in any one part. Undoubtedly, there are international complications. We have been told that the number of votes involved is not very great, but the effect in further irritating the Japanese may be quite serious. As I understand the matter, what the Japanese object to in the treatment which they have received at the hands of the Americans, is primarily the discrimination which brands them as an inferior race.
I received a few months ago a very interesting paper from Japan, the Japanese Times add Mail, of October 21, 1924, which contains a message from Japan to America and goes very thoroughly into the viewpoint of the Japanese with regard to their treatment on this continent. I will quote one paragraph which perhaps indicates their point of view. It reads:
But Japan does resent a clause that, while not mentioning Japanese specifically, affects Japanese alone of al! the races heretofore eligible to enter (the United States and which, in an act of Congress, stamps Japanese as of an inferior race.
Japan has no discriminatory legislation. Her laws regarding land ownership by aliens applies to all aliens. He- laws respecting the right of immigrants of the labouring classes to enter the country apply to the labourers of every, land alike. No right or privilege is withheld from American citizens in Japan that is not withheld from all aliens, and the citizens of no land have any privileges whatever in Japan that are not shared in equally by the citizens of the United States.
Here the reference of course is to the United States, but the same criticism applies to the treatment of the Japanese by Canadians. If it is not an unfair advantage, I would like to quote a sentence from the remarks of my hon. friend for Comox-Albemi yesterday. He said:
A man who would have good neighbours must be neighbourly himself.
I wish the hon. member would extend that very sound principle to the oriental-a man who would have good neighbours must be neighbourly himself. That applies not merely to the United States neighbours, but to our neighbours across the Pacific. It seems to me that, since it is recognized very generally that in the future the great conflicts are liable to be on the Pacific ocean, it is there that we shall have to work out our new principles of world brotherhood. The least we can do in a matter of this kind is to show Ourselves neighbourly. The existing legislation does not affect any very large number of votes. It Is, however, a gesture of good-will which I think is appreciated and will be reciprocated by those on the other side of the water.


Mr. McBRIDE:: There is one phase of
the question which has been entirely overlooked and to which I would call attention. A Japanese may become a Canadiar citizen, but in doing so he does not give up his Japanese citizenship, and in case of trouble between Japan and Canada a Japanese is in honour bound to side with Japan. That has been stated by a judge of the Supreme Court in British Columbia and has never beeD questioned. It was the same with the Germans. When the Germans were in this country and in England they became British subjects, but never gave up their German citizenships and after the war broke out they were just as much Germans as when they came into existence in their own country.


George Black: The best franchise
is the provincial list, and although this legislation and the proposed amendment are applicable to other parts of Canada as well as to British Columbia, the greatest effect would be in British Columbia where the largest Japanese population in this country resides. British Columbia does not allow the orientals the franchise. The section of the act which the amendment seeks to delete overrides the wishes and the laws of British Columbia. In extenuation of that it may be said that it only affects a few, but as has already been stated in this debate, the principle is wrong, and there is no reason why the franchise should be extended to orientals simply because they fought with the Canadian corps.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend says that
the Dominion franchise is based upon the provincial franchise'. In Quebec the provincial franchise does not extend to women the right to vote, but in a Dominion election the women in the province of Quebec all vote, so that I think the principle is not adhered to in regard to the province of Quebec in that respect.


George Newcombe Gordon: May I be permitted,
in reference to the conference with the Senate which has been called, to state that Bourinot at page 278, referring to the practice of the House of Commons, says:
When the time has come for holding the conference the Clerk will call over the names of the Managers who will proceed forthwith to the place of meeting.
The Clerk will now call over the names.
The Clerk of the House called over the names of the Messieurs Graham, Murphy, Lapointe, Robb, Macdonald (Bictou) and Malcolm.

Elections Act


George Black: The minister's observations in regard to the provincial voters' lists in Quebec are quite correct, but in British Columbia the provincial list forms a basis, and unless an elector can get on the provincial list he is not entitled to vote in Dominion elections. On the question of gratitude I maintain that we are under no particular gratitude to the orientals who enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force. Japan was in the war on her own account, and it was the duty of the Japanese to go to war just as much as it was the duty of the Canadian. It was more convenient for those Japanese in Canada to enlist in a Canadian corps than in a Japanese corps. The Canadian who went to the war and came back had to qualify to get on the provincial list and why should we make an exception in favour of the Japanese? Unless a Britisher or a Canadian could get on the list without qualifying, a Japanese should not be allowed to do so. This legislation makes an exception.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I desire to raise a point of
order. Referring to the conference between the Senate and the House of Commons, Bourinot at page 179, rule 662 says:
While a conference is taking place, the deliberations of both Houses are suspended.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is quite correct when the House is in session, but the House
ic in o Am vYi if too 10 iu oumiuiutwv.


Robert Alexander Hoey: This matter is not very important.


George Black: 
Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps I may be allowed
to reply to a few of the criticisms that have been made. The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Belaud) says that we ought to let the Japanese vote in Canada. Do the Japanese let us vote in Japan? I should like him to answer that question. Is it right or proper that we should extend to the Japanese in Canada a privilege which is not extended to us in Japan?


Mr. CANNON:: Is the hon. gentleman in
a position to tell us what the Japanese government did for naturalized Japanese subjects who fought in the Japanese army during the war?


Alan Webster Neill: No Japanese naturalized subject of any creed, colour, sex or description is given the right to vote in Japan on anything at all.


Lucien Cannon: Even if they fought in
the Japanese army?


Alan Webster Neill: 
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does my hon. friend draw
a distinction between the case where rights have never been enjoyed and where they have been granted and are now being taken away?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; I am quite aware of
that distinction. The minister says that it is not right to deprive the Japanese of their rights. But we are not depriving them of any rights; they never had and never will have any right in this regard in British Columbia. We are not depriving them of
Elections Act

any right to take part in the government, because they are not entitled to it. It is true they had it in the last Dominion election but they should never have had it, and this is onlj1' to remedy the situation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Can the hon. member tell
us what would be done in Great Britain in similar circumstances where any oriental such as he describes had fought in the army? Would he be denied the right to vote?


Alan Webster Neill: The conditions are not the
same in Britain and I am not familiar enough with them to say actually what they do. I am not going to talk about things I know nothing about. But I cannot imagine any Assyrian who fought in Turkey being allowed to vote in Great Britain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there not an
Indian in the British House of Commons?


Alan Webster Neill: What on earth has that to
do with this subject? The hon. member does not confine his questions to the subject under discussion any more than he confines his speech to it. He has given us his fine and well-known diatribe on the rights of certain peoples; but that has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. He is entitled of course to hold the view which he puts forward, that every naturalized citizen should have the right to vote. But unfortunately when he takes this position he brings himself into disagreement with men like the Earl of Halsbury, the Privy Council of Great Britain, and the statesmen of Canada, whose opinions I quoted. The disagreement is unfortunate for him-or, it may be, unfortunate for them. The point however is not at issue at all, because it is admitted that \?e in British Columbia did and do possess the right to exclude orientals. And we did so. The real question is whether British Columbia's desires and wishes as expressed in the legislature of that province shall be taken into account in the Dominion franchise. That is the question which hon. members are asked to decide; it is not whether in their opinion the world-wide question of naturalization as regards the franchise should be considered at all in this legislation. That is not under discussion. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) commented upon my use of the expression "neighbourly."
I stand by what I have said so far as that is concerned; and I say that it is the best spirit of neighbourliness to so act towards your neighbour that you will not have a row with him next week. If he has a flower garden, and you have hens, it is a neighbourly 
act on your part to shut up your hens before they cause a row between you and him. And it is the best sort of neighbourliness with us in British Columbia to refrain from anything that will cause trouble with the Japanese. They are not asking for the vote; and in refusing to extend it to them we are only preventing no end of friction that would indubitably arise in the future if we gave some of them this privilege. Some hon. members may be influenced by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) who has lived on the coast and who claims to be familiar with conditions there. But that hon. gentleman takes at all times a different view on the oriental question from the view held by members representing the province of British Columbia, including myself. I remember it was only last year the hon. member expressed the opinion that it was a disgrace that we did not allow oriental girls to train with ours in the hospital in Vancouver, a view which, if expressed in Vancouver, would have provoked a riot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have taken that
view repeatedly on platforms an Vancouver and so far there has been no riot.


Alan Webster Neill: I have heard the hon. member on the platform there and his attitude was somewhat different from what it is here.
I want to substantiate the position which myself and other members from British Columbia have taken on this question. I have here a letter addressed to myself from a government official in British Columbia and I shall quote a sentence from it:
Youra of the 24th instant received a few days ago. Before taking up the matter of which you enquire, I am going to take the liberty of saying that your position on the oriental problem, as stated in parliament, comes nearer to being that of the average workingman than the position taken by those who presume to apeak for the labour movement.
That is written by a man whose name is as well known in British Columbia as is the Premier's and who has had a long and honourable career in organized labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who is it?


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I endorse the remarks made by the hon. member (Mr. Neill) and I take this opportunity of supporting the amendment that has been proposed, I cannot agree with the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in the opinion that to withhold the franchise from the orientals would constitute a reflection on returned men for the reasons that have been stated. I do not know whether the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has touched upon the point or not, as I was not in

Elections Act
the chamber when the question was introduced; but the legislation in British Columbia was due to the united efforts of the returned men in the legislature, and the recommendations brought in by them to the effect that the franchise should not be extended to Asiatics1. It met with the unanimous approval of the legislature. It is a well known fact that this question has been the subject of considerable debate and consideration in British Columbia, and the result sought to be attained by this amendment would be endorsed by all the people of the province.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order. It is a rule of the House that no subject may be considered twice in the same session, and we are now considering a matter which was voted upon yesterday.


Alan Webster Neill: The unanimous consent of the House was obtained before the matter was introduced.


William Irvine: I did not hear that permission given.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member was not
here.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I want to get a ruling on my point of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I did not hear it.


William Irvine: The matter now before the committee was dealt with yesterday in exactly the same form, and I understand the rule of the House to be that we do not vote on the same question twice in the same session.


George Newcombe Gordon: Was not the hon. gentleman present when consent was given for the introduction of the amendment?


William Irvine: The member for Comox-
Albemi (Mr. Neill) rose to speak, but I never heard any consent given to his moving the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: The committee's consent was asked if he might introduce his amendment, and consent was given.


Mr. GOOD:: If the amendment proposed
by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni does not carry, is it likely that there will be an increasingly large number o'f orientals voting in British Columbia?


Alan Webster Neill: Not increasingly.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I still stand
by the point of order. I understood that the consent of the committee was granted to the
member for Comox-Alberni to discuss this question, but I did not hear any consent given that we should vote on the amendment again. There is a big distinction involved.


George Newcombe Gordon: Consent was given to
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to introduce his amendment, and that carried with it the right to discuss the amendment and to vote upon it. The question is upon the amendment.	.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, before
the vote is taken, I wish to tell the hon. member who moved this amendment (Mr. Neill) that he has all my sympathy and has had throughout the sesison, and-


Alan Webster Neill: It is your vote I want.


Lucien Cannon: I should very much like
to support his amendment, but it contains a principle which to my mind is altogether illiberal; otherwise I would vote for it with the greatest of pleasure.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived:	Yeas,
18; Nays, 40.


Lucien Cannon: Were the members of the official opposition counted?


George Newcombe Gordon: Those who were in.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid
I shail have to appeal to the Senate which, I understand, constitutes the safeguard of minorities. I beg to move another amendment as follows:
That section 30, subsection (g) be amended by adding at the end thereof the words, "and who is otherwise qualified under this act."
The reason for my amendment is that while the act is very carefully drawn and will be understood to prohibit a Japanese voting unless he is naturalized, yet as a matter of practice he is always allowed to vote, even if not naturalized. It is to carry out the principle of the act that I am adding those words. The effect of it will be that the voter will have to be a British subject. I know that is the strict interpretation of the act, but the average deputy returning officer interprets the act otherwise, and if the oriental produces his discharge papers he is allowed to vote. I hope the minister will see his way to accept the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the words, "and who is otherwise qualified under this act" means that the voter must be a British subject. This is an essential element before be is entitled to the franchise. You cannot simply by adding surplusage which has no real
Elections Act

legal effect control the franchise of the person mentioned. In other words, the amendment is tautological.


Alan Webster Neill: I used the expression
"naturalized" as an illustration; but there are other conditions attached to this act-for instance, the voter has to be two months in the district. That is all I want to cover. Anyone reading the clause that I wanted to strike out would suppose that any person would be entitled to vote who produces a discharge from the naval, military or air forces. The clause does not say, "and who has otherwise complied with the act, or has been twogmonths in the district." Apparently all that is required is that he shall produce his discharge.
The 'CHAIRMAN:	He must have the
essential qualifications, and then if he has the other qualification he is entitled to vote.


Alan Webster Neill: But it has been so interpreted time and again by men who are not skilled lawyers. In fact, the hon. Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) so interpreted it this afternoon.


George Newcombe Gordon: No, he expressly stated that the first element was British nationality or naturalization.


Alan Webster Neill: He said he did not see why
an American should not vote, until I checked him up.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must rule the amendment out of order unless I am convinced to the contrary.


George Black: Mr. Chairman, I
think the wording of section 30 is clearly .open to the interpretation that the member for Comox-Alberni says is sometimes put upon it. The latter part of subsection (g) reads:
Provided however that the provisions of this paragraph shall not disqualify or render incompetent to vote any person who has served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the late war and who produces a discharge from such naval, military or air force, to the registrar upon the making of the voters' lists and to the deputy returning officer at the time of polling.
Production of the discharge seems to be the only qualification.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. member will look at section 29 he will see there certain qualifications specified which are absolutely essential before the person is entitled to vote. Section 30 mentions certain disqualifications, and the subsection he has just read is the saving clause.
[The Chairman.]


Alan Webster Neill: But it says, " save as in this act otherwise provided."


George Newcombe Gordon: But it is not otherwise provided.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, under section 30, subsection (g).


George Newcombe Gordon: No, section 30 shows
the disqualifications.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, even if the amendment is tautological, I do not think it would do any harm, for it would certainly make the section clear to the deputy returning [DOT]officer.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not think it
would help him.


Alan Webster Neill: Do you rule it out of order?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. WARD:: Are we to understand from
the words of the Prime Minister a few moments ago that according to the act as it rs at the present time-


George Newcombe Gordon: This motion is not
debatable, but if the hon. gentleman wishes to put a question perhaps the committee will give unanimous consent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Chairman, who moved that the committee rise and report progress?


George Newcombe Gordon: The Secretary of State (Mr. Copp).


Henry Elvins Spencer: I did not hear it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the motion carry?


William John Ward: May I ask my question, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, it is too late. I
gave the hon. gentleman a couple of opportunities.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Labour-administration, Employment Offices, Coordination Act, $35,000.
William Irvine: I understood that under the rules of the House when a conference was being held between the Senate anid the House of Commons the whole House automatically suspended, yet we have just reported to the

Supply-Labour
House, although the 'conference is now proceeding.


George Newcombe Gordon: That matter was dealt with nearly an hour ago by the ruling I gave.


William Irvine: Well, Mr. Chairman-


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is out of order. I have given a ruling and I do not intend to review it.


Robert Gardiner: On the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for East Calgary-


George Newcombe Gordon: No point of order has been raised. We are on item 255 of the estimates. I intend to adhere to the ruling I have given.


Robert Gardiner: Would the Chairman cite his authority for that ruling?


George Newcombe Gordon: I gave the authority at the time.


Robert Gardiner: The .committee reported progress and the Speaker was in the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: The .committee has
risen. The managers have gone and the conference is now taking place. Does the hon. member object to the committee sitting while the conference is proceeding?


Robert Gardiner: But the Speaker was in the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then why was not the objection raised when the Speaker was in the chair?


Robert Gardiner: The rule is that when the Speaker is in the chiair and a Conference between the two Houses .takes .place, the sitting of the House shall be suspended.


George Newcombe Gordon: The .point of order
should have been raised then. It is too late now; we are in committee. Shall this vote carry?


Robert Gardiner: I presume the employment offices dealt with under this item are operated jointly as between thie provinces and the federal government?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Yes. The employment offices in the various provinces are handled entirely by the provinces, but the federal government provides annually under the Employment Offices Co-ordination Act for a sum to be divided among the respective provinces in proportion to the expenses of the offices in those provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Last year in the
provincial House very serious 'charges were
made against the way in which the employment bureau was carried on in 'the city of Winnipeg. It was claimed that the officers in charge fixed the wages to be paid to those applying for labour; that in reality certain groups got together and decided what the wage should be, and men were forced to accept that fixed wage. I would like to know what the minister has to say about charges of that character.


James Murdock: The point raised by my hon. friend did come to the attention of the federal Labour department and we instituted careful inquiries- It was found that there was some foundation for the allegations in respect of one employee of the Winnipeg office. The department, of course, took the position that that was entirely wrong and that it should not be repeated. The matter was satisfactorily smoothed -out, with a warning to the person concerned that nothing of the kind could be tolerated or .permitted in the future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I visited the employment bureau in Winnipeg last year and-found several hundred men in attendance. It seems as if they are bound to report there daily and to hang around on the chance of 'getting an odd job. These were married men, residents of Winnipeg, who were thereby precluded from going out and possibly finding another job or helping about their own homes. Is it not possible to modify the regulations so that a man would have the opportunity to report there and in some way obtain a job if it turned up, without being in 'constant attendance at the office day after day?


James Murdock: When jobs are not plentiful many of the unemployed get into the habit of going to the office and hanging around on the 'chance of something turning u.p, and also to talk with their fellows in similar circumstances. But there is no regulation, I am sure, requiring daily or continuous attendance, and if there was such a requirement I would regard it as entirely unnecessary and wrong. Registration, so that the office may know whether the applicant is still ready for work, should be sufficient. Steps are taken to get in touch with applicants at their own homes or at any handy address where they can be reached.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the reports issued by the Labour department we have estimates as to the amount of wages lost in the case of industrial disputes. Would it be possible for the Department of Labour to estimate the amount of time lost, and thereby the ap-
Supply-Labour

proximate wages lost, on aocounit of unemployment throughout Canada?


James Murdock: No, it would not be possible to make an accurate estimate. There is no way of accurately determining, for instance, how many persons are unemployed at a given time. In England with unemployment doles being paid they can estimate fairly accurately the unemployment situation, but I think all will agree that there are many unemployed in England who would not accept the dole. Here in Canada no accurate estimate such as my hon. friend suggests could be made as to the loss in wages by provinces through unemployment in Canada.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to say a good word with respect to the work being done at the Edmonton employment bureau. That is the office through which I have been getting employees, and I wish to compliment the bureau on the good work it is doing. I rose to get some information with regard to the expense of carrying on these offices. How is the expense divided between the Dominion and provincial governments?


James Murdock: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: How many employment bureaus are there throughout Canada?
hlr. MURDOCK: At the present time, 72 offices at 65 centres.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are any of the provinces continuing private employment bureaus?


James Murdock: Yes, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario Still have a few private employment agencies. Speaking from memory, Ontario has 14, I think, and Quebec, 12 or 14, of these private agencies that were 
functioning when the employment service was instituted, and which have continued since that time. In some of the provinces, as hon. members know, legislation has been enacted doing away with private employment agencies, but they still continue in Ontario and Quebec to the number I have mentioned.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It is left entirely to the provincial governments to say whether or not these private bureaus shall be done away with?


James Murdock: They have authority in
the matter.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Will the minister say that the government co-operates with these employment offices now in obtaining labour on government works, in the cities and so on, or does the government use the patronage system?


James Murdock: I do not understand what my hon. friend is driving at. If he would mention a specific case, I could answer him promptly. What government employment has he in mind?


Arthur Edward Ross: The jobs that come up, repair work, and so on, which is not done under the tender and contract system. Does the government use these bureaus in connection with government work of this kind, or does it use the patronage system?


James Murdock: I would not think the
patronage system was being used largely in that connection. I think the employment offices in the various towns where the work was' located would if necessary be asked if they could furnish labour for certain classes of work. They generally have a list of different classes of labour available.


Arthur Edward Ross: At least, it is the minister's wish that that should be done, rather than returning to patronage.


James Murdock: The minister's wish, of
course, would be. that the employment offices should be permitted to function fully, and as intended, for the benefit of the unemployed citizens of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think I
can state better than the minister has done the ideal of the labour bureaus, that they should function in the interests of unemployed citizens, but as I . understand it, they are today largely registration bureaus of work that is available. Is it not possible that these employment bureaus should do something to explore the avenues that might possibly provide for labour not immediately in sight?
I understand that in my own city of Winnipeg

Supply-Labour
at the present time the city council is having to discuss the question of extra work in order to provide for the unemployed, and that in June, when ordinarily all the unemployed are engaged in regular work. Is it not possible that in some way the department could do some constructive work in looking for employment and providing for it in new ways, thus avoiding having to resort to the dole system?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will
recollect that the provinces have authority over that matter. They control the actions of the officers in the employment service in the different (provinces. It would not be a part of our duty, in fact, it might be resented if we made any suggestions such as my hon. friend has put forward.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Far from being
resented, I think they have again and again appealed for action along that line.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think there is a good deal of force in what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has just said, indeed, I am impressed with the extraordinary situation that now exists in Canada. Not only is there the condition that my hon. friend cites in Winnipeg, but I notice in an official report of employment conditions in Calgary the other day in the Morning Albertan that over 500 men offered themselves for jobs, and not a single job was available in that office. That is a deplorable condition of affairs and surely the minister, even if the government find themselves outside the pale, as it were, on this question, will lend a sympathetic ear to what the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) has said and1 do what he can himself as a citizen of Canada to solve this question of unemployment.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the registration as given by the bureau a good index of the unemployment situation? I understand that union men, such as machinists, and so forth, do not register at these bureaus.


James Murdock: The registration at the
bureau is not necessarily an accurate index, of the unemployment situation, but it can be taken as one factor of information in determining what the unemployment situation might be. You could not determine anything definitely by registration alone, because, as my hon. friend suggests, there are many who are out of work who do not register, and when unemployment is at its height, it is just possible that there are a greater number at that t/ime not registering than 'when unemployment is less. Therefore, you cannot determine anything accurately by the registration.


Arthur Edward Ross: Am I right in my idea that it is only an index of those unemployed who would accept general labour, and not of unemployed union men?


James Murdock: I would not say that my hon. friend was right to that extent, because the employment service deals with all classes of skilled labour, and I am sure it often deals with organized labour. It is not the unskilled labour alone that goes to or secures a position through the employment offices.


Arthur Edward Ross: My reason for saying that is that at a labour meeting which I attended, they were urged to register because they had not registered as they thought they might be called upon to accept general employment, whereas a union man is under a certain understanding that he must not go under a certain per-hour rate. If that is so, the bureau is not by any means an index of the extent of unemployment in this country.


