[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current) presented the ninth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous - Private Bills.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the additional charge paid on Bill No. 98, for the relief of Cecil Hunter, be refunded.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton) moved:: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the additional charge paid on Bill No. 98, for the relief of Jacob Edward Thuna, be refunded.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved:: That whereas it appears by the Votes and Proceedings o<f March 17 last that the second reading of Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of The Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited, was passed in the negative, the fees and charges paid thereon be refunded, less cost of printing and translation.


Mr. ROBB:: I offer the same objection as I have made to similar motions.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. T. J. STEWART (West Hamilton) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the ninth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the additional charge levied and paid under rule 89 ss. 3 (c) and 8 on Bill No. 185 (Letter A5 of the Senate), intituled: " An Act for the relief of George William Quibell," be refunded.

Tax Collections
He said: The committee recommended the refund of this money only this morning, and I have just received the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: On that understanding, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: In order to save time, if the House does not object, we could give these bills a first and second reading now.
Bill No. 219, from the Senate, respecting certain patents of Accounting and Tabulating Machine Corporation.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 222, from the Senate, for the relief of Walter Roderick Lewis.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 223, from the Senate, for the relief of Irene Muriel Corelli.-Mr. Garland (Car-Ieton).
Bill No. 224, from the Senate, for the relief of Wilfred Clarence Byron.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 225, from the Senate, for the relief of Jessie Irene Yates.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 226, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Ann Tattersall.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 227, from the Senate, for the relief of Walter Lewis Hawkins.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).



UNSATISFACTORY AUDIT CLERK

James Alexander Robb: At the request of the Auditor
General, I lay on the table copy of a letter which he has written me respecting certain matters referred to in the discussion which took place on Thursday last when the estimates of the Department of Finance were under consideration. I also submit copy of my reply. In the memorandum which I read to the House at the time, an instance was cited of a clerk sent by the Auditor General's department to assist in audit work in the Department of Finance who had previously been in our employ in the identical branch concerned and had been found to be unsatisfactory. No name was mentioned and I do not think it is advisable or necessary to do so as, after all, the clerk referred to is a young man in the making with his future before him. The Auditor General included with his letter copies of certificates from the Civil Service Commission which give the name of the employee; but, for the reasons given above, I have thought it well not to include the same with the correspondence tabled.



TAX COLLECTIONS

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I presume,
Mr. Speaker, that I have now complied with the rules of the House in having given regular notice of the motion which I undertook to move on Tuesday last. I desire now to move:
Whereas under an order of reference made on the 23rd of March. 1925, the standing committee on Public Accounts has had under investigation the methods of assessment and collection of business profits and income taxes;
Therefore be it resolved,
That the said committee on Public Accounts be instructed that they have power to consider and recommend to this House such amendments to the Income War Tax Act as may seem to them advisable.
When I was ruled out of order on the previous occasion I had submitted to the House in support of the motion, first, that the Commissioner of Taxation was formerly a tariff officer of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; secondly, that he had assumed full responsibility for all the assessments made under the Business Profits War Tax Act; and, in the third place, that not a single one of some 30,000 assessments had been pressed in appeal. The fourth point I submitted was that no member of parliament nor any committee of parliament had had the privilege of examining any original assessment or any modifications thereof. I submitted that all the files were strictly confidential and that all the officials were under a solemn obligation to preserve secrecy in regard to those files. Not only was this the case, but I stated that recently the department had required of all officials at Ottawa a sweeping and solemn declaration before a commissioner to the effect that they had not, in writing or otherwise, directly or indirectly, disclosed or caused to be disclosed, or made available, any such confidential information; and that they were not aware of any person or persons, if any, to whom there had been such disclosures. And so forth.
Now I proceed to the submission of further facts and arguments in support of this motion. I would point out, further, that if there are any alleged irregularities or discriminations, no one, in view of the facts I have just cited, can make any investigation to determine whether or not the allegations are well founded. The officials are bound to secrecy under heavy penalties and the Public Accounts committee is not permitted to investigate even in camera. Indeed, the Auditor General is in doubt as to whether he has the power to institute an investigation. When he was before the committee
Tax Collections

that question was put to him very definitely and he admitted that there was some doubt as to whether even he had the power to inquire into these matters.
In the fifth place, I submit that all the officials in the Taxation branch, not only in Ottawa but throughout the whole of Canada, are outside the Civil Service Commission and that even the practice of advertising for applications is not followed. Therefore, the commissioner or perhaps technically, the minister, " hires and fires " at pleasure.
In the sixth place, there is very considerable dissatisfaction with the administration in this branch, particularly in the case of appeals. I should like in that connection to refer to a couple of letters which have come to me in the course of the investigation, one from Mr. F. W. Gerrish, of Montreal, who is a chartered accountant and a graduate of Cambridge university. I quote in part from his letter:
In my opinion the income tax is by no means a most desirable form of taxation, but if it is retained, I consider that returns should be sent in annually by the end of January and all assessments should be made by the end of June, in order to avoid waste of time to tax-payers and the government. A proper judicial system of assessment is far preferable to arguments between tax-payers and inspectors examining books at the offices of tax-payers, as such arguments may often be carried on without regard to elementary principles of law, fact, accounting, and admissibility of evidence. I see no logical reason why such appeals should not be heard publicly.
Under the present system large firms have office organizations and professional advisers to protect them. The small tax-payer through ignorance is often liable to pay an arbitrary assessment in excess of his real income.
Mr. Gerrish encloses with his letter to me a letter which he wrote to the Montreal Herald and which was published in its issue of January 21, 1922. That letter deals with the policy and administration in the Taxation branch and makes certain criticisms and complaints, particularly in regard to the absence of a body of case law which should be built up as a guidance for taxpayers as well as for the department. I do not wish to burden the House with a long quotation from the letter at this moment, but I refer to it because it appeared publicly in one of the Montreal papers.
I want to refer now to some other letters which I have had from a firm of accountants in western Ontario. In the matter of appeals, I quote the following:
During the last four years there have been possibly twenty or thirty of our clients who have requested a hearing before the Board of Referees as provided in the act as originally drawn, and in not a single case
[Mr. Good.}
has the request been treated otherwise than with unmitigated contempt.
We have been informed that under pressure from the public for hearing before the Board of Referees, Mr. Breadner made representations to the government to have the board abolished. This he succeeded in doing and had substituted therefor reference to the Exchequer Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, procedure, which, on account of the expense involved, is utterly prohibitive to any but taxpayers of very large means.
From this office alone there are at present pending in the commissioner's office many appeals from assessments, some of which have been lying undisposed of for as long as two or three years. Throughout the country there must be thousands of such cases which have been appealed and remain in the commissioner's files undisposed of.


James Alexander Robb: What firm is that?


William Charles Good: This is from Falls, Scott & Co., of Windsor, Ontario. With this letter was enclosed also an editorial from the Canadian Chartered Accountant of this year. I will read a few sentences from this editorial which bear upon the administration of this branch:
At each successive annual meeting of the Dominion association for some years past, the unsatisfactory conditions which prevail in and about the collection of the federal income tax have been the subject of complaint. There are very many uncertainties as to the exact state of the law at the present time, due to the fact that amendments to the act from time to time have been dictated by the exigencies of special cases which have arisen rather than by an appreciation of the necessity for a fundamentally sound and equitable system of taxation of this particular kind. Every year, a few days before the close of the parliamentary session, when legislators are tired and perspiring, a batch of minor amendments appears in the form of a bill, and these go through-as is doubtless the intention-without time being allowed for examination by those most concerned, namely-The suffering public. The matters thus dealt with, being somewhat technical, their significance is not apparent, the House takes little interest and the law becomes still further complicated.
That is a statement of facts which anybody, who looks over the amendments to the act that have been made almost every year since it was first passed in 1917 can verify. I do not need to refer further to these letters, but I have received other letters complaining of various matters in conection with the administration. In that connection I should like to refer briefly to the provisions in the amendment to the act of 1923 in regard to appeals. Section 7 of the amendment passed in that year reads as follows:
Sections 12 to 21 of the said act both inclusive are repealed, and the following are substituted therefor.
Then follow new clauses providing an entire and revolutionary change in the method of appeal. Instead of having a board of referees available for appeals, the appeal in the first instance is to the Commissioner of Taxation ostensibly the department, and if no adjustment is arrived at the taxpayer may if he

Tax Collections
wishes carry the appeal to the Exchequer court. But hon. members will note this:
The party appealing shall thereupon give security to the satisfaction of the minister in a sum not less than four hundred dollars for the security of the costs of the appeal. Unless such security is furnished by the party appealing within one month after the mailing of the notice of dissatisfaction the appeal and all proceedings thereunder shall become null and void.


Mr. IRVINE:: Before the hon. member concludes, would he turn around and face this way, tell us on what subject he is speaking and what he wants us to do? Because we have not the slightest idea.


William Charles Good: I am sorry if I have not made myself heard by my hon. friend behind me. I cannot face all directions at once. If I turn round and face in his direction, I am afraid a majority of the members of the House would not be able to hear me at all.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, to you and to the House, that the present provisions for appeals are entirely unsatisfactory. I have already read an extract from a letter written by a responsible party in the province of Ontario complaining that for years when the board of referees was apparently available appeals have been made, but these appeals have been disregarded and ignored; and that subsequently, in 1923, the whole system of appealing to boards of referees was done away with, and the appeal provided to the Exchequer Court. He states-and I think it will be obvious to everyone-that the appeal to the Exchequer Court is only possible for and only likely to be made by the very large taxpayers who can afford to run the risk and to incur the expense necessarily involved.
Seventhly, I submit, from the evidence which was laid before the committee, that although the Business Profits War Tax Act does not apply to accounting periods subsequent to 1920, assessments and collections under that act have not yet been cleaned up in this year 1925. The commissioner has admitted delay possibly measured in years, both in the sending out of the preliminary letter of advice to taxpayers, and in the sending out of the final notice of assessment. The commissioner has also admitted and defended deliberate delay in issuing the final notice of assessment, in some cases where firms were in financial difficulties. By reason of such delays in making assessments and collections, there have been unknown and indeterminable losses of revenue, -either by loss of interest or due to intervening bankruptcies.
These are the facts and conditions in the department that have been brought out by the inquiry. What then is the conclusion to
which we are driven? I submit that it is this: The Commissioner of Taxation possesses quite extraordinary powers, and virtually complete immunity from investigation and criticism. There is every opportunity and temptation to exercise discrimination in the administration of law. No official should be placed in this position. No man should possess such tremendous and such arbitrary power. What therefore should be done? I suggest the following as remedial measures.
First, there should) be an amendment to section 11 of the Income War Tax Act dealing with secrecy, to make it clear beyond question that the Auditor General has full power to make investigation of all matters pertaining to assessment and collection of income taxes. I understand it is the intention of the Acting Minister of Finance to recommend that the Auditor General be empowered to audit the revenue of the Dominion. The latter has stated that there is some doubt as to whether or not he is permitted under the law to audit this particular department, and I submit to the minister, to the House and to the gov-vernment, that such amendment ought to be made immediately so that the Auditor General would be in a position beyond any doubt or controversy to investigate these matters. I should like personally to turn over to the Auditor General, since I have been unable to secure action on the part of the committee, a number of specific allegations of irregularity that have come to me privately, and I should like to have him investigate these matters. If this amendment to the act be not passed, he may come back next year and state that he has been unable or has not been permitted to make this very necessary investigation.
In the second place I think there should be such amendments to the Act as will enable taxpayers to carry their appeals to local courts, thus taking away from the Commissioner of Taxation the opportunity for exercising discrimination in the secret adjustment of appeals; also making appeals much less expensive than they are now to the Exchequer court. I desire, without making any personal reflections, to point out to the House and to the minister that there is under the present system every opportunity for a secret arrangement between the commissioner and any taxpayer, an arrangement which if it is irregular or unwise is not possible of discovery later on.
In the third place-and although this dea's with a somewhat different matter, it is a matter which ought to be considered and acted upon, I think, by this House in the near
Tax Collections

future; I refer to the assessment of income taxes-


Mr. STEVENS:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member (Mr. Good) has just made a statement which reflects very seriously upon the honesty', honour and integrity of an old and long-tried public servant, under circumstances of the privilege of parliament, where such public servant has no opportunity to reply. I submit as my point of order that this whole subject was fully discussed before the Public Accounts committee during this session; that the said public servant was before the Public Accounts committee-I refer to the Commissioner of Taxation;-that the hon. member now making this charge under these unfair conditions had ample opportunity to examine the said public servant; that he did not succeed in securing the support of the said parliamentary committee; and that therefore his charge is out of order, is wholly unfair, and in no case in harmony with either the rules or the ethics of parliament.


William Charles Good: Speaking to the point of order, I wish to state that I have not made a charge against the Commissioner of Taxation. I have merely stated that the evidence submitted to the committee makes it quite clear that the commissioner has every opportunity for the exercise of favoritism and is practically beyond investigation. That is the only statement I made. I think the system is wrong; the law puts it in the hands of any man who is Commissioner of Taxation under the present system-


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Hewitt Bostock: Has the committee reported to the House?


Mr. MANION:: I was one of the members of that committee. The hon. member (Mr. Good) brought up this matter before the committee, and the committee voted it down, so that I think the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is well taken-that an hon. member may not bring before the House a suggestion which has been regarded as unsatisfactory by a com-
TMr. Good.]
mittee of the House, after due consideration by that committee.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to the point of order.


William Charles Good: In regard to the point just raised by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), I may say that the motion I made in the committee to empower the committee to investigate these matters was turned down. That is one reason why I am now submitting my case to rhe House and to the country. I find it is necessary to do that. I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House, and I do not know that I am doing so. If I am, I shall be glad to be corrected and to confine myself within the rules. I am simply submitting to the House my reasons for the motion which I have made, that is, that the Public Accounts committee should be empowered by this House to consider and make recommendations as to amendments to the Income War Tax Act.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the chairman of the Public Accounts committee that no report has been submitted by that committee to the House with respect to the proceedings referred to. First of all, it is not permissible for any hon. member to reflect on the witnesses who appeared before *) committee and second the proceedings of a committee can not be debated until a report, of that committee is before the House. With regard to the reference made by the hon. member to the subject of the evidence given by Mr. Breadner, I will quote from paragraph 246 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station-
I consider Mr. Breadner, the Commissioner of Taxation, as one of high official station.
-of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary.
I therefore rule, first, that no invidious reference be made as against that official, who is not here to defend himself. Besides, 1 gather from members of the committee who have spoken that his evidence was considered satisfactory by the majority of the members of the committee. Second, I would judge that the motion made by the hon. member (M \ Good) is not in order, because I now learn that the report of the committee is not before the House. When that report is before the House and the House is in possession of the facts, the hon. member may move for a reference of the report back to the committee with instructions as contained in his motion. The hon. member is anticipating action which

Tax Collections
should be taken only when the report is before the House.


William Charles Good: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that you accepted the motion as being in order, and I spoke to it on the understanding that it was in order?


Hewitt Bostock: I could only pass judgment after hearing the statements made by the hon. member. When the report is before the House the hon. member can move his motion.


William Charles Good: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make this explanation? I brought the motion in, feeling that I would never have another opportunity of presenting this matter to the House and to the country.


Hewitt Bostock: I accept the explanation of the hon. member, but I am bound by the rules. The motion would be in order if the report was before the House, but as the report, is not before the House the motion cannot be entertained.


William Charles Good: I shall await the report, then, if it ever comes in,


Mr. COOTE:: May I ask that the motion of the hon. member be read? I am of the opinion there is nothing in it which refers to the report of the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: The ruling is given.


Hewitt Bostock: I will read the motion again, out of courtesy to the hon. member (Mr. Coote):
Whereas under an order of reference made on the 23rd of March, 1925, the standing committee on Public Accounts has had under investigation the methods of assessment and collection of business profits and income taxes;
Therefore be it resolved,
That the said committee on Public Accounts be instructed that they have power to consider and recommend to this House such amendments to the Income War Tax Act as may seem to them advisable.
Mr. HANOE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat in doubt about the point of order, but I would like to make a very few remarks in connection with this matter. The hon. member for Brant has thrown out some rather serious insinuations. The difficulty with my hon. friend from Brant is that he does not seem to understand the difference between making insinuations and making charges.


Mr. LEWIS:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have ruled this motion out of order and therefore it is not debatable.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon member speaking on a question of privilege?


Mr. LOGAN:: I am speaking on a question of privilege, regarding an attack made on a committee of which I am chairman. I desire in the very fewest words-


Hewitt Bostock: I think the question is now disposed of. I have ruled against the motion and against any invidious references being made against a high official of the Dominion government. Unless, therefore, the hon. gentleman rises now to speak on a question of personal privilege, I think we mus: proceed with the orders of the day.


Hance James Logan: My point is this: The hon member for Brant has seen fit to reflect upon the committee of Public Accounts, and to state that he had certain evidence of being shut out. I desire as chairman of that committee to press the question of privilege and read to the House a statement showing the latitude the hon. member for Brant has been allowed before that committee, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read this statement.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not a personal attack. Therefore, we must proceed with the business of the House.


Hance James Logan: It is a personal attack upon the rulings of the chairman of that committee.


William Charles Good: No, Mr. Speaker, I object. I never made any attack or cast any reflections on the rulings of the chairman.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Let the hon. gentleman state his case.


Hance James Logan: I say an attack was made on the chairman of the committee for rulings he has made before that committee. I only desire to put on Hansard a short statement showing the leeway that has been allowed the hon. member for Brant in the investigation of this question, and if I may be allowed to make this statement I promise the House I will sit down inside of two or three minutes.
We have had in the Public Accounts committee the following meetings at which time has been devoted by the hon. member for Brant in discussion of the question of business profits and income war taxation as follows:
No. of
Date of	Time used by	pages ofmeeting	Mr. Good	Evidence
March 17 (1st meeting) Full time of meeting.. .. 5
April 2	
Full time	of	meeting..	..	56April 16	
Full time	of	meeting..	..	61April 17	
Full time	of	meeting..	..	56April 24	
Full time	of	meeting..	..	59May 7	
Part time	of	meeting..	..	24May 13	
Part time	of	meeting..	..	42May 15	
Whole time of meeting.. .. 63
4506

Tax Collections


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I expected the
hon. gentleman to speak to a question of privilege. Instead, he has given the time table of the committee. I hope the incident is closed. We are nearing the end of the session and all this is lost time.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Before this matter is finally disposed of, I think we have a right to say a word. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, against any invidious reference against any high official. I should like to be clear with regard to your ruling, before we pass on to anything further. Does that imply that the hon. member who spoke a little while ago has made such invidious references and is hereby reproved?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman will read my ruling in Hansard, and draw his own conclusions.
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER .(Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made the statement just a few moments ago, that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) had questioned his rulings as chairman of the Public Accounts committee. I have listened very carefully to all that the hon. member for Brant has said this morning, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Brant did not use the name .of the chairman of the Public Accounts committee in anything he said this morning. I think that the definite statement made by the hon. member for Cumberland in that respect should be withdrawn.


William Charles Good: I should like to add a word to that, and- to state that I did not this morning object to the rulings of the chairman of the committee, and I am glad now to bear testimony to his fairness during the meetings of the committee.


Hance James Logan: I desire to thank the hon. member for Brant for saying that.


Mr. GARDINER:: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the chairman of the committee of Public Accounts should be withdrawn in all fairness to the hon. member for Brant. I think it is the only fair thing to do.


Hewitt Bostock: The incident is closed.


Robert Gardiner: That is not correct. I rise to a point of order and ask that his statement be withdrawn.


Hance James Logan: Speaking to the point of
order, as the hon. member for Brant said
that he had not been allowed to ask certain questions in the Public Accounts committee-


William Charles Good: No.


Hance James Logan: Hansard will bear me out,- and as the chairman of the committee is the only person who can say whether or not he shall be allowed to ask certain questions in the committee, I took his remark as a reflection on myself. Under the circumstances, however, and with the explanation of the hon. member for Brant, I will withdraw the statement which I made, and I hope the incident is closed, because we have had very interesting sessions of the Public Accounts committee.



JOHN E. RUSSELL COMPANY PATENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (for Mr. Chevrier) moved the first reading of Bill No. 220, from the Senate, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company.
Motion agreed to.
On the motion for the second reading:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: (Leader of the Opposition): I really do not know anything about this bill, and I do not think that anybody else does. I do not want to delay the bill but when there is nobody 'here to explain it I do not think it should be read a second time without the slightest consideration, especially when it relates to patents.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (for Mr. Chevrier) moved that Bill No. 221, from the Senate, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company be read a first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, (1) That it is important in the national interest that the cost of fuel to consumers be reduced; that this country be made as much as possible independent of the rest of the world in respect of fuel; that fuel famines should be avoided and the consumption of Canadian coal should be encouraged, and that the construction of works for the production of coke from Canadian Coal would largely contribute to these
results.
(2)	That it is expedient to bring in a measure to encourage the construction of works for the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada.

Coke from Canadian Coal
(3)	That " minister " in these resolutions shall mean the Minister of Mines, and " works " shall mean " byproduct coke ovens."
(4)	That the Governor in Council may, as an aid to the construction of works for the production of coke from coal mined in Canada, authorize the payment out of any unappropriated money forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, of assistance in accordance with the provisions of the proposed legislation, to any incorporated company approved by the governor in council as having the ability to perform the work, which shall enter into an agreement with His Majesty to construct, under the provisions of the proposed legislation, works for the production of domestic coke and by-products from coal mined in Canada, with all necessary equipment, machinery and plant requisite for such purpose, but no such aid shall be granted unless the governor in council is satisfied upon the report of the minister that the construction of the proposed works is in the public interest.
(5)	That any company which seeks to enter into an agreement with His Majesty to construct works for the production of domestic coke from coal mined in Canada, under the proposed legislation, as part of its application therefor, shall present detailed working plans and specifications of the proposed works accompanied by estimates of the cost thereof, including estimates of all necessary equipment, machinery, plant and site (provided as to the site the company is obliged to pay therefor and does not obtain or has not obtained it by way of bonus or gift), and such estimates of cost shall be in such detail as shall enable the engineer appointed by the minister to verify the same for the purpose of the report to be made by him.
(6)	(1) That the amount payable in respect of works for the production of domestic coke from coal mined in Canada which have been constructed under the proposed legislation shall be an annual sum not exceeding three per cent of the cost of the work as fixed and determined under subsection 2 of this resolution, each year during a period not exceeding fifteen years from the time the governor in council has determined under the proposed legislation that the work has been completed.
(6)	2) The cost on which the amount payable shall be calculated shall be fixed and determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the minister based upon a report of an engineer appointed by the minister for the purpose, accompanied by plans and specifications of the proposed works, and such costs shall include the cost of all necessary equipment, machinery and plant, and any sum bona fide expended or to be expended by the company in the purchase of a site for the production of domestic coke and of any existing equipment, machinery and plant that may be utilized for the purpose of works to be constructed under the proposed legislation, but shall not include the value of any site received or to be received by the company by way of bonus or gift; and the amount of the payment shall be so fixed and determined before the agreement for payment is entered into.
(7)	That the construction of the works shall be under the supervision of the Department of Mines, and they shall be completed within the time limited by the agreement unless the time is extended by the Governor in Council, and the amount to be paid shall be payable during the period agreed to by the Governor in Council as specified in the preceding resolution, from the time the Governor in Council upon a report of the minister determines that the work required by the agreement has been completed, and the production of domestic coke as contemplated by this legislation may forthwith be proceeded with.
8.	That the agreement, in addition to such other provisions as the Governor in Council may determine, shall contain covenants on the part of the company:- 288
(a)	To use in the manufacture of coke only coal mined in Canada, and in the event of other coal being so used to pay His Majesty as liquidated damages the sum of one dollar per ton for each ton of coke produced from coal other than coal mined in Canada;
(b)	To sell the coke produced in works constructed under the proposed legislation at fair and reasonable prices, and such prices shall be subject to control by the Dominion Fuel Board or by such other authority or person that the Governor in Council may determine;
(c)	To maintain and operate the works for the production of domestic coke, within the limits of the capacity thereof in such manner as to meet the reasonable requirements of the public; and,
(d)	Provisions for investigation and report in the event that the minister is of opinion that the company has failed to comply with the proposed provisions or covenants, and in case of differences, for arbitration, and for making the decision of the board of arbitration a rule, order or decree of the Exchequer court, (e) for the keeping in repair of said works by the company, (/) for the taking possession of the works in the event of the company failing to operate the same or keep them in repair.
9.	That no bonds, debentures or other securities shall be issued as a charge upon said works until it has been established to the satisfaction of the minister that not less than fifteen per cent of the cost of the works as fixed and determined has been spent on the work and material therefor, and that there are no outstanding and unsettled liens, encumbrances or claims upon or in respect of such works, but thereafter the minister may permit the issue of bonds, debentures or other securities, and any amounts to be paid may, with the approval of the minister, be assigned to a trustee for the holder of such bonds, debentures or other securities, and the subsidy shall, in that event, notwithstanding any liability incurred by the company under the foregoing provisions be payable directly to such trustee, but until the works have been completed to the satisfaction of the minister, the total amount of the bonds, debentures or other securities issued shall not at any time exceed seventy-five per cent of the amount actually expended for the work and the materials for said works, and in no case shall any bonds, debentures or other securities be issued wdthout the consent of the minister in writing.
10.	The company before receiving the first payment under these provisions, and annually thereafter, shall file in the office of the minister a verified statement as to the financial state of the company and details of the business.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: i believe that I am going to follow a somewhat unusual course in objecting to this procedure, but the proposed legislation is, in my opinion, so inadvisable, and the time of the House at this period of the session so precious, that I think it would be best for ms to say what I have to say in connection with the matter now, in the hope that wiser considerations will prevail with those responsible for this legislation, and that it will not be proceeded with further.

Coke from Canadian Coal


Hewitt Bostock: It is only a notice of motion. The resolution itself is not to be considered until to-morrow.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I am not perfectly certain that I am in order, but if there is any object in bringing this resolution before the House surely an opportunity should be given to those who are very much opposed to the legislation to direct the attention of those responsible to it and to the inadvisability of the action, in order that greater time may not be lost. I, of course, always bow respectfully to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do point out that there is a motion before the House, and that being the case it seems logical that the House should have an opportunity of debating it.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The motion is not debatable.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I presume that-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The motion is certainly debatable under Rule 17A which says:
Every motion heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings (except adjournment motions)-
and so on:
-shall be debatable.
Therefore this motion is debatable. The motion is that to-morrow the House will consider the merits of the motion.
What is debatable now is the opportunity of the House to resolve itself into a committee of the Whole to-morrow. The margin allowed to the hon. gentleman is not very wide and he must not go to the kernel of the question.	[DOT]


Andrew Ross McMaster: If I am to take your remarks as a warning, Mr. Speaker, I should not be in order in discussing the subject matter of the motion at this moment.


Hewitt Bostock: Exactly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then I will yield to
what I think must be the desire of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) and reserve my remarks until another day.


Arthur Meighen: I have no concern personally as to whether the hon. member goes on to-day or to-morrow, but I think I should put myself on record as to the propriety of debating the merits of the motion itself. The Minister of Mines following his customary practice, said " to-morrow I will move," and so on. The real form should be "I move that to-morrow the House go into committee of the Whole". Although it appears as a notice of motion, it is a motion-a motion is that to-

morrow t'he House go into committee of the Whole; and when the motion is put at this time it is debatable. I feel that up to this time I am in line with Mr. Speaker's ruling; l am not in direct conflict with it anyway. The Speaker has ruled that the motion is debatable-that is to say the motion that the House go to-morrow into committee. The intimation is that it is only the merits of the motion to go into committee that are debatable. Very well, but included in the merits of that motion are the merits of the subject that the House will go into committee on. It is my judgment, whatever meaning hon. members seek to attach to the motion, that the merits of the whole motion are debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a certain resolution respecting trade between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.
Shall I dispense with reading the resolution? It is rather a lengthy one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


George Gibson Coote: I do not wish to impose upon you, Sir, the duty of reading this proposed resolution. But if I am out of order, I would suggest to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that there are on the order paper several resolutions which, I think, are more important, and it is hardly fair that they should take a second place to this resolution for which the minister is now asking the unanimous consent of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion will appear on the order paper in full to-morrow. This is by leave of the House. I do not object to reading the whole resolution, but it is very long.


George Gibson Coote: I do not wish to ask you to read the resolution, but simply to suggest tc the minister that there are on the order paper several resolutions which, I think, should be dealt with before the one he is now proposing.


Mr. GRAHAM:: We have to start this one.

Australian Treaty
(Mr. LAPOINTE: This does not give any priority to this resolution. It merely brings it on the order paper.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am not
rising to object to the unanimous acceptance by the House of this otherwise unusual and improper procedure. The notice is only on the Votes and Proceedings to-day and not until to-morrow can the motion be made except by unanimous consent. As regards the hurrying of the matter, I make no objection. But I rise to protest against the conduct of the government and its treatment of the House in relation to this measure. My remarks, while they will apply particularly to this measure, have reference to others as well. The House has been treated in a manner unprecedented even by the government itself in respect of the only consequential measures of this session. We have been treated, prior to now, to a plethora of small, trifling, worthless legislation, accompanied by a torrent of divorce bills. And in the last dying hours of the session more legislation is thrown upon us, in the course 'of what at most must be a few days, if not hours, than has been introduced or brought to our notice during the whole of the rest of the session. In fact, this legislation alone is of more consequence than all that has been disposed of prior to this time. Within these few hours we have had, as well, the Railway Rates bill which now is half way through parliament after a very hurried discussion, and1 which is certainly as important, if it does not exceed in consequence, this item itself. The Grain Act also was left until very close to the eve of the close of the session. And we have thrown at us by notice to-day another most important measure introduced by the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart),-notice of this was given but a few minutes ago. These together simply overshadow all that we have had presented to us in all the rest of this session. It is true, governments have to have time to prepare; but what reason there could have been that the motion of which we have just had notice as respects coke could not have been before us months ago, I do not know. It seems utterly out of reason that it should not have accompanied the budget presentation. What reason can possibly exist why the Grain Act could not have been before us at least weeks before it was. I do not know. The report was down many weeks before the Grain Act was. What reason there could have been that this Railway Rates bill could not have been before us at least two months ago, nobody knows. Every circumstance was known, two, 288i
if not three months prior to the House being favoured with any knowledge whatever of government policy. Now we are told that, we have to consider the terms of an involved treaty with Australia, certainly an important treaty, too, a subject most controversial, a treaty affecting perhaps sometimes adversely, sometimes in places favourably, large interests in this country, and it is thrown in the face of parliament just as we are about to prorogue. We have begged for weeks to be favoured with the general terms of the treaty in order that we might know and study them and be ready. We were denied that. We could get no information whatever of what was in the treaty. The government sat still and silent, and all appeals were unheeded to lay on the table any intimation of what the treaty was to contain if ever it same down. It was absolutely unnecessary that this should have been the case, and no member of the House could ever be convinced that it was necessary. For some reason the government endeavoured to delay, by one device or another, until they would get the last precipitate moment in which to bring the measure in. Not only is this the case, but the House has been advised that the measure would not come in. It has been so advised, not in express terms but by inevitable inference. On June 11, on the Orders of the Day, I spoke as follows, and the answers were as I shall read:-
Will the government state to-day whether they have any more legislation intended to be introduced this session, and if so what?
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister); I think everything that is of any importance is on the order paper. There is one little measure that the Acting Minister of Finance spoke of to-day with respect to the Battlefields Commission, also one with respect to the Audit Act, very small amendments, I think. Apart from that, I think the legislation is all down at the present time.
I took pains to check the Prime Minister for fear he was wrong:	[DOT]
Mr. Meighen: X am sure that win be interesting news to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
Mr. Garland (Bow River): What about rural credits?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I omitted to say that it is the intention of the government to bring down a measure on rural credits.
Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice): I may also have a bill relating to a home for girls in the Maritime provinces, but it will not be controversial.
There the matter ends. This is wholly inconsistent, utterly incompatible, with anything except the fact that there was no treaty of this consequence to come down, indeed, no measure even of the importance of that foreshadowed in the motion of the Minister of the Interior to-day. Then again, on June 12, the following took place in this House:
Australian Treaty

Business of the House Morning Sittings-Further Legislation
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): moved:
That on and after the 16th June instant, until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m. there shall be also an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Opposition) : This is the usual motion and there is no special objection to it, although I really do not see that it is very necessary this year. However, it should not be passed until all government legislation is down, which is not the case. I suggest that the motion stand awaiting the bringing down of all further legislation. If everything is already down I shall have no objection to the motion taking effect on Tuesday.
That was the time the motion was to take effect according to its terms.
Mr. Mackenzie King: There is no objection to having it stand. As I intimated yesterday all legislation is now down, as far I am aware, with the exception of supplementary estimates and one or two very minor bills.
Mr. Meighen: The Prime Minister is forgetting about that, rural credits matter that is on the conscience of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, I am not forgetting it;
I spoke of it yesterday. I said, with the exception of the measures I referred to yesterday.
Mr. Meighen: I think the Prime Minister stated there were one or two minor matters to be dealt with.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I should say there is a small amendment that the Minister of Customs and Excise has-I think to give him power to make regulations under the Smuggling Treaty-and also an amendment to the Customs Act to give him some power in connection with the issuing of tobacco stemming licenses.
Mr, Meighen: And the matter of rural credits?
Mr, Mackenzie King: Yes.
Mr. Meighen: We need to see the rural credits legida-tion brought down.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I should not like to close the door absolutely to some small amendments that may be needed to be introduced and discussed between now and the end of the session; but I think I can safely say that there will be nothing that will be controversial in any sense.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?
Mr. Meighen: The motion stands in the meantime.
Mr. Speaker: Motion stands.
Then the government having brought down what was foreshadowed in this conversation, the motion passed, I believe, on Friday last. Now, in the face of what has taken place the government, with some notification which came I believe about midnight last night after I had gone from the House, brings in to-day what I consider, and what I think the House generally will consider, the most important measure of this session. I would ask the Prime Minister and hon. members whether this is treating parliament with decorum.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I could not take exception for a moment to what my right hon.

friend has said as to the lateness at which this legislation is brought down and with regard to what he has quoted from my own remarks, had it not been understood from the outset, as every hon. member knows, that negotiations were taking place between Australia and Canada with the hope of their being successfully concluded before the close of the present session. My right hon. friend, each time the subject was mentioned, indicated that the main purpose of the negotiations was to avoid going on with this matter altogether, and that the object was to drop the Australian treaty.


Arthur Meighen: I indicated nothing of the kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend's remarks will be so understood.


Arthur Meighen: I simply asked for the details of the treaty in order that the House might have an opportunity to consider them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as that is concerned, no one knows better than my right hon. friend that when negotiations are pending between two governments no more improper proceeding could be resorted to than to bring into the arena of popular discussion the matters that form the subject of confidential correspondence between them.


Arthur Meighen: I did not ask for anything of the kind. I requested so much information in regard to the Australian treaty as, for example, had been furnished the parliament of Australia months ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As for that, my hon. friend had only to go to the library and consult the records of the Australian parliament.


Arthur Meighen: I asked that the details be submitted in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has been most anxious to have the treaty with Australia concluded before the end of the session but it has not been possible to conclude negotiations sooner. It was necessary to send a trade commissioner to Australia for the purpose, and he has been successful in his negotiations. The moment we received from the Australian government information that they were agreeable to proceed with their part of the undertaking provided our parliament enacted what is now proposed, notice was given in this House that the legislation would be brought down. It was not possible for the government to give

Inquiry for Returns
that notice until word had been received that the negotiations had been satisfactorily concluded. I am sure that all members of the government regret that it has not been possible to bring in this legislation sooner, but I do submit that there has been no desire in any way to treat the House otherwise than with the greatest courtesy and the fullest consideration in every respect. We can take whatever time parliament wishes to discuss this treaty, although, I repeat, I regret, with my right hon. friend and all hon. members, that it has not been possible to bring down the legislation earlier.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the Prime
Minister think that he ought to have referred to it when the matter was brought to his attention on two occasions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have already pointed out, I was not in a position to say whether or not the negotiations would be concluded before the session was over; had I been sure of that I would certainly have said that we would bring down the treaty before prorogation. I did not wish to be open to the reproach from my right hon. friend that I had said we would bring down the treaty, when I might find later on that it was not possible to do so. Hon. members will bear me out when I say that it was understood all along that the government intended as soon as the matter was concluded to give to the House the full particulars.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I understood until now. But on this matter being brought twice to the attention of the government it was undoubtedly the duty of the Prime Minister, if it had been intended all along to proceed with the treaty, to have said that in the event of negotiations being completed with Australia the treaty would be brought down. Such an intimation was omitted and the House was misled.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am not altogether sure that I share the opinion of the leader of the opposition as to the supreme importance of this legislation. I have no doubt it is important, but not having the details of it before me I cannot very well criticize it on that ground1 except to say that if it follows the lines of legislation forecast during the summer then it looks to me as though it were of the greatest interest to a small group of auto repair manufacturers and of some interest to the rest of the country as imposing indirect taxation. But may I say that in my opinion this legislation is not so important that it should precede the
bringing down and passing through this House of both the Grain Act and the rural credits legislation; I think it is the duty of the government to see that both these measures come before parliament before this most contentious Australian treaty is placed before us for discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: There i? another matter that has not been referred to. I think the single transferable vote legislation was before the House. Has the government forgotten to do anything more with regard to that measure?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): We hope to bring in this afternoon the legislation respecting the Dominion Elections Act. I think I told the House that that matter would have to be considered before we could go on with the single transferable vote. I may say to my hon. friends that I think it is somewhat doubtful whether the House is prepared to consider the single transferable vote. However, the government is giving the matter further consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the right hon. Prime Minister, the leader of the government, is not going to break his promise to parliament? Surely we will have this legislation brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The legislation has been brought down. I do not think I ever promised it would be carried through the House. I could not have made that promise.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the inference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not the
inference.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the good of bringing down legislation if we are not going to put it through?



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: I call attention to a return to the order of the House dated February 23, which has been tabled in the House. I asked for a return as follows:
1. Since Confederation, how many acres of land belonging to the Dominion of Canada have been transferred to the Province of Ontarir and. on what date transfers were made.
i nquiry jor Returns

2. Consideration paid by said Province of Ontario for said transfers.
There are two similar questions with regard to Quebec.
Question 2 asks the consideration paid by the province. The answer is, " no information in Department of the Interior." And no other answer is given.
I draw attention to another order of the House, dated February 23, of which this question forms part:
What portion of the Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land is still owned by the Dominion of Canada?
The obvious intention of that question is shown by the questions which preceded it- to what portion of the Northwest Territories is title held by the Dominion of Canada? Portions of them have been transferred to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The answer says:
The whole of the original Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land are included within the Dominion, large areas thereof being included within the boundaries of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec.
The answer given is in my opinion absurd-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Arthur Clark: -Because it says that the whole of the original Northwest Territories are included within the Dominion. That is quite obvious; a schoolboy would know that. And the answers to the remaining questions, 4, 5 and 6 are quite unintelligible and useless, in consequence of the misinterpretation of these questions.


Arthur Meighen: I think the Minister of
the Interior should make an explanation.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):: I confess I
would1 require to have an opportunity of discussing with the hon. gentleman the-exact information he wants. I could only hear very imperfectly what he was saying, but I think the information he wants is the definite acreage held by the crown in these provinces, and I understand him to say that the answer does not give that.


Arthur Meighen: I looked over the returns. There is absolutely nothing answered. The questions are simply dodged.


Charles A. Stewart: I regret I
did not examine the returns. I will undertake to see the hon. member gets a definite answer, and I will be glad to discuss the matter with him.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS AT QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. R.OBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205, to amend an Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Rents, dues, etc.:
Arthur Meighen: What is the effect of
these provisions, especially clause 1.


James Alexander Robb: The explanatory notes are on the opposite page.


Arthur Meighen: They are very, very
brief.


James Alexander Robb: It is the only reference I
have here. I will read a memorandum in regard to it:
By chapter 46 of the Statutes of 1914 it was provided that no lands or immovable property should be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous approval of parliament.
By chapter 58 of the Statutes of 1908 the commission was given authority to buy certain lands. These are included among those set out in this bill.
I understand that they must have the permission of parliament to buy these lands, and it involves no additional expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: How can they buy the
lands without expending money?


James Alexander Robb: They have the money.


Arthur Meighen: They have to spend it.


James Alexander Robb: They have to come before parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The money is provided
by parliament.


James Alexander Robb: It is provided by contribution.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The amount is made up largely by subscriptions from bodies all over the empire. This bill has been asked for by the commission, the members of which are citizens from all over the Dominion of Canada. These properties are part of the national battlefields and must be included in the bill.


Arthur Meighen: It is part of the battlefield of the Plains of Abraham?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


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

Prison Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 206, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-interprovincial home for women at Moncton.
Arthur Meighen: This bill, in the clash and terror of the last hours of the session, has no explanations at all. We will have to depend a lot on the minister here.


Ernest Lapointe: Last year the chapter
which is repealed by section 1 was enacted for this same institution, but the bill placed the institution in the same class as the Maritime home for girls at Truro. It happens that the latter institution is for girls under sixteen, whereas the institution dealt with here, which is properly known as the Interprovincial Home for Young Women at Cover-dale in the county of Albert, New Brunswick, is for girls over sixteen.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that section 162 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, which applies to the Truro school, was * made to apply to this school, and that is now to be repealed. Does the rest of the bill make regulations for this school?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the same provisions as those which apply to other similar institutions throughout Canada.


Mr. CHURCH:: While this bill applies
only to one province and to one institution, still, the principle involved in it is Dominionwide. Why are juveniles from sixteen to eighteen years of age kept in these federal institutions? It is no place for them. Could not the minister in the recess of parliament take this matter up with a view to providing separate institutions, either alone or jointly with the provinces? The figures show a large number of children housed in these places. Can not some better plan be adopted?


Ernest Lapointe: It will be seen by a
reference to the Prisons and Reformatories Act, chapter 148 of the revised statutes, that there are similar institutions in Ontario. I think the one similar to this would be the Andrew Mercer Ontario Reformatory for Females. The same provisions apply to this institution as to the one we are dealing with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Protestant women over sixteen years may be sentenced to extended or substituted imprisonment in Interprovincial Home at Coverdale, N.B.
Mr.. MEIGHEN:	This merely provides
for the power of sentence to be applicable to this home in place of a penitentiary?
Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why should we provide the home? Do we do that in all the provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: We are not providing the home; the provinces do that. We are simply giving the authority to send prisoners there.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I think the funds are provided not by the provincial governments, but by different churches in the Maritime provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe that is right. The amounts may be contributed by private subscriptions or by the efforts of associations or organizations, but the institutions are under the supervision of the provinces. I know the various protestant churches have been very anxious to have this legislation put through before the session is over. I have been receiving telegrams and representations from almost every member from. New Brunswick in this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
CANADA-UNITED STATES SMUGGLING .	TREATY
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 207 for carrying into effect a treaty signed 6th June, 1924, between His Majesty in respect of Canada and the United States of America, for the suppression of smuggling operations and for other purposes.
On section 1-Governor in Council may carry out provisions of - treaty.
Arthur Meighen: This is another bill without any explanation. Here is a bill which the government had in mind at the opening of the session; in fact, it is one of about only three named in the Speech from the Throne. How is it this has been kept under the minister's hat till just now'?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This bill could not have come in until after the treaty was signed. The treaty was signed on the 6th of June.
Canada-U.S. Treaty


Arthur Meighen: It is referred to in the Speech from the Throne.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The speech
referred to the treaty that was being 'negotiated with respect to smuggling, and this bill is to give power -to carry out the provisions of the treaty.


Mr. CARDIN:: The only object of this
bill is to give power to the Governor in Council to make regulations to put the treaty into effect.


Arthur Meighen: The only thing in the act is the recitement. Where is the treaty itself?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House
passed the treaty, and I suppose copies of it are available. The treaty has been approved and ratified by both His Majesty's government and that of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: It is just the treaty referring to the smuggling of narcotics and liquors, not the smuggling of other goods?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The smuggling of narcotics and liquors.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to constitute a Board of Audit composed of not less than three nor more than five persons, one of whom may be appointed by the Governor in Council to be the chairman; that each member of the board except a member who is an officer of the public service be paid compensation for his services at a rate not exceeding three thousand dollars per annum, and that a further allowance at a rate not exceeding one thousand dollars per annum may be paid to the chairman of the board; that the board, on the approval of the treasury board, may engage skilled assistance and clerical assistance; and that the necessary expenditures be paid out of any unappropriated moneys forming 'part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: This is certainly " some " resolution. We are told that we ought to appoint a Board of Audit; what we ought to pay them; how much more we ought to pay the chairman; and that the board ought to be allowed to spend money;-and that is all we are allowed to know about the board. What in the world is it to do? Would not the resolution mean something if it stated 
what the purpose of the Board of Audit was? It is only a farce bringing in a resolution asking parliament to appoint a Board of Audit without the slightest intimation of what are to be their powers and duties. We passed a Board of Audit Act some years ago, at the instance of this government; in the days of its early enthusiasm, when it was going to regenerate this Dominion, especially the public service. There was going to be a man brought in who was going to be a sort of General Foch and Lord Kitchener rolled into one. Then the government thought he could best be helped by a Board of Audit, and the Board of Audit was appointed; and they were given powers,-and their powers included the universe, the heavens above and the waters beneath.


James Alexander Robb: The Board of Audit was appointed prior to the appointment of the new Auditor General.


Arthur Meighen: There was a Board of
Audit Act, and a board appointed under that act. They were to re-audit and reconstruct the whole bookkeeping system of Canada. Not only that, they were to go into the Canadian National Railways, into all commissions and everything else in the public service, past or present, and put everything in order. As far as I have ever heard they have never done a tap, not a single thing. The whole thing was a misconception. There was nothing subtracted from the duties of anybody else, so when they came into existence, as far as I have ever learned, they were told simply to sit still, keep quiet, and look nice. They have never done anything,-I suppose they have drawn their salaries. What is the reason that one of these pantomimes is not enough without another?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is correct in
saying that a Board of Audit was appointed under the act of 1923, but that board was appointed prior ito the appointment of the present Auditor General. The act, however, provided that the Auditor General was to be the chairman of the Board of Audit, and that the board should cease to function on the 1st of July, 1925.


Arthur Meighen: What has the board ever done?


James Alexander Robb: 
Arthur Meighen: All this sounds very fine, but I fancy the minister has not given us the principal clause in the bill. I have never seen it but I am going to hazard a guess: You will find a clause in this bill providing that "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act contained" the Governor in Council shall appoint these men. We will wait and see if that is not in it. Does the minister say it is not going to be there?


James Alexander Robb: I should think my right hon.
friend will agree at once that if he were in power he would want the right of appointing this audit board.


Arthur Meighen: I thought that would be there.


James Alexander Robb: That was in the old act.
There is no change in that respect at all.


Arthur Meighen: In that respect there
is. This government brings in as a principal clause that they shall appoint the men. I knew that was coming, all right. Now, then, what is this audit board to do? The scope of its duties is wide enough, but just in proportion to the width and infinitude of the scope given will be the paucity of its performance. When the minister tells us that he has an audit board he should give some evidence that it is going to do anything but draw its salary. The first audit board was to have power to audit and supervise the whole bookkeeping of the country, every single detail. But in addition, for fear it would be idle, it was to go into the National railways and fix things up all through that system. Now, is it not a fact that it never puts its nose in any of them, that the National Railways now, at the close of four years nearly, have got a big auditing genius down in New York and are paying him a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars to come up and tell them what they owe and what the state of their books is? Is not the sum and substance of what this audit board did in the National railways literally nothing? I do remember that they fussed a little at the time of the revision of the salaries in connection with the postal employees. I read the record there. I saw that they stepped in on unholy ground and got kicked out, and were only a nuisance. Beyond that I have not heard of one single activity on the part of that audit board.


James Alexander Robb: I admit the kicking out. May I remind my right hon. friend-possibly he was not in the House at the time-that I did make a statement that the board had investigated and audited the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and they are now working on the copy of a report of their activities to be tabled?


Arthur Meighen: * The Board of Audit investigated the accounts?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, of the National railways.


Arthur Meighen: They did nothing of the sort, and the minister knows it.


James Alexander Robb: They looked into the expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no, they did not.


James Alexander Robb: And if my right hon. friend
wishes I will give him a copy of the report, when it is finished. There is only one report; I am having another prepared to be tabled.
Mr. MEIGHEN' Report of what?
Board oj Audit


James Alexander Robb: They looked into the accounts of the Vancouver harbour board and they looked into the accounts of the Quebec harbour board. Speaking from memory I think they looked into the accounts of the Montreal harbour board also, but I am not sure about that. I know they did in the case of these other cities and a report is now being prepared to lay upon the table.


Arthur Meighen: I would like to see these reports. All the consequence I have ever heard is larger and larger votes for these various harbour boards. What did they find, what was the result of all this "looking into"? We have had before our system of audit looking into the National railways and which produced to this House a statement that the same system was followed as was followed before, of keeping direct and indirect liabilities apart. Any child five years old would know that. Then they gave the system of certificate. And that is considered here as "looking into" the National railway accounts. It is not looking into it at all. Parliament has never been advised of one single achievement of that audit board except the furnishing of an illusory certificate to the minister to fool the people of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: We might as well clean that
up at once-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: The certificate given this year was the identical certificate that they gave to my right hon. friend's Finance minister in 1922.


Arthur Meighen: You never had them.


James Alexander Robb: But we did have them. You had Mr. Morgan who was on this audit board.


Arthur Meighen: We did not have any
audit board.


James Alexander Robb: Not Morgan, but the Edwards-Morgan Company; and you had from the Edwards-Morgan Company exactly the same certificate in 1922 that was tabled in 1924.


Arthur Meighen: The one that was read
in the House in the budget this year?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, sir.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. Why, pshaw! We did not have any audit board at all.


James Alexander Robb: Not any audit board?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend is wrong. Not any audit board? You called in the

Edwards-Morgan Company, or rather Mr. George Edwards of the Edwards-Morgan Co., who is on this audit board. You were not satisfied with the conditions in the Auditor General's office.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, very well.


James Alexander Robb: And you called in Mr. George Edwards to make an audit. He made an audit and his certificate is in the records of the department. The certificate which was filed with parliament is printed in the public accounts tabled in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. If we were
not satisfied with the audit work being done in that special place we would get a man to go into it, review it, and make a report. That is all right. We did that and made a report of that audit. But what comparison is there between that report and the certificate the minister put on Hansard in his budget speech that the direct and indirect liabilities had been kept separate this year the same as others? That is the report I am referring to. That is apparently the whole use made of this audit board. I have no objection to this government, if they are dissatisfied or suspicious of the auditing, getting a special audit made- I not only do not oppose it, I strongly support it. But that is not the case of the audit board here, appointed on salary, with an array of duties when there really are no duties at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to suggest that the remarks which have just been made distinctly smack of a reflection upoD persons in high office.


Arthur Meighen: No office.


Edward Joseph Garland: They were persons who might have been described as filling high office.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend make himself a little clearer and let us know just to whom he is referring? because the reference a few moments ago to the conditions of the Auditor General's office was a reference to gentlemen who are now no longer in the sphere of office.


Edward Joseph Garland: Possiblj
they are holding higher office than ever. At least, I sincerely trust that that is the case. To a considerable extent I followed the reasoning of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen)-


The CHAIRMAN:: Will the hon. member
be able to finish shortly, or does he desire to make any extended remarks?

IFar Reparations


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not any extended remarks to make.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 233 to constitute a Board of Audit.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Arthur Meighen: I think we may let the
second reading stand until to-morrow, so that we may have a little more amusement then.



WAR REPARATIONS FOR CANADIAN NATIONALS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to make provision for the payment of claims for reparation for losses suffered by Canadian nationals during the late War. and to provide,-
(1) That the report of the commissioner appointed to enquire into and report upon the claims for reparation of Canadian nationals, upon approval by the Governor in Council, shall be deposited with the Secretary of State of Canada in his capacity as Custodian of Enemy Property;
i(2) That from time to time, as sums are received on account of reparation under the Agreement of London between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, bringing into force what is commonly known as the Dawes plan, the amount thereof shall be paid by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to the Secretary of State as Custodian, until such time as the aggregate of such payments is equal to the total amount of the claims for reparation as determined by the report of the said commissioner and approved by the Governor in Council;
(3)	That the Secretary of State shall, on receipt of such payments, from time to time distribute the same to persons found entitled to claims for reparation in the commissioner's report, by way of pro rata dividend;
(4)	That the Secretary of State shall annually lay before parliament, within fifteen days after the meeting thereof, a report of the receipts and expenditures under the proposed legislation.
Arthur Meighen: This is undoubtedly a measure of some consequence, the full purport of which should be made very clear before the resolution is adopted. The opening sentence is rather threatening, that it is expedient to bring in a measure "to make provision for the payment of claims."	And
paragraph (3) provides for payment. Does the minister propose that on the report of the late Hon. William Pugsley he is to be permitted to distribute assets amounting to millions of dollars in cash among those whom Mr. Pugsley thought the money ought to go to?


Mr. COPP:: My right hon. friend will remember that as far back as 1918 an order in council was passed calling upon those Canadians who claimed reparation for pecuniary damages sustained during the war to file their claims with the Department of the Secretary of State for consideration. Such claims were subsequently filed and a large number of them were passed, amounting roughly to $58,000,000. After the signing of the Treaty of Versailles no reparations were paid by Germany. Subsequently at the Spa conference, consideration of this matter was taken up. Finally, in 1924 all previous action was superseded by the Dawes investigation and report, and since the Dawes plan has been submitted the German government has been paying reparations. An arrangement had been entered into at the Imperial conference in 1920 or 1921 whereby it was tentatively agreed that Germany should make certain payments to the allied powers, and of the total twenty-two per cent was allotted to the British Empire. Afterwards it was arranged that 4.35 per cent of that 22 per cent should go to Canada for reparations to Canadians. Nothing was done until, I think, some time in February, when a payment of reparations was made by Germany to the British Empire, of which Canada received her share.


Arthur Meighen: How much was that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the minister tell me whether it
is the practice in Great Britain to distribute these reparations to the individuals making Claims?


Mr. OOPP:: I do not know what definite
arrangements have been made, except this: Some years ago the British government ipassed a special vote of five millions to pay to necessitous cases. What reparations they received from Germany I do not know.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been stated
that when these claims wtere filed the purpose of the department was 'to secure some sort of
War Reparations

an. estimate as to the amount upon which a claim by Canada could be based, and that it was not originally the idea that these particular claimants should receive anything. That is, that the amounts should go to the government of Canada, remain with the government and not be passed out to the individuals who had filed claims for reparations. Am I right in my understanding that that was the original idea at the time the claims were filed?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon, friend is absolutely
right; the claimants had no legal claim upon the government of Canada for the payment of any of these reparations. These moneys are due to Canada as a whole; but we felt that as there were so many poor people, fishermen and others among the citizens of Canada who made claims, and as reparations to a certain extent were being paid by Germany, claims of those who suffered loss or damage should be paid.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If that is the case, it seems to me this motion involves a decision upon a very important point. As I understand from the minister, in Great Britain only the necessitous oases are looked after.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not merely those; but those
that were looked after some years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But the minister
can give us no assurance that the reparations secured under the Dawes plan are being applied generally. As regards Canada, it may be true there are certain necessitous cases here of fishermen and so on which are deserving of consideration, but there are other claims that come from people who are not in need. We have not the statement before us, but I imagine the greater part of the claims come from people who claim to have suffered loss but who have abundant means. It would seem as if, when we consider the war with its disastrous effects upon the whole community, there is no reason why one particular group of the community, and perhaps not the most needy or those who have suffered the most, should immediately have their claims paid. I cannot see why the funds should not remain with the government of Canada, and if certain parties are in need because of trouble arising directly out of the war, their claims should be dealt with individually on their merits. But it would seem to me a very serious thing at this stage that we should be asked to pay, so far as we can in full, a particular group that suffered directly in one particular way in the war, and make no provision for a large number of Canadians

who suffered a little less directly but perhaps none the less severely.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who is Standing the expense of collecting and disbursing the funds?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The commission which has
been doing the work will be paid out of the credit of the Finance department. The money received from Germany will be paid to the High Commissioner's office and any expenses that are paid out of the reparations fund are being paid by Germany.


Arthur Meighen: Does the cost of the
commission come out of anything except the treasury of Canada?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Oh no, I did not say that.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is what I wanted
to know. I do not see why the taxpayers of Canada should be taxed to collect debts for individuals, when the whole people of Canada in many ways lose so heavily from the war.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the Secretary
of State how much money was brought into the treasury of Canada by the confiscation of German property? A great deal was confiscated. Has it 'been sold, and how much has been realized?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I could not say. A great deal of it has 'been sold. All the property belonging to German nationals which has been sold is property held by Canada as custodian. This provides for the money paid now by Germany under reparations and it has nothing whatever to do with the German property we are holding and dealing with as custodians.


Robert James Manion: What are we going to do
with the money we get from the German property?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know. It is a
matter of policy. This belongs to the German nationals, and we are only dealing with that collecting and paying debts, and so on, as provided by the treaty. We as custodians must give an account of the fund. With reference to our policy in regard to any balance there may be left belonging to German nationals, whether that should be applied to reparations is a question to be decided hereafter.