James Murdock: The hon. member will understand that a machinist registering at one of the employment offices in the country would register as a machinist. He would be called if an application were made by an employer for a machinist. The same would apply to a carpenter or any other skilled mechanic. Common labour would register as common labour and would be called for that class of work. They would not call a man who had registered as a machinist or a skilled mechanic to go to a job of common labour unless the man was there and insisted that he wanted to take the job.


Arthur Edward Ross: The idea wag certainly given out at this meeting that the union people had not registered because there was no call for their line of work, and they had not taken the bother of registering; but they were being urged by their leaders that they should place themselves on record by registering.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many men have been supplied to the government by the registration offices in Ottawa in connection with government work?


Mr MURDOCK:: I am quite sure we would not have any figures to indicate that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To be fair to my hon. friend, the only reason I ask that is this. It is said, rightly or wrongly, that the local patronage bureau supplies men for government work in Ottawa and that the registration offices do not. My hon. friend will know whether that is true. If it is not true, he can give us the list.
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: I am, quite sure we would not have a list indicating that. As my hon. friend will realize, I do not know what particular work he has in mind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Any governmental work, work on the canal here or anywhere. There is plenty of government work going on.


James Murdock: Possibly in some cases labour is appointed that makes direct application and does not go through the employment offices.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think it goes through the employment offices. My hon. friend is right.


Mr. LOVIE:: Is the employment bureau in Winnipeg under the charge of the Department of Labour at Ottawa?


James Murdock: No.


William James Lovie: The department has nothing to do with it?


James Murdock: Yes. We maintain some timely supervision under a uniform agreement signed with the province of Manitoba, similar agreements being signed with seven other provinces. The province of Manitoba agrees to run that employment office at Winnipeg on the lines laid down in this joint agreement.


William James Lovie: I should like to give the minister a suggestion. I do not know whether it will be of any use or hot. In Manitoba we find that labourers in Winnipeg are not accorded the same transportation privileges going out to the harvest field as labourers from eastern Canada. A labourer from Winnipeg has to pay full fare when he goes westward. He very often is short of money and he feels that is a hardship, whereas a labourer from eastern Canada can travel at a reduced rate as far west as labour is required. Cannot labourers from Winnipeg be given the chance to go to the harvest field at the same rate as men from eastern Canada?


James Murdock: What distance has my hon. friend in mind that those unemployed men travel?


William James Lovie: Let them go anywhere. They should have the same privilege to go over the three prairie provinces as men from eastern Canada have as regards cheap transportation. In southern Manitoba, at least, we very often want harvest help before the men from the east are arriving and men from Winnipeg can be employed, but they will not go out if they have to pay the full transportation fare. There are not many of them

in any case. Those rates should apply all over the prairie provinces for men from Winnipeg the same as for men from eastern Canada going to the harvest field.


James Murdock: The reason I asked the question about the distance was that, as my hon. friend realizes, this is a matter about which the railways of Canada have something to say. We have in effect an agreement with the railways providing 'for a rate of $2.70 per hundred! miles with a minimum of four dollars for unemeployed persons going with a certificate from an employment office to work. If it is less than a hundred and forty-seven miles, they pay the full fare. That may be the point to which my hon. friend refers.


Mr. BROWN:: I think the point referred to by the hon. member is this. The eastern labourer that goes out west has a certain rate to Winnipeg and, I think, a cent a mile after that. My hon. friend wants to know whether those in Winnipeg cannot get that special rate the same as people from the east.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is referring now possibly to harvest excursions from the east. That is another matter, and that is a question where the fares are arranged entirely by the railway companies, although the federal employment office takes the matter up with the railways and tries to secure as good conditions and arrangements as possible for the harvester. It is a matter that the railway companies, through their passenger departments, determine.


William James Lovie: Will the Minister of Labour give us his assurance that he will use his influence to secure for men from Winnipeg the same opportunity for cheap transportation as the eastern labourer has?


James Murdock: I will promise to continue the efforts of the department in that direction, because that is just what we have been trying to do for the last two or three years.


Mr. MacLAREN:: There is a special rate
for those seeking harvesting employment to go west. Does the special rate apply cow to those who wish to return to their homes at the end of the harvest season? That has not been the case previously.


James Murdock: My understanding is
that if a harvester returns within a certain time, he gets a return rate. My recollection is that the rate going is $18, and returning,

Supply-Labour
$20. I think that has been, practically the arrangement for a number of years.


Murray MacLaren: Why should the rate
not be the same going as returning? It is disturbing to the country. It sends the men out and there should be an equal inducement to have them return.


James Murdock: That, of course, is a question which the passenger departments of the two railways have to determine, ana they regard it as necessary to make the rates slightly higher returning from the west than going west to employment.


John Livingstone Brown: It is likely they will have more money when they get through their work out there and will be able to pay a bigger fare.


Murray MacLaren: Perhaps the minister will interest himself in this matter as well as the other.


James Murdock: This is a part of the other question, and we have had a number of conferences with the railways and will probably have another one shortly. I do not think we will be able to get any better arrangement in respect to this matter than we have in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Technical Education Act, $3,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain that
vote?


James Murdock: The expenditure under this item, $3,000, is very uncertain depending largely upon the extent to which the provincial governments take advantage of the statute providing for technical education in Canada. The appropriation is intended merely to meet disbursements for printing and stationery and other supplies, and travelling expenses of the Director of Technical Education. The detailed statement of expenditures for the fiscal year 1924-25 is as follows:
Travelling expenses	
$1,064	40Printing and stationery	
1,325	18Sundries	
3	39Total	
$2,392 97


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of the act respecting annuities for old age, $20,000.
George Gibson Coote: Has there been any increase in the number of annuities taken out during the last year? If so, what is the increase?


James Murdock: Yes, there has been a gradual increase during the past two or three years in the number of annuities taken out
and the amount paid to the government for that purpose as will be seen from this statement:
Annuities Amount paid
1922-	23	
339	$1,028,353	071923-	24	
409	1,459,042	411924-	25	
488	1,607,989	58


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the total amount the government holds under this annuity scheme?


James Murdock: The total amount received on account of the purchase of annuities from September, 1908, when the act came into effect, to March 31, 1925, exclusive of amounts returned to persons where no contracts were issued, is $9,754,299.42.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the scheme becoming
more popular of late years, since it has become better known under the Department of Labour, than it was under the Post Office Department?


James Murdock: There has been a gradual improvement, indicated by the figures I gave a few moments ago, and we are in hopes that, as a result of the amendment we made to the act this year providing for the purchase of a minimum annuity of ten dollars instead of the present or past minimum of fifty dollars, there will be a great deal more interest taken in this form of annuity by the class of persons we desire to reach.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are these annuities on an actuarial basis? Are they supposed to finance themselves?


James Murdock: Yes, they are; and at the same time if you ask the Superintendent of Insurance or anyone else connected with anr nuities possibly he will say that there is no definite table on which you can fix an actuarial basis for annuities, but as nearly as possible they are I think regarded as being on a correct actuarial basis.


John Livingstone Brown: What is the amount necessary to buy that ten dollar annuity?


James Murdock: The rates are:
"10 years
Age	"A"	"B" guarantee"21	
$15 70	$ 8 25	$18 6545	
40 25	25 88	47 80


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the rate of payment the same on a ten dollar annuity as on a fifty or hundred dollar annuity?


James Murdock: Proportionately.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will this amendment
not increase the administrative cost of the business as compared with the cost of the other annuities? It will cost as much to issue
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: That question was raised when we were putting through the amendment, and possibly that will be the case, although I think we will be able to take care of the increased number of annuities that are issued under that plan without any material or perhaps without any increase in the staff.


Robert Gardiner: Is the money received for an annuity, invested and if so in what manner?


James Murdock: The money is turned over to the Receiver General and the Labour department has nothing to do with it.


Robert Gardiner: Does it go into the consolidated revenue fund?


James Murdock: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: And any moneys paid out for annuities come out of that fund?


James Murdock: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: And under those circumstance there will be no advance in the purchase price?


James Murdock: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
International Labour conference, $10,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What has this
International Labour conference accomplished during the past year?


James Murdock: I could hardly answer
that question in view of the fact that the conference concluded this year's session only a few days ago and the Canadian delegates are expected to-morrow.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What specific pieces of legislation have been secured to workers as a result of the conference?


James Murdock: In the world or in Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite willing to confine the question to Canada.


James Murdock: As my hon. friend
knows, Canada's relation to the conference is different probably from that of any other 
national Labour conference is of the opinion should be taken. On most questions to be dealt with this country generally speaking has to confine its efforts to directing the attention of the various provinces to the conventions adopted or the recommendations made, and then wait until such time as the provinces proceed to consider those questions. Canada is not in the position to do the things which I know my hon. friend has in mind and which he would like to see done in regard to many of the matters taken up by the conference. For example, workmen's compensation was the most important subject dealt with by the conference at its recent session which closeif this month. Now. the Dominion has nc authority to deal with that subject, which is a matter that comes under the control of the respective provinces. However, the government will bring to the attention of the nine provinces the result of the proceedings leaving the various questions to be dealt with by the provincial authorities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
the minister to say that the Dominion government has no authority to ratify the conventions?


James Murdock: My hon. friend understands me thoroughly when I say that Canada has no authority under our constitution to ratify such conventions without the authorization and concurrence of the various provinces, which provinces have certain rights that are theirs alone under the constitution.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister
say that the 'provinces have the right and the authority to ratify the conventions?


James Murdock: I do not think it becomes me to suggest what authority or right the provinces have in the matter. They jealously regard that as a question for their own governments to deal with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has
stated definitely -that in his judgment the Dominion government has not the right to ratify certain conventions. I ask, then, have the provinces that right?


James Murdock: I can only answer my hon. friend by assuming that the provinces have the full right, each within its own juridiction, to take the action recommended by the International Labour conference. If, accepting those recommendations, they so advise the federal government, then the federal govern-

Supply-Labour
ment will be glad to convey that information to Geneva.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood that
these were treaty obligations. Is that not right?


James Murdock: They would be treaty
obligations when they had been properly adopted and ratified by the provinces and further ratified by the federal government in treaty form.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister is
seeking to confuse the issue altogether. I am not speaking of some treaty in the future; I am speaking of a definite treaty already made, the treaty of Versailles. Now, are not these treaty obligations?


James Murdock: Not in my hon. friend's sense of the word.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never mind my sense of the word. I am asking a straightforward question as to whether certain conventions, such as that relating to the eight hour day, are or are not treaty obligations.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is not that a question
of law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
am asking the minister whether he does not himself regard them as treaty obligations.


James Murdock: And the minister is not disposed to give my hon. friend the answer that he would like to receive. I will tell the hon. gentleman the plain unvarnished truth, and that is that Canada will at the proper time and in the proper manner enter into treaty obligations in relation to the eight hour day. When the various provinces, with certain constitutional restrictions, have taken the necessary action to place the federal government in a position to ratify such a treaty; but the federal government cannot act until that is done. My hon. friend may not have read the text of the decision which was handed down a few days ago from the Supreme court on this particular question; but he would hardly expect me to set up my personal judgment or to express any view of my own on a question which has so recently been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did the Supreme
Court of Canada give any judgment whatever regarding Canada's obligations in relation to the treaty?


James Murdock: We shall secure a copy of the court's decision on the matter and give
it to the hon. gentleman for his information. I will not undertake to add to or take from that decision.
Mr. W00DSW70RTH: I am not discussing the Supreme court's decision; indeed, the whole text if read here would not touch the point I am raising. As I understand the matter, Canada entered into certain treaty obligations and signed the Peace treaty of Versailles; and the various conventions are the working out of that treaty. I understand that the Dominion of Canada has these obligations, and I understand further that no province can carry them out. It would seem to me therefore that the ratification of the treaty is a matter for the Dominion and not for the provinces. Does the Minister of Labour dispute that statement?


James Murdock: The Minister of Labour concedes that that is absolutely right, that the ratification of such a treaty would be the duty of the federal government when the provincial governments have indicated to the federal government that it has a right so to act on their behalf.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I asked whether the ratification of a treaty would not come prior to the carrying out of its terms by the provinces. I submit that the ratification comes first; afterwards it is for the provinces to decide how that treaty is to be carried out in detail. Does the minister dispute that statement?


James Murdock: Surely my hon. friend will agree that any authority, before entering into an agreement, would decide on the proper way to make effective the terms of that agreement. Undoubtedly it would be altogether improper for Canada to undertake to ratify, on behalf of the nine provinces, something that the provinces themselves had absolute authority to deal with. This parliament could not impose its wish on the provinces with respect to certain matters that have been dealt with in the conventions and recommendations emanating from the International Labour conference. The trouble wiith my hon. friend is that he is trying to localize all these questions, and to deal with them here-I presume because he is here to deal with them. That might be a very desirable thing to do, but unfortunately under our constitution we cannot usurp the authority of the provinces and undertake, in complete disregard of provincial rights, a certain course of action with respect to matters that my hon. friend might like us to pursue. He has stressed this same question
Supply-Labour

so often, he has found fault so frequently with what he terms our "dereliction of duty," that I wish he would realize that Canada in this respect is doing all she is obligated to do under the treaty of Versailles in connection with the International Labour conference. Perhaps he would indicate one case wherein Canada has fallen short of discharging her international obligations. Certainly I am not informed of any such case. In other words, as these matters come along we have tried to deal with them in the proper way by referring them to the appropriate authorities. Last session, as my hou. friend knows, three of these conventions from the International Labour conference were passed through this House. We have not ratified them yet, for the simple reason that in one or two of the matters we have been waiting for the Mother Country to take similar action. We want to keep abreast of the imperial authorities in respect to these matters. I think my hon. friend should rather co-operate with us in doing that which we have the right to do, and not, on behalf of labour, ask us to take action in entire disregard of provincial rights. It cannot be done-and I say to my hon. friend it will not be done in that way. We are going to take cognizance of the rights of the provinces in all these matters and consult and co-operate with them.


William Irvine: Then, Mr. Chairman, I fear that Canada had really no right to sign the treaty of Versailles, since it has not the constitutional powers to carry into effect the principles of the treaty.


James Murdock: That is a rather difficult question for me to deal with. I think my hon. friend realizes that the treaty of Versailles was signed by Canada as a federal state and involved principles which do not apply to many of the conventions and recommendations which now come from the International Labour conference, and which this federal State has no right to impose on the provinces. The two propositions are entirely different.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The point I have
raised, Mr. Chairman, was, I believe, raised by counsel for the Ontario government before the Supreme court. The point has also been raised, I am given to understand, before the International Labour conference. It is a question as to which should come first,- action by the provincial authorities, or the ratification of the treaty by the federal authorities. I submit that if Canada had the right to sign the treaty-and I think she had-then as a nation Canada must go forward

and ratify the treaty. The carrying out of its details is a subordinate question. I think it is evident to all that in treaty obligations the provinces have no juridiction whatever, and they might very well take the ground that they must wait until Canada ratifies the treaty before they decide their own policy.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Was not the. treaty
signed conditionally on the provinces agreeing to its provisions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was not.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I am afraid it was.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The treaty was
signed absolutely by Canada. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but it seems to me that it is distinctly the obligation of the federal authorities to join with the more progressive nations in ratifying these conventions, and thus carry out the solemn obligations undertaken at Versailles.


James Murdock: My hon. friend may'
not have read the opinion of the Justice department and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter. I have not at the moment a copy of the decision of the Supreme court, but I have before me the opinion of the Department of Justice. This opinion may not be acceptable to my hon. friend-indeed, I might disagree with it, but no one would give serious thought to my view, in so doing. Certain questions, among others the following, were submitted to the Justice department :
1.	What is the nature of the obligation of the Dominion of Canada as a member of the International Labour conference, under the provisions of the Labour Part (part 13) of the treaty of Versailles, and of the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace with relation to such draft conventions and recommendations as may be from time to time adopted by the said conference under the authority of and pursuant to the aforesaid provisions?
2.	Are the legislatures of the provinces the authorities within whose competence the subject matter of the said draft convention, (copy of which is herewith submitted) in whole or in part lies and before whom such draft convention should be brought, under the provisions of Article 405 of the treaty of Peace with Germany, for the enactment of legislation or other action ?
The Justice department dealt with these questions several years ago, and the Supreme court has also given its decision with relation to them. Therefore neither the view of my hon. friend nor of myself would have the slightest bearing on the constitutional position of the Dominion.


Mr. MILLAR:: 
James Murdock: Under the government's fair wage policy the government will insist that on government works and undertakings the wages and hours shall be equal to the current fair and reasonable wages or hours within the district where, the work is being done. In carrying out that policy we sometimes have an eight hour day for certain classes of workmen. On the Welland ship canal, for example, we have an eight hour day for carpenters, because in St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne, and I think one or two other places in that vicinity, the carpenters have an eight hour day in agreement with the employers. Therefore, the current hours are positively fixed by agreement between the workmen concerned and the employers. In many other cases, though, the eight hour day is not fixed* there is no agreement as to hours, and we find in some cases a nine or a ten hour day. But the principle that is generally applied is the hours and wages current in the district in which the work is being done.


William Irvine: What is the minister's idea regarding1 the steps which would have to be taken in order to put into force in Canada any of the provisions of the Versailles treaty?


James Murdock: Last session this parliament ratified three of the conventions emanating from the International Labour
conference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very insignificant
ones.


James Murdock: I would assume that the conventions emanating from the International Labour conference with reference to the employment of youths at sea and the payment of shipwrecked seamen were important matters. They occupied the time and attention of representatives of forty to fifty governments as well as of employers and workers from all the nations concerned. Evidently they did not regard them as insignificant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The conventions
are important enough in themselves, but they affect a relatively small group of Canadian workers.


William Irvine: The minister did not quite get my question. I was referring to those factors in the treaty which we have not yet ratified. What are the steps to be taken to bring them into effect?


James Murdock: As to those matters in respect, to which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction, it would be necessary for the provinces to take action to give effect to the
principles contained in the particular convention. The provinces could then either advise the federal Labour department and let them convey the information to the international labour office, or they could send the information direct. If all the provinces took the necessary action in connection with the eight hour day, for instance, I assume-and this is only my own view, since my hon. friend has asked for it-they could then request the federal government, after the proper action had been taken to ratify the eight hour day convention with such other nations as had ratified it.


William Irvine: In the minister's opinion, all the provinces would have to act before this parliament would be justified in ratifying it?


James Murdock: No, but before it could be effectively and uniformly ratified on behalf of Canada as a whole. In the meantime it would be in effect in such provinces as had accepted it and taken the necessary action in relation thereto.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister say there is any other way of effectively and uniformly ratifying a convention than simply ratifying it? There is no such thing as uniformity of ratification of a convention, surely.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is not fully informed, then. One of the difficulties that Geneva reports in the matter of securing ratification of these conventions is that in some particular respect the convention may be objectionable to certain nations. For instance, some nations have indicated readiness to ratify a convention if some slight changes are made in it, but that has not under the regulations so far been permitted, although a proposal i? being considered under which that may be possible later. It is the desire of the international labour office that there shall be uniformity in ratification.


William Irvine: What has been the value to labour in Canada of the money expended on these conferences?


James Murdock: I would rather my hon. friend would communicate with the Trades and Labour Congress, or others representing labour in Canada, to get that information. My opinion is that labour regards it generally as advisable and valuable for Canada to maintain its connection with the international labour office, to keep in touch with its work and to keep abreast of what is being done by the other nations.
Supply-Labour


William Irvine: Is this $10,000 expended
under the jurisdiction of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada?


James Murdock: No, but a certain amount of it goes to pay the travelling expenses of representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress to Geneva and return. The expenditure under this head arises out of section 13 of the Peace treaty. It is to pay the expenses of the government delegates in attendance at the International Labour conferences, and the representatives of employers and employees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joint industrial councils, $3,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Have any councils been organized during the past year?


James Murdock: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the idea of the vote, then?


James Murdock: It is in order to do certain work that appears necessary in maintaining industrial peace and co-operation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not in organizing councils?


James Murdock: R has not been regarded as advisable to undertake to organize councils. When we do that, I am of the opinion that it will be necessary to increase the vote quite substantially. A considerable part of this vote has been utilized for the payment of the expenses of one officer who works part time, and through whose efforts much valuable work has been done in bringing about settlement of disputes between employer and employee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not the present policy of the government to organize industrial councils?


James Murdock: My answer to my hon. friend will be the same this year as last. It is not regarded as appropriate at the present time to press forward the organization of industrial councils.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me ask again the question I asked last year. Has the minister made any effort to organize industrial councils within the Post Office Department or any other departments of the civil service?


James Murdock: No, the minister has not taken any steps in that direction, nor will he be in a position to take any effective steps until such time as parliament has changed certain laws now on its statute books which give exclusive jurisdiction and authority to

certain bodies to deal with certain questions, and if we are to have industrial councils organized, that will probably have to be done. I am in favour personally of something along that line being done, but in order to make them as effective as the employees in some of the federal departments would like to have them, and as they have a right to desire to have them, we shall have to deal with some questions affecting the law first.


William Irvine: In that case why does not the minister bring down the legislation that would give him liberty to act in this matter? I quite appreciate he is working under difficulties; I would be very much surprised if it were otherwise, but I think the minister will do himself greater credit if, when he finds his hands are tied by.reason of legislation, lie makes an attempt to remove that legislation.


James Murdock: I would hope that some day that will be given proper consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines investigation Act, including $1,000 to the registrar, which amount may be paid notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or in the Combines Investigation Act, $30,000.
Grote Stirling: Can the minister give the committee any information as to what progress is being made in connection with any prosecutions that have been started under this act?


James Murdock: The gentleman authorized
by the Minister of Justice to conduct prosecutions has gone over most of the evidence and many of the exhibits, has been to Vancouver to discuss matters with the attorney general, and to Edmonton and Regina for the same purpose, and is leaving Winnipeg tonight after a meeting with the Attorney General of Manitoba for the purpose of taking further steps I assume in British Columbia. Further than that I am not in a position to say.


William Irvine: How many combines have been investigated since the adt went into force?


James Murdock: Three alleged combines have been investigated-in ithe fruit industry in western Canada, in the retail coal business in Winnipeg, and in the potato growing industry in New Brunswick.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of this vote was spent last year?


James Murdock: All of it, and I am asking in the supplementary estimates for an additional $20,000, which is the amount by which last year's vote was exceeded.

Supply-Labour


William Irvine: Do I understand that $30,000 has been expended in the administration of this act alone?


James Murdock: Yes.


William Irvine: How many employees received part of this $30,000?


James Murdock: The department has
taken on no new employees so far, as the result of the operation of this act. The expenditure is for a per diem allowance for the commissioner, legal advice in certain cases to the commissioner, stenographic and accounting services, and other services of such a nature as was necessary in western Canada and in1 British Columbia in connection with the investigations that were there made. The commissioner who investigated the alleged coal combine in Winnipeg had to have with him a legal gentleman, and in connection with that investigation they had to go to Edmonton, Calgary, Reginia, and I think a number of other points in the west.


William Irvine: Does the minister anticipate this will be an annual vote, this amount or larger?


James Murdock: This amount or larger, yes, I think so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the per diiem fee paid to the legal gentlemen who are engaged in this work?


James Murdock: The usual fee is $50 a
day for the legal adviser who accompanies the registrar.


Henry Elvins Spencer: And a living allowance besides?


James Murdock: And a living allowance.


William Irvine: That is the full union wage. Does he work an eight-hour day?


Grote Stirling: Does the minister propose to issue a final report on the alleged fruit combine, following the interim report?


James Murdock: I think it will be necessary to do SO', but it may be some little time before that is done. There may be some other side investigations which it may be necessary to make.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the present situation with regard to that combine? I rather understood an injunction proceeding had been taken out for the purpose of restraining any action.


James Murdock: I have just explained to my hon. friend from Yale the situation. The gentleman appointed by the Minister of 314
Justice to prosecute has spent considerable time .going over the evidence and exhibits, has visited the attorneys general in the four western provinces, and is leaving Winnipeg tonight, I understand, to proceed to British Columbia and take such further action as may be neteessary. What that action may be, I do not know. As to the injunction my hon. friend speaks about, I know nothing of it excepting the item that appeared in the press some time ago.
Distribution of parliament documents and other government publications, $40,000.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I hold in my hand two publications, one entitled Labour Legislation in Canada, 1924, issued by the King's Printer in the ordinary way, and compiled and published by the Department of Labour. This comprises 107 or 108 pages and it is of value naturally only to one section in this country. No other department, so far as I am aware, goes to the trouble of issuing a book of this kind concerning legislation which has been passed during the previous year. For instance, although there are many valuable additions to the statutes made under the auspices of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), he has never had a publication of this kind. I have another one called Labour Organizations in Canada, which comprises almost 300 pages of close print, and undoubtedly it lias cost a large amount of money to produce. In the estimates a certain sum is voted for the publication of the Labour Gazette of Canada, but I cannot find any particular amount allocated to the publication of these two works.


James Murdock: My hon. friend, of
course, is discussing a question that should have been dealt with under item No. 252, "Conciliation and Labour Act, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of Labour Gazette and allowance to correspondents." This particular vote has nothing to do with the question my hon, friend is discussing, but I do not mind giving him the advice that should have been given to him when that vote was dealt with on the 17th of March last. I think my hon. friend will find that those publications are supplementary to the Labour Gazette and were issued as such. They are issued in connection with and as part of the information given out by the department.	[DOT]


James Arthurs: The minister may be perfectly correct in stating that these are supplements to the Labour Gazette, but no such information is on the face of the documents.

Supply-Labour


James Murdock: That is the way in which they are issued. We have not changed any practices excepting that these publications are brought more nearly up to date.


James Arthurs: Is the total cost of these two publications included in the $35,000 vote under item No. 252?


James Murdock: In the Labour department vote, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is it that we have a change in the printing of Hansard? We now 'have the index printed separately, so that we have to get two volumes from the Library.


James Murdock: Two years ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) very properly brought to our attention two or three days after the session had opened the fact that the bound copies of Hansard were not before us. Of course, we did not want to have such a delay as that if we could avoid it. Last year we found that the printing, numbering, binding and so forth of any of these volumes could not be done until all the index had been completed. We went along to the 19th day of July before the House closed. Then many of the employees that had been on continuous duty for quite a long while were taking their holidays until we found it was getting pretty late in the fall and we were not going to be able to get the properly indexed Hansard. A suggestion was made that if we could print only one index instead of four or five indexes, we could save a great deal of paper, four quantities of paper equal to the total amount of paper used in the printing of the index, and then we could print the index in a separate volume. I am told by the Printing Bureau officers that only one protest has been raised against that practice which it was thought would make Hansard handier if anything by having a separate volume of the index, so that an individual by iooking at it would know whether it was volume 1, 2, 3 or 4 he wanted for any particular subject he desired to look up. Those are briefly the reasons why that was done. Whether that practice is to be continued or not, we think it will be a saving. Hansard for this session will occupy four or five volumes. We think this will save a great deal of paper which it was thought was unnecessarily wasted in the past by printing an index for each volume of Hansard when one index for all the volumes would do.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand the minister said that the Printing Bureau had received only one protest. I have felt like
fMr. Arthurs.]
protesting to everybody I have met, but I could not find anybody who would take the responsibility. I think the Printing Bureau print what they are instructed to print, and I do not think this should be laid at their door at all. It is very inconvenient and I cannot agree with the view that it will save money. To my mind, it will cost more to bind a separate volume of the index than the cost of the quantity of paper used to print four other copies of the index. As regards the saving of time, the volumes are not much good until the index is printed, and I doubt if the volumes were distributed until the index was printed. Possibly this was done with a good object in view, but I do not think it should be done again and I hope it will not be. Every member to whom I have spoken about the matter-and I have spoken about it to a good many-has felt as I do. I think every hon. member who does not approve that method of printing should register his protest. I am going to register mine as definitely as I can. A member sends a page to the library for a volume and he has to send again to get the index. It is veiy convenient, when you get a volume out of the library or any other place at your home, not to have to lug around two volumes in order to find what you want to find. I hope this practice will be discontinued. I do not think it is economical. I know it is inconvenient and I seriously hope it will not be continued.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is surely mistaken in suggesting that there will be more printing and binding. There will be less-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: More binding.


James Murdock: For the reason that
we can now put 1,000 or 1,200 pages into each volume of Hansard.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has that not always
been done?


James Murdock: We all know that in
every volume heretofore there was a repetition of the entire index of Hansard. Therefore, there Were simply hundreds of additional pages of the index printed and put into each volume of Hansard. Of course if hon. members want that done-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Murdock: I assume entire responsibility for giving the final word in regard to this. It seems to me that if hon. members would get in the habit of saying "Give me the index for 1923" they could look at the index and they would know whether the

Supply-Labour
discussion they wanted to see was in volume 2, 3, 4 or 5, and they would send for that particular volume. In this way you are not stocking your shelves with four or five reprints of the index, but you will have your index in a nice, neatly bound little volume, and I certainly would like some instructions on this because we have not had any instructions yet. This has been done to reduce the cost and to simplify the Hansard for use. Of course, if hon. members do not want it done in that way, we should be told to go back to the old system.


William Irvine: I think the index system
is a very decided improvement, and I hope the minister will not make the alteration that' has been suggested. If a member knows the Hansard in which the matter he wants to refer. to is printed, he does not need an index; but if he has to send for four or five copies in order to get the items he wants he will find a great deal of difficulty. As the thing is done at present, all he is required to do is to lock a: the index, and he can find the item he wishes to refer to. That method is far in advance of the other system.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am surprised that
as bright a man as the hon. member for East Calgary would present such an argument. He says he would have to get four or five volumes to find out what he wants. My hon. friend has not caught the point. With the present system of index you have to send for the index before you know what volume you want at all. Under the old system the index was inserted in each volume, so that you could find out by looking in the first volume where the item you wished to refer to appeared, just as easily as if you had the index. A man who had all his faculties would not have to send for the second volume. He would find it in the first volume.


James Murdock: The thing he wanted
might not be in that book.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He has to send for
the index first under the proposed arrangement, in order to find out where he will find the reference he wants, but if the index is printed with each volume he will be able to find his reference in any volume, and if it is not in the volume which he has got, all he has to do is send for the volume in which it appears, just the same as if he had referred to the index.


Mr. POWER:: What does the hon. gentlemain want to read the book for anyway?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not quite understand how the hon. member for East Calgary 314i
can suggest that you would have to send for four or five volumes before you got what you wanted.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to protest to
the minister against the change he has made.
I think he stated that he had only heard one protest. I hope many members will rise and make a brief protest against putting the index in a volume by itself. I sent to the Library oin one occasion for a volume of Hansard containing a certain debate, and when it came I found the place and put a mark in the book. It lay on my desk and some member came along and removed it, so that I had to send to the Library for the index in order to find out in what part of Hansard this debate appeared, although I had the volume on my desk. I could not find the partial debate without looking through a thousand pages.


Charles Gavan Power: Was the hon. member deprived of making a speech on that occasion?


George Gibson Coote: I probably had to make an extra one on that account. Possibly that argument will convince my hon. friend that he should support the protest I am now making. I hope the Minister of Labour will be good enough to accede to our request and plaice the index in each volume.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I regret that T cannot agree with the hon. member for Maeleod. On the other hand, I approve of the minister's attitude both on the ground of convenience and expense, rand I hope his suggestion will be adopted.
!Mir. NEILL: I am in favour of the index being inserted in each volume. It is more convenient and it is not much more expensive when you consider the cost of binding in the copy of the index. I do not think there could be much more expense because you have to wait till the index is prepared in any event, and we know that Unrevised Hansard comes out on the last day of the session with a paper index which will be sufficient for us for the time being.
I would like to suggest another small change which would made it more convenient and would not cost anything, and that is that the front page of each individual day's proceedings be numbered. At present the first page of the day's debate is not numbered. As the book is bound, when you open it, it always opens at one of those pages, and when you look at this page you find there is no number and you hiave to turn over another page. If this principle was carried out right through the whole volume it would be a great convenience.
Supply-Labour


George Gibson Coote: I would suggest that we carry the item if the minister would just say that he would consider this request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous printing, $20,000.
James Arthurs: Will the minister tell us what amount was expended for printing outside the Printing Bureau, or what amount he contemplates will be spent for printing outside the bureau?


James Murdock: Not one cent has been spent for printing outside .the bureau, nor will there be any.


James Arthurs: I hold in my hand a
return brought down on motion of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland).


James Murdock: That is not under this item.


James Arthurs: It is in connection with the printing done outside the Printing Bureau. I ask the minister what sum would be expended for printing outside the bureau. The minister gave me the reply a few minutes ago that not one dollar would be so spent.


James Murdock: Of this item.


James Arthurs: This is the only item, miscellaneous printing. I cannot see why I am not in order in taking the matter up at the present time. I should like to place on Hansard a few of these figures, particularly referring to the Department of the Interior, The return states that printing done outside of the Printing Bureau from December 29, 1921, which represents the incoming of this present government, to March 31, 1922 for that department amounted to $1,127.87.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that
1921?


James Arthurs: Yes, from the accession to power of this government to the end of the fiscal year 1922-23. For the fiscal year 192223 the amount expended for printing outside the Printing Bureau was $134,882.81, and I may point out that the great bulk of this was spent in the United States. Rand McNally and Company of Chicago, Illinois, received at least ninety-five per cent of this amount. I have not added the figures but I presume their account was $125,000. For the year 1923-24 the amount is $157,471.59, and the same firm are the chief beneficiaries. During the year 1924-25 the amount spent was $55,567-32. I see no particular reason why an amount approximating $500,000 or upwards for printing in connection with this department alone should be spent outside Canada. There is no [Mr. Neill.l	I
reiason unless it is that the minister is trying to find employment for some of those Canadians who have gone to Chicago.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no change in that regard.


James Arthurs: I do not care whether
there is any change or not; the fact is that this is not Canadian, it is not the proper system to follow. If we are to go back to the time of Adam and say that there has been no change here and no change there we might as well give up all attempt at improvements. We find further in the Department of Printing and Stationery, which comes directly under the Minister of Labour, that from the time the present government took office up to the present day-


James Murdock: Does my hon. friend
know what it is that Rand, McNally have been printing for the government?


James Arthurs: I am through with them now. '


James Murdock: Does the hon. member
know that it is maps which cannot be printed in the Printing Bureau and which were never printed there? Does he know that this is a class of work that has never yet been done in the Printing Bureau but has always been done outside? Does he know that these items are small indeed compared to some items that have appeared in the years prior to 192.1?


James Arthurs: I may tell the minister
frankly that he is stating what is not true according to the figures I have here.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. member must not suggest that the minister is not stating the truth.


James Arthurs: That is, according to the figures I have. The minister says that this money has been spent on maps principally. I want to point out however that during the year 1922-23, out of $125,000 or upwards paid to Rand, McNally the amount for maps was only some $12,000 or less than one-tenth of the total, the rest being spent chiefly on ordinary printing such as the atlas of Canada, which is not a map, and things of that kind.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
guilty; this happens to belong to the Immigration department.


James Arthurs: So much for that; I
do not intend to go further into that particular question. Now I come to ordinary printing, and I want to point out that in

Supply-Labour
the ordinary Department of Printing and Stationery there has been expended in the few years this government has been in power some $1,029,822.49 outside the Printing Bureau..


James Murdock: What for?


James Arthurs: There are no maps included in this; it is simply for printing.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is now
stating something that is entirely contrary to the facts. He has no such record before him.


James Arthurs: The minister is deliberately stating What is false.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. member must withdraw that statement.


James Arthurs: I take it back, but I
have in my hand the correct particulars. I have a statement here showing the amount paid out by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.


James Murdock: For lithographing, which we do not do.


James Arthurs: Does the Pembroke
Observer do better lithographic work than can be done in Ottawa?


James Murdock: No.


James Arthurs: Well, they got $64,943.


James Murdock: On a contract for
money order work similar to some placed by my hon. friend's government. A change is being made. .


James Arthurs: The change has not been made yet, because for the present year 1924-25 they have received $5,500.


James Murdock: The work relates to
money order printing and will as I understand shortly cease.


James Arthurs: All through the entire
list we find small papers all over Canada receiving amounts that would buy them three or four times over. The fact remains, according to this return, that the government has paid out under this head upwards of $1,000,000.


James Murdock: For printing?


James Arthurs: So it is stated.


James Murdock: If my hon. friend will
only analyse the statement and draw a distinction between actual printing and work done which could not possibly be done in the Printing Bureau, where there are no facilities to do it, he will find that there is
a material difference. If I had a copy of that statement in my hand I might analyse it for the hon. gentleman.


James Arthurs: Have this one.


James Murdock: My hon. friend overlooked this part of the statement which I think it would be interesting to put on Hansard: Question:
1.	The total amount spent by the present government since coming into office for public printing aside from that done by the Printing Bureau.
2.	The names of the firms or individuals awarded this printing, what amount of work was done by each, and at what price each year since the coming into power of the present government.
Answer:
1. The total amount spent by the present government since coming into office, for public printing, aside from that done by the Printing Bureau may be divided generally into three classes, as follows:
1. Letterpress printing which because of the printed matter required being in an unusual language, such as Ukrainian, or because on other special grounds the work cannot be economically performed in the Printing Bureau, or because the work is of an urgent nature and the Printing Bureau is too severely pressed with parliamentary or other work to perform
it by a stated date	 $230,291 34
2. Work on money orders which cannot be economically performed in the Printing Bureau	 211,058 81
A change in the style of money orders will shortly bring the whole of this work into the lithography class.
Now then, my hon. friend has not given much credit for this:
3.	Work involving processes, such as lithography, photo engraving, and so forth, for which the Printing Bureau is not equipped, $588,472.34.
A thorough analysis of this return by my hon. friend would indicate entirely different figures to those that he gave to the House, and that was the reason for my correcting him and saying that a million dollars had not been spent for printing, because although lithography and photo engraving may be classed as printing, it is not printing that can be done with the equipment we have at the Printing Bureau.


James Arthurs: How much of this first
item was on acount of Ukrainian literature?


James Murdock: Comparatively little.


James Arthurs: As a matter of fact, that was only a bluff on the part of the minister?


James Murdock: No, it is a fact that
sometimes it is necessary to get out such literature in foreign languages.


James Arthurs: It would not amount to very much?


James Murdock: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Labour
[Stage Direction]
Labour-Combines Investigation Act-further amo'int required, $20,000.
Arthur Meighen: It is a pretty expensive act for all the results, is it not?


James Murdock: My right hon. friend will recall that last year I was chided for having spent only $S2.


Arthur Meighen: That was also too much
for the results.


James Murdock: I think there are many
people in different parts of Canada who will believe that the money spent during the past year has been worth while.


Arthur Meighen: Have any prosecutions
been undertaken yet?


James Murdock: I stated to the House
twice under the other vote what that was.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said some
general instructions has been issued. That is indefinite. Has anybody actually been prosecuted? If so, who is it?


James Murdock: As my right hon. friend probably knows, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) appointed a gentleman to take the necessary action in prosecutions, for the reason that the provinces had failed to do so and were of the view that the Dominion should proceed. That gentleman has gone through the evidence and exhibits and has interviewed the attorneys general of the four western provinces to arrive at understandings with them, and, as I stated to the House a little while ago, we were advised to-day that he is leaving Winnipeg tonight for Vancouver, presumably to take up the necessary work. It is rather a big job, covering the four western provinces.


Arthur Meighen: No prosecution has been entered yet?


James Murdock: Prosecutions were undertaken last September, but it has not been possible to proceed with the general prosecution yet.


Arthur Meighen: But the prosecutions last September were not under the Combines Investigation Act at all.


James Murdock: They were undertaken
on facts produced as a result of investigations under the Combines Act.


Arthur Meighen: Under the Combines
Act?


James Murdock: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: They were not prosecutions for violations of the act, at all.


James Murdock: I know that, but there
was a prosecution as a result of an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody has been prosecuted for violating the Combines Act; that is established so far.


James Murdock: There have been no
prosecutions.


Arthur Meighen: I did not for a moment
rise to dispute that the government had appointed an officer, that that officer had made some very pleasurable trips through the country and had had some fine interviews with the attorneys general; I would never think of disputing that. In fact this government would consider it a bad day if the sun should set without their having appointed somebody to something. But the fact is there has been really no result in the way of pros ecution of anyone. I shall be glad to reopen the subject next session to see what prosecutions have been undertaken and with what success.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-salaries, including $500 to Fred Cook as secretary to the Government Printing and Stationery committee, $84,945.
Arthur Meighen: This is an increase.


James Murdock: Statutory increases only. I think.


Arthur Meighen: Seeing that the minister
quotes the decision of the Privy Council as his barricade against any further action in strikes, will the department be contracted proportionately to its usefulness?


James Murdock: Which department?


Arthur Meighen: Labour.


James Murdock: We passed the Labour
department estimates some time ago; we are dealing now with the Printing estimates.


Arthur Meighen: It is akin to it.


James Murdock: No.
Item agreed .___________
I Canadian National Safety League, $10,000.


Arthur Meighen: When did the vote start?


James Murdock: Three years ago at $25,000. Last year it was reduced to $10,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What work does the league perform?


James Murdock: It is an organization,
national in character, for securing co-operation in carrying on safety first work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Propaganda?


James Murdock: Propaganda too. But
in Ontario good work has been done and the government of that province is contributing J towards it.
___Item agreed to. ___________________....		


Loans to Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $60,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "The Company," or any company specified or referred to in chapter 13 of the statutes of Canada, 1919, and chapter 13 of 1920 or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it from time to time under the provisions of section 11 of chapter 13 of the statutes of Canada, 1919, or any one or more of such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being herein called authorized expenditures:
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations; rentals for lease of lines;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other Dbligations secured or unsecured;
(c)	Operating income deficit, whenever incurred or ascertained;
(d)	Construction and betterments, including co-ordinations; acquisition of real or personal property.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures, in the discretion of the Governor in Council:
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b)	In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:
If by way of loans, the amount or amoimts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand, with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the Governor in Council, secured if and when directed by the Governor in Council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and [DOT]conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee .may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the Governor in Council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue, and such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance, or such other person as the Governor in Council may authorize, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall !be conclusive evidence for all purposes that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or others of the said companies, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all of such other companies from time to time:
(a) Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purposes of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;	. j
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all such other
companies;
(c)	Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue, $60,000,000.


William Irvine: I want to present to the
minister the case of a number of maintenance of way men employed on the Canadian National and to ask him to take the matter into his careful consideration. In 1904 a system of pension based on years of service was put into force by the railway companies. A clause in the pension regulations provided that to participate in a strike would bring a forfeiture of pension rights in respect to all services prior to going on strike. The maintenance of way men had had a strike in 1899, and when the company decided to institute the service pension they reckoned the service of these men from the date of the strike, 1899. The maintenance of way men were practically cut off from all services up to the time of the strike so far as pensions were concerned. I want to ask the minister to allow such of these employees as are still living or are still employed to count their full services as if the 1899 strike had not occurred, and I will ask him to do so on the following grounds:	The pension regulations, it must be remembered, were not in force when the strike took place. The pensions were introduced in 1904 and the strike took place in 1899. It seems rather hard that these men should have to be deprived of their years of service and seniority because of a strike that took place before the regulations were announced. I notice that the minister is paying close attention to my remarks.
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Just so that my hon. friend will not think I am discourteous to him, I may say that this is a matter with which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is familiar in every detail, and he is going to reply to my hon. friend.


William Irvine: I do not want a reply so
much as I want action.


George Perry Graham: He can give you both.


William Irvine: The Canadian Pacific had
a strike of its maintenance of way men in 1901. That was three years before the service pensions were introduced, but these men were not cut off, the Canadian Pacific recog-
Supply-Loans to C.N.R.

nized the seniority of the striking men when they introduced the pension system. I understand that the Canadian Pacific men who went on strike were able to enforce certain concessions through their organized strength, but tihe strikers on the Grand Trunk were not so successful and consequently were unable to make any demands whatsoever. However, the Canadian Pacific men were not deprived of their seniority. It seems to me that the National line should be at least as generous with their employees as the Canadian Pacific have been with theirs. But there is another case that is perhaps more to the point. The trainmen on the Grand Trunk were in a similar position to the extent that they went on strike, but they were in a worse position from another point of view, because their strike took place in 1910, after the agreement and the regulations respecting service pensions had been drawn up and made effective!. These men wlere cut off, but since the present Minister of Labour came into office the .trainmen have been reinstated with full seniority rights. Again I understand that there are some extenuating circumstances in connection with this reinstatement. I am very glad indeed that the minister did reinstate them. I am very glad for their sakes that they are receiving this consideration. I am certainly not speaking in any way against the action of the minister in this respect, but I would urge that the same consideration be extended to the maintenance of way men. They are not only indispensable to the whole system of railways, but they are, I believe, the lowest paid of all servants on the railway line, and it is unfair that this discrimination should be made against them for having gone on strike very many years before the pension system was introduced. We should remember that a similar grievance was remedied on the Canadian Pacific, but so far it has not been taken into consideration on the Canadian National. I do not think it is necessary for me to press the argument further. I hope when the Minister of Labour has got through answering he will be favourable to what I have just said, and I hope that the Minister of Railways will listen carefully to the Minister of Labour if he agrees with my suggestion. But if the Minister of Labour does not agree with my suggestion I hope the Minister of Railways will close both his ears and pay attention to the argument which I have put forward.


George Perry Graham: I will read it.