George Gibson Coote: What is the total amount
of claims which the commission has allowed up to this time?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the exact amount,
because there are a number of cases in which evidence was taken by the late Dr. Pugsley that have not been actually decided. The

War Reparations
claims amount to about $58,000,000. A large number of claims were heard and I think decisions have been given in reference to claims amounting to seven or eight million dollars. A number of claims are still outstanding and have yet to be heard and decided.


George Gibson Coote: Who is acting as commissioner now?


Arthur Bliss Copp: A successor to Dr. Pugsley has not yet been appointed.


George Gibson Coote: Nothing is being done with
regard to the claims at the present time?


Albert James Smith Copp: A successor will be appointed
who will continue the work.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think there is such a thing as a successor to Dr. Pugsley?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wanted to ask the minister a question, but I apprehend it will be out of order to ask questions until we go into committee of the Whole. I will wait.


Arthur Meighen: If the motion is adopted it will be in the face of my protest. This is merely requesting the government for authority to pay out millions of money as a first charge on reparations, on the mere say-so of him who, unfortunately, now has passed away, but who was for many years a close associate of the government themselves. It is a measure of far-reaching consequence, and that it should be brought in at this stage of the session and sought to be precipitated through along with many others seems to me a disgrace to this House. I for one lodge mv protest, and lodge it now. Under what rule of equity, or reason, or fidelity to the public interest, are millions of money to be paid out merely on the dictum of a commissioner? Possibly he had some practical duty to perform in investigating certain facts and saving the time of a duly constituted court; but here was a commissioner acting under the authority of, subject to the will of, dismis-sible on the whim of, the government in office, -and we are asked to act now on the assumption that he was a final judge in appeal as between the treasury of this country and certain claimants to vast sums of money. Is it right? I know of no other country that has done any such thing. I do not know what the nature of these claims is. I do not doubt some * of them are good. I am not going to speak arbitrarily on the priority right of these claimants. It may be they have it; I doubt it I want to say now, I doubt very much if
special claims for damages due to the war are in priority to the state itself-the damage of the state. Reparations are not paid in respect of the special damage of the individuals of a country; they are paid in respect of the damage of the nation itself. Now this government asks us to take the dictum of the late Hon. William Pugsley, grant the priority of claims that he has allowed, pay the money, out-money paid to Canada as reparations of the war-to these claimants, and lose the whole of it so far as the general taxpayer is concerned. These vast sums are all to be paid to -individuals. And more- because no doubt these seven or eight millions are just a beginning-we are called upon to decide to-day what course we are going to take as to the whole career of this thing. As for me, I am firmly against it from the beginning. I will protest against its passing, this session in particular.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, from the little information which we have been given I feel I should oppose the principle which is involved in this resolution. I do not think this House is justified in paying out all the money they may receive from reparations to individuals whose Claims have been allowed by this commissioner. At this late stage of the session I do not think there is any use wasting a great many words over it, but there is a question of principle here which should be decided, and speaking for myself I am very much opposed to the principle set forth in the resolution.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, it certainly does
seem strange that the money we get in our first reparations should be paid out to individuals, no matter who they may be. I must confess that I had the impression that German property which we held in this country was to be used for that purpose. It is absolutely new to me that the reparations which we get for the calamity of the war, for the catastrophe through which we have passed and the suffering which we have sustained, should be handed out to any individuals, be they ever so deserving. It would seem that the money we get in reparations is for the benefit of the taxpayer generally in this country. I say it subject to further thought, because 'I must say I had not read this re' solution until to-day, but it seems to me we should use that money for the benefit of the general taxpayer rather than for any individuals who may have suffered losses and yet who may have been able to stand them a great deal better than those who lost their
War Reparations

limbs or were otherwise disabled and perhaps are getting a very small pension, to say nothing of those who lost their lives. I believe the government would be well advised, in a matter of this importance, while accepting the money, of course, to hold it until parliament has had further time to discuss the whole question.


William Findlay Maclean: Have all claims
been put in?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have not received any
new claims for some time.


William Findlay Maclean: Would further
claims be accepted if now' put in?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Oh yes, we would accept them any time.


Mr. BOYS:: Has the minister a list of
the claimants with the anaounts actually adjudicated' upon?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not here, but I have it in
my office.


William Alves Boys: Does not the minister think
we should have that before passing upon the resolution?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be very glad to get that.
I thought, however, we could get into committee and report progress. The information can be furnished.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Are there any German
assets here now? Or have we returned any to the Germans?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, we have not returned any to the Germans.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr.'
Speaker, I think the objections urged against this resolution' are unanswerable, but there is another which now occurs to me, namely, that there should be no distribution of this fund until all claims are adjudicated upon. The effect of any distribution in the meantime would be to give some an advantage over others. We ought to know the particulars of all the claims and the full amount of each, we ought to know the full amount involved in all these claims, before any distribution is made or before deciding what should be done with the money.


Edward Joseph Garland: There are, I think, two major principles in this bill to which I object. The first is*that the parliament of Canada is not to be consulted at all as to the payments which shall be made, to whom made and upon what grounds made. The second objection I have is that the reparations received by the Dominion of Canada 
are to be paid over, without consulting parliament, to private individuals, without those individuals having been called upon to pay their share of the cost of administration. Both these principles are unsound, in my opinion. I submit that the minister would be well advised to withdraw this resolution for the time, or at least to let it stand until he takes the matter into more mature consideration. I submit, first, that none of this money received on reparations should be paid to any of these individuals who have not suffered extreme hardship as the result of the war; secondly, that it should only be voted after parliament has adjudicated upon it. thirdly, as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr, Stewart) has said, that there should be a full settlement before the courts, or, shall I say, better still, that all cases should be adjudicated upon and found just, before any of the money is voted.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought at first that I would wait until we got into committee before asking the minister some questions, but so many have been asked that I think I have now pretty well the light I have been looking for in connection with this resolution. I want in a very brief manner to express my views and my opposition to the measure passing at this time. In the first place it is a resolution to make provision for the paying out of these reparations. It is making such provision before any decision in a complete form has been arrived at as to what the claims are and to what degree they are justified. That is my first objection. My second objection is that it is authorizing the transfer of very large sums of money, occasionally as they come to hand, from the Dawes Commission to the Canadian government, and the transfer of these moneys from the Receiver General and the Minister of Finance to the Secretary of State. I ask myself the question, and I think it is a pertinent one, whether or not the payment of these moneys by the Receiver General to the Secretary of State will not answer all the necessities of the Audit Act and the Auditor General will have nothing more to say about any further distribution of these funds. That appears to me to be the effect of one clause. In other words, the distribution of these funds will be removed from the scrutiny and control of the Auditor General. Then the third section of the resolution authorizes the Secretary of State to proceed to disburse these funds. I think that ought to be done only after a report to parliament on the claims and a careful consideration of them. Then I object to the inclusion of the word "expenditures" in the last clause. I have no objection to the Secretary of State reporting annually to the House, ais to the minister, but I do object to the word "expenditures." I therefore desire to place myself on record as being opposed to the principle of this resolution. I contend that there is no need for such legislation at this session; that the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General are now authorized to- receive these moneys, and can receive them without any order from this parliament. The Secretary of State under previous legislation, has all the powers that he requires to investigate these claims and until the claims are fully investigated and brought before parliament I do not think we are justified in authorizing the distribution of the funds.
War Reparations


Arthur John Lewis: I rise in protest against this resolution at this particular time. It does seem to me that we have not the proper opportunity of studying the situation within a week of when we may expect the session to close. Moreover, we have not been given definite information in regard to those who claim moneys which are proposed to be paid out of this fund. It does seem tc me that not only shipowners have the right to claim money under this resolution, but what about those people like the soldiers and theii dependents? They have lost homes and theii loved ones in the war, and it does seem to me that humanity is of more importance than the material wealth of shipowners or of anybody else who has lost money or other material possessions. What aibout the nation's cost of the war? Are we as a nation going to put in our claim, and have damages distributed pro rata under this agreement? I think before we pass on this resolution we should first have definite information as to what the government intends to do. I think we should also have a list of all the claims so that we may know among whom this money is going to be distributed. For these reasons, if this cornea to a vote, I shall vote against the resolution.


William Irvine: I think it is unfortunate that at this stage the minister should waste the time of the House by refusing to withdraw this resolution, after he has been apprised of the difficulties that he is bringing upon the administration, both present and to come. I think that he has been sufficiently advised already to have warranted his very speedy withdrawal of the resolution. I trust that if he has not come to that conclusion, he will do so before I am done.
I wonder if the minister would care to answer me a question as to the amount which this government have already received from the reparations fund. Has the government received any amount from that fund? Perhaps the minister does not know, or may not wish to answer. Personally I doubt whether we will be very much troubled with any large amounts. Some hon. members have expressed' the opinion that we may be called upon to disburse many millions. If we have to depend on receiving reparations from the countries of Europe, I do not think we will be overburdened with moneys to distribute. But even if we were, it does not affect the principle at all; I do not think it is possible for any body of men to arrive at a sure and just decision as to who should be reimbursed for losses during the war. If there are millions to come under the Dawes provision, I think that money should go against the national debt.

If it does not fit in there, there is another place where it would fit in admirably; it should go to augment the pensions of the wounded soldiers and war widows. That, I think, is a much more reasonable and a much more deserving cause than simply to ask a politician to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals who may be needing money or may be able to establish some claim that they ought to get something. I think most of us could establish a claim if we wanted to make the effort. I therefore associate myself with the hon. gentlemen who have expressed so unmistakably their objections to this resolution, and I trust that the minister will withdraw the resolution so as to save the time of the House.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou, Minister of National Defence):: Unfortunately I was not in at the beginning of this discussion, but from what I have heard from hon. gentlemen in regard to this resolution, apparently the real facts in connection with this matter are not understood.
The moneys which come from the Dawes commission, so called, are payable under the terms of the treaty of Versailles for certain definite purposes. They cannot be put into the treasury of the country and appropriated for other purposes than those for which they are paid. The compensation is paid in connection with the following list of cases:
1.	Damages to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of civilians caused by acts of war, including bombardments or other attacks on land, on sea, or from the air, and all the direct consequences thereof, and of all operations of war by the two groups of belligerents wherever arising.	#	_
2.	Damage cause by Germany or her allies to civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or maltreatment (including injuries to life or health as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, interment, or evacuation, of exposure at sea, or of being forced to labour), wherever arising, and to the surviving dependents of such victims.
3.	Damage caused by Germany or her allies in their own territory or in occupied or invaded territory to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health or capacity to work, or to honour, as well as to the surviving dependents of such victims.
4.	Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.
5.	The cost of assistance by the governments of the allied and associated powers to prisoners of war and to their families and dependents.
C. Damage caused to civilians by being forced by Germany or her allies to labour without just remuneration.
7. Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies, on land, or sea, or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
S. Damage in the form of levies, fines and other similar exactions imposed by Germany or her allies upon the civilian population.

War Reparations


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
what he is reading from, and then read the portion immediately before those enumerated classes of damages?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is a
memorandum from the Under-Secretary of State, and it sets out the clause from the treaty of Versailles which provides the lines upon which compensation can be obtained from Germany and the amount of money that is payable to this country as a result of what is known as the Dawes report, on account of damages arising in these various categories.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but is it not true that the Under-Secretary of State definitely asserts that while this is the basis upon which the reparations are to be collected, there is nothing whatever in the provisions of the treaty to say that these amounts should be turned over to the individual men and women who have had losses?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I take it that the
minister intends to convey to the House the idea that the sums of money turned over to the government under the Dawes plan on account of reparations, and referred to by the Secretary of State, were determined or fixed on the basis of claims that were being considered and reported upon by the late Mr. Pugsley?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. This
is the position-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then, how can the minister argue that we must consider this fund as sacred to these claims?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The money is being paid to Canada by Germany on account of Germany having done these things which are set out in the treaty of Versailles and which she ought not to have done.


Arthur Meighen: And many moTe things.
I was present myself when the computation was made. We had to compare our losses with those of Australia, Great Britain and other countries, and we based our comparison on many elements. One was liability for pensions. That is the state's claim and it has nothing to do with these individual claims.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
right hon. friend mean pensions paid to all injured soldiers?


Arthur Meighen: Not the exact number
of dollars we were paying in pensions. If I remember rightly, the pensions as respects all the dominions were taken on the French scale -it did not matter what scale they were on, so long as they were all on the same scale; the French scale was adopted in order to see how one country compared with another in pension liability. Many more elements entered into'the estimate of what the war loss was with a view to each getting his proper

War Reparations

share of the reparations. It seems to me astounding that we should now go on the say-so of a commissioner or of anybody else, even of a court, and authorize priority to individuals over the position of the state.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The proportion of which my right hon. friend speaks fixed Canada's share in the 22 per cent which was apportioned to the British Empire, at 4.35 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and Australia the same.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand my right hon. friend to take the position that Canadian subjects who suffered by reason of acts of Germany and who are in the class mentioned by myself, should not receive any portion of this money?


Arthur Meighen: I did) not say so. I should not like to say finally and definitely that they should not have some priority, even priority as is set forth in this resolution, until I see what is done by other countries. But there is nothing to put them ahead of the state's claim for pensions, and this resolution, if it passes, gives them the first place all round. Until their claims are fully satisfied, all else has to stand aside.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then the upshot of the right hon. gentleman's position is, that he does not think Canadians who were injured by those improper acts of Germany should receive their money.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If that is not his position, I do not know what it is, because he says that everybody else must be paid and the state must be paid first.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any evidence to show that Great Britain is distributing one cent in this way?	*


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No; but you cannot do everything at once, and they dealt with necessitous cases by voting that money. No money had been coming from Germany in the meantime.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member consider for example that the mother of a couple of boys who went over there and were killed, who is barely living on a pension, having a difficult time getting along at all, whereas before the boys went over there she was in good circumstances, has not a better right to get something of this than a shipowner who lost a cargo of grain, who did not happen to have it insured, and who has a claim against Germany? There are thousands of such cases in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That sounds very nice; but the situation is simply this. The country has fixed the pension amount that has to be paid in sad cases of the kind described and I assume that it is dealing with them in a proper way. This matter is a very complicated one, and I can
4 p.m. quite see that hon. gentlemen would require a great deal of information which it is rather difficult to give as this could not have been anticipated. In order that the matter might be fully considered, I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he withdraw the motion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I regret very much that my hon. friends, particularly the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton 1 and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) have risen in righteous indignation because this bit of legislation is brought down in the interest of those who have suffered during the war. If they had the full information that I have and knew the very large numbers of poor people, fishermen particularly, on the different coasts of this Dominion who have suffered-


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a pity the minister would not give us the information.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I asked that the resolution be
allowed to go into committee when I would give the information to hon. gentlemen opposite. As regards the government and myself, we had no motive whatever in bringing down this legislation other than to do justice to a number of our citizens who have claims for German reparations filed in the department of the Secretary of State for the past seven years. We believed it was in the interest of the country that we should take this opportunity of giving some little consideration to those who suffered damage during the war. Germany is now going to

Excise Act
pay under the Dawes plan, but we have not asked this country to pay one single cent by way of taxation for this purpose. I regret that hon. gentlemen on both sides opposite have raised objection to this measure. It is said that we should not on the say-so of some commissioner take the action which is now proposed. But surely hon. gentlemen know that this is the only reasonable way in which a matter of this kind can be investigated and any sound decision reached. Personally I have no desire at this stage of the session to force upon the House any proposal to which hon. gentlemen are so strenuously opposed. It never occurred to me for a moment that there would be any opposition to this resolution. I am sure that if hon. gentlemen were acquainted with all the facts they would not object to extending to citizens in various parts of the Dominion such treatment as they are undoubtedly entitled to. However, in view of the decided temper of the House against the resolution, I beg for leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Excise Act, chapter 51 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide that a license to stem Canadian raw leaf tobacco may be granted to any person who has complied with the act and regulations, on payment of the sum of two dollars, whether such license has a full year or part of a year to run from the date when it is granted; and that the minister shall have power to make such regulations as he deems necessary or advisable for carrying out the proposed legislation.
He said:	As the law stands at present, no
raw leaf tobacco may be stemmed except under a manufacturer's license.
Robert Forke: What is the process of
stemming such tobacco?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is simply to remove the
stem from the raw leaf. As I say, only under a manufacturer's license may such tobacco be stemmed at present, and we wish to extend the license to growers of tobacco at a lower fee. That is the only object of the legislation.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as our
revenues are concerned, this is an exceedingly sensitive business. I remember telling the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), when we went out of office that if he raised the rates 289^
he would get less revenue. The right hon. gentleman was naturally anxious to get as much revenue as possible, but he thought I did not know what I was talking about. He raised the rates and got less revenue. We must bear in mind the difference between the man who can be policed and so looked after and the man who cannot. The purpose of the law has been so far to safeguard the national revenues in this matter. Are we going to lose revenue by this new proposal? We have the growers on the one hand and the manufacturers on the other, and if anything can be done to increase the profits of the grower of tobacco it is unquestionably a good thing so long as the state does not suffer unduly. But this legislation is not confined to growers and manufacturers; it is not intended to further the interests of the grower as such. We are now proposing to give the license to anybody at all. Is that what the minister intends to do?. Does he mean that anyone who is neither a grower nor a manufacturer may handle tobacco, which is subject to excise rates, without proper supervision on the part of the government? In other words, I want to know whether any third person is to be taken care of under this legislation. I notice that the minister requires regulations to be made to put this law into effect. What is the nature of those regulations?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The object of the regulations to be made will fully protect the interests of the department. This legislation has been requested by the tobacco growers. At the present time they are unable to stem raw tobacco without securing a manufacturer's license at a cost of $50, and we are asking parliament to provide for a license of $2. My information is that this legislation will not materially reduce the revenues of the country. The export of stemmed tobacco has increased rapidly within a few years. In 1923-24 we exported 2,055,000 pounds and in 1924-25, 3.531,422 pounds. The value of the export in 1923-24 was $375,000 and in 1924-25 $733,000. This industry is developing and we want to facilitate the operations of the tobacco growers without putting them to too much expense.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will this legislation be confined to the growers or may anyone get the license?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As the resolution stands,
it will cover everybody.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not the
minister intend it to apply only to the growers? If so, the resolution should be framed accordingly.
Excise Act


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think that matters would be seriously affected if the legislation were passed as it stands. At all events we can, by regulations which will be made, safeguard the position of the board and make regulations to protect the board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister indicate clearly whether he intends to have more than two classes, the growers and the manufacturers proper? *


George Perry Graham: The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) referred to Inland Revenue. Up till about two years ago I think there was an amount of five cents per pound imposed on the growers. That has been removed. The tobacco growing business in Canada expects to take on new life on account of the preference given to it by the British government, and at the present Wembley exposition special attention is being paid to the tobacco exhibits, which are in charge of practical tobacco men. This situation has arisen. In the tobacco growing centres there are certain manufacturers who have their local agencies, and the selling at present is done by manufacturers who have to take out a large license at a large fee. The market that is opening up for the raw leaf for export has brought about a condition in which the growers feel that they ought to be permitted themselves to take out any license they like, to stem out their own tobacco and ship it out for export.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No objection to that.


George Perry Graham: That is the object.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It says "persons," not "growers."


George Perry Graham: Suppose we have a combination of growers-and we have co-operative societies-


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are growers still.


George Perry Graham: Suppose they select a man to carry on their selling and he has a license-


Henry Lumley Drayton: He would be
doing it as an agent for the grower.


George Perry Graham: It ought to be confined
to a grower or the representative of a grower, because there would be nothing to be gained by dcing it in any other way. I am very familiar with the tobacco interests, as the riding I represent is a great centre for tobacco growing, and all the latitude required ought to be given to the growers to get in touch with
ESix Henry Drayton.]
the dealers in raw tobacco in the Old Country, and this measure is intended to give the growers the full power to prepare their tobacco by stemming it for the best export market.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister explain
why it is necessary to forbid stemming without a license? Why does the government want to control this?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The idea is to control the establishment in which the stemming is done, or to know who is doing the stemming.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It really is more than that. I have had to do with looking after the business end of it. What we are anxious to do here is to provide that we get all the taxes we can out of the tobacco. As a tobacco user, and a constant one, I am a tremendous contributor to the revenue. In some places they send out inspectors to count the leaves on a plant, and every movement is followed. In France every leaf is counted and a check is kept on them.


George Perry Graham: They are very strict there.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 234 to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-License to stemmers of tobacco.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose we
might take the whole bill together, as there is just the one point in it. Are the ministers serious in saying that they are not erecting a new third class?


George Perry Graham: No: Oh no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And this is only for the grower?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The bill does
not say that. It is improperly worded, and I say they cannot by regulation restrict the plain straight wording of the act and cannot say how it is to be carried out. They can surround it with safeguards in their regulations, but they cannot limit the definition of those particular words, and cannot by regulation say that any person is only a grower. I do not want to delay things at all, but I know there is going to be a good deal of trouble in connection with the revenue unless this point is looked after. There will be a whole lot of difficulty if some favourite individuals who are

Supply-Public Works
neither growers nor manufacturers are allowed to get licenses for a nominal price, while others have to pay the full price before going into the business.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would not object to
changing the word "person" to the word "grower" or "representative".


Henry Lumley Drayton: Or "grower's
agent". We want to make it so that it will be clear the country is not going to lose a lot of money on this thing.


Mr. FANSHER:: Will this make it possible for one agent to act for a number of growers under this license?


George Perry Graham: I think it would. Suppose there were half a dozen growers, neighbours, and they want to stem their own tobacco and ship it direct, or sell it stemmed to an agent here; they could select a man who would take a license-in effect they would stem their own tobacco.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Because he was agent for one would not prevent his being agent for another?


George Perry Graham: I would not think so.


George Newcombe Gordon: The clause as amended will read as follows:
A license to stem Canadian raw leaf tobacco may be granted to any grower or his representative who has complied with the provisions of this act and regulations thereunder.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 145, to amend the Customs Act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the bill we passed it
is provided that if any person smuggles goods, being of a value under $200, or makes or passes or attempts to pass any false or forged invoices of any goods of whatever value, or in any other way attempts to defraud the revenue by avoidance of the payment of duty, such goods if found shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission. The Senate has struck out the words, "without power of remission," to keep the poweT of remission in the hands of the
minister in cases of that sort. But the amendment goes further than that; it states that such forfeiture of goods shall be made without power of remission in the case of offences under paragraph (a) of this subsection. Paragraph (a) deals with smuggling.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



SUPPLY PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-public buildings -Ottawa parliament building, $330,000.
['I move that progress be reported.\nMotion agreed to on division:\tYeas, 28.\nNays, 14.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Is this all
for the tower?


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: Of this $250,000 is a revote.
I think this will see the end of the construction work that has been going on over a period of years.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the
minister give the particulars as to the tower?
Mr. KING, (Kootenay):	Bronze dials for
the clock, $8,461; glass for dials, $700; clock, four dials, and carillon of fifty-three bells. $68,930; automatic player for carillon, $6,000; work in connection with installation of clock and carillon, $12,000; sheet metal work in tower, $8,437; steel flag pole, $1,400; slate louvres, $2,123; short rise elevator, $4,900; total, $107,591.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How are the bells to be got into the tower?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Provision is being made for that without restaging. They will be taken in at the back and lifted up.


Mr. LOVIE:: Will this entirely complete
the tower?


John Warwick King: Yes. The masonry, carving and so forth in the memorial chamber -$121,000 is for that .part of the tower. The other expenditures are miscellaneous, such as post office fittings; pointing stone work in entrance hall and tower, special lighting fixtures; asphalt roads; grading and sodding, architect's fees, and contingencies. Special lighting fixtures will amount to $30,000. We may make some improvements here and there and get along with what we have this year without undertaking to complete the lighting plans. However, the estimate is there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister would not consider the withdrawal of most of these items.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At the present
time what possible justification is there for us spending $63,930 in bells?


John Warwick King: I think there is
every justification in the world for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend thinks there is no use in my appeal at all, if regardless of. our finances he thinks he has to have rings on his fingers and bells-well, we will not go on with the rest. The sheet metal work has to be put in the tower but-


John Warwick King: We have an excellent tower that lends itself to bells of that character, and if they are not installed now it will cost a great deal more later on. The stage and everything is arranged, and the installation can be made much more cheaply at the present time than in three or four or five years from now.


Mr. LUCAS:: When does the minister expect to have this installation completed?
Mr. KING (Kootenay) In June or July next year.


William Thomas Lucas: I understand this will complete all the building. Can the minister give us the total cost of the building to date?


John Warwick King: Approximately


Robert Gardiner: What will be the total cost of the tower when completed?


John Warwick King: I have not that
separately, but it could be worked out in the department, if necessary.


George Gibson Coote: How much was spent on the building last year?


John Warwick King: Last year, $338,000.


Robert Gardiner: I remember we passed
a vote of something like $600,000 for that purpose last year. Was not the balance used?


John Warwick King: We are revoting
$250,000 of the unexpended amount last year.


George Gibson Coote: Will the main entrance be
fenced off next year?


John Warwick King: I hope not.


George Gibson Coote: How many bells are to be
put in the tower?


John Warwick King: Fifty-three.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the size of the largest one?


John Warwick King: Eight tons.


Mr. KENNEDY:: How much of this vote is for the memorial tower?


John Warwick King: One hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars.


George Gibson Coote: Who is going to ring the bells? Have you a man here who is qualified?


John Warwick King: Not yet.


George Perry Graham: It depends on what government is in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
estimated cost of a bell ringer to run the carillon?


John Warwick King: About $2,000 a
year.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps you could use
Carillon power for that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We would then be using at lea^t some of that power locally; we would have it here anyway. Seriously, I think the government should reconsider 'some of these items. They are purely gold paint and luxuries. Diamonds are a first-rate thing if you can afford them, but we cannot, the country simply cannot stand it, more particularly in view of the votes that have been pushed through this House. The country simply cannot stand further expenditures that do not mean anything to us in return one way or the other. Just take, for example, that one item in this vote which we had up before, for ornamental lighting. Special lighting is to cost us $30,000. Cannot we get along with the lighting as it is now? We have lighting far better here than most of the ratepayers in this country have anywhere. Are not the ratepayers paying pretty nearly enough as it is now for comforts and luxuries around here without this further expenditure? The government are making great claims outside about economy and the like, and here they are spending $30,000 more just under the head of special lighting. I seriously appeal to the government to reduce this vote.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to second that appeal. We surely ought to be able to do without any extra lights here for another year. If we are going to have money enough to take care of all these items and those contained in the supplementaries, we shall have to save a little here and there as we go along. I really think the government might cut out this extra amount for lighting, and also cut out the amount which the minister has here for carvings. I think there is too much money being spent on carving stone around the parliament buildings. We can get along just i as well without it.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I think probably my hon. friend is unnecessarily worried. This is the national building of Canada, and it would be a disgrace if the people of Canada did not complete this building. Canada is not in such a shape that we cannot complete our own national building. It is a handsome building, and it is going to be a great credit to the people of Canada. Why do my hon. friends suggest that we should not go on with the carving and masonry work in the memorial chamber? I am sure if my hon. friend would go down to the shop where this carving is being done and see the nature of the work, and what is going to come out of the work when it is placed in the memorial chamber, he would hold up both hands for the completion, because it is going to be of great interest to him and to the people of Canada, as well as to visitors who come to this country.
In regard to the lighting, we have not hurried in the matter, but this building is nearing completion. I do not propose to put in extravagant lighting, but I think in fairness we should have the estimate voted, leaving it to our judgment as to what should be gone on With. In the Senate there are only temporary fixtures at the present time. There is an important chamber of this parliament, and are we to say that we are not going to light that chamber properly, but let it use lights such as one would probably use in his home? I do not think that is the way to look at it. We are here representing the people of Canada, and I think we should vote this amount and complete the building.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is the work of carving
proceeding now?	.


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Millar: Has it just started?


John Warwick King: There is a considerable amount done. I think my hon. friend would be very much interested if he went and saw what is being done.


Arthur John Lewis: In regard to the carving, I
can readily understand that as far as the memorial chamber is concerned, it might be advisable to complete that, but anyone who looks anywhere around this building will notice stones that are still in the rough. There are at least forty of them around this chamber.


John Warwick King: We are not
carving them now.


Arthur John Lewis: You are just carving now
those for the memorial chamber?


John Warwick King: I agree that there are many years of work yet. Even around this chamber there is work to be done, but I would not suggest that that should be done now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want
to delay the committee, but I do want to earnestly protest against this vote.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the
question of keeping down the temperature in this chamber during the hot weather ever been investigated?


John Warwick King: The condition
my hon. friend complains of is probably due to the humidity. The system we have of controlling the temperature is supposed to be thoroughly up-to-date. The air is brought in over a refrigerating plant and is not admitted to the chamber until it has been washed and dried. I think if my hon. friend would enquire into the system he would probably be satisfied that everything possible is being done in that regard.