James Murdock: I am personally familiar with the three' strikes to which the hon.
rMr. Irvine.]
member (Mr. Irvine) has referred. During the last two years there has scarcely been a month that we have not had requests to do exactly what my hon. friend is asking. We have had the matter up in the Department of Labour on several occasions; in fact I went to Montreal personally to discuss it fully with the officials of the Canadian National Railways. The situation is this: The Grand Trunk maintenance of way employees, section men, went on strike in 1899 and were defeated. Many of them went back to work in their former positions without any agreement, without any understanding, without any recognition of their right to claim previous years' service. They had put their all, figuratively speaking, in the balance when they went out on strike, and had been prepared, surely, to take the bitter with the sweet, whatever consequences might come. The result was that when many of these former employees went back to work, the company were glad to get them back, but it was on the understanding that "you start to-day, from your first day's work after the strike". Time went on and a strike of a similar character took place on the Canadian Pacific in 1901. I had something personally to do later in helping to bring about a settlement of that strike, which lasted two or three months, as I recall it. The settlement in that case had certain provisions not very favourable to the men, but sufficient to concede continuity of service to the Canadian Pacific sectionmen, and in the case of the trainmen and conductors that my hon. friend speaks of, a specific signed agreement was made between the president of the then Grand Trunk system and the organizations providing that the men should retain their seniority rights and places, and so forth.
What is being contended for now is that the men who in 1899 took a chance and lost-I think everyone whether in the ranks of labour or outside will agree that a strike is always a chance-and who went back to work on the company's terms, the company's terms being that "you, a good, capable and valued employee, are commencing work from this date so far as your service and seniority rights with this company are concerned," should now have their rights reinstated. Later on, as my hon. friend says, pension regulations were put into effect, which specifically provided that men going out on strike broke the continuity of their service. That was one of the underlying principles of the Grand Trunk pension regulations. These men now, after twenty-six years of better understanding

Supply-Loans to C.N.R.
of the relations as between employer and employee, naturally want to get what to many of them would be valuable, that is, an allowance for their years of service prior to the time they went on strike in 1899. While some of the officials of the company look very sympathetically towards the claims of some of these men, this Step could not be taken without establishing a precedent. I wrote to the general chairman of the Grand Trunk System Federation, Maintenance of Way Employees, on this question on December 8, 1924, and in part said:
It is said that numerous cases are in evidence where employees of the railways have resigned their positions to undertake other employment, or enter business for themselves, and that later finding that the business obligations assumed did not meet with their expectations, the employees who resigned have undertaken to, and have actually been permitted to return to the service and in many cases, after a lapse of months or years, have made claim that the continuity of their rights under pension regulations should not be broken as the result of their leaving the service.
Such a position cannot, of course, be maintained in relation to individuals who have left the service as stated and later returned and it is held that to make marked exception to the rule of observing the continuity of service as a prime requisite for participation in pension allowance on behalf of the trackmen who went on strike in 1899 would open up the whole field and give many individuals who had broken the continuity of their service for other reasons, claim for equal consideration.
I think that puts the actual position of the company in its proper light. I say to my hon. friend that while I have been altogether sympathetic to doing what could be done for the men, if it could be done without prejudice to other proper interests, I think this matter has been carried just as far as it can be carried. These employees my hon. friend is speaking for have from twenty to twenty-five years service on which to base pension allowance, and in many cases the pension will be quite substantial. I really could not encourage him to think that the Canadian National system would be justified, considering what there is involved in other respects, in meeting the claim made by my hon. friend, and as it has also been made to our department by many others from time to time.	.


William Irvine: While I acknowledge some of the technical difficulties that the Minister of Labour has pointed out, still I am loath to agree that the request which I have made with respect to these men would entail any insurmountable difficulties, nor do I think any complications of a grave nature would arise. I have here a list of the men who would be affected. It is not a very large list, and I do not see that any other person would suffer any hardship whatsoever if the Canadian National railway system were to recognize the seniority
rights of these men. If the Minister of Railways were willing to give compassionate consideration to these employees, would the Minister of Labour still raise his technical objections?


James Murdock: Not by any means.


William Irvine: That places the matter then in the hands of the minister in charge (Mr. Graham). I am sure he is very fair and very sympathetic, and that when he sees an opportunity of doing good work he will not allow a trivial technicality to stand in the way. I hope he will therefore take into serious consideration the representations which I have made, and that in due course these men will find themselves reinstated in their seniority rights as far as the service pensions are concerned. I would like to have a word from the Minister of Railways himself with regard to this. Has he given any consideration to this matter heretofore, and will he consider it now?


George Perry Graham: I have not studied the details of late, but I had something to do with the matter at one time in connection with the settlement that was made with the strikers on the Grand Trunk. I would have to go into the whole matter before I would feel at all warranted in interfering with the settlement that was made at that time. I will discuss it, however, with the officials of the Canadian National Railway, but I feel I would have to take their advice largely on any step that would be taken outside of the settlement that was made.


Mr. CHURCH:: I understand that it is proposed by the Canadian National Railway to erect a large 24-storey skyscraper at the comer of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, to serve the needs of the Canadian National Railway system in that city. The railway owns the northwest comer of King and Yonge streets, and next to that is the headquarters of the Home Bank. I understand the government has decided to sell this property, that a large skyscraper is to be erected, and that as many as fifteen storeys are to be taken by the railway. I understand that the government are going to try to eliminate in this way the urgent necessity of erecting a custom house building in the city of Toronto, a city that contributes $60,000,000 of customs revenue to the Dominion; also a new post office building, and to the post office revenues of this Dominion Toronto contributes $6,000,000. I think it is only fair that the contract which the government or the railways have made for the erection of this building should be produced and laid on the table. I asked for it a month ago, and the hon. member for West York has
Supply-Loans to C.N.R.

also asked four or five times that the contract be tabled.
I have here a few telegrams I should like to read to tlhe House. There are a large number of new buildings in the downtown district of Toronto to-day in which floor space is vacant amounting to 700,000 square feet. There is the Metropolitan building at Adelaide and Victoria streets, and the new Canadian Northern Ontario building at Bay and Victoria streets, and many other large buildings are proposed to be built. There was an inquiry before the court of revision in Toronto regarding these sky-scrapers, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company came before the court and said that their building on the comer of King and Yonge streets paid only 2 per cent on the investment. The owners of miany other buildings, for instance the owner of the Royal Bank building came along with the same story. I do not know whether this is good business or not for the National Railways; but after buying this property at the corner of King and Yonge streets, where they operated a ticket office, they remodelled the building, spending a large amqunt of money on it, and moved many of the offices there from down town. In addition to that the Great North Western telegraph offices away down on Wellington Street were moved into the remodelled building. Now they are proposing, with a railway going behind $55,000,000 a year, to build a huge sky-scraper which is a luxury, when the city of Toronto needs a proper custom house instead of offices scattered along twelve miles of water front. We do not want luxuries at the present time, especially when the need of economy is so 'great, and when the milway is going $55,000,000 behind every year. Part of the freight business, the ticket selling business, and the telegraph business of the Great North Western are going to be disorganized' for two or three years until this new building is completed. What we want 'at the present time is essentials and not luxuries. I want to read a short telegram which I received from Mr. L. M. Wood, who is a member of the Toronto Board of Trade and who, I think, is owner of the Royal Bank building across the road. I think he stated before the count of revision that he was making 2 per cent on the investment. The telegram reads:	[DOT]
Am informed that chartered trust company agents of Metropolitan building recently completed have offered space to National Railways at $1.65 per square foot covering their total requirements. Have seen letter from Minister of Railways which states inferentially that transaction between National Railways and promote: s of new skyscraper has been closed with his approval. The whole basis of British institutions is that taxes cannot be collected or spent without parliamentary uathority. The making of government contracts

through the National Railways is in direct contradiction of this principle. I hope you will insist that this contract be produced in parliament for inspection of members.
I am aot going to read the resolution, but they say that when there axe all these buildings in Toronto with 700,000 square feet of vacant office space, they think this is an unnecessary expenditure of public 'money. The National Railways should have a modem way of doing business and a modem office at the corner of King and Yonge streets; but after buying the property and spending thousands of dollars in remodelling the building, which is a six or seven storey building, taking the whole inside out of it, and removing the telegram system from Front and Wellington streets into that building, a year or so after it is proposed by agreement or contract-and no one knows what the contract is-erect a big sky-scraper. This may be good business ir. the future, but not at the present time. They should hold the property for a few years, and then the increase per foot for that particular site would go a long way to make up the deficit. This resolution has been sent to me by members of the board of trade, not as that organization, but as gentlemen having buildings which have been -built quite recently and which are not fully occupied. In view of all these facts, and in view of the condition of the Canadian National Railways, and the real estate market to-day, it is a very foolish policy for the government to sell a prominent comer lot in Toronto, hand it over to another body and say to theim: We will take so much of this for Canadian National offices, so much for customs offices and so on. That is not the place for a customs house. The site is too expensive for such an office as that. They tore down the old customs house and to-day we hlave not a customs house in the city of Toronto, although we are entitled to one. I have every confidence in the minister; he is a good business man, but he ought to tell the committee something about this particular situation.
Mr. GRiAHAM:	In the first place, the
Canadian National is not erecting any building in Toronto. I think it was two years ago that the Canadian National and the government, in order to retain the position of the railway ticket office of the Grand Trunk which had been for many years on the best comer in Toronto, stepped in and took possession of this building, -and thus frustrated a great scheme which had been arranged to put the Canadian National off that comer. The government was criticized for taking that step on account of the large amount of money paid for the comer. We paid $1,200,-

Supply-Loans to C.N.R.
000. The proposition is to sell it for $1,250,000 cash, but to retain the right of the Canadian National Railways to have its offices where it has always bad them so far as the city location is concerned, but in a modem building that is going to be built by another company. I have had all the protests that my hon. friend has had and. I think, many more. But they all come-I say so-either directly or indirectly from men who have buildings with offices to rent in them. I have discussed this matter in a very friendly way with these men, but the Canadian National Railways must protect itself, and as it is the desire' of this parliament and, I think, of the people of Canada, that not only might our capital expenditure be kept down, but our capital investment returned, when a company comes along and offers the Canadian National $50,000 more than it paid for the property with the right to maintain its office on the ground floor and any other floors it likes in the building, I think we would have been very strongly censured by this House if that step had not been taken. It is unfortunate if there be in Toronto much office space that is not rented, but the Canadian National Railway Company is not responsible for that. It has an opportunity to make a first-class bargain, not erecting any building itself, but getting back the money it has in a building and getting the-cash.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
rent to be a year?


George Perry Graham: I will come to that in a
moment. It has been said by my hon. friend -and I know this has been written to me- that the Canadian National Railways are going to take ten or fifteen floors. At the outside the Canadian National will not take more than three floors besides the main floor and they may not take that many. I cannot place the contract and agreement on the table of the House, because it is not completed for the yery reason-and I will state it frankly to the committee-that the measurements given to me, at least, in the first place as to the square feet on each floor were less than the figures now appear to 'be on a revised estimate of the architect. I am having that investigated to see how it can be adjusted. But taking it all into account, I say to my hon. friend again that the proposition includes only the main floor and three others, and that is all the Canadian National is interested in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about the otheT government offices?


George Perry Graham: I do not think any arrangement has been made about the other government offices. If it has, I do not know of it. As regards the main floor and the otheT three floors there is no doubt in the world, to my mind-and I am looking into this matter-that a good deal of that can be sublet. For instance, on the main floor, if the agreement goes through-and I am going as far as I can with the particulars of the proposition without laying the contract on the table which I cannot do as it has not been ratified-the Canadian National will have the comer that all hon. gentlemen know facing Yonge and King streets. On the King street side, where the old Home Bank property is, there will be space to sublet. On the Yonge street side there will be space to sublet also, and the Canadian National Railways will have the very centre of the position on the best street corner I think in Toronto. The rental proposed is $3 a square foot for the three floors and $16 a square foot for the ground floor. Taking the whole rental and making fair subdivision for subletting, my officials tell me we will break about even on the rental paid now in our different activities throughout the country. We will pay practically the same amount we are paying now for the old building and the different places around the city.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the rent amount to?


George Perry Graham: I think about $185,000 in
one case and $183,000 in the other. That is the net result.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is
that lowered by the subletting?


George Perry Graham: That takes subletting into consideration. I think there will be no difficulty about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is
taken off in that connection?


George Perry Graham: I have not the details.
That is an estimate given to me. The Canadian National officials calculate the cost will be about the same.


Henry Lumley Drayton: About $30,000
for the subletting. It is $16 a square foot for the ground floor.


George Perry Graham: It would be about $60,000 or $65,000 altogether. My own view is frankly that, although the proposition is to take the other three floors, all of these three floors will not be needed.
Supply-Loans to C.N.R.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A gross rental
approximately of 8245,000 a year.


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Add 8180,000 to 865,000 and you have 8245,000.


George Perry Graham: I think it is 8225,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then you have to revise your figures.


George Perry Graham: The deputy told me 8225,-
000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it made
up?


George Perry Graham: It will be 9,000 square feet at 816 and 27,000 square feet at 83.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That gives
8225,000.


George Perry Graham: Subletting two stores in
the building, one on King street and one on Yonge street, as well as renting any other space we can, we believe will bring the rental down to 8185,000, and we pay about
10 p.m. 8183,000 now. We will have no taxes and no insurance to pay. In the old building we paid taxes, insurance and interest on 81,200,000. The Canadian National is not buying property, but it is disposing of its property in a good way and at a good price; it will still maintain its position on the corner of King and Yonge streets and that is the only object the railway had in view. It will concentrate all the activities of the Canadian National that may well be concentrated at that particular point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell us the plan to get off the corner? That is news to me.


George Perry Graham: I am not going into details, because it is a matter of memory. I may be like some hon. gentlemen, of a suspicious nature. It was stated to us that the corner of King and Yonge two years ago was in the market. A gentleman told me he had been in negotiation for it, and that a big building was to be constructed on it. We offered to enter into a contract with those people by which we would retain our position as a tenant in their new building on the corner of King and Yonge. No offer we could make would be accepted, and from many things I heard, I came to the conclusion that one of the ideas strongly in some people's minds was to move the ticket office from that corner down to the old Canadian Northern building. The railway objected to that, the government backed them up in that attitude, the property was bought at 81,200,060, the case going through the Ex-|Mr. Graham.]
chequer court, and the company has been offered 81,250,000 in cash.


Mr. SPENCE:: I am not going to condemn the Canadian National for buying or selling this property, but I am doubtful as to whether we are going to guarantee too much rent to those who are going to put up the building. There is a lot of ground floor space in many buildings in Toronto which may be rented very cheaply. Now we must see that we are not giving too much rent to the people who will own the building, that they will be assured of making money out of the building, when other buildings in Toronto are lying idle. It is suggested by the hon. member for North Toronto that we are going to use eight or ten flats- of the building for the customs department as well. I hope the government will not do that, because it will not be satisfactory to the people of Toronto. It will not be a suitable place, and it will be unfair to the city to place our customs offices there. We need a proper customs house, and I am satisfied the money you are taking from that railway building should be used for a customs buildings. I realize that could not be done between two separate departments, so that I may be getting in wrong on that point. However, I hope the minister will not endeavour to rent several flats to house the customs offices there because it will, be a very unsuitable place, and if the government have any idea of co-operating with the Canadian National, in renting several storeys, as the hon. member for North Toronto suggested, for customs purposes, I hope they will abandon the idea. We need1 a proper customs building alone.


George Perry Graham: It will not make any difference to the Canadian National whether any other department rents the floors or not, because if they wanted to take three or four floors we would not object.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are learning something about railway operations, something we ought to have known before we started making our mistake. It is a very good thing we are learning and it is a very good thing to know that it is costing us just what it is costing us. We have been engaged, as I see it, in a perfectly stupid, senseless, disastrous campaign of luxury in service and fierce competition. We have been doing everything in connection with the railway administration to raise gross receipts irrespective of the effect, so to speak, on the overhead load. There is no one in this House to-day who does not realize the irreparable mistake that

Supply-Loans to C.N.R.
has been made in the past two years and who -does not believe that these unnecessary services, this ruinous competition, should be stopped. There is no one who is not firmly convinced that the purchase of de luxe equipment is practically a crime against the taxpayers of the country. But the trouble is that it has cost us so much to find this out. We have been placing too much confidence in this foolish business of keeping up with the Jones's and going them one better. This building that is spoken of is a first rate illustration of what I mean. My hon. friend says that there was a plot to get the railway company out. Well, the hon. gentleman has been receiving a whole lot of bad advice from people who have their own object in view when giving that advice. There is no secret .about that building in Toronto; it was bought by the Imperial bank, as I recollect, for $750,000. The original intention was to put up a bank building there and had they built, of course there would be no place for the National. But the ground space was not large enough and the owners of the Home bank were not prepared to let it go at the price the Imperial bank was prepared to pay. As a matter of fact that property was offered for sale time and again and the price at which it could have been bought was less than the amount the company has now paid. But any excuse will do to pay money out so long as the government pays it. Some whisper here or there that there is a plot to do the railway company out of its office will turn the trick. Any excuse is good enough for the expenditure of money. The money was paid under a reference to the Exchequer court, where the question was as to whether the amount offered was sufficient. I should think it was sufficient! It was certainly more than the property was on the market for not so very many months before this arrangement was made. And what is the proposition to-day? I do not know what the exact terms of the contract are; I do not think my hon. friend knows. The information from Toronto was that the company was going to take for a period of years, the three floors my hon. friend refers to. I am told that it was for twenty years, but the minister will correct me if I am wrong.


George Perry Graham: I do not know the exact
period, but it is a term of years anyway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But so much depends on periods. It was understood that other offices of the government, for example the offices of the Income Tax branch and other governmental departments, were to be placed in that building at certain rentals.


George Perry Graham: That has nothing to do
with the company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is right; it has absolutely nothing to do with the railway as such. But I say that it has a. great deal to do with the deal itself. The thing could not go on at all if the conutry were not obligated for a +erm of years to pay the rents; it could not no financed without it. The deal could not be made if the taxpayer, either as such or in his capacity as railway shareholders, were not directly obligated for a long period of years in connection with that building. But I go further; and my hon. friend will correct me, because I speak subject to correction. I have been unable to get the exact facts although I have tried to get them. My information is that on the ordinary calculation of sinking funds at five per cent the whole cost of that building will be paid out of the rents and, in addition to that, the whole cost of the land.


George Perry Graham: What rents?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am referring
to the rents which I am told the country will be obligated for. My recollection is that the sum mentioned was $285,000 per annum, although we have it a little lower now. But the calculation is that the whole cost of the land and the building, the whole investment placed at $4,000,000, will be paid for out of the rents in the period of time specified, leaving the owners in possession of the property as a result of their being able to make an agreement with the government satisfactory to themselves.
Now, it has cost us an awful lot to learn the lesson that reckless railway competition at the expense of the taxpayers is about the worst kind of undertaking which any sensible country can embark upon. Let us see what we have done. In the two years 1923 and 1924 we have added to the debt of the system the sum of $234,198,872. Why, the figures are staggering. They indicate that over and above all the rates charged-and we know how high the rates are now-this mad idea of keeping up with the Jones's has taken out of the pockets of the people of this country in two years some $234,000,000 odd. Nay, rather, our future is pledged, our credits are used, and our debt is increased. That sum of $234,000,000 in but two years has been added to the debt of the railways. I am using now figures about which there is absolutely no dispute; I am taking my hon. friend's own figures. I am adopting the figures given to the House as a result of questions put during this session. The plain, naked fact remains
Supply-Loans to C.N.R.

that in two years we have made those additions to the railway's obligations. Yes, and of that amount we have added $44,000,000 of equipment in the effort to make sure that we would have more expensive equipment than the Canadian Pacific Railway could possibly have. Well, we have got it-and we have got the obligations staring us in the face as a result of the policies adopted by this government, added obligations, let me say again, of $234,000,000. The net debt of this country in 1913 amounted to only $314,000,000, and yet in two years time, in respect of just one activity, we have managed to add to the railway debt $234,000,000. It is interesting to see how deficits used to work up in the old times. We can go back forty-one years and find that the total additions to the national debt during that period were less than the burden that the board of the National Railways, appointed by this government, have placed upon the backs of the taxpayers. But what are you to expect, Mr. Chairman, if, in place of tried financiers who know something about money, you appoint on the railway board gentlemen whose sole and only qualification was their activity in the party organization, in what they could do in this election and in that? Hon. members are aware of their names; it is not necessary to go over them; but if we have learned that reckless administration and mad competition lead us where we are today, we have also learned that the political hack is not the type of man in whose control these great trusts should be placed.
Let us go back again a moment and see where we were. We start out with railways which largely are railways only in name; we start out with the necessary acquisition of lines during a period of war when, as is admitted to-day by our opponents, that was the only possible thing that could be done, when, as has been stated by Sir Henry Thornton himself, that was the only policy open to us- something that had to be done. There we are with these lines, disorganized, hurriedly built, stretches of rust rather than functioning railway lines, with the necessity, at a period of great cost, to reconstruct and make them so that they could carry on business. This country had to put up a tremendous sum of money in that effort. We had then very large additions made to the debt before for a specific purpose,-that of making the railways capable of carrying the business of the country. We had to do it; it was well done; it was finished in 1921. At that time the necessity for great commitments in connection with the railways stopped, unless we wanted to spend money on frills here and there, unless

we wanted to embark on all kinds of ruinous competition.
Now, hon. gentlemen may say, "Well, that is simply the word of a political opponent." But they will not say that Sir Henry Thornton occupies that position. As I recollect, he came out to this country in October of 1922, and the first thing he did was to go over all the lines which compose the Canadian National Railway system. He went over them. And he alone of the new appointees of the government knows something about railways. The government certainly cannot say that he does not. I do not say that he does not. But he certainly knows something about railways from the government's own standpoint. He makes his careful inspection, and, in April o. 1923, reports officially as to what he finds with respect to the country's investment, the conclusion of his report, in part, reading as follows:
Due to the consolidation of the Grand Trunk system with these lines there will not be published any ad fi-tional reports grouping only the operation of those lines which are covered by this report. The report of the previous board of directors for the year 1921 was in the nature of a three-year survey of the operations and development of these lines as a government owned system. 1922 completes the four-year period of unified management of the former Canadian Government railways and the Canadian Northern railway system. The operations of the Grand Trunk Pacific, while only under complete co-ordination since October, 1920, or two and a quarter years, have been included for the full period for comparative purposes.
During the period the government has provided large sums of money for the physical improvement of thsse properties, for co-ordination facilities, for additional rolling stock and for branch line construction.
On behalf of the board, I would like to state that after inspection of the main arteries of the system, we find that the work undertaken has been well performed, and that the expenditures have been well applied. While the demands for capital expenditure on a system of such extent in a growing country, as the former board stated, are never ending, yet it may now be raid that the three groups of lines, until recently the Canadian National railways, enter the consolidation in excellent physical condition and operating at a high mark of efficiency as regards actual performance or movement of traffic and other factors controllable by management.
Just there, Mr. Chairman, I pause to point out that these lines, according to the survey of Sir Henry Thornton, were " in excellent physical condition and operating at a high mark of efficiency as regards actual performance or movement of traffic and other factors controllable by management." The report continues:
Apart from certain well-known cases of duplication, the lines are well located and in exceptional position to successfully perform the transportation demands of the country.
This is a question on which there is absolutely no doubt and no room for argument. Here we have Sir Henry Thornton him-

Supply-Loans to C.N.R.
self, as the result of his inspection, saying that these railways, which when we took them over were as I have described, were put in a proper condition, were functioning well, and he finds no fault whatever. In a word, they are in first-class order. In 1922, as confirming what Sir Henry Thornton says, the additions to the debt came down sharply, and hon. gentlemen know that the crop of that year was nothing like as favourable as the crop of 1923. In 1922 the whole addition to the debt of the country was $59,000,000. I am not saying that that is anything to boast of, because it is not; there is no comfort in having deficits of any kind, but it is infinitely better than an addition to the debt which is almost a multiple of that amount, such as we had during a time when there was an enormous crop and great activity upon the American lines of the system, producing large profits. The whole truth is that even this government must realize that they committed what was in effect a high crime against this country when they got rid of trusted financiers who knew well the operations of the line and the value of the dollar, and put in party politicians. Well, we have had our lesson. But one is impelled to ask, what has the government been aiming at? Was the idea a total destruction of any possible chance to do anything with this system? Was the idea the tiring out of the ratepayers by insistent, ever-increasing debt additions? If not, what possible object can be fairly and sensibly ascribed to the condition that we have here? We have this keeping up with the Canadian Pacific-yes, and going them much better. We have the Toronto corner property. We have the Scribe hotel, a project which has now fortunately been fairly well nipped in the bud, but even as it is, with an investment of $2,650,000, it may work out or it may not, depending upon two factors, namely, the value of the franc and the position of the lessee as to the payment of his rent. Hon. gentlemen may say the situation is improving, but how in the name of common sense can it be said that we are improving our position in connection with this railway when in just those two years we added to our interest charges $10,093,490, and in all that expenditure, in all that added yearly load, we spent in.new lines only something in the neighbourhood of as I recollect it $3,200,0GO-the rest is gone. My right hon. friend the Minister of Railways pointed out on a previous occasion that while all these lines which we had to take over were the result of construction under legislation of his administration, there was one exception for which he was not responsible, and that was a line built by British Columbia. My right hon. friend gave me some interesting information; hon. gentlemen will find it in Hansard of April 15th last. It shows very clearly how a line which cost the country very much less than the Grand Trunk Pacific works out as compared with the Grand Trunk Pacific. The information shows the respective freight tonnage moved by the Canadian national system on the line running from Yellowhead pass to Vancouver and the line running from that pass to Prince Rupert in each of the years 1923 and 1924, as follows:
1923	1924
Tons of revenue fieight received at Prince Rupert from points
east	
33,052	20,237Toils of revenue freight received a: Vancouver	
336,501	076,942
In other words, the traffic to Prince Rupert in 1923 was 8.82 per cent of the traffic going to Vancouver, and in 1924, 3.87 per cent. There is another illustration as to the activities on that line that my hon. friend was so proud about, and it is in connection with the warehouse which was built at Prince Rupert. Prom the company's returns, the cost of the dock was $554,000, and the dock certainly had to be there. The cost of the warehouse was $146,000, and it is fair to say that the warehouse could not do anything until my hon. friends had spent the money which they spent upon it. It was only finished, if I remember rightly, for the business of the year 1924.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it used now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just going to give the results. For the year ended April 30, 1924, upon all that investment the amount earned for wharfage was $1,230.80, and for storage, $983.48. For the year ended April 30, 1925, the wharfage earned was $1,013, and the storage, $444.05. Of course that is no reason why further ipvestments of the same kind should not be made, no reason why we should not spend additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in the same place. Just to again illustrate what it cost to have a political board, instead of a board that had a sense of business responsibility, I am going to refer to the Inverness railway. Hon. gentlemen have heard the Inverness railway discussed before in this House. It was one of the Mackenzie and Mann lines, and a line of such a character that the then government refused to take it over or have anything to do with it.
Supply-Loans to C.N.R.


George Perry Graham: Before my bon. friend
leaves that warehouse proposition:, is he sure that warehouse was not recommended 'by the old board under the former government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not sure of
anything in that connection.


George Perry Graham: You had better look it up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just giving the exact facts, and I am sure of this ait any rate, that the larger investment was mot made during their term of office.


George Perry Graham: Was not the recommendation made by them?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minutes of the company are not open to my inspection. If my hon. friend says thalt is so, I will certainly take his word for it at once.


George Perry Graham: I am informed that is the case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may or may not be. If my hon. friend is only informed, I would like to see the minute. All I am doing is giving the exact facts.


George Perry Graham: You ought to give the
minute then, if my facts are wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: All of a sudden
evidence is beginning to come out in this country in various directions establishing what I have tried to assert myself in a rather lone hand way in this House, that we are over-railroaded in Canada; that enormous debts are being built up, and that something must be done to stop this increase in debt and this over-duplication and over-competition we have in railways. Not only have we the statement of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) this evening as to the enormous increase in our railway debt, but in the evening papers and in some morning papers in this city there has been disclosed to the public the astonishing fact that a committee of tjie Senate of this parliament has for some days been holding secret sessions, getting information in regard to over-duplication and. overcompetition in our railways, and that they have proposed a system-and I believe they have the acquiescence of the two railways- for the establishment of a consolidation of the two roads, a thing which I have proposed in this House for a good many years. Apparently this committee of the Senate will recommend that consolidation, and I am further told that the two railway systems are prepared to go into it. If that be the case, is this not the time to stop this increased expenditure, for

Supply-Loam to C.N.R.

instance, in the city of Toronto where it is proposed to erect this new building in which the National Railway is to become a tenant. Right diagonally across is the equally extravagant building of the Canadian Pacific. At the very moment when a committee of the Senate has made a rather careful investigation of this over-duplication, this insane increase in expenditures, this duplication of head offices and big stations and other kinds of expenditures, a proposal is being made in this House to make another enormous commitment in connection with a building on the comer of King and Yonge streets. The Canadian National has a right to have a first-class building on the -corner of King and Yonge streets, especially because Toronto where I live is the one city in this country that believes in public ownership and does its best to build up the public railroads we have in Canada. But nevertheless, I would make this suggestion to the minister. Let him wait now for a while, and probably when the consolidation takes place they may be able to use the Canadian Pacific railway building right at that comer. I do not know that the scheme is going through, but it looks to me and some information I have to-day on my own account is that the two systems are prepared to come into it. Let U3 wait for a little while before we make another commitment and see what is in this report as - to the proposed consolidation. Certainly some consolidation of that kind must take place or this country will become bankrupt on account of over duplication and overcompetition in railways. When I raised that very question in this House and showed many ways in which this could be stopped, for a while I seemed to receive no encouragement and I appeared to be a pilgrim on a lone journey. But now the facts are coming out and being disclosed throughout the whole country that we are being over-railroaded; that we are still continuing that policy and that it must stop, or if it does not stop, the country will become bankrupt. I am rather sofry that what I said is being proved in every direction. In the United States to-day, which is the richest country in the world and which is suffering from overextravagance in departments of government, the president has instituted a system of direct economy, of creating a budget system. And he has appointed General Lord, I think, head of that budget system, and I read in the New York Times yesterday an article on the question of the necessity of the national government there-and it applies equally to the necessity of a national government here-stopping this wild era of extravagance that 
prevails in both countries. The heads of the department had been clubbed somewhat by the President and .are now being clubbed by General Lord who is the head of the budget department. These heads of departments are taking a pride in the fact that they are able to earn the appreciation of General Lord by showing immense reductions in the expenses of the country. In this country we have got to stop, not only the duplication of railways, but the duplication of head office expenses and unnecessary stations and we have to adopt a system of economy in all departments of government. We should adopt it in this House. We cannot afford to have two post offices in the Parliament buildings when one is sufficient. We cannot have two batteries of typewriters when one will answer. That is not economy. I heard the Minister of Railways say yesterday that he required a batch of engineers and surveyors for his own system, but to that an answer was made yesterday that all the engineers and surveyors in the United States are consolidated in the Department of War and great reductions have been made. We have to start a system of reduction cutting out all unnecessary head offices and unnecessary staffs in connection with railways, and get them down to a simple system; we must reduce the personnel of the railways. The Senate has taken the initiative in this idea of reducing unnecessary competition in this country. We should foe able to build up a great railway system that will give a public service and at the same time reduce expenses. We want reduction of freights, rather than excellence of administration or rivalry in de luxe services. We wiant common every day transportation for the people at the lowest possible rate. One way to get that-and I am obliged to the Senate and appreciate what they have done in this direction-is to make a move in the direction of a real consolidation of the two railways. There is no necessity for two ticket offices at -the corner of King and Yonge streets as the prospect appears to be now; one ticket office would do and save hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Mr. HARRIS:: I will make simply one or two observations, as the minister looks tired.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Joseph Henry Harris: I will tell the minister that if he had been frank with the National Railway and Shipping committee -and told us about this matter of .great concern to the people of Toronto, perhaps some of the time that has been occupied in this House to-night would have been saved. Two days after that committee rose, we found in some of the press

Supply-Loan to Merchant Marine
of Ontario information with regard to the activities of the Canadian National on the corner of King and Yonge streets. If we had that information and if the minister had been perfectly frank with us, I feel that some time would have been saved and we would not have kept the minister up so late.


George Perry Graham: I do not mind.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the minister does not mind, I will tell him something else. In Toronto you have the Toronto Terminal Company building a great monument known as the Union station. The country owns half of it. There is a lot of office space there You have the Great North West Telegraph office. You have moved out of it for a short while and move back into it in a week or so. You have the old Canadian Northern office. You have scores of offices in the city of Toronto and you have space to take care of all the activities of the Canadian National Railway lines, and, much as I would like to see the business activities in Toronto and buildings going up here and there, I feel that I would like to see something more. I would like to see the housing industry, for housing people who are working in some industry, rather than too many public utilities and too many buildings accommodating the kind of services which is not as productive as it might be. I think it is time the Canadian National people got out of the real estate business and got into the railway business. They Should get out of high financing and stick to the railway business. They should get out of politics and stick rigidly to the railway business. They should also get out of the operation of pleasure resorts and run their railway. The same applies to their radio activities.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to make a speech now. I have made my statement on the Canadian National' Railways, and we will let my statement and the statement of the ex-Minister of Finance go to the country for the people to talk about.
I want to say on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) that he moved that this item be reduced by $10,000,000, which would make it $50,000,000 instead of $60,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited
Loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited, repayable on demand with interest at a rate to'be fixed by the Governor in Council, upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine, and to be applied in payment of:-
315i
(a)	Deficits in operation of the Company and of the vessels under the Company's control during the year ending March 31, 1928.
(b)	Capital Expenditure in connection with the vessels under the Company's control, $688,000.
George Perry Graham: That item is reduced by $232,000. It is that much less than last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Auditor General's office-salaries, including Auditor General at $10,000, additional to 7-8 Edward VII, chap. 6, $315,250; contingencies, $86,000.
Arthur Meighen: Are these contingencies
that arise from the protests of the minister? This work is going up very rapidly but I suppose this government takes a lot more auditing than the other ever did. Does this include the new audit board?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: We shall have the
privilege of paying for that besides.


James Alexander Robb: There is an increase of $40,-
430. There are thirteen new positions amounting to $32,580.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think
that all this staff is necessary?


James Alexander Robb: The Auditor General thinks
it is necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister thinks it is not.
' Mr. MEIGHEN:	It is necessary or is it
just a fad? Does the minister really think that all this expansion of that staff is essential, with this wild increase of salaries?


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not
true that most of it is not under the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Meighen: A good deal of it is not, and the way the government is going none of it will be under the commission very soon.


James Alexander Robb: The Auditor General requires some additional staff to do the work right. He proposes to audit the revenue as well as the expenditures.


Arthur Meighen: But no extra staff will
be needed to audit the revenue; it is going down and there should be a diminution in the expenditures on that account.


James Alexander Robb: I have the following memorandum:
The increase in salary asked for the Assistant Auditor General should I feel be given without hesitation. The present incumbent has been in the Auditor General's office for some thirty-seven years.
From April 1, 1922 to the date of my appointment he was practically in charge of the office. I know he has been given special allowance for that period but I feel confident had my recommendation in his behalf for
Supply-Auditor General

a salary of $6,000 a year, to date from April 1, 1922, been submitted to the House of Commons at the last session the necessary amount would have been granted. I may point out that there are several officers in the various departments, not ranking as high in the public service, or, as it appears to me, occupying positions of equal importance, who are receiving higher salaries.
I must therefore urge as a matter of simple justice to a highly competent officer that the salary I have asked for may meet with your approval.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that made
retroactive?


James Alexander Robb: The increase for the Auditor
General covers the past year.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the total salary of the Auditor General?


James Alexander Robb: Fifteen thousand dollars.


Edward Joseph Garland: What does the Auditor General think of the audit board?


James Alexander Robb: He is the chairman of the
board.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why is it
necessary to have an audit board in addition to an Auditor General at $15,000?


James Alexander Robb: The board was created in 1922 with a view to co-ordinating the service and looking into outside expenditures where we give grants from the public revenues, to the Canadian National Railways, for instance, and to the various harbours throughout the country.


Joseph Henry Harris: What portion of this money was used to pay for the independent audit certificate that appears in the budget address made by auditors that audited the audit board that audited the Auditor General's audit of Canada's accounts?


James Alexander Robb: There was no portion of this
money used for that.


Edward Joseph Garland: What has been the cost of the audit board to date?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information
here.


Arthur Meighen: Will the audit board
audit the Auditor General's department?


James Alexander Robb: No. The new audit board
will co-operate with the Auditor General who, as I have said, is the present chairman.


Arthur Meighen: Will he be chairman of
the next board?


James Alexander Robb: That will have to be determined after they are organized.


Arthur Meighen: What is the minister's
intention about that?


James Alexander Robb: Frankly speaking, I think the
Auditor General himself would rather not be the chairman of the audit board.


Robert Gardiner: To what extent are the revenues of the country audited?


James Alexander Robb: In all the different departments they have auditors. For instance, in the large revenue collecting department of Customs and Excise they have a very complete and excellent system of auditing.


Robert Gardiner: But that does not come under the control of the Auditor General. Can the minister tell us to what extent the revenues of the Customs and Excise department are audited by the Auditor General?


James Alexander Robb: He has a right to go in and
audit all these departments, but if the Auditor General is satisfied that the other auditors are doing their work satisfactorily, he may accept their audit.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
Auditor General or the audit board audit the accounts of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners?


James Alexander Robb: The audit board.


Edward Joseph Garland: We may
expect next year an audit of the five million vote of this year?


James Alexander Robb: Oh yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is the sense of
setting up two audit departments? We are just starting on a big duplication. The Quebec hahbour accounts should be audited, of course, but why not have the work done under our own audit department? We are now setting up another department to do the auditing all over again.	.


James Alexander Robb: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: Not necessarily, but
inevitably.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: What is the nature of
the increase of work of late which necessitates an increase of staff? The general public service, I understand, is not being increased very largely.


James Alexander Robb: The new Auditor General
feels that he should arrange to have expert men make a more thorough audit than we have heretofore had of the revenues.


Alfred Speakman: The work is more intensive rather than extensive?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.

Supply-Auditor General


Arthur Meighen: What does the minister
mean, by a "more thorough audit?" Does he mean to say that the audit of our accounts has not been thorough?


James Alexander Robb: The Auditor General feels
that he should have a uniform system, which is not the case now in all the departments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
some days ago I explained the situation in connection with the audit board. There is one justification for it, and only one. As a duplicate system of audit it is of course ridiculous; but if it will really bring about some action in the direction of proper reform in our auditing, it will effect a great improvement. I still am of the view that the measure which I had prepared back in 1921, and which would have given us an up-to-date commercial system of preaudit, is right. If the audit board can only convince the Auditor General that it is right, and we can get a properly modernized system of central preaudit, the audit board is well worth this little vote: but if we are not going to get that, it would be very much better not to have the board at all. The real justification for an audit board is that it shall look into the system and see what improvements can be made. The system to-day is antiquated and would not be tolerated in a business institution. There will be a little difficulty in instituting a system of preaudit, but a little action would soon clear away any difficulty.


Joseph Henry Harris: What was the cost of the
independent audit and the auditor s certificate on the balance sheet last year?


James Alexander Robb: I will get that memorandum
for my hon. friend.


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister think the Auditor General's department has sufficient power under any statute to investigate how the income tax is assessed and levied?


James Alexander Robb: I think if the Auditor General had any doubt about the system of auditing there, and he desired to go into the department, we could authorize him to do so under the Audit Act. But there is a very excellent system of auditing in the Income Tax branch.


Robert Gardiner: But under the law the
assessment and levying of income tax is kept secret. Does not the minister think it would be advisable for the Auditor General to go in there once in a while and see if the system of assessment and levy is carried on in accordance with the law, in order that the House and the country might be satisfied?
Mr. ROBB; I am bound to say that I have not the lack of confidence in the Commissioner of Taxation that has been expressed by some hon. members. During the brief period the department was under my charge I never had any reason to find fault or to doubt that things were fairly administered there.


Robert Gardiner: I am not questioning
the capability of the head of the department,
I am merely asking the minister if it would not be advisable to have such a department audited once in a while to see if the taxes are properly assessed and levied. Take the Customs and Excise department, for instance, is there any reason why there should not be an occasional investigation by the Auditor General to see that the duties are properly levied?
Mr.. ROBB: I would not have any objection whatever if the officers sent in were properly qualified and took an oath of secrecy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
trouble about the auditing of the departments that I know of, at least there ought not to be. A great deal of this duplication everywhere will be done away with if we have a proper central preauditing system. There is no trouble about it. Hon. gentlemen t^ve said something more than once in connection with the income tax, and I think that perhaps in justice to the department I should make a statement. It will be within the memory of all hon. members what a fuss was made and what charges were directed against the departments with respect to the Riordon taxes. They will also remember that when an investigation took place the idle and windy charges made were all conveniently forgotten just so soon as they had served their purpose. This is something that is public property, and there is no breach of trust in my mentioning it; it has already come out in the liquidation proceedings. A note was taken by the officer in charge of the branch, Mr. Breadner, for the purpose of 'fixing liability of the Riordon -company. I might point out what is perfectly clear, that the mere taking of a note by any official cannot in any way discharge obligations under the statute. The note was taken merely for the purpose of nailing that liability; it did not of course discharge the liability. Nothing was done by the government. Prices of paper went up, and business, which was very bad in 1921, improved. I was approached twice in the matter. In the first instance I was approached by the solicitor for the
4944	COMMONS
Supply-Auditor General
company, Who stated that ,the assessment was entirely unfair and wanted to know if I would object if some arrangement was made. I said, yes, that every single cent of that money had to be collected; that there was no reason in law that I knew of why it should not be collected. The question was raised as to the taking of a note. I pointed out that it was perfectly ridiculous to say that that would discharge any statutory obligation, and he agreed with me. He came back later and said, "This is so grossly in excess of what we should pay that I do not think you should take that stand at all." I said, "So far as I am concerned I only want to see paid every single cent that is honestly due." Well, he said there was only one way of getting at that, and that was by putting in an independent auditor, at the expense not of the department but of those who were trying to get a reduction of the assessment. An independent auditor was put in-the same gentleman who was engaged in the ocean rates inquiry, Mr. Scott. Mr. Breadner had obligated that company to a sum a little in excess of $800,000. Mr. Scott's report was that on the actual transaction of the company that amount ought to be reduced to $400,000. So that instead of favouring the company the commissioner was taking at 100 per cent every single statement that the company had out, which, of course, was for the purpose of looking after the markets and the stock. In other words, he nailed them on their own figures. But here we have an independent man coming in and saying that the very most that was earned was $400,000-I speak in round figures. I am not objecting to the fair thing being done by the Riordon Company or anybody else, but I say the only right thing to do was to nail that liability, and instead of doing anything to discharge or weaken it the official in question did everything that ought to have been done. The government got the money, or a part of it; they got the money which was collected from the sale of certain property. They made an adjustment with the Riordon Company; they did just what Quebec has done in connection with its taxes. But so far as the inspector was concerned, far from being open to blame he was trying to get every single cent that could be got, and so far as I know that was his attitude in that case.


Robert Gardiner: According to the statement of the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) here is a firm that was assessed for $800,000 whereas an independent auditor, after an examination, stated that $400,000 was a proper assessment. I am not out to get the

hide of any gentleman in any of these departments; I am simply trying to look at these matters from the business point of view. We want protection for the public, and at the same time we want protection for the public revenue. The hon. member has given a good illustration of the necessity for the Auditor General's department once in a while looking over these revenue collecting departments and seeing to it that the taxes are properly levied, that people shall not pay either more or less than they should pay.