Arthur John Lewis: The heated condition of the chamber is possibly due to the humidity, and I suggest that the dropping of cold water on the air before it is admitted may increase that humidity and add to the oppressiveness.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole trouble, as the minister knows very well, is that the air admitted to the chamber is drawn from the courtyard adjoining and consequently we are doing the best we can to artificially cook ourselves. The air brought mto the old chamber was drawn from a conduit pipe on the bank of the river. That conduit pipe still exists, and if we just expend a small fraction of the money we throw away on ornate structures, bells, and the like in bringing cool air through this pipe, there would be a remarkable difference in the air of this chamber. But apparently that is not the idea; it is preferable to have the present expensive arrangement which results in such effective cooking.


George Perry Graham: I submit that no matter how cold the supply of air would be it would be soon warmed up when it gets into the chamber.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The point is not well taken.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not
complaining about the temperature at present which is reasonably moderate. But during the hot weather it is a disgrace that after spending 112,000,000 on this building we should
Supply-Public Works

be exposed to such a temperature, and the only relief we can get is to take off our coats. I should like to ask the minister whether he will not have this condition investigated.


John Warwick King: This is a good
government, but we cannot control the weather altogether.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would
urge the minister to see whether something cannot be done so that we may discharge our duties with some degree of comfort in hot weather.


George Gibson Coote: This question should not be treated as a joke. I think it is unfortunate that after having spent $12,000,000 on this building we have a chamber that is very hard to hear in. I think we might very well spend' a few thousand dollars in seeing whether something cannot be done to improve its acoustic properties. A couple of years ago there were complaints in regard to that matter, and curtains were placed under the side galleries. But those curtains shut off the air, there is no question about it. My own seat is located at the back and some nights when it was extremely hot I took the trouble to move the curtains back, and I could notice an immediate improvement in the temperature at the spot where I was sitting. I think that something could be done to improve the acoustic properties of this chamber, without interfering with the system of ventilation. Certainly it would be simple common sense to spend a little less money on ornamental lighting and spend something to make the chamber serve the purpose better than it does at present. Personally I think that if necessary the side galleries might be moved out altogether. It is a very common thing for members at the extreme end of the chamber to rise and protest that they cannot hear what is going on. Very often those of us who are sitting in this quarter have the same experience, and we cannot transact our business properly if we cannot hear what is said. I would be quite willing to vote for the bells and everything else the minister wants if he would give us some assurance that a real effort would be made to improve the acoustic properties of the chamber and the ventilating system. What the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has said seems very reasonable. If the air were brought in from the bank of the river, especially in the evenings, it would certainly be much cooler than the air drawn from the courtyard behind the chamber.

Mr. McBRIDE It seems to me the chamber would be all right if some hon. members would do less talking and would speak up better when they are on their feet.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: We are accustomed to taking stock of our business every year; at least some people are who have any wish to continue in business. But the stock-taking, with respect to our country which the government has been carrying on has not oeen very satisfactory or very encouraging; we are going back annually to a very large amount. It is all very well to have ornate buildings and elegant fittings if we can afford them. It is certainly a credit to the country, at any rate, to have parliament buildings that command the admiration of all who see them. But that is not a cause of very much satisfaction to people who cannot earn a living in this country and who have to emigrate to another land in order to do so. I think we could cut out a lot of these frills and bells and pare down our estimates. They are doing that in other countries. Look at what they are doing in the United States. They are reducing their expenditure there by hundreds of millions of dollars. But there is no disposition on the part of the Canadian government to pare down the estimates in any particular. The grossest extravagance is going on here as though the country warp prosperous and everything satisfactory. I protest against the reckless extravagance which is going on. If it continues it can only have one result, and the sooner we realize that the better.


John Warwick King: In reply to my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) I may say that two years ago we did endeavour to improve the acoustic properties of the chamber. We employed Dr. Saunders, of Harvard University, who is considered probably the best American authority on acoustics. He came here, spent some days with the chief architect and the deputy minister, and made some suggestions which we carried out. We carpeted the floor, placed curtains around the sides of the chamber, and followed the ideas he suggested. Undoubtedly an improvement followed. To remove the curtains back of the galleries, would, I think, be a decided disadvantage. The chamber is a large one, with a very high ceiling, and yet the acoustics are not as perfect as one would like. However, I do not think the Minister of Public Works or the government can be blamed for that. Two Canadian architects of repute were

Supply-Public Works
employed in connection with the rebuilding of the parliament buildings and they designed this chamber. While the acoustics are not, perhaps, as good as they might be, generally speaking the building is a good one and we have reason to be proud of it.


George Gibson Coote: I may inform the minister that I can hardly hear what he is saying now. I suggest that he look into this matter and see if some further improvement cannot be made.


William Alves Boys: Perhaps a rearrangement of the seats might work an improvement The Speaker's chair might be placed in the middle of the chamber, and the seats arranged in a semi-circular manner as they are in the chamber of deputies in Paris. Has that plan ever been considered?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is being considered. The estimated cost of that plan was over $50,000, and I thought we had better back away from it, for the present anyway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would that not be cheaper than the bells?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will be proud of those bells.


Mr. KELLNER:: I would suggest to the
minister that he have this work done around the building when the House is not in session. Quite frequently there is in the House a speech which hon. members feel it is impossible to listen to, and when they go to their rooms, very often they find under their window half a dozen men working.


George Perry Graham: That is nearly as bad as the speech.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Sometimes it is even
worse.


Robert Forke: The hon. member says that the speeches are sometimes impossible to listen to.	,


John Warwick King: The hon. member will realize that during a period of construction such as this, there will be confusion, but I believe this will clear the matter up and after this there will be no further disturbance.


Mr. WARD:: In the railway committee
room the echo of the disturbance that takes place is something that should not be tolerated. It is the largest room in this building outside of this chamber, and in it nearly all the important committees are held. Therefore, I think the minister might consider doing something to improve the acoustics.


John Warwick King: I quite agree with my hon. friend and that matter will be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
London, England, Canadian office, $250,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Last year the
vote we passed was to cover everything. What went wrong with the calculations?


John Warwick King: This is a revote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not shown as a revote. It looks as if somebody had slipped to the extent of $250,000 on this one job. We spent a long time on it before and we were told, as I recollect, that was the whole bill.


John Warwick King: My notes state
that this is a revote and, as a matter of fact, it is, although that is not shown in the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The trouble is
that we are not mind readers.


John Warwick King: I know that, and
I am glad my hon. friend has called my attention to the matter so that we may make the correction. The work did not progress as rapidly as we expected and this will complete the undertaking of last year. The amount is
made up as follows:
To complete contract for alterations..	..	$191,739	17Architect's fees	
19,422	54Clerk of works' salary	
583	99Moving expenses	
3,649	95Furniture and fittings	
28,000	00Storage and cartage of furniture in	London	1,000	00Freight, both railways and ocean, including insurance on furniture	
4,000	00Contingencies and incidentals	
1,604	35Total	
$250,000 00


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
have we spent altogether?


John Warwick King: The total cost
with this estimate will be $1,536,072.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What were the carrying charges last year? Last year we had the taxes and that sort of thing.


John Warwick King: They were $18,-
639.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would not include interest?


John Warwick King: No. Interest
charge of five per cent would amount to $76,803. The sinking fund is not in the first charge, and it would amount to $16,148.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand my hon. friend wants ito get over in (time to open the building.


John Warwick King: That will be pleasant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not want to delay him. It will be nice that the building will be put to some immediate use, after all the expense it has involved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-harbours and rivers. Esquimalt, B.C.-drydock under construction, $1,600,000.
(Mr. KING (Kootenay): This is to complete the contract for the drydock.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the total
cost?


John Warwick King: The estimated
total cost is $5,981,849.	_


Robert Gardiner: How .much has been
Spent up to dlate?


John Warwick King: The amount is


George Gibson Coote: Is this work being done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: What size of vessels will this dftydock accommodate when it is finished?


John Warwick King: The largest in the world, I think,-1,100 feet long.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are there
any other drydocks on the Pacific coast?


John Warwick King: There is one at Prince Rupert owned and controlled by the Canadian National Railways, and one at Vancouver subsidized by the government.
Mir.. MILLAR: What is the size of the one at Vancouver?


John Warwick King: It is a floating
dock. It will accommodate vessels up to 16,000 or 18,000 tons.


William Findlay Maclean: What draught?


John Warwick King: Twenty-five, thirty feet.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister think this Esquimalt drydock will be used when it is finished?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. LEADER:: When was this work commenced?


John Warwick King: I think the contract was let in 1919. The work commenced in 1920 or 1921.


William Thomas Lucas: Is Vancouver not the best place for a drydock?


John Warwick King: Esquimalt is an important point. The British fleet, when they were patrolling the Pacific, made Esquimalt their base on the Pacific, and for many years there had (been under consideration the question of a larger dock at Esquimalt. I think that was confirmed by the admiralty.


George Gibson Coote: What business is being done at Esquimalt?


John Warwick King: A good many ships are repaired there. .	_
(Mr. COOTE:	How many vessels would
visit Esquimalt in a year?


Mr. DICKIE:: Perhaps I can inform the hon. gentleman. The Yarrow shipbuilding works are on the Esquimalt dlrydock. Scores of vessels are repaired there every year. It is a very busy port. More shipping 5 p.m. passes by the doors of Esquimalt than any other port of America, I presume. All the shipping that goes to Vancouver, all the shipping that goes up the sound, goes past the Esquimalt drydock. We had a small drydock there, and owing to its smallness the warship Kent had to be sent to Seattle to be docked there and repaired, at a great loss to our country. I dp not know just what it cost. Many other large ships were unable to dock in British Columbia until it was finished. The dock, we think, will pay. The Yarrow shipbuilding works were established there on the distinct understanding that this dock would be constructed. Of course, there was always opposition on the part o<f Vancouver, and it is quite reasonable to expect that. They are, however, entitled to a drydock there. I may say that on Puget sound there are sixteen drydocks. Our shipping is growing (by leaps and bounds. This is the age of the Pacific, and this drydock, whether at the time it was started it .might be considered by some people as unjustifiable, is undoubtedly aft the present time regarded by everybody in (the west as having been fully justified. At least, this is the feeling unless anyone is prejudiced because of the fact that the dock is on Vancouver island instead of in some other part of the country. As the minister has said, it was recommended toy the admiralty, and we absolutely pledged ourselves to Yarrows to have it built. We .must not forget that Esquimalt is a very busy ship repairing and building port at the present time.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Thirty ships docked there last year ranging in tonnage from 3,400 tons odd to 10,000 tons.


John Millar: Most ocean going vessels
are loaded and unloaded at Vancouver. If one of these ships went past Esquimalt with a cargo and she required repairs, would it be necessary for her to go to Vancouver and unload, return to this place and be repaired, and then go back to Vancouver and load again?


John Warwick King: That would be
a matter for the steamship company to decide. There will be two docks, one at Esquimalt and one at Vancouver, in competition with each other. We do not operate the docks. Yarrows and another shipbuilding! firm at Esquimalt will use .the government dock, paying tolls to the department, and they will be in competition with the firms at Vancouver for the business.


John Millar: I was referring to the
larger ships which could not be accommodated at Vancouver.


John Warwick King: I believe the
Vancouver dock will accommodate any ship in the merchant service. I do not doubt that ships of the Canadian Pacific company could make use of it.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Is it expected that the tolls charged
will pay interest on the investment?


John Warwick King: Last year we collected at Esquimalt $28,248 while the expenditures amounted to $22,000.


George Gibson Coote: Is the drydock at Prince
Rupert under the Public Works department?


John Warwick King: No. It was
built under subsidy by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and when the railways were consolidated it came under the control of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour improvements, $129,000.
George Gibson Coote: What is this for?


John Warwick King: This is to complete a contract entered into two years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec harbour-Champlain dock-to complete, $68,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is this work not done by the harbour commission?


John Warwick King: This dock was
built by the department in 1913, and the vote has been carried from time to time to complete certain works that were not finished.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it charged
to the harbour commissioners?


John Warwick King: No; it is not
under the jurisdiction of the commission.


Arthur John Lewis: How much are we spending on this institution? We have $60,000 in one place, $5,000,000 in another part of the estimates, and other votes elsewhere. Why not put all these sums under one item?


John Warwick King: This dock has
nothing to do with the harbour commission; it is on the opposite side at Levis.


Arthur John Lewis: I notice that the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) has made the statement that money is being spent everywhere indiscriminately. I want to tell him that no reckless expenditures are being made in the three prairie provinces.


George Gibson Coote: I want to refer to the vote
for Fort William which was carried so precipitately a moment ago. I think the hon. member representing that part of the country (Mr. Manion) made the statement that he was agreeable to withdrawing that vote.


John Warwick King: I do not think
so.


George Perry Graham: Are you sure you heard
him right? '


George Gibson Coote: I am not positive but I
am under the impression that he made that suggestion.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I think the hon. member said that he was satisfied to have the vote withdrawn if other votes would be withdrawn as well.


Mr. POWER:: Can't you see a joke?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John harbour-improvements, $500,000.
John Warwick King: This amount of
$500,000 is required for improvements in St. John harbour. It is intended to complete the dredging of a channel from the main channel in St. John harbour to the basin in front of the drydock, a distance of about 7,200 feet in length by 500 feet wide, to a uniform depth of 22 feet and to complete the dredging of the basin in front of the drydock to a depth of 32 feet, as well as dredging a channel 250 feet wide from' the basin to the drydock. It is also required to complete a contract with
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

Messrs. Boone & Macdonald for the construction of a conveyer gallery 1,100 feet long, with necessary equipment at berth 16; for general maintenance of harbour, repairs to sheds, wharves, conveyers, and so on. At West St. John it is intended to protect concrete exposed to sea action and at Partridge island to repair the wharf. There is also dredging in shoal areas in the main channel to a depth of 32 feet, and dredging the deep water berths. These constitute the main undertakings.


William Thomas Lucas: I understand that Courtenay bay at St. John is a new harbour. How much has been spent on the work there?


John Warwick King: A breakwater has been constructed and we have been dredging the entrance to the harbour. This is to complete the dredging programme. This is all preliminary to the work to be done in connection with the piers and the facilities that will 'be required to make the harbour a proper terminus.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is not for Courtenay bay?


John Warwick King: No; it is for
dredging outside the bay. The estimated cost at Courtenay bay is $5,184,600, and the total cost to date is $4,771,000, extending over a period of years between 1918-19 and 1924-25.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the figures showing the total amount spent on St. John harbour up to date? I think it will be interesting to the committee to see how much these harbours cost.


John Warwick King: There has been a total expenditure of $19,000,000 on St. John harbour dating back from 1874 to the present time.


William Thomas Lucas: That does not include the dry-dock?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: What was the cost of the dry-dock?


John Warwick King: About $5,000,000.


William Thomas Lucas: Has the minister any figures regarding the total tonnage through St. John? Is there any revenue collected from the harbour?


John Warwick King: Yes, there are
some revenues collected by the Marine department who are administering the wharves. The city collect revenue; they have some property there as well.


George Gibson Coote: I am not interested in the city. What does the government collect?


John Warwick King: I have not the totals here.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister not think it would be wise to have a harbour commission, or some way of collecting dues at St. John?


John Warwick King: The regular port dues are charged there and collected.


John Millar: Are they expected to pay on the basis of the interest on the loans made to them?


John Warwick King: No, the regular
port charges collected in other ports such as St. John are collected there. It is not a regular harbour commission. The Marine and Fisheries department have their agent there who collects the dues on the tonnage of the ships as they come to and go from the harbour. In addition to that the city collects revenue from their property.


George Gibson Coote: We would have to find out from the Department of Marine what revenue is collected there.


John Warwick King: Yes, they would have that information.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The dues charged and collected at St. John harbour have been rather exorbitant in the view of the shipping people. Last year the city fathers decided to cut down their tolls because they were driving ships to the United States ports down along the eastern coast. I think possibly the Marine department charges were correspondingly high. Is it the intention of the department to do anything on the Negro point breakwater this year?


John Warwick King: That whole situation is being very carefully canvassed now with the transportation companies, the city and the engineering department. The question of further development in St. John I think requires very careful consideration, and the whole matter is being carefully gone into.


George Gibson Coote: Will this vote complete the harbour work at St. John and Courtenay bay?


John Warwick King: No.


George Gibson Coote: What will be required to
complete it?


John Warwick King: It depends on
the plan adopted. If the Courtenay bay scheme were proceeded with to the full extent it would mean a large expenditure. If there should be developments which we are trying

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to arrange I think a very large sum could be saved, and that matter is under consideration now with a view to saving money if we *can.


Arthur John Lewis: Does the government not
think it advisable to look over the situation and call a halt in the matter of great expenditures and future developments? I do not think the commerce of the country would suffer one io'ta if we cut out seven-tenths of the expenditure which we have been making; we would be in a much better position financially, and it would give a great *deal of hope to the Canadian people who are under a burden at the present time.


William Thomas Lucas: Is there any congestion at
the port of St. John at the present time?


John Warwick King: Not at this
season of the year. It is a winter port, and in the winter time they suffer from congestion. In regard to the tonnage last year, 14.000 head of cattle were shipped and I think eight or nine million bushels of wheat passed through. In addition to that there was a great deal of produce and other merchandise.


William Thomas Lucas: I think under present conditions the government should go very slowly in regard to spending a large amount of money on ports in the east. We have to provide duplicate facilities in the east to handle our business, and I think they could very well put up with a little congestion at times in order to cut down expenses, especially when we are up against the conditions which exist at the present time.


John Warwick King: We have that in
mind.


William Thomas Lucas: I was in St. John a year ago, and Courtenay bay looked to me like a new project that was being undertaken. If you are going to develop that info a new port it is going to take an immense amount of money and will only be used a few months in the year. Then we have to go up to Montreal and Quebec and provide another set of facilities in those places. I think the government would be well advised if they would proceed very slowly in commencing any projects of 'this nature.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto harbour-improvements, $281,000.
John Warwick King: This is to complete the western breakwater; to dredge the *eastern and western channels, and for the reconstruction of 400 feet of the west pier of the eastern channel.
Mr. LUC'AS:	Is there any need at all for
this kind of thing in Toronto? I was there about a week ago, and went all around the harbour, and it would keep me guessing to see any ship at all. It will be all right when the deep waterway scheme gets under way, but at present the harbour as hardly used at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is Toronto?


John Millar: I feel like making Stronger objection to this vote than to the former vote. The eastern provinces are passing through a hard time. Last year I find that an enormous sum of money was granted to the Toronto harbour on which they were not paying one cent of interest, and I was under the impression that they were doing so little business thait they had not issued an annual report for some years. Perhaps the minister would give us some information on those two points. Have they issued any annual report? How much money have they received? How long since they paid any interest? Possibly the minister might prophesy whether they will pay any interest.


John Warwick King: I think they
publish a report every year.


John Millar: Has the minister got the
report?


John Warwick King: No.


John Millar: Has the minister seen the
report in the last three years?


John Warwick King: I think they publish a report annually.


John Millar: My information is that
they have not done so.


Thomas Langton Church: The Toronto harbour
commission publish an annual report, and we will send hon. members copies. The Toronto harbour board is not like the Quebec harbour board. The Toronto board pay all their fixed and other charges, and all we can get from the government is a little pin money. We cannot get money for a post office or a customs house. The revenue received from Toronto is a hundred million dollars. The new vote is for the reconstruction of the breakwater, which is in bad condition, and the present government and previous governments are responsible for this. The Canadian National Railway runs as close to the breakwater as from here to the opposite wall. I may tell hon. gentlemen that the sum total received by the Toronto harbour since confederation is about seven millions, and the revenue received from the Toronto harbour

-H*!
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
is over a hundred million dollars. We cannot get any vote for our harbour. We had a contract with the government for work to be performed on Toronto island which has been standing for fourteen years, but they will not carry out the contract with us.
Mr. MILL Alt:	If Montreal can pay interest on the sums it receives, Toronto should be expected to do the same thing, especially where there is a revenue of $100,000,000.


George Gibson Coote: Is the new land which has
been made along the waterfront of Toronto the property of tihe harbour commission?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. SPENCE:: Paid for entirely by the
city.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Item 147, page 36. All the items in this estimate have been passed except two, Escuminac and Mill's point. Mr. Kellner moves that the vote for Escuminac, harbour improvements, $50,000, be reduced by $49,500. The question is on the amendment of Mr. Kellner.


John Warwick King: This is a new
structure required in the interests of a large fishing community, to give them the protection which they need in their occupation.
I trust that the hon. member will withdraw his amendment. I do not think he wants the people of this community to be deprived of that which is necessary to enable them to earn their livelihood.


George Gibson Coote: How much will be ultimately required for this work?


John Warwick King: Not any more
than this.


Arthur John Lewis: I Understand from one who.
lives down there that there are only about twenty-five families in the whole neighbourhood. We can spend $50,000 for about twenty-five families, but we have over three-quarters of a million people in Saskatchewan and we get $17,000. There is something wrong. Talk about putting nails in the coffin of confederation; I think you are doing it at a good rate.


John Warwick King: The value of the salmon fisheries there is $90,000, employing forty to fifty boats. As to what my hon. friend has said about the population, I would point out that the many boats operating there indicate a very fair population. Salmon,
herring and lobster fishing is carried on by some seventy boats drawing three and a half feet of water, and fifty dories. The population is 1,780.


Mr. EVANS:: Throughout all the estimates of this kind this year there has been a tremendous discrimination as between different provinces. When you think of $21,000 being spent for public works in the whole of Saskatchewan you cannot blame the mover of the amendment (Mr. Kellner) for his feeling in the matter. I am surprised that when the Prime Minister visited that part of the country last year the significance of this condition did not strike him rather forcibly. For many years we have had at Saskatoon a half-finished building, the completion of which would save $22,000 annually in rent. We are paying to-day in rent an amount which, capitalized would provide accommodation in our own building, and it would be a credit to the city. The minister eulogizes the beauty of things east, particularly around this city, but all these matters should bear some relation to each other, and at present I cannot see that they do. I do not wonder that there is discontent in the west, and some of the legislation that has lately been put through this parliament is not calculated to allay it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think our western
friends hardly realize that such expenditures as these are to communities in the Maritime provinces what branch line railway construction is to the west. If a comparison is made between the amount spent in railway building, repairs to wharves, harbour works, and so on, in the west and in the Maritime provinces, the large expenditure would not be found to be in the Maritime provinces. My riding does not touch the coast at any point, but I krfow a good deal about the conditions at such places as this. Communities such as this situated along the coast of the Maritime provinces have only one method of communication largely, and that is by boat, and if they do not have wharves and harbours in to which they can put for shelter in a storm, they are in great danger of loss of life and of property in the way of boats and gear. I think it comes with a pretty poor grace from our western friends, who are so keen for branch line construction, to oppose a small vote of this kind which is to provide communication for people who live in sections where the people have less opportunity to make a living than almost in any other part of Canada, and where they are more out of touch with the outside world. I am going

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to vote against the amendment to cut this vote. I think there are votes that should be cut out, but I do not think this is one of them.


Mr. SNOWBALL:: I am glad to have the support of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) in conection with this vote. I do not think the people of the west fully appreciate what the fishermen along the eastern coast have to put up with and the hardships they endure. They have no railway communication at this point, being forty to forty-five miles away from a railway, and after making their catch the fish has to be transported by steamers and motor boats and motor trucks for that distance to put into freezers or shipped by rail. It is a very hazardous coast. Miramichi bay is accessible and fairly safe for large craft, but when a storm comes up, these drifters, of which there are a large number going out every day when the weather is favourable have to put in, and they are very chary about venturing out whenever they see signs of a storm approaching. Two years ago, I remember, there was a great deal of excitement on acount of the boats being out during a storm. I think I mentioned that when this vote was up before, and since then I have received a letter from home saying that one young man lost his life during that storm, and the other boy was able to stick to the boat and was picked up later and brought to shore. The boat equipment is worth $3,000, and every boat carries almost a mile of nets, and instead of these boats going out three or four miles, as I said before, they go out fifteen or sixteen miles from point Escuminac. Hon. members will readily realize the hazardous nature of this calling. I believe that this extra expenditure will increase the trade at this point. Last year their catch of fish amounted to $400,-
000.
Some statement was made when this vote was up before to the effect that this kind of fishing had been carried on for a great many years and that it could be done with comparative safety, but the fact is that fishing in these drifters has been carried on only during the last eight years; I have that from fishermen in the district. About 400 men are employed at Escuminac, going out fishing for lobsters and salmon, and there are men who come up from the north shore and fish there along with the others. These men also require a safe port to put into. People also come up there from the coast of Prince Edward Island and up north into Gloucester county, and at the present time they would have to run to Shippigan or Prince Edward
Island if a storm came up. One boat has foundered during a very severe storm with all hands, since the last debate we had on this vote.
I know you people from the west will appreciate the difficulties we have in the Maritime provinces. We have a feeling down there that certain portions of Canada are opposing any appropriations that would help us build up our trade, and this is one of the appropriations that we feel would very materially assist us in the Maritime provinces, and especially at that point in New Brunswick, to develop our fishing trade to a far greater extent than at present. Every fish that we take out of the Atlantic is of advantage to the Canadian people, so I hope that when this vote comes before you, you will unanimously pass this item of $50,000 for a breakwater at Escuminac, and that the hon. member will withdraw his amendment.


Robert Forke: I do not think any member of this House would oppose a vote for this purpose if he really thought this work was absolutely necessary for the protection of the fishermen. It is a large amount of money, but at the same time I do not feel like voting against the appropriation. I am perfectly sure that those who have supported this amendment are quite serious, believing that the money should not be spent, but I cannot see my way at this time to support the amendment.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It is very hard to hear
of so many fatalities down in that district, but I want to point out that if people persist in going on the water there will always be a certain number get wet and a few others get drowned. When this vote came up in the House before, there was not one argument given in support of the need of this particular work. The whole statement as presented in the House was that it was to pay for a by-election. That is what was presented to the House. I know absolutely nothing about the situation myself. I do not know whether this work is necessary or not,, but if that charge was not correct, I think it was up to the hon. member to have got up at that time and defended the vote.


William Bunting Snowball: I want to take exception to my hon. friend's statement. I did defend the vote, as he will see if he reads my remarks in Hansard.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Not until I had moved
the amendment. I moved the amendment to test this House, to see if they had the
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

courage of their convictions, as several had spoken against the vote, and they claimed it was not required at all. I have no information about the district myself. I do not know whether this work is needed or not, and we have not been given any reason for it.


William John Ward: I objected to this vote when it was up before, and I intend to do so again. I had a talk with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) following the last debate, and he failed to convince me that this large vote was required, or was in keeping with the economy talk we have heard so much of in this House. I made the statement on the last occasion this vote was up that there was a greater coast line in the constituency I represent than in any constituency in the Maritime provinces-200 miles and more; and that we produced more fish in that constituency than in any constituency in the Maritime provinces. Since then I have looked up the records to verify my statement, and I find I could have doubled that statement. I can safely say that there is more fish produced in the constituency I represent than in any two constituencies in the Maritime provinces, and the records of the department will prove that; yet in my constituency there has been spent only $9,700 on public wharves in the last thirty years, and we axe producing fish by the hundreds of carloads.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Are there any deep
sea fisheries in your constituency?


William John Ward: There are deep lake fisheries; we have very large lakes, but, of course, we do not have so many by-elections out there. I have made some private investigations regarding this matter, and I find there are about twenty-five families in the immediate vicinity of Escuminac-I have been told this on what I take to be excellent authority- who will be served directly by this work. I understand also that it is more of an experiment, that later on there will be another $150,000 expended' on this work. I state again, I do not think it is dignified for this House to launch out on an expenditure of $50,000 to satisfy the obsession of a few people. Speaking on this question before, I remarked that it was hereditary with the people of the Maritime provinces-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William John Ward: Why the point of order? In what I said there was nothing derogatory of the people of the Maritime provinces. It is my intention to oppose this vote.


Robert Forke: I do not want to vote a
sum of $50,000 unless we know what we are doing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is $200,000
altogether.


An hon. MEMBER:: You can vote against it.


Robert Forke: I shall do what I think is
right n& matter what advice is given to me by other hon. members. I should like some information as to the necessity for this particular expenditure. It is all very well for the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) to compare lake shores with the Atlantic ocean, but the two axe not comparable. I think I have complained about votes for harbours on the Atlantic as much as anyone, and in the present case I should like to know the extent to which this particular community will be benefited by this expenditure.


William Bunting Snowball: I have a letter from
W. S. Loggie & Company in which they say "this breakwater is absolutely necessary." This firm is one of the largest producers of fish in that section.


John Millar: How much fish is produced there?	.


William Bunting Snowball: Fish to the amount of $400,000 was produced in the locality last year.


Robert Forke: Is there any possibility that
more fishing will foe done if this improvement is carried out?