James Alexander Robb: When the estimates of the
Department of Finance were under consideration on a previous occasion the question was raised of defalcations in the government service, and at that time I made the statement that one of the officials had stolen coupons and had been arrested, found guilty and sentenced to a term in the pententiary. That was quite correct. I also stated that another official had taken his own life during that period. Now, the inference that might have been drawn from that was that that official was also implicated in the defalcations, which was not the case. The official referred to had been extremely heavily worked in connection with the war, particularly in the handling of Imperial government and Bank of England gold shipments, which amounted to approximately $1,300,000,000. This large amount of treasure was handled in splendid shape and greatly to the satisfaction of the Imperial government and the Bank of England authorities. This official was also engaged in work in connection with the flotation of loans in the department and assisted in tracing the Artz defalcations. Owing to poor health and nervous trouble he took his own life early in December, 1921. His personal affairs and all affairs in connection with the department were found to be in excellent shape, and no blame or criticism could be attached to him in any way in connection with the defalcations in the department. His former minister, Sir Thomas White, and certain newspapers, referred to his death as being practically a war casualty.
I make this statement to correct what might have been a misapprehension arising out of the debate the other day.
I would like also to put on record a statement with regard to the Teal powers of the Auditor General. I do so because following the recent debate I find in the Montreal Daily Star of June 12 an editorial headed, "Leave the Watch Dog Alone," inferring that the department was in some way interfering with the work of the Auditor General. The ques-

Supply-Auditor General
tions that were brought up in the last debate, were, first, whether the Auditor General of Canada is limited in any respect by statute in the performance of the duty of an auditor; second, whether the authority of the Auditor General has in any way been controlled by order of the Treasury board or the Minister of Finance, and third, whether access has been denied. Answering the first question, whether the Auditor General of Canada is limited by statute in the performance of the duties of an auditor, an examination of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, section 65, will show that all the accounts of every public officer into whose hands public money comes, either in the nature of revenue or of fees of office, are the subject of an accounting by the officer receiving the same, and an account thereof is required to be submitted to the Auditor General of Canada. Section 66 requires the Auditor General of Canada to examine such accounts with as little delay as possible, and on the conclusion thereof the accounting officer is entitled to an " even and quit " certificate fro mthe Auditor General that such account is correct. Sections 65 and 66 therefore definitely bring the auditing of the public revenues and receipts of public moneys within the scope of the audit of the Auditor General of Canada. Section 51 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act provide? that the accounts of all payments under the Appropriation Acts shall be examined by the Auditor General and certified. Sections 39 to 42 definitely provide that no public money shall issue without the certificate of the Auditor General that there is parliamentary authority. This obviously includes payments whether principal or interest in respect of the public debt, and must involve the examination of the evidence of the payment of both principal and interest. These sections appear, therefore, to bring all public transactions within the scope of the audit of the Auditor General of Canada.
That answers the question raised by my hon. friend. Section 63 of the Audit Act provides that if required to do so by the Minister of Finance, the Auditor General shall examine and audit certain specified departments of public receipts and expenditures. This section is not to be represented as restricting the powers of the Auditor General with reference to this class of public business. Section 27 provides that " The Governor in Council may, for the more complete examination of the public accounts of Canada, and for the reporting thereon to the House of Commons, appoint an officer, under the Great Seal of Canada, to be called the Auditor General of Canada, and such officer may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum," and no examination of the public accounts of Canada can be complete without a full examination of all public transactions, including those referred to specifically in sections 63 and 65, and in 39 to 42.
It must be evident, moreover, that the right of accounting officers to a certificate from the Auditor General and the fact that persons who handle public moneys in any form are accounting officers, throws upon the Auditor General quite apart from any direction given to him Dy the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board, the duties of examining the class of accounts mentioned in these sections, because if he did not do so he could not give the certificate required by section 66.
In answer to the second question, whether any minute of the Treasury Board or direction of the Minister of Finance has had the effect of curtailing in any way the authority of the Auditor General, it ought to be pointed out that any statement by the Minister of Finance which might appear to so curtail the duties of the Auditor General has not that effect. The letter from the Minister of Finance to the Auditor General dated January 13, 1925, which is evidently relied upon as the evidence of curtailment of authority, only cancels the direction as to certain special requirements made under section 63 of the act, but it leaves the Auditor General, notwithstanding, with the power to perform the same duties-as fully and completely as if directed to do so by the Minister of Finance -under the general requirement of the other sections which deal with the accounting and auditing of all public moneys. The letter referred to does, however, reflect a proper attitude on the part of the Treasury board and the minister towards the matters in question, inasmuch as it places upon the Auditor General the responsibility that devolves upon him under the statute rather than to appear to place the responsibility upon him under any direction made in accordance with section 63. That is, it makes it clear that the Auditor General shall go on and perform his duties without having to receive orders from the Minister of Finance or the Treasury board. He cannot later come back and say he was not advised to do so by the Finance minister or the Treasury board.
It is a fundamental principle in connection with the audit of accounts, having all the force of common law, that an auditor cannot be restricted in any detail of inquiry or examination in cases where he is required as the result of independent inquiry to sign a certificate. His certificate is his own and, notwith-
Supply-Auditor General

standing any statute, if he is not satisfied he may refuse to certify. If there is any form of examination which an auditor can carry on which will enable him to certify, he is entitled to enter upon and perform that examination, and there can therefore be no limitation to the authority of the Auditor General of Canada to perform a complete examination of the public accounts of Canada, notwithstanding any apparent limitations or restrictions or definitions contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act-.
In answer to the third question, whether access has been denied, there has been no occasion when any officer of the Department of Finance has refused the Auditor General access to the records and accounts of the department, or when his authority to examine any detail in connection with the accounts of the department has been questioned. The only right which would be exercised in the event that a request was made by the Auditor General for access to the accounts of the department would 'be that the examination should be conducted at such a time and in such a way as not to interrupt or interfere with public business, and it is, of course, the duty of the Auditor General to send representatives fully qualified for the duties required of them so that these duties may be performed with an absolute minimum of interference with the public routine and so as to preserve proper custody of public moneys and securities.
The best evidence that the Department of Finance is, and has been at all times, anxious for the most complete outside inspection of its accounts is furnished by the fact that the failure on the part of the office of the Auditor General to perform the duty of examining the various loan issues previous to 1920, led to a request from the department for the appointment of an outside firm to perform such duty and give to the department the certificate to which they were by law entitled. That purpose having been served, it devolved upon the Auditor General of Canada to continue this form of examination and from time to time to furnish the statutory certificate.


George Arthur Brethen: In connection with this question of a pre-audit brought up by the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask if he has given any consideration whatever to a system whereby we might have a reduction somewhat along the lines they are practising in the country to the south of us. It does seem to me, taking everything into consideration, that they are making more headway

there in the matter of economy and reduction of the national debt than we are making in this country. I know they have certain advantages that make their position much easier, but when we take into consideration that they have reduced their national debt by some $4,000,000,000 since the war, with an anticipated reduction in taxation this year of some $400,000,000, and with some of their industrial concerns calling upon President Coolidge to call a halt in this economy campaign because they fear it is hurting sales it does seem to me that we might make more progress than we are doing by the adoption of some different system. I do not believe that under our present system of administering the departments that we are ever going to make very much reduction in our national indebtedness. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to this matter and see whether we could not provide some different method whereby we might make some more noticeable reductions in our national indebtedness.


James Alexander Robb: I am sure we all share the wish of my hon. friend that we might lxave a further reduction in our nationaf debt. The reduction in the national debt of the United States, however, is very largely due to the fact that other countries have been paying them back large amounts on account of war debts. The United Kingdom, for instance, paid them back an immense amount of war debt. When you analyse their accounts fairly, and the cost of government in the United States, they are not making so very much greater reductions than we are, but of course they have immense revenues that we have not. For instance, it was brought to my attention not long ago, that whereas we collect in round figures about $54,000,000 in income tax from the people of Canada, the United States collected $50,000,000 from fifty-two people. There is a great source of revenue they have that we have not. Hon. gentlemen will be glad to know, however, that we are making some reduction.
I have here a table of the interest that we are paying on the public debt, and I notice, for instance, that in 1920-1921 the interest was $139,551,520, and in 1924-1925, $134,789,604, so that there has been a reduction in interest in that time of $4,761,916, so we are gradually making some reduction.
I might take this opportunity of saying to hon. gentlemen before they leave for their homes, that when the accounts are all fairly balanced for the year, there will be a much better showing than when I presented the budget, which was based on an estimate of revenue and of expenditure. The accounts

Supply-Immigration
now have all been closed up. Last evening my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), moved for a reduction of considerable amounts that he had asked for in the supplementary estimates and which we estimated we would have to pay. We are not now called upon to do that. I have not the exact figures in front of me, but hon. gentlemen will recall that when the budget was presented the surplus was $1,800,000. The real surplus over ordinary capital and special expenditure is $7,155,974.30. We have to add on the other receipts that we have had which go to make up our active assets, and the net result is that, instead of there being an increase of debt, as I announced, of something like $13,000,000, there will be a surplus of $345,589.29, including everything, railway, merchant marine and government service. Like other hon. gentlemen, I would like to go " a little faster and make more progress.


Robert Gardiner: Does the Auditor General's department audit government securities, specie and cancelled notes?


James Alexander Robb: This is a memorandum I have on that point:
Under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act it is the duty of the Auditor General to examine debentures, notes or other securities representing the debt of Canada and which have been redeemed. Coupons are not to be sent to the Auditor General for audit. It is his duty to come into the Finance department and make the audit without any delay.
The holding of coupons for two years by the Finance department has nothing whatever to do with the question of audit. It has reference to a rule resulting from practice that no coupon shall be destroyed within two years after the date of its redemption. Coupons are held for at least that length of time for the purpose of reference.
The Audit office has at present and has maintained for some two years past a staff of approximately twenty-five officials stationed in the Department of Finance for the purpose of conducting the work of auditing. Every facility is afforded to this staff to enable them to carry on their work.
The Auditor General certainly authorized the cheques which were issued to repay the banks the value of the coupons and it was to be presumed therefore that an audit has been made.
I am referring to some evidence that was given before the Public Accounts Committee.
The Auditor General, however, now says that the coupons were not audited and I am content to accept his correction. He had full power and discretion in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration and Colonization-Empire settlement scheme, $500,000.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister explain this item?


James Alexander Robb: 
Robert Gardiner: How much was spent
of this for the last year? N


James Alexander Robb: From the beginning of operations up to February 28, 1925, the figures are
as follows:
Total loans granted	 $711,844 57
Total loans collected	 192,546 84
There may have been some collected since this was made up.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many were brought
out under this scheme last year?


James Alexander Robb: I have here the nominated
passages-11,261 since the beginning of operations.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How long have they to
repay the loans and at what rate of interest.


James Alexander Robb: One year for certain types and two years for married persons. No interest is charged.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If they do not pay within that time, are they charged interest?


James Alexander Robb: No. The' understanding with
the British government is that we do not charge any interest.


Henry Elvins Spencer: There are many cases in which these people have got into the hands of financial institutions, mainly owing to the effects of deflation, and they have been forced off their lands. I do not know whether these cases have been brought to the attention of the minister, but it is a fact that many farmers, and some large farmers are being forced off the land on account of the action of the financial
Supply-Immigration

institutions. It seems to me something should be done to give these men who are on the land a little more time to readjust themselves. There is no doubt that conditions will improve ; at least we hope so in speaking of present day farmers. If we are going to people the land, we should keep men who are very much better equipped to carry on the business of the farmer (than the people we are bringing in. I hope the minister will consider the matter and if he finds that hardship is being brought about through such action as I have mentioned, that he will use his influence with these financial men to be a little more lenient in their actions towards these individuals.


James Alexander Robb: We cannot use this vote for that purpose. The conditions in this case are laid down under regulations in the United Kingdom.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It was my intention to request the Acting Finance Minister to use his influence with the financial institutions not to be so hard on farmers who got into debt during the period of deflation, and to give them a chance to adjust themselves in the next few years. Their debts have increased rapidly on account of deflation and they have not had time to adjust themselves. The price of pure bred stock dropped down to about a third of its value and there was no sale. These men were being pressed to pay their debts and could not do it. It is not only a hardship on these men but a great loss to the country if we lose them.
Mr. T'OLMIE: We have had quite a heavy expenditure for immigration during the past few years. This year the estimates amount to 13,092,000, with civil government amounting to $300,000 more.
Looking over the last twenty-five years I think it is fair to estimate that the expenditure has been about the same, if not a little in excess of it, showing a total for that period of about $100,000,000. When we ask ourselves what has been the return for this heavy expenditure we find that immigration, together with the natural increase just about balances, or a little more than balances, the emigration from this country to the United States and to other places. The largest items shown here are numbers 62 and 63, Item 62, showing $750,000 for the outside service and 63 showing $1,350,000 for contingencies and general expenses, grants to associations and so forth. The work of immigration, as I understand it, may be divided into three parts, first the inspection and exclusion of undesirable immigrants, a very necessary work, next the inducement to
EMr. Spencer.]
immigrants to come and1 settle in this country, carried on by publicity propaganda, agents in various parts of the country, the whole thing boiled down really amounting to 12 m. a general invitation to come and settle in Canada. The third part is the colonization work, taking care of these immigrants once they have landed here, and making satisfied customers of them. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that this last feature is the important one, that after we have done everything in the way of inducing people to come here, the most important thing of all is to get those people to accustom themselves to the conditions in Canada and induce them to remain in Canada and to become good Canadian citizens. Admitting that this is the most important part of the immigration work, then it is very interesting indeed to note the expenditure of money under these three divisions in the past. In the first place, exclusion and inspection has amounted to, judging by the last figures in the Auditor General's report, about $1,020,000. The bringing in of new settlers, $2,140,000, and colonization work, the most important of all, only $230,000. There is one point in immigration that we must never forget and that is that the landing of the settler on Canadian soil is only the beginning of the work. At that time he is only a prospect-a prospect that can be developed into a permanent satisfied settler o-r one who will not be satisfied, but will drift over into the United States. Admitting this, then the expenditure of money seems to be somewhat out of balance, and we find that for every two dollars expended in getting the settler here, only twenty cents is expended in making him a satisfied customer, a permanent settler in this country. I argue that we should balance this up. I am not particularly blaming the present minister, as this has been the custom in the past, and he will understand that my remarks are made in a friendly way, simply as suggestions for the improvement of the situation. I say this should be balanced up by giving more attention to colonization, either by increasing the appropriation for that purpose, by taking money from other expenditure and applying it in this way. After all, we [DOT]must remember that no matter how many paid agents we have scattered throughout Europe, the United States and other countries, from which we desire to obtain settlers, the satisfied settler who has come here, located his family, and is making progress, is the best immigration agent Canada can have.


Milton Neil Campbell: A few evenings ago
when the Immigration estimates were being considered the question of misleading represent-

Supply-Immigration
ations in British newspapers as to the conditions in Canada was discussed and the minister intimated that something was to be done by the department to counteract such reports. I was glad to hear the minister say that, because I think that is the fundamental problem in dealing with immigration, and that is where the department should begin. I have here an article published in the Weekly Scotsman, Edinburgh, which is a reprint from the Morning Albertan, Calgary, and it tells the story of a sad case of Trooper Hay, lately of His Majesty's Scots 'Greys, stranded' in Calgary. The article reads:
Glut of work, broke, hungry and with his wife in the General hospital here seriously ill (the Morning Albertan reports) former Trooper Alexander Hay, V.C. of His Majesty's Scots Greys, and late of Glasgow, somewhat embittered by his experiences in Canada, still believes that the God who watched over him during the hell of the Neuve Chapelle battle, when he made seven trips across a shell and bullet swept battlefield to bring in wounded comrades, will tide him through his present crisis.
He goes on to tell us, so the reporter of the Calgary Albertan says; that when he landed in Canada he bad $1,000 in cash over his passage money. He says:
I was first attracted to Canada by the propaganda published in the Glasgow newspapers and by the stories credited to Father MacDonnell. We were informed that as soon as we arrived in Alberta we'd get a farm and could pay for it on easy payments. We were taken right through to Edmonton, and it was here that the first cloud appeared. We were packed into the immigration hall at Edmonton-men, women and jhildren all in the same room-and when a number of men started to change parts of their clothing in full view of the women and children, I protested, and was labelled as a "kicker".
He then goes on to tell the whole tragic story. He states that he was first induced to come to Canada by some of the reports emanating from immigration sources. Now, of all the crimes that this country could be guilty of the worst is to induce people to come here under false pretences. Most assuredly we want immigrants; there can be no question about that. And those of us who come from the west look forward to the day when immigrants will come not by thousands or by tens of thousands but by hundreds of thousands. and when they do we shall welcome them. But above everything else we insist that when they come they shall do so with a full knowledge of the conditions as they are and remain here when they do come. That is the fundamental problem for the government to deal with at the present time. I have here a circular sent out to members of parliament about a year ago under the auspices of a magazine called Canadian Opportunities. The letter makes the statement that 25,000 copies of this particular
publication are being issued each month and distributed in Canada, in the United States and in Great Britain for the purpose of giving authentic information in regard to the natural resources of Canada and the opportunities that obtain here. You will note that it makes mention of authentic information to intending settlers. Let me refer to some of this so-called "authentic information." The issue of December 1924 of this magazine published in Toronto makes the statement that Canada gives the farmer credit until he gets on his feet. How many hon. gentlemen can verify that? Then it refers to the enormous profits that are made in the poultry business; it says for instance that eggs cost 16 cents per dozen to produce in the prairies and they sell from 35 cents to $1.10. This was in 1924, and it will surprise hon. gentlemen to know that in that year eggs were selling at prairie points in Saskatchewan at 14 cents in the middle of March. Yet this article ,states that the minimum price at which they sell is 35 cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: How old were those eggs that sold at 14 cents?


Edward Joseph Garland: Let me
tell the hon. gentleman that not later than this spring eggs were selling in my home town at 11 cents a dozen and then only in trade. And they were fresh eggs too from the farm.


James Alexander Robb: If that be true how is it that hon. gentlemen are afraid of competition from Australia?


Edward Joseph Garland: We never
said a word about competition from Australia.


Milton Neil Campbell: We are not afraid of
competition from any part of the world. We are prepared to sell our butter, our cattle and everything else in competition with any country and we can show you how to produce. We can produce more cheaply in the west than they can anywhere else in the world. Under the caption "Buying Power of the West greater by $175,000,000" this article goes on to say that in the year 1923 the farmers had reduced operating costs so that wheat was produced at 20 cents per bushel less than in the previous year. In many districts, it declares, the farmers' profit in 1923 was estimated at 20 cents a bushel while in the year 1924 there had been an advance of more than 50 cents a bushel in the price of wheat, so that the farmer was not only making this 50 cents but he was getting the previous year's profit of 20 cents and the 20 cents a bushel saved on production cost, making a total profit of more than 90 cents a bushel on his crop in
Supply-Immigration

the year 1924. It winds up with the following statement:
A profit of 20 cents a bushel on 430,000,000 bushels of grain produced last year meant to the farming community of the prairies about $86,000,000 of a buying power; but this year, with only 290,000,000 bushels at a profit of 90 cents a bushel, will give the farmers in the aggregate approximately $261,000,000 or $175,000,000 more than last year.
Does the minister stand behind that statement?


James Alexander Robb: What is the hon. gentleman
quoting from? Does it bear the minister's approval or is it a newspaper?


Milton Neil Campbell: A pertinent question
from the minister. I will give him his answer. On March 2 of this year I put on the order paper the following question:
Does any department of the federal government contribute to the support of the magazine known as "Canadian Opportunities", published in Toronto?
The answer given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) was:
The Department of Immigration and Colonization has a six months' contract for 1,000 copies per month of "Canadian Opportunities". These are distributed among the agencies of the department in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and the offices on the continent of Europe.
That is the answer I give the minister. Now, when a magazine of this description is distributed in the United States and elsewhere under the authority of the government I have every right to ask the minister now whether he is prepared to stand behind the so-called information it publishes and to vouch for its accuracy. Let us analyse the figures further You will note that it is estimated that the net profit of the farmers in the production of grain is some 886,000,000. But from a government publication, the Canada Year Book, I have taken figures carefully prepared1 by the Bureau of Statistics showing that the total loss to the farmers of the three prairie provinces in the production of wheat, oats and barley in 1923 was $58,739,000. That I think is correct, because anyone who knows the conditions in the west knows very well that the crop of 1923 was produced at a distinct loss. In that year in presenting his budget to the legislature of Saskatchewan Premier Dunning stated that "the crop of 1923 although it was the greatest in the history of the province would yield the farmer $60,000,000 less than the crop oif the year before. Yet this magazine, sponsored by the government and handed out to prospective immigrants in every part of the world, declares that the farmers of the west have made a net profit of $86,000,000 in that one year. You will observe that in 1924 according to this information the profit was

$261,000,000. But according to the figures given by the Bureau of Statistics the total value of the crop that year was only $287,000,000. Now, if the information contained in this magazine is correct practically the whole of that amount was a profit. That is what I rose ho complain about to-ni#it. I do not think that any language is strong enough to sufficiently condemn advertising literature of that kind being placed in the hands of prospective immigrants by the Canadian government. I say that this is primarily responsible for the other propaganda, because men unfitted for farm work and knowing nothing of the conditions they have to face in western Canada, and who perhaps under any circumstances could not have made good there are induced to come here by these rosy prospects held1 out to them by this type of literature. Naturally those immigrants write back to the papers of the Old Country, and I hope the government in future will never be responsible for literature of that kind being placed in the hands of immigrants.
We are very often told when we complain of the conditions the farmer has to face in the west that he should work a little harder and go into mixed farming. Now, I have another pamphlet here that I will quote from:
Nowthere in the world is production of food per man greater than on the Canadian prairie. It is amazing to learn that a half section farmer produces enough food in a single year to last him and his family all the remainder of his life. If all classes of society produced as efficiently as the prairie farmer the plane of civilization would be much improved and the hours of labour greatly reduced.
The pamphlet continues:
The returns in farming, as compared witb those in other occupations, are worse now than at any time within the memory of men who have farmed a lifetime. How can improvement be made?	.
This is not a publication sent out by the Farmers' Union of Canada, or by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, or by the Communistic party of Toronto. It has the heading of the Dominion Experimental Farms and is a little pamphlet called "Seasonable Hints," with the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on the front page. It should be a sufficient answer to the kind of advice referred to.
We are not opposed to immigration. I think it is unnecessary to say so, but there seems to be a feeling in this House when any of us from western Canada attempt to tell the real truth about conditions there that we are opposing immigration. It is not so. I say again, we are all proud of the country. There is no place in the world where pro-

Supply-7 mmigration
duction per man is greater, and where the soil production so well repays the labour bestowed on it, than that of western Canada. The average production of butter in the three prairie provinces per head1 of rural population -I am taking it on the basis of rural population, otherwise it would be unfair to compare the western production with the eastern -the average production per head of rural population is 40 pounds; for all the rest of Canada it is only 28 pounds per head. This is the country where we are continually advised to go into mixed farming. Well, we are not only raising wheat, we are producing eggs, butter, dressed poultry, and so forth, and to-day our honey production is running into millions of pounds. We have the greatest country on the face of the earth. I should like some hon. gentlemen who have their doubts about the possibilities of Canada to come out in the northeast part of Saskatchewan where I live. We have a growth there that is almost tropical in its luxuriance, and perhaps in no part of the world can there be shown such a remarkable production of food. But what we do lack confidence in is the various policies under which this country has been run. I am not referring particularly to this government. It has been the same with all governments. There are a great many problems to be solved, and the principal one is the retention of the immigrant here instead of allowing him to drift over to the United States. I am not going to again discuss the various phases of this question, we have discussed them year after year, and we do not seem to make much impression on the government. But undoubtedly if we are to put a stop to the vicious and misleading propaganda against this Dominion in the Old Country papers, we must first of all see that none of these pamphlets sponsored by the government are misleading in painting too rosy a picture of the conditions which the immigrant will have to face.


James Alexander Robb: I observe my hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) is not in his seat, but for his benefit I want to say that we are taking care of the immigrant when he comes here, and are using the Soldier Settlement Board very largely for that purpose. They are doing excellent work, as I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell). He quoted the case of a man named Alexander Hay, and I am going to give my hon. friend this man's record so that he will not be misled by the type of letters written home. Here is the record:
The above-named and his wife arrived in Edmonton with Father MacDorniell's party on August 14, and the following day a job was secured for him with a Mr. H. T. Alexander of Waskat^iau at $50 a month, on the understanding that he would remain with Alexander for the winter. At the end of the first month Hay quit the job and Alexander refused to pay him the imount agreed upon, as it was claimed that Hay had broken his agreement to remain for the winter. Hay iccepted $14 and signed a receipt in full for this amount for his work.	.
He returned to the Edmonton district office and another job was found for him with a Mr. Edwards at Leduc at $60 a month and board for himself and his wife who, by the way, is a cripple and is unable to do any but the lightest work. After his first month Hay quarrelled with Mrs. Edwards, was very abusive and threatened his employer with violence. Edwards called in the police, who ran both Hay and his wife out of town.
He again returned to the Edmonton district office and our district superintendent made three* offers of jobs to Hay, two at $35 a month and one at $50 a month, none of which he would accept.
On February 19, 1925, Hay applied to our district office in Calgary for employment. A job was found for him with a Mr. Ross at Elnora and he was offered soldier settlement transportation at one cent per mile to get there. Later in the day he called back and advised he could not take the job and would locate something in town.
A few days later he again called and Mr. Glover, of our Calgary office, informed him that he could place him with a Mr. Taylor at Halkirk. Mr. Hay arranged to come to the office in the afternoon to get a letter of introduction but failed to show up. Mr. Glover reports that he located him in a restaurant that night when Hay advised he had changed his mind due to the ill health of his wife.
Hay was informed on one or two occasions by our district superintendent at Calgary that we are quite willing to place him on a farm with, or without, his wife, but could do nothing in finding him a position in the city.
That is the record of Mr. Hay.


Milton Neil Campbell: In order to combat
such propaganda, is the minister getting his agents to publish the record?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very
glad the minister has that information. Can he tell me whether the sixty dollars and forty dollars mentioned as monthly wages during the winter included board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chinese immigration-salaries	and contingencies,
Edward Joseph Garland: Is it the
policy of the department to make an attempt to do away with the Soldier Settlement Board as such and turn it into something in the way of a land settlement board, getting rid of its relationship to the soldiers?


James Alexander Robb: We recognize it now as a land settlement branch of immigration.

Supply-Immigration


Edward Joseph Garland: I have in
mind the continually decreasing work that will fall upon the Spldier Settlement Board as such, and it just occurred to me that the department could economize if the board were turned into a collection agency to clean up the soldiers cases-I understand that no further applications are being received from soldiers to go on the land-and the remaining activities merged into the Immigration department.


James Alexander Robb: We are reducing steadily in
that department, but we have considerable outstanding money there and we must keep a sufficient staff to collect it. We are using the field men to look after the immigrants and place them as far as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions-salaries and contingencies, $140,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of this vote
was spent last year? .


James Alexander Robb: $138,267.16 for 1923-24, and
for the eleven months ended Eebruary 28, 1925, $122,443.98.


Arthur Meighen: How many representatives of the government were down at the exhibition at Miami last year?


James Alexander Robb: Three from our department.


Arthur Meighen: How many from others?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that.


Arthur Meighen: Why, there was a whole company there, almost a regiment, putting up at the best hotels all through a long period of time. I happened to be down there myself a while afterwards and heard the Story of it. The people were laughing and wondering what in the world they were doing there.


James Alexander Robb: There will be nobody going
this year.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad the minister
is bringing fruits meet for repentance, but it should have been a great deal sooner. It is two years since the Minister of Agriculture stood up in the House and told us about the efforts of Mr. Duncan Marshall down in Florida, making speeches in Miami on behalf of immigration from Florida to Canada. Of course nobody believed anything of that story at all; it was merely a trip for Mr. Marshall at the expense of the people of Canada. I will guarantee that the department has not a record of one single immigrant from Florida in the whole history of that state. Then they

follow that up with a trip of a lot of friends down to Miami last year. There they promenaded around Miami, supposedly in the interests of Canada, but the only result was to give the people of Florida the idea that this country was reeking with money that it was trying hard to get rid of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of distressed Canadians abroad, $6,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give us an explanation?


James Alexander Robb: This is to provide relief or
assistance for the benefit of Canadians who may happen to be stranded outside of Canada or temporarily financially embarrassed. The expenses are usually incurred through the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, taking the form, for the most part, of transportation back to this country. An attempt is made to collect from the person to whom the assistance is given upon his return, or from his parents, relatives or friends.


Arthur Meighen: Has the department any vote for the relief of distressed Canadians in Canada?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Empire Exhibition, $250,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will this vote carry
the whole expense in connection with the exhibition this year?


James Alexander Robb: I think so. As a matter of fact this will not cost us anything this year. It is guaranteed to us and paid back by the British Empire Exhibition Company, but we have to put the amount in the estimates to pay our expenses.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the
British Empire Exhibition Company a private
company, or is it guaranteed by the British government?


James Alexander Robb: I think it was a private un
dertaking when it was started, but a membei of the British government personally went guarantee for certain expenses.


Edward Joseph Garland: The company is not having a very successful year. I wonder if the minister had not better reserve a little of that item in the estimates in case of bankruptcy.


James Alexander Robb: I think it is pretty safe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Immigration
Soldier land settlement-advances to soldiers, and re general settlement of lands held under the Soldier Settlement Act, cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, including salaries, $4,500,000.
Milton Neil Campbell: Is any further land
settlement involved in this? Are they settling any more men on the land?


James Alexander Robb: This is to provide for certain commitments that were made for soldiers who were in training in the agricultural colleges. I do not think there are very many put on.


Milton Neil Campbell: I presume the policy of the department now in case of a soldier applying for land, is to try and place him on some of the salvaged lands of the department?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is the price of these
lands generally reduced when sold to another man now?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend desires much information along this line, I had better have the director come in.


Milton Neil Campbell: I will not press the
matter.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I take it this will be more in the way of a loan.


James Alexander Robb: It is all loan.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What rate of interest is
the government charging the soldiers?


James Alexander Robb: It is fixed by the act. I think it is 5 per cent.


Robert Gardiner: What portion of this
item is for administrative expenses?


James Alexander Robb: $907,780.15.


Robert Gardiner: That was last year?
What is the estimated cost this year?


James Alexander Robb: It will be less. I have not
the figure.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have before drawn attention to the report in regard to expenses under this soldiers' settlement board. Can the minister tell me the number of automobiles used in connection with the board?


James Alexander Robb: I am sending for the chairman of the board. We can let this item stand in the meantime.
Item stands.
Advances to soldiers, and re general settlement of lands held. under the Soldier Settlement Act, cost of administration of Soldier Settlement and general land settlement, including salaries, $4,500,000.


William James Lovie: I do not know whether I am in order under this item, but I should like
to refer to a request I made to the Department of the Interior two years ago with reference to a quarter section of land in the Stockton district in Manitoba that was asked for by a farmer living alongside that land. This quarter section was in the large sand hills and contained only about twenty acres of arable land, the rest being fit only for pasture. I was requested to see the Department of the Interior, so that this quarter section could be attached to this man's farm living alongside. When I was in that district just a year ago I asked the farmer whether he had succeeded in getting possession of this quarter section, and he said no, the land had been given to a returned soldier. Now if the statement made to me was correct, I want to say that it is absolutely useless giving land like that to a returned1 soldier. No man, however good a farmer he may be, could live on twenty acres of land when the rest of the quarter section was all sandy land, and if there are very many soldiers being settled on land of that kind there are going to be a good many failures. The best farmer in the world could not succeed on such land.


James Alexander Robb: I will have that looked into.


William James Lovie: Unless there has been some
mistake in the information that has been given to me, a returned soldier has been settled on this land.


James Alexander Robb: Is it Dominion land?


William James Lovie: The man who wanted it, Mr. McLaughlin, who is a farmer and storekeeper, said it was Dominion land and he thought it would be ojDen for homesteading, and one of his boys would homestead it.


James Alexander Robb: Of course, a returned soldier
would be given preference in filing for the land.


William James Lovie: What I want to point out is the bad business management that will allow a returned soldier to settle on land like that. There were only 20 acres of arable land in a sand hill on the edge of the Assiniboine river, and the rest of the quarter section was not good enough to pasture.


James Alexander Robb: Did he consult the board?


William James Lovie: I do not know anything about that. All I know is that the fanner said he could not get the land, that it had been given to a returned soldier. If there are many deals like that going on, I pity the returned soldier.


James Alexander Robb: I am told that some six thousand soldiers have filed on lands that have
Supply-Immigration

nothing to do with the Soldier Settlement Board at all.


William James Lovie: I do not know about that at all. I thought some guardian angel was looking after all the returned soldiers.


James Alexander Robb: In reply to the hon. member
for Kingston (Mr. Ross), the number of automobiles used in connection with the board is 138.


Arthur Edward Ross: How often are
these automobiles changed?


James Alexander Robb: Every two years.


Arthur Edward Ross: And some sooner
than that?


James Alexander Robb: Two running seasons. It is
cheaper to replace them than to pay for the expenses of reconditioning them.


Arthur Edward Ross: In addition to that, when it comes to placing the harvesters, there is also a very large expenditure for automobiles and gangs.


James Alexander Robb: In placing the harvesters returned soldiers are employed on a per diem rate. That was two years ago; we are not doing that now.


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish the minister, just for his own satisfaction, would have some person estimate the cost of such things as these automobiles, and so on, to give him some idea of the expense to which the department is being put. Some time last year I drew to the minister's attention that certain officials had been sent overseas, equipped with haversacks, kit bags, trunks, and .so on, and there was a promise given then that such would not happen again, but I see that almost the same officials have taken another trip, with expenses for almost as much equipment, but the Auditor General refused to pay the account. It looks as if there was very little supervision over the expenses, and I would like to know if this additional expense has been paid by the department.


James Alexander Robb: It is the same trip my hon.
friend is now referring to. The account was refused the first time, and they put it in again. My hon. friend will be glad to know it was not the Auditor General, but the Treasury board, that refused to pay the account, and I am glad to know the Auditor General has approved of our action.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is not the
same trip. This is a trip to India.


James Alexander Robb: It is the same trip, I am informed.


Arthur Edward Ross: The expenses I
referred to last year were paid, and the House was ashamed to hear the items of expenditure. Even the initials were put on the trunks and paid for. It is not the same trip, but I do not want to take up the time of the House now to prove I am right. The accounts I refer to were paid last year, and the promise was given that such a thing would not occur again. Some of them had even two travelling trunks, but this year I notice an expense account was put in in connection with a trip to India and I am sure it has been paid, but the Auditor General would not pass the account.


James Alexander Robb: I am told a few things were paid for, but I recall that the Treasury board refused to authorize an 'account.. Perhaps that is the account that the Auditor General refused and that they tried to smuggle through the Treasury board afterwards. I recall that during the winter the Treasury board refused to endorse an account of that kind.


Arthur Edward Ross: In spite of this
shameful charge, these same officials tried to put this account over again. It is enough to provide trunks and travelling bags for one year, but this kind of expense is going on from year to year and it amounts to many dollars. Then it is said the Soldier Settlement Board scheme is a failure. It has failed on account of want of care and supervision over unnecessary expenditure.


James Alexander Robb: I am told it was the same trip they were trying to put in an expense account for. These officials have since been let out.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Are these automobiles purchased by contract?


James Alexander Robb: By the Government Contracts Supervision Committee of which Colonel LaFleehe is the head.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration, outside service-salaries-further amount required, $50,000.
James Alexander Robb: When the main estimates were up, I explained that we wrote off S70,000 on account of reclassification. I explained then that we would have $50,000 'in the estimates which makes a net reduction of $20,000 in the department.
Mr. MBIGHE.N: That .is much less proportionately than the reduction in immigration.


James Alexander Robb: This is immigration.


Arthur Meighen: But the reduction in cost is much less than the reduction in the number of immigrants.

Supply-Immigration


Robert Gardiner: I should like to place before the minister a case which I happened to get acquainted with last fall. The department has in its employ a gentleman who is trying to get immigrants from Scotland. I do not know what agreement he has with the department, but I understand he is being paid a salary and also his expenses. It seems that this gentleman was responsible for bringing out a number of settlers froim Scotland, and in order, to make Uip the quota for that particular voyage, he picked up some immigrants in Glasgow, a part of the country from which hie was not in the habit of getting immigrants to come to this country. These people came out to the province of Alberta, and the particular immigrant and his family to whom I wish to refer were sent down to the southern part of Alberta. They went and occupied a house on an empty farm there in a very desolate part of the country, very dose to a school. This school was not running at the time, and he went to the municipal council and demanded that the school should be run in order to provide education for his children. The municipal authorities said that, under the circumstances, they did not feel justified in opening up the, school for his children in view of the fact that he was not a ratepayer and was staying on that farm merely by suffrance. A little later on he went to the municipal authorities algain and asked for money to buy coal and provisions-during the winter. They refused to give him .money to buy provisions. They asked him if he would care to take a job and he said "No, I do not want any job. I did not come to this country (to work. I have been living on the dole in the Old Clounjtry and I aim not going to work." It is time that these gentlemen who are employed by the department for only part time, should be looked after a little more closely in order to see to it that we get in this country a class of immigrants that will be of some value.


James Alexander Robb: I think there were three or four such cases that came out. I imagine I have in mind the gentleman to whom imy hon. friend refers, but he has been an excellent aigent and has brought out a number of good people. The people he brings out are, as a rule, satisfactory, but a few cases were deported.


Robert Gardiner: What would the department do with a family of that description- send them back again?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will give me the name in confidence to-morrow, I will get a record an(d let him know exactly what has been done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Zealand and South Seas exhibition, $145,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is this?


James Alexander Robb: This is an exhibition at Dunedin, New Zealand, starting in November. We have been invited to go into it. We have had very friendly relations with the Dominion of New Zealand for many years, as my right hon. friend knows. The balance of trade is very much in our favour. It may cost us $100,000 for the exhibit. The exhibitors are to pay for space on a higher rate than at Wembley.


Robert Gardiner: Is it proposed that Canada shall make exhibits at this particular exhibition and, if so, what will be exhibited?


James Alexander Robb: Minerals, and other natural products, in order to show the resources of the country. Mr. Turcotte, who laid out the exhibit at Wembley, and who beat out all the other exhibitors in the world, will be on his way down to New Zealand just as soon as this vote passes, to arrange for the exhibit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government Contracts Supervision Committee, salaries, including that of L. R. LaFleche, secretary, $6,000 and that of L. H. Beer, salvage officer, $5,000, telephones and telegrams, travelling expenses, stationery, et cetera, $24,000.
Robert Gardiner: Who comprises this committee?


James Alexander Robb: The head of the branch is Colonel LaFleche, and Mr. Beer has charge of the salvage department.


Robert Gardiner: Is it a committee of just two people?


James Alexander Robb: No. I think there are three or four in the office.


Arthur Meighen: This is the purchasing board, the negative of what there was. Do they do anything now?


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to admit frankly they do not do as much as I would like to have done, but my right hon. friend will recall the difficulties he must have had when he was in power to induce the different purchasing agents of the departments to use that department altogether. They are doing very excellent work particularly in the salvage.


Arthur Meighen: What are they salvaging? Mr. ROBB: Anything there is to salvage.


Robert Gardiner: Is it proposed tc send the committee up to Hudson bay to salvage the railway.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister consider salvaging the committee?

Supply-Finance


Charles Gavan Power: There are some good men on it.	'


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the advisers engaged in tariff inquiry. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $30,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this the famous proposed Tariff Board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: How many members
will compose the board?


James Alexander Robb: I am not yet sure. I would not like to have too large a board. I propose as far as possible to use the officers that are in the department. They will require some expert outside help.


Robert Gardiner: Will this House have the benefit of their advice?


James Alexander Robb: They will report to the minister.


Robert Gardiner: Not to the House?


James Alexander Robb: The minister will have" to
justify anything he presents to the House.


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister not think that the House should' be furnished with the information this board may obtain, in order to guide our steps?


James Alexander Robb: I may say, as acting minister, that I will not refuse anything that is reasonable, but my hon. friend knows that under our parliamentary system the government of the day must take the responsibility for whatever policy they present to parliament.


Robert Gardiner: That is not always advisable, because parliament might sometimes be misdirected, and if parliament had the information which this board could gather we could probably justify our action better than we could otherwise.


James Alexander Robb: I think generally speaking the information will be before the House.


Arthur Meighen: What does the minister mean by saying that the government is responsible for the legislation?


James Alexander Robb: I think that every government in power is responsible for the tariff policy they bring before parliament.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend surely dees not mean that this government is responsible for any legislation? It brings in legislation, sees it collapse in the House over and over again, but smilingly goes out and brings in some more legislation, and the 
responsibility is at an end. Why is the Civil Service Act thrown overboard in this case? Why is the government continually eating into the act, chopping it off here and there. Why does it not repeal the act instead of doing it by inches as it is doing? Every time any one is to be engaged, all through these estimates, we find the words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act contained."


Charles Gavan Power: You will do it next year.


Arthur Meighen: No, we will not do it next year. The hon. member knows very well that we will not. It took many years to get this step, but this government is yielding week by week. By the time we get through the supplementaries I do not know what there will be left at all. The labours of years will be thrown away.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Will the minister say when the members will be appointed to the board, or have they already been appointed?


James Alexander Robb: As soon as I can get time.


Arthur Meighen: If they are officers of the department, why pay them $30,000 more? '


James Alexander Robb: They may have to travel some, and may require some clerical assistance and some expert advisers on the board.


Arthur Meighen: Newmen?


James Alexander Robb: Well we might require them for a time.


Arthur Meighen: Why go outside the Civil Service? All this illustrates is that the government is bound to have some of its own friends put on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the salary of Walter Duncan at $3,550 per annum-further amount required, $1,000.
Alfred Speakman: Who is Walter Duncan?


James Alexander Robb: He is a special officer in the department. I would rather not say too much about him. I would be glad to tell my hon. friend privately.


Arthur Meighen: Is this the man making reports in Toronto?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Is he the man who
prevents smuggling of diamonds into this eountiy?


James Alexander Robb: He helps to stop it as much
as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Finance
To provide, subject to the approval of the Treasury board, for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases, $344,627.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain this?


James Alexander Robb: This is in lieu of the bonus
that has been paid for years, and is due to the reclassification by the Civil Service Commission. It involves all the different departments. My hon. friend will recall that in previous years there was a bonus voted in the estimates for the different departments, and this reclassification is made by the Civil Service Commission for the different departments. Some have -been -made previously and others have been made during the year. The Post Office Department and some others were reclassified. I am not sure whether the Customs was reclassified.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister lay
on the table a statement showing how this amount was maije up? It is down here to the last dollar. I do n-ot quite understand. If it is a reclassification it should have appeared in the main estimates, department by department, the same as any other item.


James Alexander Robb: -Some -of the reclassifications
were made after the main estimates had been presented. I will place the statement on the table. It is an estimate from all the departments.
Mr. MErGHEN:	It should appear in the
estimates, department by department, and the number of the various civil servants who were receiving it. This is not the right way to do it, and why is it subject to the approval of the Treasury board? If the Civil Service Commission have reclassified, and if the government have approved of the reclassification -and they must have or it cannot take effect-what is the idea of subjecting it to the approval of the Treasury board?


James Alexander Robb: I think all these reclassifi'cations must come before the Treasury board. I have heard my hon. friend argue that they do not need to increase salaries unless they wish.


Arthur Meighen: The reclassification must come before the Governor in Council and be approved by him, but once it is approved by the Governor in Council, involving the increases, then the increases go into effect, and there should be no whip hand in the Treasury board to grant one and deny another. It is just patronage.


James Alexander Robb: No.
316i
-m


Mr. SIMPSON:: How does this amount
compare with the amount paid last year for bonuses?


James Alexander Robb: I think it is much smaller
thlan last year.


Arthur Meighen: At page 15 of the supplementaries; item 492 provides for $1,297,340 for the same purpose, subject to the approval of the Treasury board for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases, including amounts required to cover provisions of order in council. The remarkable thing to me is that there is nothing in these votes in the way they -are worded to make it compulsory that the reclassifications, promotions and increases shall be recommended by the Civil Service Commission. So far as the wording of the votes is concerned, the government could distribute the money at will. I think there should be inserted in the votes some proviso that there shall be the prior recommendation, of the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph Henry Harris: How far has the reclassification gone?	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: These hon. members who
are shouting "louder" came into this House in 1921 and, if you will excuse the simile, they reminded me then of a carload of cattle let loose on the range. The leader of the government thought it necessary to coax them along with the familiar "soo-soo" which is used when a man is leading a herd. Now at the end of this session they find themselves within the corral made up of the four thousand iron men they will get if there is another session, or the Liberal nomination they expect in case of an election; and on this occasion the Liberal leader is behind driving them with the well known herdsman's roar "soo-hog, soo-hog." I apologize to the minister for having introduced this digression and I would ask for some information regarding the reclassification. How far has it gone?


James Alexander Robb: The reclassification is completed.


Arthur Meighen: Are the bonuses stopped?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal and other expenses in connection with prosecutions resulting from the failure of the Home Bank of Canada, $6,000.
Arthur Meighen: We did not prosecute
anyone in connection with the Home Bank.
Supply-Finance


James Alexander Robb: There was a solicitor Mr. Scott of Toronto, holding a watching brief for the department.


Arthur Meighen: What did he watch?


James Alexander Robb: He was there all through the proceedings.


Arthur Meighen: What good did he do?


Thomas Edward Simpson: I thought the Chief
Electoral Officer was supposed to look after legal work of this kind. Why was he not assigned to this work?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Scott resides in Toronto
where the liquidator was.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot understand why the government needed anyone to watch that case any more than any other prosecutions. It is an easy way to earn $6,000, to sit around court while a prosecution is going on. The department had no financial interest in the case.


James Alexander Robb: In the mind of the public it had a considerable interest.


Ernest Lapointe: The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) went to Toronto after the Home Bank failure and it was agreed with the provincial authorities that Mr. Scott should be associated with counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Did the provincial
authorities want it?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration and Colonization-additional liabilities in connection with the closing of the Canadian exhibit at the British Empire Exhibition (Governor General's warrant of October 1, 1924), $150,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much did the exhibition cost altogether?


James Alexander Robb: I had the information a few minutes ago, but the deputy minister has taken the file away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, or any other Act or Law, for payment to the Right Honourable W. S. Fielding, in recognition of his long and distinguished public service, of an annuity at the rate of $10,000, to commence upon his retirement from public life and to continue thereafter at the above rate during his lifetime, $10,000.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, I presume there will be no objection to this vote, but I think it is fitting to say a word about the distinguished services rendered by this wonderful little man to the Dominion. He has devoted his whole life to his country. He entered

public life a poor man and has remained a poor man to the present day. Even at this .moment his 'thoughts are all centred on the administration of the national affairs. No matter what we may put in the estimates, we could not repay the great service that has been rendered to Canada by the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as the colleague from my province of the right hon. gentleman, knowing him as I have fitom boyhood, how unselfish he has been in the public service, and how devoted to the aims which he thought best for Canada as a whole, I should like to add a ward of appreciation. Now stricken by illness, it is impossible for him further to carry on his life work, and I aim sure that the House and the country generally will tagree that the proposal of the government is one which will be approved everywhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
m
Arthur Edward Ross: Before the minister leaves his seat, may I refer to answers he gave me in regard to the Soldier Settlement Board? I would draw his attention to the fact that the two; items are not the same. The one I referred to last year was for kit bags for Colonel Innes and Mr. Dabson. These same gentlemen you have sent out to India, and this time they have equipped themselves with tropical clothing.