William Bunting Snowball: Yes, more fishing will
be done.


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard the
discussion, but I think anyone who accepts an assurance on the information we have from the minister-I heard the previous discussion and I do not presume there is any more information now-is very easily satisfied. Does anybody imagine this House is justified in launching on a $200,000 expenditure-for that is what it is, with another dock nearby and all the dredging that has to be provided for under another vote besides the $200,000 we are embarking upon now-and that in relation to a parish where in 1921 the whole population to be served by both works, was some 1,700-probably less now than more-and where only a few of these people will be engaged in fishing? I do not doubt there is some purpose behind this, but is that purpose sufficient to launch us upon an expenditure

Elections Act
which will probably involve $400,000 by the time the dredging is taken care of and the two docks built? Is it conceivable? I think it is inconceivable. The fact oif the matter is that it is an affront to the House to ask us to discuss it.	*
Amendment (Mir. Kellner) negatived: Yeas 32, Nays 77.
Item agreed to on division.
Mill's Point-wharf enlargement and repairs, $25,000.


Arthur Meighen: This is a supplementary
by-election item in the same county? This is at a point that nobody has ever heard of and cannot find on the map. Is not this in Northumberland county too?


John Warwick King: This amount is for the reconstruction of a wharf. The expenditure is a proper one, there is no question about it.


Arthur Meighen: Is it in the same county?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Item carried on division.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That pays for the byelection.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved that the House go into committee on Bill 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-urban polling divisions.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister state shortly what we are really doing?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is to increase the population of an urban polling division. When the act was first passed the population was placed at 1.000. In 1921 an amendment was passed making it 2,500. The present amendment fixes the number at 5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the change?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend will find it in
the marginal note which reads:
As originally passed in 1920 the act required urban registration in all places having a population of 1,000 or more. At the next following session it was amended by increasing the lower limit to 2,500 the effect being thus to reduce from 440 to about 185 the number of places in which personal registration was required. Neither the public interest or the convenience of candidates would seem likely to be in any way prejudiced if this limit were still further raised. On the other hand its being so would relieve some voters of a burden ana would effect a substantial economy since the number of revising officers would be reduced and the printing of some lists would be dispensed with.
It tends to economy and improved administration of the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This really means, I suppose, that the rural machinery, for example, as to swearing yourself in and that sort of thing on the list, applies to a greater number than before.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is supposed to be the economy in that? What is the difference?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The number of revising officers will be one thing and the printing of the lists another. The urban lists have to be printed and the rural lists do not. The explanatory note by the Chief Electoral Officer gives the reasons why the changes are made. He gives the illustration:
If, for example, the lower 'limit was increased to 5,000, the number of places in which urban registration was essential would be reduced by over 55 per cent, viz: from about 185 to 80. There are some few places with populations between 2,500 and 5,000 which, as is presently true of some places under 2,500, would still require urban registration. For example, the population of St. Lambert, West Toronto, and like municipalities adjacent to large cities, and of some towns in Western Canada, are too flued to permit the intimacy upon which the effectiveness of rural registration ultimately depends. Urban registration would have to be directed in these in the same way as it is now directed in Oak Bay near Victoria, in South Vancouver, and in St. James near Winnipeg, but a population of 5,000 is, in general, quite low enough to make urban registration essential.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it decided when you rely on your 5,000 and when you are going to do something else?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Under the act it is left entirely to the Chief Electoral Officer to do that at the time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What principle is to guide the officer in determining whether we are to be rural or urban in the absence of a declaration of parliament?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No principle is definitely laid down by statute. Under the act it is left entirely to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide those questions as they arise during the election.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the object to be attained chiefly the saving of expense?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, and to relieve the necessity for registration.

Elections Act


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there
not a little danger in throwing too wide open this swearing in on polling day?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It will add only a few more.
They would have the same opportunity of doing it now, but it would make a larger number of rural constituencies and there would be an opportunity to swear in if necessary. It is a matter which has been decided upon after careful consideration and after the Chief Electoral Officer has had the experience of administration under the old act.


Arthur Meighen: I am very apprehensive of this clause. It means, as far as I can see its practical effect, . that the places where heretofore a person couid go in and swear his name on and vote on election day are multiplied several time3. Heretofore, a voter, without going on a list or coming before a judge, without the slightest precaution being taken as respects him, in a town of 2,500 or under could walk in and swear that he had a right to vote, and if he got outside of the door, you would never hear of him any more. It is very difficult to do that illegally and fraudulently in small places, because everybody there knows everybody else. But when you get a place with a population of over 2,500 and up to 5.000, the difficulty ol detection is multiplied, and in my judgment this is just opening the door to wholesale fraud and to swearing in of voters on election day who come from no man knows where. Why do we not do this in the large cities? Just because it would mean a torrent of " telegraphers " and every other kind of thug coming in and swearing in their votes. A whole army could not watch them. If we are going to open the door up to towns with a population of 5,000, to my mind it is going to degrade the whole election of our country, and that is pretty hard to do. It is getting now, especially in our cities, something unspeakable. I have the gravest suspicion of a bill of this kind and especially of this subclause (1). It is all very well to talk about saving a little expense, but what is this going to amount to? It will multiply the places where this swearing can be done, and that means .throwing open the widest possible door to fraud. This does not usually occur in the small places although it has been taken advantage of there. You will usually find the whole voters' list taken up by somebody even in a small place. But in a place with a population of over 2,500, it is impossible to check this thing and, in my judgment, the legislation is vicious.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House in commitee on Bill No. 120, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Healy-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for construction.
Mr. SHAW:: ' Perhaps the hon. member responsible for this bill will explain it.


Robert Gardiner: May we have the bill
distributed?


George Newcombe Gordon: It is one of the first
bills distributed this session. The bill was reported in the Senate on May 13. It is letter F of the Senate and will be found among the Senate bills.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member for West Calgary has asked for an explanation of the bill.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Who is the sponsor of
this bill?


George Newcombe Gordon: The name of the sponsor appears on the order paper.


Mr. CANNON:: The bill was fully discussed in committee and all information given.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, then, let us have some explanation of it.


Arthur Meighen: It would seem that the member responsible for the bill had decided to abandon it.


Charles Gavan Power: When the bill was before
the committee the other day the hon. member was there.


Arthur Meighen: He may have changed his mind. Possibly he would be offended if we put this through over his dead body.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I move that progress be reported.
Motion agreed to on division:	Yeas, 28.
Nays, 14.
Progress reported.



THE CALGARY AND EERNIE RAILWAY COMPANY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 184, respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Hudson-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: There will be considerable
discussion on this measure, and I would

Calgary and Fernie Railway
suggest, in order that the bills following should not be delayed-I understand they are not contentious-that this bill be deferred and the other orders taken up.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am taking the bills
as they appear on the order paper.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I move that we proceed with order 64, Bill No. 187, and the following orders.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not know of any rule under which that can be done in committee. If the hon. member can show me any authority I will be glad to act on it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not think the House
would object. I think it might be done by unanimous consent.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the committee
consent to take up Bill No. 187 and postpone consideration of Bill No. 184? Bill No. 187 is the act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. no.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then we will take up
the bills in the order in which they appear on the order paper.


William Irvine: Who is the sponsor for this bill?


Mr. HUDSON:: It is in my name.


William Irvine: I should like the hon.
gentleman to tell us how many years this company has held a charter to build this line?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I can tell the committee
in a very few words all I know about this matter. The company got a charter from parliament some years ago and obtained a renewal of that charter, but I cannot give the particulars, I understand the whole matter was threshed out in the Railway committee.


Lucien Cannon: Yesterday morning.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I am not a member of that committee and I was not present, therefore I cannot state the facts which were placed before the. committee. All the information I can give the committee is that contained in a telegram which has been placed in my hands by the solicitors who are acting for the promoters of the bill, and which I understand was procured in consequence of certain questions which were asked by some hon. members in committee yesterday. The message is from a firm of solicitors in Winnipeg, Hough, 290i
Campbell & Ferguson, a firm of the very highest repute. The telegram reads as follows:
Present directors Calgary and Fernie Railway J. S. Hough, A. C. Ferguson, Franklin Crandell, J. D. Sinclair, A. B. Alexander. Persons largely interested in railway and in large holdings of coal and timber in Elk valley and the chief promoters D. A. Robertson, San Francisco, and F. E. Kenaston Minneapolis. Unless changes made recently following are directors of Grain Belt Construction and Development Company in England, Rowland Burdon, M. P. George Lloyd Court-hope, M.P., Herbert Goring, Robert Basil Hoare, Ernest Summers, Homewood Bernard, Spring Rice. The English company have already expended over one hundred thousand dollars in surveys, road building and other expenses. Robertsons Coal Company have expended nearly similar amount in developing coal mine in Elk valley. No one prejudiced by renewal of charter.
That is the extent of my knowledge.


William Irvine: Would the hon. member tell us how many miles of railway have been built?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I have no further knowledge than I have given to the committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many times has
the charter been renewed?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I cannot say.


William Irvine: Does the hon. membei
know if there are any conditions applying ta the charter?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I do not.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman
knows, why does he not say so?


Edward Joseph Garland: We are not sponsors for the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: You are here to give information to the people of Canada.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the charter to
build this railway carry with it any subsidy from the Dominion government?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I notice the section
we are repealing is section 1 of chapter 75 of the statutes of 1923. What is that section?


Lucien Cannon: That section provides
that if the work is not undertaken within a certain period the charter will lapse, and that is the reason why the bill is presented this year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That act was passed
when the charter was renewed in 1923?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.

Calgary and Fernie Railway


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This bill has been
accepted by the Railway committee, and I see no reason why the committee should not pass the bill inasmuch as it does not carry a subsidy.


Lucien Cannon: This matter was discussed
in the committee, and the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) opposed the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know anything about the terms of the charter or the conditions of the railway, but I think we should be very careful before cutting off the rights of the company. If the company has spent sums of money in preliminary work and surveys, we should not cut off the charter without good reason.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When the bill went
through the Railway committee there was a good deal of discussion, and the information asked for could not be given. It was somewhat similar to the information we have had in the House to-night. The hon. gentleman who is responsible for the bill cannot tell us how many years ago the first charter was granted, and how many times it has been renewed.


Lucien Cannon: It appears in the bill.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I think the committee
should have further particulars before proceeding with the bill.


Lucien Cannon: The information the hon. member seeks is very easy to obtain. It appears in the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: The bill
does not state how much of the line has been constructed.


Lucien Cannon: Naturally it would not.
We would not expect the bill to give that information.


Mr. HEALY:: I was in the Railway committee when the bill was under consideration, and what happened a few moments ago while I was out of the House is a result of what happened in the Railway committee the other day. The bill for the Essex Terminal Railway went through the committee unanimously.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are dealing now
with another bill. The bill the hon. gentleman refers to will come up again to-morrow night. The committee was instructed to report progress.


Albert Frederick Healy: I was telling this committee
what took place in the committee the other day.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am not concerned
with that. This is the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company bill.


Albert Frederick Healy: This bill was discussed in
committee the other day and there was a decided difference of opinion. The hon. member for East Calgary took one view and I happened to take the other view.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Were there just the
two of you?


Albert Frederick Healy: And the committee passed
the bill. They found there was no opposition by any organized railway company. The only evidence in existence was a letter in the possession of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) from the city council of Calgary. No good reason was shown why this charter was against the public interest. Considering all these things the Railway committee passed the bill, and I think it would not be proper for this committee or this House to cut off the rights of these people who may have failed to renew their charter, but who now claim they are just on the verge of financing this railway, which will tap the timber limits which they own in that district. Now, if the public interest will not be harmed, why should we fail to renew their charter when they have gone so far as they have?


James Shaver Woodsworth: When was the
original charter granted?


Georges Henri Boivin: In 1906.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the House of a long-settled practice, that where a private bill has been considered by a special committee, the report of that committee is sustained by the House unless some good reason is given to the contrary. Special committees are supposed to consider very carefully the bills submitted to them and to go into all details concerning those bill's before they arrive at the conclusions which they recommend the House to adopt. I know nothing whatever of the particulars of this case-


William Irvine: Nor does anybody else.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -but I am free to say that I think if the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) were in his seat he would support the view which I am asserting, that this House would make a great mistake if on the ipse dixit of any member it should disregard the report of a special committee.

Calgary and Fernie Railway


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. gentleman sponsoring this bill sure that the directors whose names he read are still alive?
I have been given to understand that it is nineteen years since the company first got its charter, and that in the interval all the original directors have died.


Albert Blellock Hudson: The only information I have is that which I gave from the telegram. Mr. Hough is one of the prominent barristers and solicitors of Winnipeg and a man of the highest reputation. If he is dead, he has died within the last day or two. The telegram is signed by his firm, Hough, Campbell & Ferguson, and I am quite sure that any statement contained in it is true, because that firm would not lend its name to anything that was not true.


William Irvine: As we have not heard from these gentlemen for nineteen years, is it not to be presumed that they are dead?


Lucien Cannon: They cannot be dead if they present a petition to parliament.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I opposed this bill before the special committee, and I am opposing it here. If we must abide by the decision of a special committee, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) suggests-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is not correct. I simply said that the usual practice was for the House to accept the report of a special committee that has investigated any bill unless some special circumstances were shown to the contrary.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If the hon. gentleman is correct, then the question naturally occurs to me, what is the use of parliament? Let us have matters considered entirely by special committees and save our time in the House. For example, if the hon. gentleman's view is correct, the Church Union Bill should not have been discussed in the House at all because the special committee which considered it came to a very decided conclusion in the matter. Despite what he says, I think it is the right of this House to examine very carefully every application which seeks to renew the charter of any corporation which has not carried out the conditions on which its charter was granted. Now, this charter was granted in 1906-exactly nineteen years ago -and has been renewed every two years. It has been said that plans have been filed and that certain work has been undertaken in connection with the building of a road on that portion of the line extending up the Elk valley from Fernie. The line is proposed to
be built from Calgary southward, crossing the Rocky mountains by the Kananaskis pass, and then down the Elk valley to the city of Fernie, B.C., a distance approximately of 150 miles. It is true that preliminary location plans have been filed with the Department of Railways and Canals. Hon. gentlemen will understand that these are not the final plans on which a railway company builds. I do not know how it was done, but the map filed, with all its contours and so on, looks to me as if it had been prepared by the Interior department, the route having merely been drawn in to indicate the approximate course of the proposed railway line. Several extensions of the charter having been granted, in . 1912 the railway company made application to be granted a subsidy by the Dominion government under the provisions of the Subsidies Act, which act received the royal assent on April 1, 1912. Hon. gentlemen will recall that under that legislation a double subsidy was provided for, dependent upon the cost. The initial subsidy was $3,200 per mile, and under certain conditions that amount might be increased to a maximum of $6,400. The Calgary and Fernie company came under the provisions of that act, and I am going to read to the House part of the discussion in connection with the subsidy as reported in Hansard of 1911-12 at page 6329, volume 4:
43. To the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, in a southerly direction via Kananaskis pass and the head waters of the Elk river to cr towards the city of Fernie, in the province of British Columbia; not exceeding one hundred miles.
Hon. gentlemen will recall my mentioning that the line was supposed to be 150 miles in length, but apparently the subsidy was granted only to the extent of 100 miles. Then the following discussion took place between Mr. Oliver-the Hon. Frank Oliver, former Minis er of the Interior, now a member of the railway commission-and Mr. Cochrane, then Minister of Railways:
Mr. Oliver: What is the tota/1 distance from Calgary to Fernie?
Mr. Cochrane: The total 'length of the line will be 150 miles. I do not know whether that takes in the whole distance or not.
Mr. Oliver: Is this Calgary and Fernie Railway Company a subsidiary company of the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Mr. Cochrane: I never heard that.
Mr. Oliver: Has. the company a federal charter?
Mr. Cochrane: Yes.
Mr. Oliver:	How long has the company had a
charter?
Mr. Cochrane: Since 1906.
Mr. Oliver: How many renewals have they had?
Mr. Cochrane: The company has given us the assurance that they will start right in on construction.

Calgary and Fertile Railway
I desire to remind members that this is a discussion which took place in the House of Commons on March 27, 1912, and I would emphasize that statement made by Mr. Cochrane: "The company has given us the assurance that they will start right in on construction."
Mr. Oliver: Might I ask what is to be the policy of the minister in granting these subsidies? We are glad to see subsidies granted, and we want the roads constructed, but when a subsidy is granted on the assurance of the company that it is going on to do the work, will that subsidy itself be withdrawn and the rights of the company cancelled if they do not proceed with the work, and the way thereby cleared for some other company to go on with the construction?
Mr. Cochrane: There is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says. The matter has been discussed across the floor of the House between the ex-Minister of Railways and myself, and while, perhaps, in every case, it should not be done, I think as a general policy it is a good thing. It wfM shut off charter speculation.
Mr. Oliver: Up to the present time this has been clearly a purely speculative charter.
That, is the observation of the Hon. Frank Oliver to the then Minister of Railways, and that statement was made thirteen years ago.


Albert Frederick Healy: There has been a war since then.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. gentleman in that regard. To continue:
Mr. Cochrane: We will give them this chance, and if they do no^ go on and construct we will say goodbye to them.


Mr. STORK:: Question! _


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not propose to let the
hen. gentleman interfere with my argument for a single moment with any observations he may ni3ke of that character. Though his mind may be closed, I will read again for the benefit of those who may pot have caught the significance of Mr. Cochrane's observations just what he said:	.
Mr. Cochrane: We will give them this chance, and if they do not go on and construct we will say goodbye to them.


George Gibson Coote: What did he mean by that -"we will say good-bye to them?"


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I take it in view of the context which I have already read that what Mr. Cochrane meant was that unless this company got on with the construction work, the company was going to be eliminated and that so far as its charter was concerned it would be taken away from them.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the situation that existed in 1912. Since that time this company has done nothing except file the biennial applications for charter renewal. I venture to say that not a single dollar outside of the legal expenses and the expenses

incident to these applications to parliament has been spent since that occasion, and certainly I am quite sure that is true of the time previous to that.
Now in 1923 this company paade applications for a further extension. At that time in the Railway committee I suggested that the two years would elapse, and in my judgment the application would be renewed for a further charter life without the expenditure of a single dollar. The application has been made. The representative of the company has admitted that not a single dollar has been spent in the interim and now this further application is made to parliament for the purpose of getting the imprimatur of this parliament to this further speculative venture.
The matter has received the attention of a considerable number of people in western Canada. The territory which this railway is supposed to traverse is a very desirable territory. The territory immediately southwest of Calgary is largely a farming country. Then there are not only oil fields further south between Calgary and the mountains, but in addition to that there is a considerable prospect of further oil development. I may say to hon. gentlemen for their information that one company alone is producing 300 barrels of oil a day from the natural gas which is there found. The mountain area is largely underlaid with coal, a variety of coal which is of exceptional value, being described I think by geologists as semi-anthracite, and considered as among the best of the varieties of coal we have in Alberta. There are several coal companies in there which have made considerable development. I know, for example, that Mr. P. Burns has a very larre area of land, and he has gone to a great deal of expense in trying out and testing the coal area. On the other side of the mountains I am informed there are considerable forest areas, and that the lumbering industry would probably be valuable in that area. Now the people are anxious to have these areas developed. They are satisfied that they never will be developed so far as this railway company is concerned; they are satisfied this company will never put the railway through. It is the view of a great many that this is simply a speculative charter. We could not find out in the Railway committee the day before yesterday who the directors were. The gentleman representing the corporation simply told us they had spent 5200,000, just when or where or how was not quite clear. He could not tell us the name of a single director, and yet in

Calgary and Fernie Railway
the face of that the Minister of National Defence tells us that the Railway committee has carefully considered this application, and has placed its seal of approval upon this charter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said
nothing of the kind. I said that that was the duty of the committee, and it was to be assumed that the committee did that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My hon. friend got up and asked the committee to pass this charter willy-nilly, and now I am telling him that as a matter of fact the representative of the company the day before yesterday in the Railway committee was unable to give the name of a single director. He told us all the information he had was that $200,000 had been expended, just when or where or how he did not know.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me, I am a member of that committee, and I wish to say that the particulars as to directors were given to the committee. I would not have voted in favour of the bill if the conditions had been as the hon. gentleman represents them to be.
Mr. iSHAW:	Was the hon. gtentleman
present at the Railway committee meeting?


Lucien Cannon: I was.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) who made the inquiry did not get the information.


Lucien Cannon: If he did not get it, I got it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My recollection is that not the name of a single director was presented to the committee by that gentleman.


Charles Gavan Power: Have you got that information now?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have the information from the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson).


Charles Gavan Power: Then what are you kicking about?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: -who read from a wire he just recently received apparently from Winnipeg.


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I do not want him to represent things in the Railway committee as he is doing before this House, as if the members of the Railway committee were absolutely absurd and ridiculous and voted for things they knew nothing about.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It is not- my duty to make any reflections on the Railway committee.


Lucien Cannon: You had better not.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not afraid to; don't worry about that.


Lucien Cannon: We are not absolutely stupid!


Albert Frederick Healy: Would the hon. member please read the letter which the solicitor who appeared before the committee said he had furnished him w'ith, or that Mr. Hough had furnished him with, giving full particulars?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am glad the hon. gentleman has directed attention to that. The gentleman representing the company suggested that a letter had been written to me by Mr. Hough a lawyer of Winnipeg in connection with this matter. I would like this committee to know that the letter was written two years ago at the time this charter renewal was up. I suggested then that there was no possibility of this company doing any work, and I asked Mr. Hough who was here then representing the company to give me a letter which would satisfy me that they really intended to do something, and in the letter-I speak entirely from recollection and from the observations made by the representative of the company in the Railway committee-it was pointed out that $135,000, not $200,000 had been spent. It was also pointed out that the money was available over in England; that all they needed was the granting of a charier and money was coming, oceans of it, for the purpose of carrying out this venture. I ask the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) if he is satisfied with the bona fides of this company? After the statements presented to me upon which I relied, and upon which I think I had a right to rely, I did not raise any objection, although I was urged to make objections to the passage of the bill at that time, and I withheld my hand, having faith in the observations which were made to me by the gentleman associated with the bar at Winnipeg.


Edward Joseph Garland: At that time you received this definite assurance that all they required was the renewal of the charter and that oceans of money would come from England to complete the work? Has any work been undertaken in the two years that have elapsed?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, I think that is admitted by the representative of the company. No work whatever has been undertaken in the
Calgary and Fernie Railway

last two years, indeed for years past. Now, this matter has been under consideration by various people in western Canada, and I want to give the committee the benefit of their observations. These people are on the ground and know the situation. I think if parliament wants to do its duty it should pay due respect to the requests which they make I have a letter from the city clerk of Calgary, under date of March 31 of this year, in which he writes to me as follows:
Dear Sir,
He. Calgary and Fernie Railroad Charter
At the regular meeting of council, held last evening, a communication from the secretary treasurer of the Union of Canadian Municipalities was placed before the council for its consideration. This communication pointed out that the Calgary and Fernie railroad company was again applying for an extension of time in connection with their charter for the construction of this line. It appears that the original charter for this railroad was granted in 1906, and a series of ten extensions have taken place up to the present time.
I just interject here that I think, as a matter of fact, eleven extensions have been granted.
In this connection the city council passed the following resolution, and instructed me to forward copy of it for your information, in order that you may be able to advance the city's wishes when same is brought before the House:
"That this Council go on record as being opposed to any further extension of the charter of the Calgary and Fernie railway."
That, Mr. Chairman, is the considered view-the unanimous and considered yiew- of the city council of Calgary. But, sir, I do not rely entirely upon the observations in this regard made by the council of that city. I have in my hand a letter written by a farmer of the district to which I referred immediately south of Calgary. He points out numerous facts-I will not take up the time of the committee by drawing attention to them-with regard to valuable areas of agricultural and mining lands through which this railway will pass. He ends up by saying:
The charter of the proposed railway has been in existence since 1906, and has already had eleven extensions, and since the prospects of this company building. or even starting to build, are very remote, the settlers urge the recision of the charter to give another corporation the opportunity of applying for a charter and getting started to build a road of which we are in need.
I have a further. letter signed on behalf of the Fernie Board of Trade by J. Fred Spalding, secretary, to the following effect:
There have been persistent rumors during the past two .years that commencement was to be made at once. None of them however have brought a commencement anti apparently it is just as far off now as it ever was.
May I read now, a letter received by me from an ex-mayor of the city of Fernie? As I

have already suggested to the committee. Fernie is the southern terminus of this railway. The gentleman is Mr. Henderson, and under date of June 9, of this year, he writes as follows:
I am informed that that Calgary-Fernie Railway Company is applying for a renewal of its charter for a further period.
I have lived in Fernie for the last twenty-five years, and am thoroughly familiar with the local situation. I acted as mayor of the city of Fernie during the years 1920 to 1924, and at the present time am the police magistrate there, so that I have had the fullest opportunity of knowing intimately the facts in connection with the railway proposed to be bui'lt by the Calgary-Fernie Railway Company.
This railway was intended to be built down the Elk valley and thence into Fernie. A provincial wagon road extending forty miles north of Michel (20 miles east of Fernie) had been built up the Elk valley. I have travelled on this road and have not seen the si ghtest evidence of any railway work whatever being undertaken in this valley.
Two years ago, at the time when this company was applying for an extension of their charter, we were informed that the company had a large sum of money available, and that as soon as the charter extension, then applied for, was granted work would be promptly undertaken. It was also suggested that one Broley by name had the contract for this proposed work. No one seriously expected that anything whatever would be done and in the intervening two years I am quite certain that not a single dollar has been expended on this railway.
Under the circumstances, and in view of the many renewals which have been granted to this company, I do not personally think the charter should be extended.
Yours very truly,
G. G. Henderson.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there you have the considered views of public organizations, of Mr. Henderson, and of a .very reputable farmer in that district who speaks, or purports to speak, on behalf of the farming community south of Calgary. I think it would be very unwise, in view of the statements which I have made, in view of the facts that have been elicited in connection with the application, for parliament to again renew the charter of this corporation. I venture to say that two years from now this company will again come to parliament asking for a further renewal, that in the intervening time not a single dollar will be spent. More than that, I am satisfied this company is simply holding the charter. Mind you, I do not blame them for getting away with it if parliament is foolish enough to grant this extension, but I do not think it is.


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member has no right to say that parliament is foolish. It may be, but the hon. member has no right to say it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will use the word "unwise."

Calgary and Fernie Railway


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I did not suggest that parliament was foolish, I suggested that parliament would not be so foolish as to grant this extension, and that despite the views of the hon. member for Quebec South. What I want to convey to the committee is this: Here you have representative men, representative organizations, the Board of Trade of Fernie and the Calgary city council disapproving of a further charter extension. In view of those representations, in view of the fact that the charter has been renewed since 1906, in view of the fact that, although they were entitled to a subsidy, they never got nor claimed a single dollar under that subsidy arrangement, is it wise for this parliament to renew the charter? I believe the charter should not be renewed, and parliament will be remiss in its duty if it seeks to place a further extension of the charter into the hands of those who are interested for speculative purposes in promoting their own interests. Therefore, I seriously and sincerely ask the committee not to approve this bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. member
know of any company or corporation ready and willing to advance the money and construct the line within the next two years, or would it be his intention to have it constructed, like many other western branch lines, by the Canadian National Railways?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have no objection, if the
Canadian National Railways want to undertake the work and they are satisfied that it is a legitimate and proper enterprise, that they should be given a privilege in that field. That would be the logical thing to do. The hon. gentleman has asked me whether or not there is any other corporation ready to do the work. That is his test as to what this parliament should do-go on doing a bad thing because there is no organization in sight, so far as we know, which will undertake the construction of that particular railway. That is not the test at all. How do we know how many organizations or corporations there may be that, if they were not prevented from entering this field by 'this charter, would be willing to undertake the work.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Is this charter a monopoly? Does it exclude other companies?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In law it does not, but in
fact it has that effect. My hon. friend shakes his head; but if he will refer to the discussions that took place in 1912 just on the particular subsidy arrangement I have spoken about, he will find it is clearly set out there-


Albert Blellock Hudson: If it carried a subsidy,
it would, but without a subsidy, it would not.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it at
all likely that any other company or group of men would undertake to ask for a charter? Does the hon. member think parliament would even grant a charter in this same area so long as this charter stood?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member for Bow
River has probably made much clearer than I could the exact situation. No company will venture into that field with an already existing charter. They will be forced practically to 'buy out this particular charter.


Lucien Cannon: Why buy it out?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That is the only practical solution of the situation so far as they are concerned. I should like to remind my hon. friend that only the location plans have been filed, and the result is that this company can vary its construction within a certain radius, I do not know what it is. That is, their construction plans may be within a certain area.


Lucien Cannon: Is this an exclusive charter?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Nobody suggested that it
was; but I am telling my hon. friend, if he will have patience, the exact situation. The fact is that these railway charters, when granted in this way, have the effect of keeping other legitimate railway corporations out of the field.


Mr. CRERAR:: I was not present when this bill was before the committee. What reasons were advanced by the advocates of the bill why they were unable to go ahead?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Two years ago when the
matter came up in the Railway committee, the company stated that nothing stood in the way; that the money was available in England; that all they needed was for parliament to grant the extension and then the work would promptly proceed. I think they also said at that time that the work had been contracted for to this man Broley, this man of straw apparently, in Fernie, according to the statement of ex-Mayor Henderson. This time I understand the difficulty to be, if I caught it correctly, that money exchange conditions, with whicn they must have been thoroughly familiar when they made the application to parliament in 1923, had militated against their getting the money on anything like favourable terms. That is what I gathered as the reason given.

Calgary and Fernie Railway


Mr. EULER:: Is this the first renewal?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No. The company was
granted this charter in 1906. This is the eleventh or twelfth extension. We must treat these matters seriously./ If we are going to grant charters to quasi-public corporations of this character, let us do so seriously. Let us not undertake to promote any speculative enterprise, whether it suits private interests or not.


Lucien Cannon: Can the hon. member state any private or public interest which would be hurt by the granting of the renewal of this charter?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not know that I could
undertake of my own knowledge to mention any public or private interest. The interests of parliament, more than any other, will be hurt. Parliament should not lend itself to speculative charter renewals of this character. We should seriously view our obligations in this regard and give life only to legitimate enterprises. I use the word " legitimate ", not offensively, but to distinguish a speculative enterprise from one that contemplates actually undertaking the particular work.


Charles Gavan Power: Now that it is almost nine o'clock, will the hon. member be kind enough to tell us just why he is opposed to the granting of this charter?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I fear the hon. gentleman was not in the chamber when I explained the matter, and I would1 not like to take time in order to explain it for his information.


George Gibson Coote: Coming from a constituency which this railway, in part, proposes to traverse, I feel it is my duty to oppose the renewal of this charter. The people who live in the district where this road 9 p.m. is proposed to be built have, I think, given up any hope they may have had of the promoters of this enterprise ever building a railroad . The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) pointed out that the original charter was granted in 1906, and if these gentlemen had had the faintest intention of doing anything with their charter in the way of constructing a railway, they certainly would have some road constructed by this time. In answer to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), I would say that if this charter is granted, in my opinion it practically grants the exclusive right to build a railway through this territory. It traverses a hilly or mountainous country nearly all the way from Calgary to '

Fernie, and the railway must follow the route which naturally lends itself to railway construction.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hour for private
bills has expired.
Progress reported.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Urban polling divisions.
Charles Gavan Power: At six o'clock I was about
to offer some remarks in support of those made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in which he opposed the amendment which substitutes, for 2,509, 5,000 electors to be registered in rural polls. The reasons given by the leader of the opposition seem to me to be conclusive. It is all very well in rural districts to allow people to come in on election day and after taking the oath to vote. But in districts of any size one man may not know his neighbour, and particularly is he not permitted to know his neighbour's wife; so that the chances are very great of a large number of fraudulent votes being polled. It seems to me that the proper course for the committee to take would be to leave the 2,500 in the bill. In a village or municipality of 2,500. people, I can quite understand that the citizens would be known to one another; but in any place very much larger I greatly fear that the way would be left open to abuse. Particularly would this be so in municipalities, towns or villages situated adjacent to large cities where there is a more or less moving population. I think that possibly the chief electoral officer in making the recommendation contained in this section did not consider the matter carefully. Evidently he had too great trust in human nature and was not aware of the extent to which certain people carry their patriotism and their desire to help the country's business through their willingness to vote more often perhaps than the law considers judicious.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I want to add my
objection to those advanced to this section. It is, I think, opening up a chance for abuse in the running of elections and the government would be well advised to leave the section as it was before. Having had experience in two elections T know something of

Elections Act
the tactics of those at least who were my opponents, and even with the act as it stood before I found that they were able to poll votes in two and sometimes in three places. I do not think that the door should be left open at all to abuse in this direction.


Mr. BROWN:: I feel like those who have
objected to the section. It is true that I was a member of the committee that considered the bill, but the circumstances were such that I was unable to attend the sittings and therefore I am more free to object to this section than if I had sanctioned it in the committee. It was with a good deal of hesitancy that we permitted into the Elections Act the principle of swearing in voters, but I am quite willing to admit that there are some advantage to this where it is used under proper safeguards. Certainly it has the effect of ensuring that men and women otherwise entitled to vote shall not be deprived of the opportunity of voting. In the last election there were many instances that came under my notice where names had been left off the list or where they were not properly on the list through some inadvertence on the part of the officers. But the fact that these men and women were allowed to be sworn in at the proper polls on election day secured them the privilege of which they would have been deprived otherwise. That is a perfectly safe practice in rural districts where everybody is known to everybody else, but I am sure that it would be unwise to extend the present provision any further.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. member not
think that in towns of less than 5,000 everyone knows everyone else?


John Livingstone Brown: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is the case in my
town.


John Livingstone Brown: Twenty-five hundred is a
reasonable limit.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a good deal to be said in favour of the amendment, which was carefully considered by the committee. In answer to the objections that have been made, I would remind hon. members that the person being sworn in must be vouched for by someone whose name is on the list; both parties must be sworn before any vote can be registered by the person whose name does not appear on the list. Let us see the difference betwen rural and urban registration. Under the law as it existed before, in any municipality of over 2,500, any person desiring
to have his or her name put on the list must personally appear before the registrar, and that involves a great deal of trouble as well as considerable expense to those responsible for the registration. There are many voters, particularly since women have been given the privilege of voting, who are not in a position to go to the town hall, or wherever the registrar keeps office, for the purpose of having his or her name recorded. And unless that is done the person whose name is omitted may not vote in an urban district. In the rural district, on the contrary, it is the business of the enumerator to go from house to house to secure all names and put them on the list, and if a name is omitted in a rural district then the vote may be sworn in as indicated. Now, by extending this same practice to municipalities of any population up to 5,000 we are overcoming a great deal of difficulty; we are getting rid of a good deal of work on the part of those responsible for the registration and are not opening any door to fraud at all. After all, a municipality of 5,000 is comparatively small; and as I have already pointed out, no one may vote on election day unless vouched for by somebody whose name is on the list. If this section is adopted it will reduce trouble and expense in connection with registration; it will obviate the inconvenience to which the law as it now stands gives rise; and it will enable a great many people who otherwise would not be able to vote to take advantage of the ballot. In view of all these considerations and others that might be urged, I think it is wise indeed to extend the scope of the section and put the maximum at 5,000 instead of 2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Newspapers, etc., required to disclose by whom articles, etc., having reference to an election, are paid.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There should
be an elaborate explanation, in the eloquent language of the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), of what all this mass of English is supposed to mean.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Section 5 of the original act provides:
Every printed advertisement, handbill, placard, poster or dodger having reference to any election shall bear upon its face the name and address of its printer and publisher, and any person printing, publishing, distributing or posting up, or causing to be printed, published, distributed or posted up, any such document unless it bears upon its face such name and address is guilty of an offence against this act punishable on summary conviction as in this act provided.
Elections Act

It is proposed by the present amendment to repeal that subsection 5 and add a number of subsections to it, so that newspapers or other publications publishing election matter, cartoons or other election documents, which are described as election matter-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suggest to the hon. minister that he take it section by section, and when he is dealing with the first clause will he say what a future candidate is, and how he may be defined?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I point to my hon. friend. In all probability he is a future candidate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am the present candidate.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Present representative.


Robert Forke: The woods are full of them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that this section as proposed is bound to cause an immense amount of difficulty, inconvenience and uncertainty among candidates. It appears to me that section 5 of the act as it stands affords a reasonable measure of protection, because all documents must bear the name of the printer and the office where they are printed; so that it is pretty easy to obtain that information, and there is a measure of responsibility in the source of these documents. The section which is proposed in place of this simple section which now appears in the act is very complicated and involved. It is difficult for even a lawyer trained in interpretation to understand it. I do not profess to understand it, although I have spent a good deal of time trying to do so. I know there will be many candidates who will have greater difficulty than I had in interpreting it. Many of them will not be able to understand it at all. I am afraid it will cause a great deal of trouble, and compliance with it will be practically impossible.


Robert James Manion: I read this section and I must confess when I got to the end of it I had no idea what the beginning was about, and I thought perhaps it was due to my density, until I heard my hon. friend who has just spoken, who admits he is a lawyer, claim that he did not understand it. Under those circumstances I think it is about time to go back to the simpler language of the original rlause. If a lawyer who was on the committee and has been studying the proceedings before that committee and listening to the explanations of the electoral officer cannot understand this section, surely it would not be inter-

preted properly by any ordinary candidate who has not a. legal mind to apply to this clause.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I move that we strike out section 3 of this act, which leaves section 5 as it stands at present in the Elections Act.
Mr. MEIG-HEN: Is the minister who is sponsoring the bill not able to tell us what this jumble of words means? I direct his attention to the first few lines which read:
Election matter includes every reference or comment expressed or indicated in words or pictures, to or upon the selection of a candidate or candidates at any election the character, action or policy of any past, present or future candidate or candidates, the conduct or anticipated conduct of the supporters of any candidate or candidates the administration of any election or any subject in issue or suggested as being or having been in issue at any election.
Then the exception is still more marvellous than the sweep of the first inclusive clause, it says:
But shall not include references or comments of a historical or literary character-
My goodness, that is everything. What comment would there be that would not be of a literary character? Of course it might be of an "illiterary" character.
To of upon past events of notices-
That word "of" should be "or", I think.
Or notices or advertisements of future meetings containing nothing calculated to affect opinion.
The latter exceptions are understandable, but that first exception would to my mind wipe out all that was ever in it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The draft of the bill was
brought before the committee on Privileges and Elections and we had several meetings in connection with it. The original section of the act was thought not advisable, and the committee asked the officers to draft a section that would cover as nearly as possible what would be in the interests of the carrying on of the election, so that everything would be properly considered in regard to advertising in newspapers and periodicals of the country.
In the present act there is a short clause in regard to this matter, and it was felt that newspapers and periodicals of all characters, which are using their columns for the purpose of advertising election matters on behalf of any candidate, should be asked to give to the public the information as to who is paying for it, whether it be the candidate himself or somebody on behalf of the candidate, corporations or otherwise. So far as

Elections Act
the government is concerned, we only desired to get some amendments to the Elections Act, and all of these amendments with the exception of one or two, were advised by the Chief Electoral Officer in charge of the administration of the act. I am not particularly wedded to this section or any particular section of the bill, but I am simply desirous of getting the best election -act we can in the interests of the proper conduct of elections in the future. This section might be studied a little more. My hon. friend was a member of the committee where this matter was very carefully considered, and it may not be just as complicated as it looks on its face. However. we might let that section stand and go on with some of the others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister have pity on the committee and point out what it means? Will he tell us what he is trying to do? Will he tell us what the penalties mean and why the election of a candidate would be void under subsection 7 if the newspaper contractor does not file his affidavit? I would like him to tell me that from the act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think that could be
the intention.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not? The
reason I ask the question is because it was put up to me by one of the members who has been working hard to try and find out what it was. I told him that in my view it referred only to where the publication was printed. He retorted, "Well, you prepare the notices yourself, you revise them after they have been typewitten, and then you give them ,to the newspaper, but if the newspaper does not file the affidavit you become liable for a non-indictable offence and punishable on summary conviction." Does 'the government really want to do that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I would point out the effect of subsection (6) and (7). Subsection (6) reads:
When any publication other than a periodical contains *any election matter, there shall appear on the title page or the face of the publication a statement showing the name and address of the persons who have paid or agreed to pay the expense of the issue or distribution of such publication,-
Let us assume a candidate wishes to distribute some memorandum to his workers, he will have to insert on the front page a statement that it is to be paid for by himself. If that is not done, subsection (7) provides the penalty, and it goes even further:
(7) If in any periodical or other publication any election matter is inserted or appears contrary to the provisions of this section, or without the statement hereby required, every one who prepared or revised the copy for such election matter, the owner or owners, and the publisher of such periodical, every one who has received or become entitled to receive payment under any contract for the printing of such other publication, every one who has distributed, posted up or exhibited or caused to be distributed, posted up or exhibited such other publication, and every one who, with knowledge that it contains election matter, has distributed such periodical, shall be guilty of a non-indictable offence under this act punishable on summary conviction as in this act provided.
New if any candidate acting in the best of faith prepares any pamphlet or document and distributes it to his workers or any body does it on 'his behalf, and it does not contain this statement, |or the act has not been complied with, he is liable to a penalty. It seems an absurdity.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I was a
member of this committee, but was only able to attend one of its meetings owing to their clashing with the meetings of other committees. I never saw the section before; if I had I would have opposed it. This section is really wonderful. If any reference were made either to Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier in any newspaper published in the Dominion, as both of them come under the definition of "candidate" as given in the Elections Act of 1920, the publisher responsible would be liable to one year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour, if he had not filed the required affidavit with the Secretary of State. In my opinion there is no escape from that. conclusion. I submit that if any member of this House, be he lawyer or layman, reads this section five and comes to the conclusion that it means anything else than what I have stated, the committee might entertain it; but frankly, within my experience I have never seen such a piece of draftsmanship.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If there is any particular objection to the clause on the ground of its being unreasonable or unworkable, I am willing to withdraw it. It was discussed very carefully in committee and recommended to the House for consideration.


William Charles Good: Have any abuses developed
that- would make necessary such a drastic provision as is here proposed?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know of any definite cases.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Chairman, section 3 of the original bill was not satisfactory to the committee, and it was left to the Chief Electoral Officer to draft another seiction to take its place. For my part, I cannot see that the new section is any more acceptable
Elections Act

than the original. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us of something that has happened at elections in the past which makes this section necessry.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not any definite cases
in regard to it.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart, Leeds) agreed to.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, at this
point I desire to move an amendment to a section with which the bill does not deal, and I think it will come most fittingly at this point. It is a very simple amendment in these words:
That the bill be amended by inserting the fallowing
as section 3:	,
Subsection (1) of section 10 of the said act is amended by inserting the words "or a labour union" after the word "alone" in the third line thereof.
Hon, members will recall that I introduced an amendment to the Elections Act early in the session asking that sections ten and eleven be repealed. I ask that section ten be repealed on the ground that it imposed an undue hardship on labour unions, inasmuch as they are prohibited, except they are incorporated for political purposes, from contributing to election funds. The amendment was defeated. I am now asking that labour unions be excepted from that prohibition. If my amendment carries, section ten would then read:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone or a labour union shall, directly or indirectly, contribute,
and so on. I do not think it is necesary for me further to explain this amendment. I debated it early in the session. I would urge that inasmuch as it does not appear to be the intention of those who drafted the original act to impose any hardship on labour unions, this committee would do well bo remove the prohibition by passing the amendment which I have proposed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order According to the hon. gentleman's statement, early this session he made an attempt to amend the Elections Act along the lines which he is proposing now, and he was then defeated. Under the rule he cannot bring the same subject twice before parliament in the same session.


George Newcombe Gordon: May I ask the hon.
member where was the former amendment submitted? By what body was it dealt with?


William Irvine: The bill referred to was
dealt with by this parliament at the beginning of this session. It provided for the repeal of section 10 which I now ask to amend. I

do not however, think this amendment is out of order, inasmuch as it adds a phrase, while the bill moved previously was drawn to repeal the whole section.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My recollection of the occurrence is that the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) introduced a bill to accomplish the pfirpose he now seeks to accomplish, and the hon. Solicitor General suggested, I think, that the matter should be dropped as amendments were in contemplation to the Elections Act and that that would be the appropriate time at which to present his proposal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was not the bill defeated? The member himself said it was.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I rather think he is in error
in that.


Ernest Lapointe: Why diould an exception be made of labour unions any more than any other unions, the Manufacturers' Association, for instance, or any other organization of that character?


William Irvine: The answer to that is that
the minister, or those around him at least, objected to the proposed amendment brought in earlier which made no exception of any class. I am not anxious to get a privilege for labour. I would like to see the whole section repealed. I do not want the Manufacturers' Association, for instance, to be prohibited from contributing to election funds. Why*should they not contribute? The whole-section assumes that elections in this country can be won by the power of money. I do not believe they can be won by money, in western Canada at all events, but I do say they cannot be won without money, and you are making it very difficult for one section of the community to collect any -money for this purpose. I say this section can be got around, and that you have here an act which compels people to be criminal. What is the use of keeping a Stupid thing like that on the statute book? Why not remove it?


Arthur Meighen: I have considerable
sj'mpathy with the attitude of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine). I think myself the act is too restrictive, too detailed, too multiplied in its definition of crimes and offences, and after this bill goes through it is going to be far more so. Under our Elections Act to-day, if you print a bill, if you pay something that is quite legitimate and forget about it, if you wear a red ribbon or a blue ribbon or a red tie, in fact, if you do anything

Elections Act
except stand in an attitude of prayer you have got to go to the penitentiary. The fact of the matter is we have legislated everything into a crime in connection with an election until if a man were to study the act for half a lifetime he could not possibly comply with it. He could not do it.


Lucien Cannon: Nobody does.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody does, with the
result that not only are those acts which a normal man would consider quite legitimate perpetrated day in and day out, but the most brazen offences are perpetrated. What I rose to say is this:	If instead of these minute
provisions which we solemnly pass just as if they were never to be looked at again, we would make it the duty of the general returning officer to see that there is some decent obedience paid to sensible provisions, make him an administrative officer, and not let it be possible again for hordes of "telegraphers," impersonators and all manner of beings to rush from poll to poll and put votes in from morning to night, with all sorts of affidavits taken that are not affidavits at all, with judges signing certificates without ever seeing what is in them, signing purely blank papers- in a word making the whole act a farce at the hands of subordinate election officers'-if it were made the duty of the general returning officer to look after these things, instead of the mere watching and legal supervision of some sort of proclamation and the posting of it up at the right time, then we would get some results from the act as it is. I would like to see the general returning officer made responsible for the fair decent conduct of elections, and not just be merely a sort of law clerk watching the legal administration of the technical provisions of a very involved statute.
There may be some clauses of this bill that are unobjectionable, perhaps some that may be useful, but from what I have seen of it so far, it is simply fussing away about little things we really do not need to bother about, while the great big offences are allowed to go unscathed.


Robert Forke: Personally I have no
objection to section 10, which makes it a criminal offence for the Manufacturers' Association and any similar organization or union contributing to political funds being withdrawn altogether. I was glad to hear the leader of the opposition speak as he did, because if I recollect rightly that section was inserted during his regime, and we were just a little suspicious in the wrest at that time as 
to the purpose for which it was put in the
act.


Arthur Meighen: What section?


Robert Forke: The section making it an
offence to contribute to political funds.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, I think we were super-virtuous.


Robert Forke: I do not wish to make any lengthy remarks. I am glad to support the suggestion of the hon. member for East Calgary.


John Livingstone Brown: With regard to section 10
being put in the act under the regime of the leader of the opposition, it is true there was in the act that preceded this a clause that had reference to contributions by certain business organizations, but the change that was made in the wording when this amendment was inserted with reference to associations incorporated for political purposes alone, left the, impression on our minds that the change was designed to affect the farmers' organizations in the west, which were then beginning to have a great deal of influence. It is true we got over the difficulty by incorporating ourselves after a great deal of trouble, for political purposes, thus achieving the end we had in view. It put us in the position of doing what we were doing perfectly openly, while the large corporation could do all' they wanted to do in that way and yet keep it entirely secret.
Personally I have no objection to the whole thing being wiped out. I have no objection to the Manufacturers' Association contributing money for political purposes if they see fit to do it, and they do do it, and all the other organizations do it, and I do not see how it is possible for us to provide an act that will stop it. As regards the farmers' organization they were put to a great deal of trouble and difficulty and had to devise ways and means of getting over the act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: We did not get over it,
we simply incorporated for political purposes only in order to comply with the law, but it put us to a great deal of trouble and unnecessary expense. As far as the money spent in our constituencies is concerned, I know it does not all appear in the statements that are made to the electoral officers.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to deal with the point of order, unless some other hon. member desires to speak on it.
Elections Act

Mr. ME1GHEN: I did not know there was one.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes. The point of order has been raised that the amendment moved by Mr. Irvine, having been voted on in the House and dealt with, the question cannot be re-introduced at the same sitting.


William Charles Good: In regard to the point of order, can you tell the House whether the motion was agreed to or withdrawn?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I raised the point of order on the statement made by the hon. member for East Calgary himself.


William Charles Good: Was the motion defeated?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was defeated.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Speaking to the point of
order, I should like to point out that the bill introduced by the hon. member for East Calgary proposed to wipe out in their entirety sections 10 and 11 of the Elections Act. The amendment which he now proposes is to insert a few words in the existing section 10. It cannot be said that this particular matter has previously received the consideration of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: I should like also to say a word on the point of order. I am not very particular whether or not the amendment was withdrawn previously or voted down by the House, but I claim that the motion made by the hon. member for East Calgary is not in order because it is not an amendment to the bill now before us. The bill which the committee is now considering is Bill No. 148, an Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, and while any hon. member has the right to make an amendment to any clause contained in this bill, the fact that the hon. Secretary oif State brings down an amendment, or three or four amendments, to the Elections Act does not give an hon. member the right to propose any amendment he may desire to make to the original act and oblige tne members of this House to vote upon a measure which otherwise that hon. gentleman would be obliged to introduce as a public bill. I contend that the amendments to this bill must be relevant to the measure as introduced, as read a first and second time, and as now on the table for consideration, and that any amendment to any other clause of the Elections Act is out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I feel that this question is not the same as the one previously
[The Chairman.]
dealt with. Bill No. 5, as introduced by the hon. member for East Calgary, provided:
That sections 10 and 11 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 46 of the statutes of 1920 are repealed.
That is the whole bill, and that bill was negatived on February 19, 1925. This is not the same question by any means because it provides for the insertion of certain other words. I am inclined to think that this amendment is relevant because it deals with the right of corporations to make contributions. It seems to me, therefore, that it comes within the rule as to relevancy.


Georges Henri Boivin: I should like a ruling on the point I have raised. That is on the question of relevancy to this bill. The point that I raise is, not that the matter has been debated before, but that the amendment proposed by the hon. member is not an amendment to the bill before the House. It is an amendment to the Elections Act but not to the bill which is now under consideration. I claim, therefore, that if the hon. member for East Calgary is allowed to make this amendment every other hon. member will have the right to propose any amendment that he may desire to the Dominion Elections Act.


George Newcombe Gordon: No. I should just like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the bill before the comittee is a bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act.


Georges Henri Boivin: Absolutely.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman is not seeking to amend the original Dominion Elections Act.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: No, he is seeking to amend Bill 148.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not at all; he wants to add a new section to this bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let me read the
amendment to the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he did not hear me read it. Mr. Irvine moves:
That the bill be amended by inserting the following as sub-section 3a of bill number 148.
If it was not in the form in which it is, the hon. gentleman would be quite right.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the Chair would allow
me to continue the discussion on my point of order, here is what I would like to point out:	The rules of this House provide certain
times for the discussion of government orders and government bills, and certain other times for the discussion of public bills. Any bill

Elections Act
to amend a public act introduced by a private member is a public bill, and must be introduced at the time fixed for public bills. I maintain that if, when the government brings down an amendment to any act on the statutes at the present time, any hon. member can, by amending that bill, move to amend any other clause of the act, we are getting away from the principle which has. been established since confederation, and we are allowing every hon. member to take advantage of a government bill to amend the entire act under the guise of amendments to that bill.
I claim that if a private member desires to amend the Elections Act, or any other act, he must do so by introducing a public bill on his own responsibility and under his own name. If he desires to amend any clauses in this bill he has a perfect right to do so; but he has no right to amend the Elections Act under the guise of an amendment to this bill which does not relate to the bill at all.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member for Shefford is putting too narrow an interpretation on the power of amendment. What he is saying is that the amendment that is offered is rather an amendment to the original act than it is to this bill. Well, if what he argues is correct, it means that when a bill is introduced to amend a public act that bill cannot be amended except by striking something out or changing the words, cannot be amended by adding something else, I have never myself, in the practice of this House, seen so close an interpretation as that given. If the government brings in a bill to amend the general public statutes I would not like to say it opens the door to every possible phase of that original 'statute being amended-although it may; I would not say it did not-but it does certainly give pretty wide opportunity to an amendment to the bill. There has never been a rigid ruling that it must very strictly pertain to any single section.


Georges Henri Boivin: I should like to put a
question on the point of order to my right hon. friend. If this amendment is in order and if the opposition, for instance, desire to hold up the business of this House-I do not say that they have ever desired to do so, but let us suppose they did or that there is a deadlock between two parties in this House no matter which party may be in power-if this amendment is in order I maintain that the opposition could move an amendment, under the guise of an amendment to this bill to every clause and every article of the 291
Elections Act. If this amendment is in order then every other amendment so moved by the opposition would be in order, would be debatable, and the business of this House would be held up for months. This is the principle which I think should be kept in mind when this point of order is to be decided. I quite agree with my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, that if the -addition of a clause to this bill was for the purpose of clarifying it, or explaining anything contained in the bill, then the. motion to add a clause would be in order. But if it does not have that effect and it interjects into this bill a matter that is not at all there at the present time it oannot be done under the guise of an amendment; it should be done by a public bill. A public bill requires notice, and if a public bill requires notice this amendment at least requires notice. No notice of this amendment was ever given. If it were accepted all kinds of amendments to public acts could be made without notice.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member will find that he can insist on notice; but he will search the records of this House a long while to show where any motion amending a public bill, or adding or substract-ing from a section-I should say adding alone to that section-of that amending bill has been ruled out because it is really an amendment to the original statute.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not pretend that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think you will
ever find a single case.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have never pretended
that.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly if you could
hold up government legislation by amendments ad infinitum, then the only recourse would be to the closure. But because you show it is in the power of -an opposition to hold up the government you do not make an argument against the admission of an amendment. There is a means of overcoming that but the House has always admitted amendments to the general act when a bill to amend it was before the House. I do not think the hon. member, whose knowledge of the rules is unexcelled in this House, ever himself, when in the chair ruled out an amendment of this character.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think I never had occasion to rule out an amendment of this char-

Elections Act

acter. I never remember an amendment of this character being moved.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do remember a great
many amendments that were brought before the House but they had something to do, at least, with the legislation which was placed before the House by the government.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will
remember in amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by the government, other amendments to the code were introduced which had nothing to do with those amendments and they were considered and decided by the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not while I was in the
chair.


William Charles Good: Speaking to the point of
order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to hear the hon. gentleman.


William Charles Good: -I took this matter up with parliamentary counsel some time ago, and he told me very definitely that in the case just cited by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), it was in order to introduce such other amendments as have been mentioned.


Lucien Cannon: The point brought out
by the hon. member for Shefford is very simple. Is the amendment before the committee an amendment to this bill or is it not? If it is an amendment to the bill, what clause does it amend? It certainly does not propose to amend any clause in the present bill. Therefore, as the hon. gentleman contends, it is bringing into the committee a matter altogether foreign to the bill which we are considering.


William Charles Good: Why foreign to the bill?


Lucien Cannon: An amendment has to
amend something in the bill.


William Charles Good: Does it not deal with the
same subject matter?


Lucien Cannon: The amendment brought
forward by the hon. member for East Calgary is an amendment to the general act.


William Irvine: So is the bill.


Lucien Cannon: But the amendment to be within the rules has to be an amendment to 
one of the clauses of the bill under consideration.