James Alexander Robb: That is the one the Treasury board refused.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are these men no longer in the service of the country?


James Alexander Robb: I based the information I gave to my hon. friend on the statement made to me by the chairman of the board, but if he has any doubt about it, I will have it ichecked up to-morrow morning.


Arthur Edward Ross: I want to show that while last year these gentlemen were equipped with kit bags, this year it is tropical clothing 

$537 to Colonel Innes amid $265 to Mr. Dabson. Here again, too, I observe items for kit of $69 to Colonel Innes and $56 to Mr. Dabson.


James Alexander Robb: The Treasury board refused to pay those accounts.


Arthur Edward Ross: But they are not the same accounts that I refer to. They will not be paid?


James Alexander Robb: No, sir.


George Perry Graham: We will take a few more items of supply.

Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, there is
a limit to everything. I do not mind sitting up away past the usual hour once in a while, but when we are asked to do so all the time I think it is a little too much, especially from a government which at one time was wailing to high heaven about night sittings.


George Perry Graham: We are going to be
reasonable, Mr. Chairman. I have sat up with my hon. friend several nights to put estimates through.


Arthur Meighen: Just one night each
session.


George Perry Graham: He was not at the head
of the government then, but he was really one of the best men behind the government. If we are going to prorogue on Saturday, as we hope to, we will have to sit a bit late tonight.


Arthur Meighen: We have never done any-, thing like this before. For two nights we have sat up until three o'clock and last night it was half past one before we adjourned.


George Perry Graham: Let us put a few items
through and then we will go. We do not want to be too hard.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody has been holding any government measures back, but I do object to sitting here any longer on estimates. If there has to be one whole night devoted to supply, well and good, I am not the one to whine, but I do not like to be sitting here for two-thirds of the night for some weeks and a whole night besides.


George Perry Graham: We do not want to keep the House too late. Let me be the judge.


Arthur Meighen: It is too late now.


George Perry Graham: I think we had better put a few items through.


Arthur Meighen: While I am on my feet, may I refer to the fact that the government does very little to meet the requests of anybody else. Yesterday I called attention to a return brought down which was a farce, as the government virtually admitted; I mean the return on the Ocean Rates committee. To-day comes, and not another particle of information about it, the return not completed. Another one is brought to my notice to-day by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson), a return which is equally worthless. The question which I put on the order paper weeks ago, and which I called attention to yesterday, still remains unanswered. Evidently it is the government's intention to try and slide through this session without complying either with the orders of the House in this matter-especially when attention is called to them,-or answering questions that we consider important. I just want to say that I expect the question to be answered and these returns complied with tomorrow.
Maisonneuve-public building, $50,000.


Arthur Meighen: Are these new buildings? Mr. COPP: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is the idea of
starting a lot of new buildings?


Lucien Cannon: That is a section of the
city that has grown considerably of late.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about
Iveoogami?


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend knows of the
development that is taking place at Kenogami. As a matter of fact they are spending some sixty or seventy millions on a power project there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montmagny publio building and armoury-local improvement taxes, $2,801.33.
Robert Gardiner: Why are local improvement taxes paid in this case?


Arthur Bliss Copp: These are for sidewalks and
works of that kind-improvements and services.


George Arthur Brethen: In connection with these items, what is the meaning of "public works, chargeable to income?"


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is a matter of bookkeeping in the Finance department.


George Arthur Brethen: That does not clarify
the situation.


Arthur Meighen: The great bulk of public works are chargeable to consolidated revenue, supposed to be paid each year from the revenues of the country, and only such are of immense magnitude, supposed to go on forever, are chargeable to capital, such as the Welland canal and institutions of that kind.
Mr. 0PEAKMAN:	On what principle are
votes for new buildings placed in the supplementary estimates? I always understood that supplementary estimates were to provide for exigencies that might arise after the main estimates were brought down.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed that it has
been customary to initiate public works by votes in the supplementary estimates in order to prepare for the contracts and construction work, which would be continued in the estimates of the following year.


Alfred Speakman: Is it because the supplementary estimates come down in the early morning of the last days of the session? It does not look to me like a good principle.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. member
says is absolutely right; there is no excuse for new buildings being provided for in the supplementary estimates. Certainly I do not say there should not be supplementary estimates; they are necessary, especially in these long session parliaments. But there is no excuse at all for new buildings being provided for, a whole list of them, in the supplementary estimates. I invite the minister now to get up and tell the committee the real reason why these votes are included here.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The information I have is that it has been customary to bring down supplementary estimates such as these for the commencement of work on public buildings.


Arthur Meighen: The commencement of
new buildings?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: The principle of supplementary estimates should be that the need for the works provided for was not apparent at the time the main estimates were made up, and that explanation has been given me before in regard to other supplementaries. I do think that the need of these public buildings should have been apparent when the main estimates were being prepared. I am not taking exception to the public buildings themselves; they may be necessary, I do not know. While we should not shirk our responsibilities as to these expenditures simply because we are tired, as a matter of fact none of us is in a position under the circumstances to see whether these buildings are necessary or not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The remarks of the hon. member will be noted and passed on to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Waterloo-public building, $20,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are these public
buildings?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Post offices and custom houses.


George Arthur Brethen: I understood from the
minister's explanation that these supplementary estimates were preparations for new buildings, but it looks as if we are going to be committed under these items for huge expenditures for these buildings. I understood it was the intention of this government to withhold the expenditure of large sums of money for public buildings until such time as the financial condition of this country warranted going on with them. I do not believe we have reached that stage yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gravenhurst-public building, $20,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this a new building,
and will this amount complete the work?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have a site there, and this is the amount required for the erection of a public building for postal and customs pur. poses. The site was purchased in 1913.


Robert Gardiner: Will this amount complete the building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Very largely. There may be
something more later on.


Arthur Meighen: Is this for the re-convert to Liberalism from the county of Muskoka? My information is that he is to be furnished with a job himself so as to solve the difficulties of the party in that riding. Am I wrongly informed? I think I could make a prediction that that will be done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
vacancy?


Arthur Meighen: That is not necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lake Erie-warehouse for Department of Agriculture, $60,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is this warehouse for?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This has been requested by the Department of Agriculture for the construction of a warehouse for the storage of onions at some point on lake Erie.


Alfred Speakman: For the onions that are coming in from Australia?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think it will be
at Leamington, on lake Erie. There is an enormous quantity of onions and other vegetables grown around there.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this for the storage of
onions only? Are any other vegetables to be stored there?

Supply

Public Works


Arthur Bliss Copp: There may be, but it is chiefly for onions.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this an entirely new item or was there a building there before?


Albert James Smith Copp: It is a new building entirely.


George Arthur Brethen: We did not hear the
minister's explanation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This has been requested by the Department of Agriculture for the construction of a warehouse for agricultural products on Lake Erie. It will probably be located at Leamington, but the exact location has not yet been determined upon.


Robert Gardiner: Will it be a frost-proof
warehouse?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Over half a million bushels of onions are grown each year in western Ontario, but on account of the lack of suitable storage accommodation the whole crop is put on the market at the same time, with the result that the price goes down, and the producer does not get the returns he would- were proper storage facilities available.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will this amount complete the building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the intention.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the revenue from
the storage pay fixed charges and other expenses?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am not content with the answer of the minister. Do I understand that he does not know?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There will be storage charges, of course, and it is expected that they will about meet the carrying charges.


Joseph Henry Harris: Surely the minister has
some idea of the revenue. You are not going into this blindly, I hope. What is the estimated revenue?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We cannot -tell definitely how
many onions will be stored there, but it is estimated that the storage charges will about meet the carrying charges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What would
they be?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Agriculture does not know where it is going to go yet. All we know is that the seat is considered dangerous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-Parliament Hill-paving roadways and sidewalks, $25,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is this for?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is for paving the roadways and improving the sidewalks around the parliament buildings. Nine thousand square yards of asphalt roadway will be laid, and 12,000 square feet of sidewalks at an estimated cost of $25,000.
Mr. -SPEARMAN: Where does the department intend to get the asphalt? This is not as foolish a question as it might sound, because I heard from some of the men working outside that they were intending to try some experiments with Alberta asphalt, and I was just wondering whether that is a fact.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed that is correct. The experiment with Alberta asphalt will be made on the driveway at the rear of the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stouffeville-public building, $20,000.
Arthur Meighen: What county is this
in?


Arthur Bliss Copp: York county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: North York? .


Charles A. Stewart: West York.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing for West York.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This amount is required for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building for postal purposes at Stouffeville in North York.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
postal business done at Stouffeville?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The revenue from the office for the last five years is as follows:
1918	
$4,893	741920	
5,282	511921	
4,789	271922	
4,657	881923	
4,873	24


Arthur Meighen: It will take five years revenue to pay for this building.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does this promise date back to the 1921 election?


Alfred Speakman: Will this complete the building, or is it only a preliminary expenditure?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It will very largely complete the building.
Supply-Public Works


Alfred Speakman: What ia the total
estimated cost?


Albert James Smith Copp: The plans have not been fully prepared until we get the vote through and call for tenders.


Robert Gardiner: What provision is there at the present time for this office?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The report of the post office inspector says that the office is located in a substantial two-storey building, which is in good repair. The area of the post office proper is 14 by 32 feet, making a total of approximately 450 square feet, which is equally divided between the public lobby and the working space of the office. There are three rural mail routes being served by this office.


George Arthur Brethen: What rent are you paying at the present time for this office?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Fifteen dollars per month.


Joseph Henry Harris: And this $20,000 building is going to take the place of a service that you are getting for $15 a month?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The present building is very inadequate.


Robert Gardiner: I would like the minister to explain why the present office is not large enough for the service. It seems a wast of money to spend $20,000 on a building when we can rent an office for $15 a month.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The present accommodation is entirely inadequate. There are three rural mail routes being distributed from this office, and the building is only 14 x 32 feet, a very narrow building. I have already given the revenue, which is quite substantial. While Stouffeville is not a large place, it is quite a centre. It has one hotel, public and high schools, two banks, five automobile repair shops, furniture and carriage factories and there are many market gardens around there shipping a considerable quantity of vegetables to Toronto and other places. The village has a public library and community hall.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They have had that rural mail service for a long time


Robert Gardiner: While I appreciate that it is advisable to give the best postal service within our means, it is simply ridiculous in my judgment to spend this amount of money when we have a building there now that is sufficient for all practical purposes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We do not have. That is
the trouble.


Robert Gardiner: Many offices out west
doing a larger business than that are given by the minister a matter of $4,000 or $5,000 per annum, where they have one-half the accommodation this building has. Let us have a little common sense in expenditures of this description. It is ridiculous to spend this amount of money on a building of this kind.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is this in the riding of
North York?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Why is this building being built? It adjoins very closely the riding which I have the honour to represent. North York is getting a little less "Gritty" all the time, perhaps through the influence of East York which is right beside it. In order to continue to maintain a little more "Grit" in the surrounding community, $20,000 is going to be put into a little hamlet known1 as Stouffeville.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-In full and final settlement of claim of R. J. Fleming for loss sustained by destruction of Dupont street garage by fire on March 23, 1922, while occupied by the government under lease, $35,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is this item and was there any insurance on this building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This building at the time of
the fire was occupied by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment under lease for garage purposes, but during the occupancy of the lease the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, instead of using the whole premises as a garage, partitioned off a portion of the premises and used it as a wood-working factory known as a vetcraft branch of the department. Mr. Fleming claims that this action was contrary to the terms of the lease and that by so doing the hazard from fire was greatly increased, the latter contention being borne out by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario delivered on the 1st March, 1924, in which the plaintiff was refused the right to collect the insurance money amounting to $20,000. The building was insured, but when the fire occurred, the insurance company refused to pay the insurance because the building was being used for more hazardous purposes. Mr. Fleming brought action against them in the supreme court; he failed in his action because the department had used the building contrary to the terms of the lease and he lost his building entirely. As it was under lease to the department, they are remunerating him for his loss.

Sup-ply-Public Works


Robert Gardiner: How was the value of $35,000 arrived at?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Fleming's original claim
was for $59,421. It has been cut down to $35,000 and it is being settled on that basis. [DOT]


Robert Gardiner: How much was the
building insured for in the first place?


Arthur Bliss Copp: $20,000.


Robert Gardiner: Was that supposed to
be about 70 per cent of its actual value?


Arthur Bliss Copp: About one-half, I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wiarton-public building, $15,000.
Alfred Speakman: Is this another post
office?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes. We have a site there
that was purchased some years ago. We are erecting a small building there.


Alfred Speakman: The minister, I am sure, will forgive me if I presume on his good nature which is so proverbial in this House. I should like him to give me a little assistance. What is the recipe that is necessary for getting public buildings and other public works? The method has always been a mystery to me. I may say that I have not tried very often. I have made some very modest requests never exceeding a few hundred dollars, but apparently there is a means utterly unknown to me, because invariably I have been unsuccessful and always on the ground that, although the work was very necessary, the financial condition of the country would not permit.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not had very great
success myself and I have been here much longer than my hon. friend has. I have a little more experience. If he will co-operate with me more closely in the next session of parliament, I will give him whatever assistance I can.


Alfred Speakman: Will he give me assurance of some public buildings?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will give him whatever
assistance I can.


John Livingstone Brown: I am afraid we have not
been pushing the claims of our constituencies as hard as we should have done. Now that the government has entered upon a policy of constructing these public buildings, I can call to mind many places where, I think, we could have a nice public building which we could use very conveniently. We have been putting up with post offices in very unsatisfactory
buildings because we did not like to make demands upon the government for accommodation in these hard times. But now we see these small places, as an hon. member says, such as Stouffeville and Wiarton, getting these buildings, we shall have to begin to make more applications for them, and I warn the minister that applications will be forthcoming.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Start in early next session.


George Arthur Brethen: What kind of public
building is this one at Wiarton?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is an ordinary building,
post office and customs.


George Arthur Brethen: Has the minister any
details of that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Wiarton is an incorporated town in Bruce county, Ontario, at 'the head of Col-poy's bay, an inlet with fine harbour of Georgian bay and a terminal station on the Grand Trunk railways, ten miles from Park Head Junction, and twenty miles from Owen Sound. It has five churches of the various denominations, forty-two Stores, five hotels, one woollen, one grist, one shingle and four large lumber mills, one government fish hatchery, three furniture and one beet sugar, one cider, one cement and two wood planing factories, two chartered banks, two newspaper offices, besides telephone, telegram and express office.


George Arthur Brethen: How are they getting
along now in the building that is being used, and what is the cost?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the information.
It is a rented building.


George Arthur Brethen: Has the minister the
information as to the revenue?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The postal revenue in 1923-
24 was $8,984.18.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the amount paid for the building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the information.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the difference between that item and the one we discussed a few minutes ago. Here is a post office and building which costs $15,000. The income is about $8,000 or $9,000 per annum. The building proposed to be erected at Stouffeville is going to cost $20,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have the land already
purchased for the building so that no part of the money will be used for paying for the land.
Supply-Public Works


Robert Gardiner: Is land expensive at
Stouffeville.


Joseph Henry Harris: Twenty dollars a foot.


Robert Gardiner: How much land is required for the post office?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-Fort Osborne barracks-stables, $50,000.
Alfred Speakman: Is this a new stable
to be built at the barracks in Winnipeg?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The stables were burned and
this is to replace them.


Alfred Speakman: How many horses are kept there?


Charles Gavan Power: Two bronchos.


Alfred Speakman: I know that western
bronchos are deserving of a good stable, but few people can afford a $50,000 building.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This item is transmitted to us from the Department of National Defence, and it is to replace the stables that were burned. The stables at Fort Osborne were originally built as cattle sheds in connection with the permanent agricultural college at Tuxedo. The design is most unsatisfactory from the point of view of stable management; it does not lend itself in any way to the proper training of either the permament or nonpermanent units in the duties of stable management, and the buildings are so old and dilapidated that funds would be wasted should an'attempt be made to put these buildings in first class condition. The amount of $50,000, now asked, is for the construction of one unit of new stables, the total cost of which would ultimately be approximately $250,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was insurance carried on the old building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Alfred Speakman: Is there any record of the number of horses ordinarily kept there?


Charles Gavan Power: Two squad of cavalry.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it the policy of the
government not to insure any of its buildings?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the policy.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why is that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is cheaper to carry our own insurance than to pay insurance rates on public buildings.


Alfred Speakman: How many units of
stabling will be constructed when the final plans are completed?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is just to meet the requirements as they arise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-Fort Osborne barracks-purchase and alter-1 ations of Red Cross hut, $12,000.
Robert Gardiner: What responsibility has the government to provide for the Red Cross hut? Is this matter under control of the government?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is being used for militia
purposes as a part of the Tuxedo barracks and has been taken over by the department. The hut will cost $10,000 and the alterations to the hut, $2,000. It is rented by the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-government's share of cost of high pressure fire protection service, $19,101.61.
Arthur Edward Ross: Who has charge of this? Is it a city plant?


Albert James Smith Copp: This amount of $19,000 is to provide for the payment of the government's share of the cost of maintaining the high pressure fire protection service in the city of Winnipeg.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is a city plant?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edmonton-public building, addition to site, $30,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will you explain where this site is situated?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a property adjoining the present post office, and this amount is required for the purchase of land to enlarge the post office building.


Mr. GARLAND (Row River):: Is it in east or west Edmonton?


Arthur Bliss Copp: East Edmonton.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there a building oni the property or is it vacant?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a small building on it used as a real estate office.


Robert Gardiner: What are they going to do with that hole in the ground in Calgary supposed to be a post office site?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is not the intention to build there at the present time. I have no memorandum before ime, and I do not know what they are going to do with that hole.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Gardiner: That hole has been, there a long time, and I understand! the olid building was taken down, and they are moving the stones from one place to another, to give people work. Is anything going to be done to fill up that hole or do anything with it?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed it is not the intention to build there in the near future.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has not the information as to the revenue from the Calgary post office?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Robert Gardiner: When you are spending 120,000 and only receive $4,000 revenue, do you not think it is time you gave those cities producing real revenue a real building?


Charles A. Stewart: I can give some information about the post office site in Calgary. I have gone into it on various occasions with the Department of Public Works. To put up the kind of building that would be suitable for the Calgary post office and customs house would run very close to a million dollars. The building is leased at a moderate rental and we have the promise of the Public Works department that as soon -as financial conditions will permit a new building will be started on the site of the old post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Esquimalt-to replace buildings and equipment destroyed by fire, $120,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: A number of buildings
have been destroyed by fire and perhaps the minister could tell us what loss the government has sustained in this way during the past year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am sorry I have not that
information offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver-to acquire the Winch building, adjoining present post office, at a price of $700,000, by assuming a mortgage of $400,000 and transferring in settlement of balance the old post office property, corner Pender and Granville streets, at a price of $300,000. Amount required to meet one year's interest at five per cent on above mortgage; also cost of alterations to building, $35,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Why are we
making a commitment in this connection and getting rid of the old property?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is important that the present quarters be enlarged and after careful investigation it has been decided to acquire this building.


Thomas George McBride: I know this building very well and I can say that it is a first-class structure. The other building, the old post office, was built thirty-three years ago and is out of date. It is situated at the comer of Pender and Granville streets.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do you certify to it?


Thomas George McBride: I am stating what is
correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, we may
pass the item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms-new buildings, $50,000.
Robert Gardiner: Where are these farms
located?


Arthur Bliss Copp: These expenditures are required for work at Charlottetown, Fredericton, Nappan, Lethbridge and various other places and they come to a total of $45,000.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think we are going experimental farm crazy. We have so many experimental farms that we do not know how to make use of them to the best advantage. I would suggest to the minister that a lot of these extensions should be curtailed as far as possible. We are not getting very much out of these farms, simply because of the fact that only to a very limited extent does the information reach the people interested. If we continue spending our money on more buildings, where are we going to end? I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on a previous occasion that it would be better to put some of this money in substations where the people could see what was being done by way of experiment, but it seems we are going to continue the policy of spending a lot of money and getting very little in return. I protest against it.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the specifications of the poultry house that is to cost $4,500?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the specifications. The cost is only $1,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $358,300.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend really think he should go on with Nova Scotia? I am always content to take a night at any job, but two nights hand running is too much. I was quite willing to stay all

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
night to finish, but if we cannot finish I do not see the use of continuing any longer with these estimates.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If we finish these to-night there will be only a few left for to-morrow morning and we can get through early.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, I think we had better quit to-night and take another day to finish.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, in view of the news that may come out in the morning paper, I think it might be just as well to get the sad work of Nova Scotia over to-night.


Alfred Speakman: Have there been any violent storms lately, or what has happened that there should fee so many supplementary items for wharf repairs and renewals in Nova Scotia?


George Perry Graham: These wharves will be
needed after to-day.


Alfred Speakman: I appreciate that. But what has happened since we put through the main estimates? I certainly thought we put through a very generous list, and we raised no great exception to them. What exigencies have arisen since then to necessitate another list of this length? Again I protest against bringing in at the last moment a lot of supplementary items which might just as well have been included in the main estimates.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will reflect for a. moment he will realize that the engineers of the Public Works department are carrying on their work all the time, and as their reports come in they are included in the main estimates, or if too late for these, they are embodied in the supplementaries.


George Perry Graham: Suppose we put Nova
Scotia through and adjourn?


Alfred Speakman: I quite appreciate what the minister says, but in many of these cases the extensions are not of such importance that they can not be left over until next year.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been suggested that we pass the Nova Scotia list and report progress.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: About thirty years ago the late Sir Richard Cartwright, while looking at the list of votes for Nova Scotia, asked the question, "Is there a cove forgotten?" I would repeat the question to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to Bill No. 184 respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company without any amendment.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate that the Senate doth insist upon their seventeenth amendment made to Bill No. 70 to amend the Pension Act, to which the House of Commons hath disagreed, for the following reasons, that it is not advisable to further extend the ground for relief; but doth not insist upon their third, fourteenth and sixteenth amendments, to which the House of Commons hath disagreed.



HOME BANR DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): Mr. Speaker, before the House rises allow me to read a report of the conference between the managers appointed by the Senate and by this House respectively in reference to the differences on the Home Bank legislation:
Your managers beg to report that they duly held the conference with the managers apointed by the Senate with respect to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 182, an act for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, and that the managers for the Senate have agreed to recommend that the Senate do not insist upon their seventh amendment, namely, the preamble, to which the Commons have disagreed, and
That their fifth amendment be amended by inserting after the words "special need'', in the fifth line of paragraph 1 of clause A of the said amendment, the words "or in straitened circumstances".
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 2.25 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 26, 1925.