George Newcombe Gordon: Regarding the point
of order that has been raised, it has been suggested that notice is required. Under rule 112 no notice is required except of important amendments to private bills. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Calgary reads:
That the bil'l be amended by inserting the following as section 3.
Which has been stricken out. Bourinot at page 523 says:
A committee of the Whole have now power to make amendments not within the scope and title of the bill. The ru'le of the English Commons-
Which is mentioned on page 523.
-provides that any amendment may be made to a clause, provided the same be relevant to the subject matter of the bill, or pursuant to any instructions, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; but if any amendment be not within the title of the bill, the committee are to amend the title aocordingly, and report the same specially to the House.
It seems to me that an amendment to be within the scope and title of the bill requires, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Shefford, to be, in other words, relevant, to deal with the same subject matter in some form. I would question that this amendment would be in order if it was under Bill No. 149, for instance, dealing with the alternative vote; but this dealing generally with voting and election matters and contributions by corporations and companies unincorporated, I feel I must rule more widely than has been suggested by the hon. member for Shefford, and I rule that the amendment is in order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In support of the
motion of the hon. member for East Calgary, may I point out the difficult situation under which labour at the present time stands? The purpose of the bill is, I understand, to prevent fraudulent practices or those that tend in some way to interfere with the ends for which elections are held. I
10 p.m. would urge that contributions by unions do not in any way interfere with the proper carrying out of elections. There is nothing at all fraudulent about them. No undue pressure is exerted in any form whatever. Everything is open and above board. Unions are regularly recognised organizations. Their meetings are openly held. Their decisions are arrived at in the regular business meetings. There is nothing secret about the matter in any way whatsoever. For that reason, I cannot see that any harm is

Elections Act
going to come from the unions having a right to contribute to election funds. At the present time, if labour men wish to select candidates, they find themselves very greatly handicapped. I quite recognize that there are some who believe representatives ought not to be chosen from distinctive groups. Some believe we ought to maintain the older parties and ought not in any way to encourage vocational groups to select representatives. I do not intend to argue that point to-night. I think anyone, even of those who believe this, will concede that if there are industrial groups more or less distinct from the rest of the community, they have the right, if they so desire, to select their own candidates.
When a few years ago the farmers of the west thought they saw the necessity for having their own representatives, they found themselves under this handicap. They were regularly organized. It was the easiest way for them to subscribe to election funds through their organizations and to select their own representatives, but they found 1;hem-selves in difficulties because of this section of the act. They were able to overcome those difficulties by becoming incorporated for political purposes. Thus, they are able to carry on and they have a very considerable body of members in this House. Labour people are in a very different position from that. Owing to the development of labour organization, we are divided into many unions. I should say, roughly speaking, there are something like 150 distinct unions in this country. The farmers have practically one organization. Hon. members can understand how difficult it would be to expect 150 distinct organizations each to become incorporated for political purposes. Again, owing to economic situation on this continent, nearly all the unions in Canada are in affiliation with American unions. Canada is industrially a small country as compared with the United States. The major part of the members of those various unions are in the United States and, according to the constitutions of the American unions it is impossible for the unions to organize for political purposes. Our labour unions, dominated very largely by the United States unions, find themselves placed in the position where they can not incorporate for political purposes.	Thus, this clause as it
now stands, practically precludes labour unions from taking political action. The only possible course for the labour people is to build 29 li
up a distinct organization with individual memberships right across the country from coast to coast. Some may say that this is all to the good and that in this way we shall discourage labour organizations. May I point out that as soon as there is a strike or any form of industrial action in the country, gentlemen of this class throughout the Dominion express the view that labour ought to attain its ends by constitutional means; and they will even limit those means to parliamentary action. Yet when an effort is made by the labour people themselves to send their own representatives to voice their distinctive views on the floor of parliament almost every obstacle is placed in their way. I would appeal to the generosity, the sense of fair play of hon. members, whether we ought not in all seriousness, having regard to the welfare of the country at large, to permit, nay, to encourage the various industrial groups to send representatives to this House. I would point to the example of 'the Motherland. For a considerable number of years in Great Britain labour unions have been able to contribute to campaign funds for political purposes, and although there has been some opposition to the practice in the course of years-


Mr. McTAGGART:: I rise to a point of
order. We have struck out section 3 entirely and we are seeking now to re-cast tnat section. But in the amendment we do not strike out the provisions of section 10 which relates to the same subject matter. We shall therefore have section 3 dealing with the same subject as section 10. Which one will apply?


George Newcombe Gordon: It is in addition to
section 10. So far as I can see, the clause is in proper form.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the 'hon. member
is mistaken. Section 3 of the bill which we have struck out is intended to amend section 5 cf the act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When I was interrupted I was pointing out that in Great Britain there had been provision through the years for the labour unions to contribute to campaign funds. There were certain safeguards thrown around it to provide that individual members should not be forced to contribute to funds if they did not wish to do so. But a recen- incident which no doubt has come to the notice of many hon. members is worth commenting on. A proposal was
Elections Act

made by a certain gentleman of the Conservative party in Great Britain that labour should be prevented from thus using its funds for political purposes, and I think it is greatly to the honour of the leader of the Conservatives there that he took the stand, in opposition to many members of his own party, that in every way labour ought to be encouraged to send representatives to the House. He refused to endorse this proposal to deprive labour of the right to control its own funds. Surely if in the Old Land, with all its conservative traditions, the leader of the Conservative party insists on making it possible for labour to enjoy this right, we might well hope that in this newer country, where we have rather prided ourselves on possessing a certain degree of democracy, we ought to permit this amendment to go through and make it possible for labour unions to handle 'heir own funds in their own way.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I want to associate
myself with the member for Eas: Calgary (Mr. Irvine) in support of the amendment. In my opinion we have had too many restrictions in the past, not only in connection with the Elections Act but in many other directions as well, and for my part I would abolish all such restrictions. However, if that does not meer with the approval of the committee, I think that at all events we should support the amendment which has been submitted. I see no reason why labour organizations should not be permitted to contribute to funds for election purposes. A' present they take an active part in elections, at least to a certain extent, but they are debarred by the act from making any direct contributions to campaign funds, although in some way or other' these contributions are made. Why therefore should not, the act be so worded as to make it perfectly legitimate for these organizations to contribute to political funds? If we removed the present restriction I think it would make for a better class of citizen and would enable men to study with a greater degree of liberty 'he political questions of the day. Furthermore, having contributed to political funds, the individual would feel bound to assume a certain amount of resoonsibility and would consequently take a keener interest in political affairs, to the advantage of the country at large. I trust the committee will see the reasonableness of this amendment, '.vhich cannot possibly do any harm. I would point out that this particular amendment has been asked for by representatives of practically every labour organization in the country. These various bodies have approached the
fMr. Woodsworth.)
government from year to year and have consistently pressed for an amendment to the Elec: ions Act to put this proposal into effect. There are of course certain international organizations which are constitutionally prohibited from associating themselves with political institutions, although their constitution does not. prevent them from contributing to such funds. It seems to me that this amendment should meet with the approval of the committee.	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a good deal of
sympathy with the suggestion put forward in the amendment now before the committee, but I do not see why the privilege should be confined to labour unions. There is no reason why any medical association, any law society or any manufacturers' association or chartered accountants' society, or any other such body should be prevented from exercising the same right. Now, all of this indicates that the original section under discussion which it is proposed to amend in this form is in some measure faulty. Let me quote from the original provision, subsection (2) of section 10:
Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney, or agent of any company cr association violating the provisions of this section, or who a'ds, abets, advises, or takes part in any such violation, and every person who asks or knowingly ' receives any money or its equivalent in violation of the provisions of this section, is guilty of an indictable offence against this act punishable as in this act provided.
In other words, a man who is a shareholder of a company, who has no knowledge whatever of the activities of the officers of that company, is liable to be indicted for an offence if-


An hon. MEMBER:: Knowingly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it does not say " knowingly " in that regard. Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney, or agent of any company or association violating the provisions of this section is guilty of an indictable offence when the company of which he is a shareholder violates the preceding, subsection. He may be living in England. I propose an amendment, and the House will probably accept it. At all events, I submit it to the minister and ask his consideration of it. I move that all the words in section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Section 10 of the said act is hereby repealed.
The effect of that is apparent to the House. We simply strike this section out of the act. It might be suggested that you will open the door wide, but I think bon. gentlemen krow

Elections Act
that where there is design, where there is criminal intent or where there is a determination to contribute funds for political purposes, a way is usually found to do it, and it is far better that it should be done openly, and not in an underhand fashion, than to have it done as it has been done in recent years, in direct contravention of the law and in violation of all sense of decency in many cases. I know of no way in which we can frame that section, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said a moment ago, so that it cannot be circumvented, and it is far better to strike out a clause of that kind than to leave it in the act merely to be evaded.


Ernest Lapointe: I heard some of my
friends on the other side of the House say,
" hear, hear ". I think that they will make a mistake if they accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). There is some reason for a check in regard to contributions for political purposes. If you open the door, I think my friends sitting angularly opposite to me would be the first to suffer. With the door open in this way, it would be very convenient for the big interests, and for people who wanted to influence elections by the free expenditure of money, to do so. There were some reasons for the restrictions which parliament made to the Elections Act in section 10, and I really believe it would be a huge mistake for my hon. friends to accept that amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very much in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Calgary, and I am also in favour of the subamendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
the Minister of Justice is quite right in saying " surely ", because I db not believe in sham, farce and hypocrisy. Is there any hon. member in this House so foolish as to think that contributions are not made to elections funds? Why, of course contributions are made. Is there a single hon. member in this House for example who has not heard the things that were said in regard to what happened in the last election, and who was helped by it and who was hurt by it? Everybody knows it. There is no secret about it. Everybody also knows that this country has yet to find one single prosecution. The law is a dead letter. It is just one of those dead things which bring the law into disrepute. When a government passes a law which it cannot enforce it is to blame,
and I frankly admit that I am just as responsible for it as anybody else when we put on the statute book a law we could not enforce. It has not been enforced, and there is no intention of enforcing it to-day. The Minister of Justice, charged as he is with the enforcement of the laws of the country, has not made a move or a gesture in the way of enforcing it. He could not; it was absolutely impossible for him to do it. This is just simply an amendment which is recognizing conditions as they actually are. After all we want people to take an interest in public business. We want them to have an honest interest in public affairs, if we can get them to do it- I am not sure that the old way which was adopted in England many years ago was not the best way, namely where the people themselves in each constituency fixed the salary of their representative and the country at large paid nothing at all.


Robert Forke: Oh.
'Sir HENRY DRAYTON: The hon. member says "oh", but a,t 'least they were in this position then, that there was a live interest taken in each member. He had to look after his business. He had to be on the job. He was not getting his pay cheque that was O.K.'d whether he did! his work or not. The people in the constituency were looking after him, and unless he was doing what his constituency wanted and looked after his business properly-well if he was anxious about his money he did not get it. However, that is many years ago. We need not go as far back as that to-day. But are we really honest when we say that we want people to take a proper interest in public affairs? After all is not the most immediate interest in public affairs for people believing in some principle, and believing in some policy, to put their hands in their pockets and put up some money, so as- to help to put that policy into effect? That is the whole thing we are considering. It is no good talking about this interest or that interest. I am firmly of the view, Mr. Chairman, that in the best interests of the largest portion of our people, namely our workers, the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Calgary is absolutely right. Why? Because it is the way in which they will take the most immediate interest in public affairs. It is the manner in which they will follow public affairs and the only manner in which they will get ho know something about public affairs. The man who puts up his money follows public affairs. I am in favour of the sub^amendroent.
Elections Act


Arthur Bliss Copp: To a certain extent I am quite in sympathy with what the right hon. leader of the opposition said in regard .to the drafting of the original election law. It was altogether .too stringent in its terms and absolutely impossible to be carried out according bo the letter, I admit. But when it comes to asking to strike out section ten, it does seem to me we are going pretty far towards opening the door to every form of political corruption in the conduct of elections.
Sir HENRY 'DRAYTON: It has nothing to do with that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It has all to do with it.


Ernest Lapointe: Political corporations
would control elections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder how much they controlled the last election.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was a member of the House when the act of 1920 was .passed, and I remember all phases oif this question were thoroughly discussed, and it was thought in the public interest that some restriction should be placed upon the statute books that would as far as possible prevent large .contributions by companies or rich men anxious to control elections.
(Mr. IRVINE: Does the minister seriously say to us that section ten of the act prohibits any rich man or any company from making contributions?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the section would have some deterrent effect upon large companies that might desire to contribute to election campaign funds. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) says that this act is brazenly broken, that men and companies do contribute to campaign funds. That may be so, 'but because .murder or other crimes are committed would be no reason for wiping out our criminal code and giving everyone carte blamche to commit all the crimes in the calendar.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will not the minister admit that in the case of murder and other .crimes an effort is made to enforce the law?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, but if we say to the country at large that no effort will be made by this parliament to have future elections conducted with reasonable honesty, we will be opening the door much wider.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Mr. Chairman, in view af the importance of this section, I would ask the minister to allow it to stand for the time being.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would call the attention of the Minister of Justi6e (Mr. Lapointe) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) to the very wide provisions of section ten, and suggest that under it no contribution for a legitimate purpose is permitted even for the purpose of advertising meetings, renting halls or for any other election purpose. The section goes altogether too far. As to opening the door to abuses, I do not suggest anything of the kind, and I submit that its repeal would not have any such effect. I think the Minister of Justice has overlooked entirely section eighty, which contains very detailed and complete provisison covering bribery and corrupt practices. These restrictions will still remain, and properly so. Under that section any person giving money, promising employment, or making any, gift for the purpose of influencing votes is guilty of a corrupt practice.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That section refers
to how the money is spent, not to how it is contributed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the
harm if it is given and not spent?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon. member
contend that money should be used to buy
votes?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly not.
I say section eighty still prevents any such corrupt practices.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon member contend that section ten prevents any individual from contributing to campaign funds?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In its wording
it certainly does.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Only companies or corporations are prohibited under section ten from contributing to campaign funds.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Chairman, if this
is not a private conversation we should like to hear it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that
ample protection still remains under the stringent provisions of section eighty.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: While I have every
sympathy with the views expressed by the member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), I cannot help feeling that the case is overstated from his point of view. In my opinion section ten does not prevent any individual from contributing to campaign funds for a legitimate purpose. I for one do not wish

Elections Act
to see the door opened. I think the bane of our political life has been big campaign funds, and I was very pleased to see this section inserted in the act of 1920. A similar section, possibly not in such a stringent form and therefore not as effective, was contained in the former Elections Act. As members of this House, I do not think we should countenance the contribution of campaign funds by incorporated companies or associations, or even farmers' associations, because individually people are not prohibited under section ten from contributing, and that is as far as we should go. If anything, we should tighten up the Elections Act in regard to campaign funds and their use. I have always felt very strongly on the subject and I am not inclined to allow the door to be opened.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Chairman, I have no
hesitation in supporting what has been said by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). Under section ten there is not the slightest question that individuals can lawfully contribute towards election expenses; and if any further proof that this is the correct interpretation of the section were required, it would only be necessary to refer to subsection (e) of section seventy-nine of the act, where the candidate's agent has within two months to make a return, and in that return he has to set out the following:
(e) all money, securities and equivalent of money received by or promised to the official agent from the candidate or any other person, for the purpose of expenses incurred or to be incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, naming every person from whom the same may have been received or by whom such promise was made, showing as to each sum whether it was received or merely promised, whether in money or otherwise and whether as contribution, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise.
There can be mo doubt whatever that individuals can make these contributions. But I certainly agree with what has been said, that if you do not interfere with the other provisions of the act, particularly section eighty -dealing with bribery, treating, undue influence, personation, and so on-money so received cannot be lawfully used, and you get your protection there. The Minister of Justice may be correct in stating that if you strike out'seetion ten you permit incorporated companies or associations to make contributions, but they must be lawful contributions nevertheless-the only thing it would enable them to do that they cannot do now so long as that section stands. It would have that ellect. It goes without saying that it does not interfere with the right of individuals to contribute to campaign funds.


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody denies that.


William Alves Boys: I do not suggest that you do
for one moment. Nor would it open the door to bribery or to anything of the kind. It would only allow incorporated companies or corporations to make contributions if they decided it was proper to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: No one has denied that
individuals have a perfect right to help candidates, but there are conditions that control the way in which they may do so, and, as my hon. friend has stated, there is a section of the act that compels the agent of the candidate to give the names of the persons who have advanced money for legal purposes. Everything is in the open. But section ten is not for that purpose. Section ten is to have a check and a control on big campaign funds contributed by big corporations and wealthy companies for the purpose of influencing elections in Canada. This section has been put in the act for that purpose, and I am afraid that this parliament would do something which it would have cause to regret later if section ten were repealed from the act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to ask a
question because I think there has been a misapprehension in some quarters in regard to this act. I know it has been thought that a political party or a candidate could not collect funds with which to carry on an election unless they were incorporated by act of parliament, either provincial or federal. I want to ask this question:	Is it not true that after
a candidate is nominated and he appoints his official agent, that official agent has authority to collect funds from individuals to carry on that candidate's election if it is done legally? We have the chief electoral officer here to advise us.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Certainly. Private individuals
can contribute; there is no question about that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And you do not have
to be incorporated and get a charter as a political association in order to collect funds.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not from individuals.'


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I know for a fact that
in large sections of this country constituencies and candidates have gone to a lot of what I considered needless expense. I consulted a lawyer in whom I had every confidence before I consented to run as a candidate, and he told me we could go ahead under this act without being incorporated. We never
Elections Act

became incorporated as a political association, and do not expect to. I wanted to have it made clear that that is unnecessary, although it has been thought necessary by many, that in order to collect funds you have to become incorporated.


William Irvine: Did any farmers' union locals contribute to your election expenses during the last campaign?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, they never did,
and we do not want them to. Any individual who saw fit to contribute to my election expenses was free to do so, and I want to say right here that my expenses were largely paid by my constituents in both elections. One of the conditions I made when I accepted the nomination in 1919, when this act was not in force, was that every man's name should be taken who gave even ten cents, that a record should be kept of every contribution, a receipt taken for every expenditure made, and that when the election was over the accounts should be audited and published in the local papers, which was done, and I think it was the first time it had -been done in Canada, because it was not required to be done under the act at that time. I went further and said that if I found one cent had been spent for anything except the legitimate expenses of my election I would resign my seat, that while I would consider it the highest honour in the gift of the people of any constituency to elect me to parliament I would disdain to sit in a seat that cost a dollar illegitimately spent to put me there. Therefore I am in a pretty strong position to say I do not want the door opened under this act.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am quite sure the
farmers' clubs in all parts of Canada, and certainly in my riding, have found this section a very great hardship. It meant we had to incorporate for political purposes. It meant that our clubs as such could not contribute to campaign funds. The money had to be contributed by individuals, and a record was kept of who those individuals were. Many of the clubs had sums of money, not large, it is true, some $150, and others lesser amounts, which they would gladly have contributed to the campaign fund had they legally been able to do so, but they were unable. I feel that we are quibbling over this thing. If all the people of Canada who hated this section were here, I feel sure it would not take long to get rid of it.
I want to say here quite frankly I believe in class organization, and class representation in the houses of parliament. I think there 
is not any use in trying to stem the current that is carrying us on, and if we can honestly and above board make it as easy as possible for different organized groups to contribute to campaign funds, we are not standing iD the way of progress, but rather aiding it, and for that reason I am in hearty support of the subamendment.


William Irvine: I want to make myself
clear to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). I was not suggesting at all that his election funds were improperly raised. I merely wanted to point out that if he had used his organization to contribute he was in error and was liable to punishment. In the west we used the organizations. Supposing I had to drive over two hundred miles to collect 25 cents from two hundred farmers; why, it would cost me a fortune.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My people gladly sent
the m-oney in.


William Irvine: There is no need in building an organization you cannot use. I just wanted to point out to my hon. friend what my idea was in asking the question. I did not want to suggest that his funds were raised improperly at all.


William Charles Good: I think the main thing is to
secure publicity. I fancy from what the hon. member for South Sim-coe IMjr. Boys) has vread from the act, that that is fairly well secured under section 79. I do not care whether the Manufacturers' Association or any other organization contributes for campaign purposes so long as we know who it is that is contributing, and what is the amount. While the purpose for which section 10 was placed here is no doubt a good one, I do not think it is effective or of any use, as far as I can see, and I would just as soon run chances on getting rid of it and try it out, so long as we have the publicity.


Ernest Lapointe: You would never get
the publicity.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order. Six hon. gentlemen on the other side have entered the chamber and I do not think they know -what the question is.


George Newcombe Gordon: They have a right to enter in committee but not when the House is sitting and the question has been put.


Ernest Lapointe: Read the rules.
Subamendment (Mr. Stevens) negatived: Yeas, 42; Nays, 53.
Amendment (Mr. Irvine) negatived: Yeas, 44; Nays, 52.

Elections Act
On section 4-Appointment of returning officer.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: Before proceeding with section 4 I wish to move an amendment as section 3A. This amendment has reference to section 12 of the act, which declares that no team, carriage, cart, vehicle, and so forth, can be hired by a candidate or his agent for the purpose of conveying electors to or from the polls. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) declare a few moments ago that in the application of the Elections Act he does not believe in shams. The Secretary of State has said that this law might be too stringent, but I submit to the committee that section 12 as it exists is practically impossible of application. That was the situation when only men were allowed to vote; it will be more difficult of application now that women also have the right to exercise the franchise. I ask hon. members who have had experience in electioneering whether or not outside of their own knowledge-because had they known it they might have been disqualified -it is not the practice for friends to hire cabs, wagons, automobiles, and so on, to carry electors to the polls on election day. It will be said, perhaps, that this provision of the law has been on the statute book for a long time. For the information of those who might find relief in the length of time this provision has been in force, I would like to state that it was enacted in 1874. At that time the English electoral law declared that it was not illegal to convey electors to the poles. Notwithstanding that-for reasons which we have not to account for now- fifty years ago this provision was embodied in the law. What has been the result of this legislation? I respectfully submit that it has not been carried out and cannot be carried out. It has been more difficult to enforce the law during the past four or five years since the right to vote has been granted to women. Does anyone believe that it is possible for women to get to the polls on the sixth of December, as in the last general election, or on the seventeenth of December, in the election of 1917, without having recourse to sleighs, carriages, or automobiles? And will anyone suggest that all these vehicles are provided by friends absolutely without pay? I do not think so. Well, it is good for those men that have been able to secure vehicles in sufficient numbers to take the electors to the polls, but I think-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I interject one statement? I may. say that in my election we did not pay one cent to .take electors to the polls in any case; it was all done voluntarily.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am quite sure my hon. friend is sincere when he makes that statement, 'but probably payment was made and he never knew it. That is how it is done.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think I can assure my hon. friend that not a cent was paid to anybody.


Jean-Joseph Denis: A person can affirm a positive fact but he .cannot affirm a negative fact. My hon. friend does not know whether that is the case or not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As far as I am aware
that is the case.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If the committee is satisfied to accept the amendment well and good. Otherwise I am not particularly interested. I believe it is practically impossible to convey electors to the polls, especially now since women are voting, without having to hire a vehicle. There is a defect in this section 12 which should be cured at any rate, and that is the last paragraph.


William Alves Boys: I should like to know at what my hon. friend is suggesting an amendment. There is nothing at all before the Chair as far as I am aware.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am presenting an amendment.


William Alves Boys: If my hon. friend will tell U3 what it is we will appreciate his arguments better.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The amendment
which I propose is as follows:
3a. Section twelve of the said act is amended by striking out the concluding sentence thereof and substituting the following therefor:-
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply
(a)	to the bona fide payment by any elector of the usual fare or of a reasonable charge for the conveyance of himself or any member of his family to or from the polling station, or
(b)	to the payment by a candidate or his election agent for the hire of vehicles at the usual rates current in the locality or of the usual fares payable for transport in any public conveyance, provided that the total amount expended by or on behalf of such candidate for such purposes does not exceed a sum equal to five cents for each elector whose name appears on the list of voters for the electoral district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no section 3;
section 3 is cut out.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Then I move to
add it as section 3.
Elections Act


Robert James Manion: Where does my hon.
friend come from? The rate he mentions seems very low.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will give an
explanation. It will be noticed that in the act as at present drafted a man may pay for his own conveyance to and from the polls, but he cannot pay for the conveyance of his wife and family to and from the polls. This was drafted no doubt before the right to vote was given to women. It is quite legal for a man to pay for himself, but not for his wife and family. Therefore, the first part of my amendment desires to secure that right as to the conveyance of the wife and family. The second part of the amendment provides that a candidate or his agent will be able to pay at the usual rates current in the locality for vehicles- to transport electors to the. polls. What amount will be allowed? This is where the five cents for each elector comes in. This may rouse the [DOT] hilarity of members of the committee, but I borrowed it from the English Statutes. If hon. members will read the English Representation of the People's Act, 1918, it will be seen in section 3 or 4, I do not remember which, it is stated that election expenses, outside of other expenses which are declared in the election, shall not be in excess seven pence in the counties and five pence in the boroughs.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Were those the total
elections expenses of a candidate?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: For transportation?


Jean-Joseph Denis: These are travelling expenses. This, of course, does not include the personal expenses of the candidate, the making of the lists and so on, I think this allowance of five cents for each elector i3 a right way to proceed. For instance, where there are 10,000 electors in a constituency, the candidate will have a right to spend $500 in that way. If there are 20,000 electors in a constituency, we understand clearly that the candidate should have a right to spend more than in a constituency where there are 10,000 electors and he will be permitted to spend $1,000 in that way. Of course, the rates maybe lowered or raised. This five cent rate is only tentative. If the committee is of opinion that it should be raised or lowered,' it may do so.


Mr. GOULD:: The proposition which the hon. member has placed before the committee is a question for Price, Waterhouse

and Company, it is so much involved. He might get some three-cent electors to the polls, and he might find the others to be seven-centers. I do not think we require this at all. If people are interested in the election of their candidate and in the public questions of the day, they will go to the polls if facilities are provided by the establishment of polls where they can go. The hon. member mentions the 6th day of December on which the last election was held. That date worked many inconveniences to the people of the prairie provinces. Today I addressed a letter to the Chief Electoral Officer pointing out that in my electoral district there are many people who are obliged to go ten and fourteen miles to the polls. When the election is held in cold weather, such as the 6th day of December means in western Canada, one can readily understand how impossible it is in many cases for women particularly to go those long distances in order to record their votes. The question was not one of hiring rigs to take the people to the polls but rather one of providing polls in which the people could record their votes. If the hon. gentleman would suggest an amendment to the act which would provide more polling facilities for the people, it would be better than asking for a license for the expenditure of money. The people themselves should be interested enough in public questions and in their candidate to go to the polls and record their approval or disapproval of the various candidates, rather than wait at home in the hope that someone will come to take them to the poll and, perhaps, to record their vote in favour of the person with the first rig that comes along to take them to the poll.
Amendment (Mr. Denis, Joliette), negatived.


Mr. NEILL:: I have an amendment which, I think, will come in at this point. I move to amend Bill No. 148 by inserting a new section to be known as section 3:
Section 15 is amended by striking out subsection (1) and inserting the following:
' The afternoon of polling day shall be a general public holiday in Canada."
1 may explain to hon. members that the afternoon on polling day begins at noon. This is an amendment which, I think, ought to meet with some support from the members from Calgary and Winnipeg, as it has been a constant demand by the Trades and Labour Council of Canada in every occasion of late years when they have met the government. The present section, as every hon. member knows, reads:

Elections Act
Every employer shall, on polling day, allow to every elector in his employ at least two additional hours, other than the noon hour for voting-
And it goes on to say that he shall make no deduction from his pay. There is more than one objection to that. One is where there are comparatively large bodies of men employed, a feeling grows up-perhaps it is founded more on apprehension than on experience-that it is not good form to take those two hours off because, if the boss does not want them to go and they insist, when dull times occur, they will be the first to have their services dispensed with. He will not say to them: I will fire you if you take those two hours off. He will say: We are very busy and I hope no one will take advantage of this time to go and vote. I do not know that this has been abused, but there is that feeling amongst the workers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon. member not think he is opening the door to just the same difficulty by making a longer time? Is the employer not just as likely to say that the man who takes half a day will be laid off as in regard to the man who is going to take only two hours off?


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member had
allowed me to finish my argument, he would have found that that objection was met. Let me take another instance. There are factories that work upon what might be called "sequence" labour. I do not know the exact term. There may be a shoe factory with a dozen operatives on machines
11 p.m. working on one part of the shoes and further on another dozen operatives on machines in connection with another part that require the supplies created or handled by the first section. If two or three of the first crowd take two or three hours off, the remaining machines that are, so to speak, behind them, will be more or less idle, and the whole factory will be more or less shut down. That makes it objectionable from the point of view, of course, of the employer in the factory. Then again the old act required that employers should be put into the position of paying their men to go and vote. There are many men who object to that. They say that they do not want someone else to pay for their time while they go and vote. They are quite willing to stand the loss. I meet here the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Leeds) who said it would be more objectionable. If in accordance with my suggestion, you make the half day a public holiday, then no one will be paid. They will have to take a half day off because
it will be a public half holiday, and the men will have enough time to go and vote.


Charles Gavan Power: What will the penalty be in case any employer wants his men to work and the men do work and draw pay?


Alan Webster Neill: If the laws of Canada enact
a public holiday no one is allowed to work.


Charles Gavan Power: And what is the penalty?


Alan Webster Neill: I must refer the hon. gentleman to the Criminal Code or to the act regarding public holidays to find that out. As the law stands to-day, two or three men may simply insist on going and then they are marked men. The public holiday would-be general; everyone would be free to go in his own time, not being' paid by anyone to do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. member not
fear that if he made it a public half-holiday the deputy returning officers and election clerks might quit work at noon?


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend's question is
in line with the argument he advanced a few hours ago when he proposed to closure all amendments to the act. In introducing the amendment I had not in view either the factory worker or the employer but rather the class of people whom I represent, namely, rural workers; and in case the amendment I have suggested is defeated I have another to offer. In sparsely populated sections of the country it is impossible apparently, judging from the experience of the past, for many of the electors to get to the polling stations in two hours time. In the district I represent there are about 125 post offices; and every post office has a nucleus of population around it, or it would not be there. Yet in that district there were only seventy-five or seventy-six polling stations established, and in many cases men and women were compelled to walk or to proceed the best way -they could, in row-boats and launches, five, ten and twenty miles. Let me quote a sentence from a letter I have received, which is typical of various others that have reached me:
With the next federal election in view, wouldn't it be possible to have a polling station nearer here? It is sixteen miles from here to where we voted. Last federal election we had sixteen voters here but only one vote was cast as the rest of the voters wouldn't walk the distance.
I would certainly not ask anyone to walk sixteen miles to vote for me and still less for my opponent, and it is cases of that kind which I think we should make some provision for. The polls should be more frequent and where they are not, then at least men and women should be given a chance to get to the polling
Elections Act

station in ample time to vote. No man Should be expected to leave his work, with the risk of losing his job, in order to vote. I can sincerely say from my own personal knowledge that there were blocks of from twenty-five to a hundred voters who were obliged to travel ten, fifteen and twenty miles to the polling station in my constituency. A logging camp, for instance, is some ten miles from the polling station and the only means of access is by boat. The men knock off two hours earlier at night to comply with the law and by the time they have had supper they are too late to vote when they get to the station. If the boss is a good natured man he may give them the use of his launch; if not the men cannot get to the poll. I would be willing to have the half-holiday' apply only to rural polling divisions if it were felt that such a provision was not needed in the towns.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I think that the
law as it stands at present is adequate. In the two hours allowed for working people to go and vote there is no reason why everybody should not be able to get to the polling station and vote. I have not the least doubt that in two hours it is possible for any elector to vote, and for that reason I shall support the bill as it stands.


William Irvine: The hon. member suggests
that two hours is ample time in which to vote. I gather from that statement that the hon. gentleman has not been much associated with labour people. Let us see how this two hour period works out. Sometimes working men are an hour's ride away from the polling booth and often the Liberal party machine will so organize things that they have from twenty to thirty voters coming into the poll at the moment the working men arrive. Then there will be officers inside the booth swearing every man that comes up to vote and contriving to lose the Bible, so as to consume time and doing all sorts of things to keep the working men back. I have seen two hundred men standing in line outside the polling booth when the poll closed. These had to return to their homes without voting at all because of this practice, and I have seen Liberals swearing old men of seventy to make sure they were of voting age. That is how the two hours works.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think there is much in
the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Neill). I know that in many instances the two hour rule works a real hardship particularly on working men. I have in mind the situation in my own city where men working in offices and shops five miles from Cal-
gary are obliged to take the street car to get in and consequently many of them are deprived of the opportunity of recording their vote. Especially is this the case where men live in places remote from the city. While the law does provide a two hour interim in which working people shall be allowed to vote, that law is honoured: more in the breach than in the observance. I know of a very strong and wealthy corporation, known to every member of this House, who give the men an hour to vote in, and if they cannot vote in that time they need not vote at all. We should be particularly careful to see that every man who wants to vote gets the opportunity to do so, and I know of no way by which that can be better ensured than by the method proposed by the hon. member..


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Is it the intention of the mover of the amendment that the half-holiday shall extend to all the schools throughout the country?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I think it should.
In the province from which I come it is the custom during provincial elections to give the half-holiday and it appears to me to be a good custom. The children get it into their minds that there is something of interest going on and even though they may not be able to understand the questions of the day, in a few years they will be grown up, and this tends to bring them up in an atmosphere of interest in the affairs of the country. I support the amendment even though it does not apply to the schools, as I think it should.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not intend it to apply to the schools but I am informed that as a public holiday it would.


John Livingstone Brown: I am in favour of the
amendment for much the same reason as I am opposed to the one introduced by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis). It throws the responsibility on the electors themselves. I have always taken the position that men who vote ought to do so in their own time as citizens, but at the same time it is desirable that no employer should 'be allowed to prevent any man from casting his vote. Evidently the two hour provision is inadequate, and for that reason I am strongly in favour of the amendment. It requires the individual to do it in his own time and at his own expense. On the other hand, it prevents an employer putting any obstacle in the way of the employee exercising his franchise.

Elections Act


Levi William Humphrey: I desire to say a word
in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in so far as it affects the districts with which I have come in contact. In some parts of this country we have not proper facilities for transportation. Some parts of the western country are not blessed with good roads. Some parts of that country have no means of transportation except by waterways, or by means of isolated railways. This has created a difficulty in some parts of the Dominion because two hours has not proved sufficient for the voter to go to the polls and vote. In that way a good manj' have been deprived of the privilege of exercising their franchise, and I feel that by extending the time to half a day they would be able to record their vote, a privilege which they should be entitled to.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) agreed to: Yeas, 54; nays, 32.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Appointment of returning officers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like some explanation as to what the change means. We should not pass these clauses too quickly. I think the section that is proposed to be struck out should be read and also the section taking its place.


George Newcombe Gordon: The practice is to read the marginal notes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister explain the amendment?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Sections 22, 23 and 24 are
replaced by new sections, making very little change. Section 22 provides that the returning officer shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. This provision is changed and the returning officer is appointed by the Secretary of State. That is the only difference.	.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then there is another feature, is there not, that the election officer is more or less a permanent official? At the present time he is not appointed until after the election is declared. Under this clause he is mor^ or less a permanent officer.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the minister
think it advisable to make his term longer?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Robert James Manion: What was found wrong
with the past system where the returning officer
was appointed after the writs were issued? What necessitated the change?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The explanation by the Chief Electoral Officer reads as follows:
That in Canada a general election campaign lasts more than four times as long as in Great Britain is in no way due to geographical considerations, and only in part to the fact that in Canada the lists of voters are prepared during the campaign while in Great Britain they are prepared semi-annually whether or not an election is held. It is to the practice followed in the appointment of returning officers that most of the difference is due. In Great Britain the person who is to act as returning officer in each constituency is fixed by statute or custom; this was once generally the case in Canada, but for many years the selection of returning officers has been made only when the election has been decided upon. If the former Canadian and present British practice were reverted to, the length of the compaign in Canada would be reduced by about half, and the administration of elections would at the same time be greatly improved since prospective returning officers would have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with their duties and districts in advance of the pressure of administrative business.


Robert James Manion: This is for the purpose of shortening the time between dissolution and an election. How long will it take after dissolution before the election officer would be appointed?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It would take forty-five days.


Robert James Manion: It was previously sixty
days.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It is now fifteen days less.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can sec some advantages in this provision and some disadvantages. I can see some disadvantages for everybody except the party in power. It will enable the government to bring on an election on shorter notice than could be done at the present time. I think we have all more or less felt that disadvantage at different times in carrying on election campaigns.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The time is too long now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The party in power
usually has all the advantage anyway. They have all their ammunition ready and the opposition very often have to procure a new candidate, sometimes someone who has never been in politics before. Possibly that is fortunate for him, because he will not have so many sins to answer for. But he has less time to get his organization in shape and run an election.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is forty-five days too short?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, from the time the election is declared, because they have to call a convention. It is possible to have an election sprung on the people without notice at all. I do not think any of us will be surprised
Elections Act

if we have an election this fall, and if the parties do not prepare for it they will have themselves to blame.


Ernest Lapointe: That has been suggested already.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under this section they will have only .fortydive days to hold their convention, select their candidate, form their organizations and so on. It will be some task. In my constituency we had two representatives previous to 1917. They felt it quite a task to run an election in each county.	At the present time these two
counties form a very large constituency- Victoria and Carleton. I think every constituency in New Brunswick is in pretty much the same position. At one time we had eighteen, to-day we have only eleven ridings. They have grown in area from time to time. I think any man who will undertake to organize a campaign on thirty days' notice will find it very difficult indeed in some of our very large constituencies. For that reason I should like to see some provision made so that the time between dissolution and the date of the poll will not be shortened.


Mr. FORTIER:: Do you want a year's
notice?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, reasonable notice.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I agree
with the member for Victoria and Carleton. This country is just about as different from England as could well be conceived. We have no compact little ridings that can be covered in a very brief time and in which organization can be kept going right along, as is possible over there. At the last general election, in order that no one could complain of surprise, three months' notice was given, Two months is certainly not too much. For ridings especially which are large and where all the various preparations have to be made, of which any opposition knows nothing in advance, two months certainly is not too long a period. There is nothing to complain of here. While I am on my feet, may I point out to the government that they are forgetting their professions once more. I can recall how their sensitive consciences were shocked frightfully when this section in its original form was passed. They described as a gross system of party patronage the fact that the Secretary of State appointed the returning officers, and insisted that it be done by the Civil Service Commission. How is it that they have not the commission mentioned here?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who insisted upon that?


Arthur Meighen: The Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Never.


Arthur Meighen: My memory is quite
distinct on the point. This House was aflame with indignation on the part of members of the Liberal party that the government would appoint the returning officers, and they demanded that the appointments be made by the Civil Service Commission so there would be no party patronage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Never in the
world.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister's
memory is short.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say never.
My right hon. friend is mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: No, the Prime Minister
is mistaken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend mean to say that this government demanded that returning officers be appointed by his appointees on the Civil Service Commission when he was in power?


Arthur Meighen: Not this government;
but the Liberal party when in opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knows it never did-he ought to at. least, if he does not.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister's
indignation, I suppose, is easily accounted for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I' contradict
my right hon. friend flatly, and I ask him to give evidence to prove his assertion.


Arthur Meighen: I remember the indignation of the Liberal party that the government should appoint its own returning officers; scores of members behind the Prime Minister know it too; there is no question of doubt, about it. Now, I object to this facility for rushing on a surprise election. I do not say that the holding of an election this fall would be a surprise. I am not going to complain. Let them go to the electorate as soon as they like as far as I am concerned, and as far as the country is concerned too. But in this Dominion where our distances are so great there should be at least sixty days' notice of an election. I do not ask for more, I do not ask for so long notice as we gave in 1921, but I say it is only reasonable that there should be no facility provided whereby an election can be brought on in less than sixty days.

Elections Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What section of the
act governs the length of notice that must be given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The chief electoral officer tells us that under the act as it stands it will take three months, and I am led to believe-


Arthur Meighen: Two months.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING.:	No, three
months under the act as it stands.


Arthur Meighen: We got an answer just
now that it will be two months under the act as it stands, and forty-five days if this section passes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If this passes.


Arthur Meighen: Two months otherwise.
That is what the Secretary of State said just now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe I
am absolutely correct in saying that my right hon. friend found to his surprise when the general election came on that it would take three months to carry it out. Everybody knows my right hon. friend said there would be a dissolution in August; he told the country there would be an election then. We were kept campaigning through September, October, November and December, and the country was in a state of turmoil, to the disadvantage of the country and most of all to the disadvantage of my right hon. friend. I think he assumed at the time that if he had an opportunity of traversing this country from one end to the other he would win candidates in every seat, but he came back with a following not as large in numbers as the ministers he had when he went to the country. Forty-five days is the shortest time within wThich a general election can be arranged under- this act. It does not say that fortyffive days will be the time, it may be two months, it may be longer; but the government does feel it is in the public interest and in the interest of the candidates that the country should be spared these interminable periods of turmoil which work to the disadvantage of business generally and to the advantage of no one in particular.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what is
the matter with the Prime Minister to-night. His mind seems to be in a turmoil. He says I announced a general election in August.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You did, you
stated there was to be an election that year.


Arthur Meighen: An election in August!
Never in the world.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend intimated in August that there would be an election that year. The election came on in December, as he well remembers.


Arthur Meighen: What I understood the
Prime Minister to say-I suppose I was wrong in this-was that I had announced there would be an election in August.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: I did not announce in
August that there would be an election; it was the first day of September.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last day
of August.


Arthur Meighen: No, the first day of
September. I would not have bothered correcting so narrow a point as that, but I misunderstood what the Prime Minister meant. But I did not then state when the election would be held, and it was many days before the House was dissolved and an election ordered. I do not remember being informed by anybody that it would take three months, but the time was long for the reason that I was anxious that hon. gentlemen of the Liberal party, who found fault with everything, who were always in a state of indignation no matter what was done, would not have cause to complain that they did not have a chance to persuade the electorate.


Charles Gavan Power: We have not had cause to
complain.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not doubt it.
Certainly there was no advantage to the government in the course it took; but that was the reason. I do remember our being advised from time to time in by-elections-I do not remember in the general election, although perhaps we were-that owing to the new act a longer time was needed than before. But the reason the period was chosen was just because there would be plenty of time for the campaign. Now I am willing to accept the definite word of the minister. If the minister will give his word that this is necessary in order that there may be no more than two months, then I am prepared to accept it so far as I am con'eerned. The minister stated that with the act as it is an election could be held in two months-sixty days-but that with the act as amended it could be held in forty-ifive days. I think forty-five is too short; I think sixty is long enough. The Prime Minister stated also that we came back
Elections Act

with less members than we had ministers. Well, I will not take time to reply to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
I said. If my hon. friend will count the members behind him who were returned by majority votes he will find that they are fewer in number than his ministers when he appealed to the country.


Arthur Meighen: What about the Prime
Minister's own following?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They speak for themselves.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Mr. Chairman, if this
little -conflict is over I should like to make a few remarks about the forty-five day period. In the constituency of East Edmonton which I have the honour to represent in this House, leaving the city of Edmonton and going north to the extreme point of the constituency, would take twenty-two days to make the return trip; I might not have that schedule down exactly right, but it is approximately correct. Then going out to . the eastertn border of the constituency would probably take about six days more, so that it would take about twenty-eight days to make the round trip to the extreme ends of the constituency without any allowance for stop-offs whatever. Anyone who conceives of a constituency of that kind will readily realize that forty-five days is not sufficient. There are other constituencies that are about as bad. I think West Edmonton is probably in about the same position. I imagine we probably could function on a sixty-day limit, but I do not think we possibly can on forty-five days.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: )I think the
general understanding of the committee was that the last election covered a period of ninety days because it was really necessary to take that time, and under the amendment at least sixty days would be required to hold an election. Forty-five days comes rather as a surprise to me being a member of that committee. I think forty-five days is too short if you have to hold say thirty meetings. I think it ought to be at least sixty days.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I rather think it is an
advantage to some people that there should be a short term, for I know districts in my constituency that I had not the opportunity of visiting at all, but to which my opponent got, and that is where I got most of the votes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Under the present act I am
informed that sixty days is the shortest possible time after the appointment of the returning officers. The intent of this act is to

have the returning officers appointed in advance. That gives the chief electoral officer an opportunity of forwarding them their instructions, and it gives the officers an opportunity of studying them and making themselves familiar with the act. It is a complicated act, and the returning officers who are appointed are not all lawyers; they are not able to grasp every section of the act as readily as some would do. It is felt that it will be in the interests of the better conduct of the whole election, to have the returning officers appointed in advance and given anj opportunity to etudy their instructions. It may be possible if the returning officers were appointed in advance, to hold the election in forty-five days, but the returning officers have to be appointed, of course, and no doubt it would take longer than forty-five days from the announcement of the election to polling day.


Arthur Meighen: Why so?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It might not, but in all probability it would. So far as my experience goes, forty-five days is a very long time. I would1 much prefer a campaign of thirty days. It was felt, however, that by appointing the returning officers in advance they would be able to perform their work in a better manner, and that is the whole idea of appointing them in advance. If it should shorten up the campaign a few days, I do not think that will do anybody any harm, and it may do some a great deal of good.


Mr. WARNER:: I represent a constituency that is practically 115 miles one way, and 130 miles the other. We have to take in such a big stretch of country in Order to get popu-la'ion enough to have a representative. I think forty-five days would be a little too short. 1 think most members would feel satisfied with sixty days. I do not know that I need to do much electioneering; I got along very well the last time I ran. But I do think forty-five days is too dhort a time to go over a large constituency where a candidate has anything like a hard fight on.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Looking
at most of the constituencies in :he older settled parts, it is not surprising to hear members say that a month is long enough, but in my constituency we require two months. I represent a constituency that is somewhere about 300 by 400 miles.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is it
affected by redistribution?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is
just a little part taken out of the south east

Elections Act
comer. It is practically not affected' at all, because in order to get to the various parts you have to go through that thickly settled area. The population is scattered over a territory that is about 200 miles in each direction. I was wondering-I may be out of order-if it would be possible to arrange in the Peace river and Athabasca constituencies for three weeks between nomination and polling day.


Ernest Lapointe: Two weeks is what
they have now.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We had
two weeks at the last election and we found it impossible to get the votes to Fort Vermilion from Edmonton. There were a number of polls where they did not get the ballot boxes at all. That was the complaint made to me.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend tell me 'how it was done? A few years ago, when his constituency was still larger, the interval between nomination and polling day was only eight days.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It was not done. I do not know of an election there where there was not some complaint about polls having been left without ballot boxes. If the candidate has a majority of one or two thousand, a few polls left out does not make much difference so far as the election goes, but in a close election, it may mean that you have to go over the whole thing again. Some of the people at Fort Vermilion felt that they had been left out on purpose. The ballot boxes had to come from Edmonton to Peace river, 300 miles by rail, and then 300 miles overland. That is the reason they did not get the ballot boxes at the last election, and I think that situation ought to be corrected.


Charles A. Stewart: At that very same poll, Fort Vermilion, in the provincial election the interval before polling day was only twenty-three days, and only seven days between nomination and polling day.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The last
Dominion election was held in December, and about that time the rivers are pretty difficult to travel on. It might be done in a week, but it is risky. I do not think it is fair to the people, and it certainly is not fair to any candidate who1 is running a campaign in a constituency of that kind, because it puts him in a position where he might have to go over the whole thing again, and it is bad enough to have to do it once.


Robert James Manion: I find myself in agreement with the remarks of the last speaker for the reason that in very large constituencies it is often very difficult within a short time to have the proper regulations carried out. I well remember in my own constituency when is was larger than it is now they used very often to have to postpone the election until after the regular elections had been held. It was a delayed election, and certainly it was not a fair method of carrying on an election contest. At the present time that is not the case. But in the last election, as mentioned by the hon. gentleman, because of the shortness of the time between nomination day and election day there was great danger of the election being postponed. However, to get back to the question it would appear to me that sixty days in a country with such large areas as we have here and a small population, would be short enough because of the immense size of some of the constituencies. After all, an election is supposed to be held for the purpose of fairly testing the view of the people of the country as to which party should be in power, and as to which policy should be followed. It is true that in the past all parties have taken advantage of the fact that they were in power, and have used the advantage of surprise, or whatever advantage of that nature is given to the government, but at the same time I think that sixty days is quite short enough for an election to be held in this country. In fact, after a good deal of thought, I have come to the conclusion, that it would probably be wise to follow the same system that is in vogue in some other countries and have a fixed day for the election, say every four years. In that way we should know exactly when the election would1 take place. I really believe that any proposition that would shorten the election period below sixty days would not be advantageous to the country at large.


Ernest Lapointe: In the first place I
think this change should be considered on its merits without having regard to the shortening of the election period. I think everyone will agree that it is better to get officers who are appointed in advance, who will have time to familiarize themselves with the election law and with the instructions which are sent them by the Chief Electoral Officer and who have agreed to act as returning officers. I understand that the main trouble encountered by the Chief Electoral Officer, is that some of the men who are recommended to him as returning officers refuse to accept the ap-

Elections Act

pointment, and he has to communicate with those who made the recommendation to have other men suggested and he finds it difficult to get people to replace the first nominee. I know a case in the district of Quebec that happened at the last election where a gentleman had been recommended by a candidate of the party in power who took some time to act in any way and finally refused to act. A second gentleman was recommended and communicated with and he also refused to act. The consequence rvas that the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer had to go himself into the constituency, find a man there, and appoint him. Otherwise the election would not have been held on the same day. I understand that the delay during the last general election was largely due-entirely due I thought-to the fact that for weeks returning officers could not be found and appointed for every constituency in Canada and the writs could not be issued. My right hon. friend shakes his head, but my intimation comes from those who were making the appointments at the time. It took weeks before all the constituencies had a returning officer appointed, and the writs could not be issued until this was done. Does any gentleman in this House say that is a good system?


Arthur Meighen: If, as the Secretary of State has said to-night, it can be done in sixty days, where is the harm, where is the danger?


Ernest Lapointe: It might be done in
sixty days if the Chief Electoral Officer finds no difficulty in the appointment of returning officers in every constituency, but if he meets with difficulties it will take more than sixty days.


Robert James Manion: What would prevent the Chief Electoral Officer, without this provision at all, being in communication with men whom he .might appoint as deputy returning officers?


Ernest Lapointe: He does not appoint
them; the 'Governor General in Council appoints them. Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact that an election can be held, everything being satisfactory for that purpose, within forty-five days, does not mean necessarily that forty-five days will be the .period of delay in each election. There is nothing to prevent the writs from being issued and a longer delay given.


Arthur Meighen: Will the government undertake that sixty days will! be given?


Ernest Lapointe: Why should the government undertake that?


Arthur Meighen: Then we will know what bo do a good deal easier.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I interjeot that I represent a riding that has five members in the provincial legislature. It is quite a different matter for five members to cover the constituency than it is for me alone..


Lucien Cannon: How long does it take to hold the general elections in Great Britain?


Ernest Lapointe: About two weeks now on the average.
.Mr, GARLAND (Bow River): That is no
comparison at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Public opinion in this country is quite awake now, and people are reading the newspapers. Some hon. gentlemen argue as if nobody in their constituency knew anything about public affairs, and that they haive to meat every man in the riding; otherwise the campaign is not conducted properly. I do not think that the period can be shorter than forty-five days, 'but, as I say that does not necessarily mean that the period will not be longer than forty-five days. It is certs inily best to have men who are appointed permanently, and who have had the advantage of studying and considering t'be law and the duties they will have to perform when the election comes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will concede what the Minister of Justice has said about the advantages of having these men appointed. 1 do not think anybody in this House would abject ito having these men appointed as indicated. If the government will give us an assurance that they will not bring an election on under sixty days we will all be well satisfied to pass this section. But I for one think

Elections Act
it comes with very poor grace from a member representing a city constituency to say that a man who cannot carry on his campaign in forty-five days is not qulalified to run as a candidate at an election.


Ernest Lapointe: I have represented a rural constituency for fifteen years and I have always conducted my election in forty-five days.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Possibly it could be
done if a great many of us had the ability to ca-mjpaign that the Minister of Justice has. But even the rural constituencies in Quebec are more thickly settled usually than any other parts of Canada.
Mr. CASGiRAIN: No, they are not, they
are very sparsely populated.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: An hon. member with a constituency eight 'hundred miles long needs more than forty-five days. I recognize at once the advantage of having these officials appointed in the manner indicated, and I should like to see it done. I should like some assurance that the government would not, because of this, bring an election on with forty-five days notice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The only
point at issue is whether or not is it desirable to have permanent returning officers in this country. That is the only question affected by this clause. The Chief Electoral Officer informs me that the last election was delayed for quite a long period by reason of a number of returning officers who had been appointed in the first instance, resigning and refusing to carry on. As a consequence, the issue of the writs had to be delayed. As the appointing power of the returning officers' is vested in the Governor General in Council, what possible objection can there be to having a permanent list of returning officers so that, in the case of a vacancy occurring either by death or otherwise in that list, it may be filled up? Then if a byelection comes on, the machinery is there ready to proceed. That is all the proposition that is involved in this clause. There may be in the country constituencies where it is difficult in fifty days to get over all the territory included. I think everybody in the committee will agree that at the last election those three months were the longest three months that one ever took part in an election campaign.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We had a jolly time.
292i


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know I
became very tired before the election was over, and although I was successful I wished the election had taken a much shorter time. As I have often taken part in elections, I might be pardoned for being tired after having gone through such a long period of campaigning. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has pointed out, the country is pretty well informed on issues of that kind. There is no desire on the part of the government to shorten up matters at ail or to prevent members or candidates from getting to their constituents. But this is in order to avoid the unnecessarily long period that was occupied in having the last election by providing that we Shall have returning officer? with whom the Chief Electoral Officer can communicate at all times, whom he can inform in regard to his duties, to whom he can give the material to keep it at hand, so that the returning offioer can send it out immediately on receipt of a telegram, instead of the Chief Electoral Officer having to transmit all that to a person whom he does not know, whom he never heard of and who probably was never thought of in regard to carrying on the work of a returning officer. That is all that is involved in this proposition. I am quite sure this proposal is not made with the idea of depriving any hon. member of his right or opportunity of visiting his constituency It will facilitate the carrying on of an election. Everything will go along in a much smoother and more businesslike fashion, and you will have returning officers who will know what they have to do and will be prepared to do it when the time comes.


William Alves Boys: The Minister of National
Defence says that the only thing involved in this clause is the appointment of returning officers in accordance with it. Does it not shorten the period from sixty days to forty-five days? Unless that point is taken care of in some way, his statement is not accurate.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: How is that?


William Alves Boys: We have been told by the
Secretary of State that the shortest time heretofore is sixty days, and that if this amendment goes through, it will be forty-five.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That means that an election might be held in less time than sixty days. It may not be forty-five days because difficulties may arise.
Elections Act

Mr. BOY'S: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I do not think he was in when the statement was made. If I am wrong I can be corrected at once. I say that the Secretary of State told us-and I have no reason to doubt his statement-that the shortest time at present is sixty days and that if this amendment is passed, the shortest time will be forty-five days.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The shortest time may be forty-five days. That does not necessarily mean that it is going to be a forty-five day election, because any government, having dissolution and fixing the date of an election, would necessarily have regard to the conditions of the time in order that every part of the country should get proper notice and be prepared. My hon. friend would not want to have it in the statute that there should be sixty days between the issue of the writs and the date of the election.


William Alves Boys: What I rose for was to point out that the passage of this clause involves more than the clause itself provides for. I quite agree that the clause deals only with returning officers; but the Secretary of State says that it involves a change from sixty days to forty-five days.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the
hon. member agree with the idea that there should be permanent returning officers?


William Alves Boys: Yes. But I suggest with that that some clause should be inserted in the act ensuring a lapse of sixty days instead o*f forty-five days which will be the result under this clause.


Donald Sutherland: One feature has been overlooked in this matter. It is quite evident that some old, experienced campaigners would prefer a shorter campaign, bu.t what about the new nominee who has had no 12 m. election experience and who has to acquire it during the campaign? I think, in that case, sixty days will be quite short enough. There will be and always are a number of inexperienced campaigners taking part, very often up against old, experienced campaigners. In that case it is a very great handicap for the inexperienced candidate.


Arthur Meighen: On what date were the
writs issued in 1921?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The 7th or 8th of October.


Arthur Meighen: So in 1921 only sixty
days were given. We have heard a great deal about this three months' campaign. I know the government was reconstituted after the anouncement in London on the 1st September, and the writs were issued about the 7th October. The election was the 6th December.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I have no objection to
the permanent officials, but I have an objection to anything less than sixty days. Would the Minister of Justice tell us how those recommendations for the appointment of returning officers are handed to the Chief Electoral Officer?


Ernest Lapointe: There are appointed by
the Governor General in Council.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am afraid some people
do not understand conditions in carrying on an election in a new country. In my constituency I have places that a man cannot reach with a car at all. In ordinary constituencies that can be done, but in my consituency there are many places where, if I wish to hold a meeting, I have to go twenty, twenty-five or thirty miles with a team on not very good roads.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) So have I.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend tell me what Mr. McIntyre who represented Strathcona during my time and Mr. Douglas did when they had to fight their elections and there were only eight days between nomination and polling day? What has changed in my hon. friend's riding?


Daniel Webster Warner: In some constituencies
candidates can go in cars now where they have thickly settled districts. In those days nobody went in cars and conditions are absolutely different. The man who has to run an election with a team in a good part of his constituency is certainly not on an even footing with a man who can run an election with a car.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to
plead again for the sixty-day period. The Minister of Justice wants to know what has changed. As regards the part of the west that I have lived in for some years, there is a good deal more interest taken in political affairs than was the case ten years ago. It may be growing or it may be getting less, but I think there is a great deal more than there was ten years ago. An hon. member brought up the question of the desirability of giving the people an opportunity to see any new candidate who comes out, and I know that

Elections Act
in my constituency, or in the Peace river district where I have lived, there is no car or vehicle that can take a candidate over the riding in less than two months or even in that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: What kind of roads
have you?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The kind
you would expect in a constituency about half the size of Alberta and with a population of only forty or fifty thousand.


Lucien Cannon: The same as my own constituency.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is purely a selfish attitude on the part of hon. members who are living in old constituencies which have been settled two or three hundred years, with roads and railways in every direction, to suggest that the newly settled districts can be covered in the same time.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member is under a wrong impression. My county is not an old district, it is new; there is a whole lot of settlers in that constituency who are only newly established.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But the size of that constituency does not compare with the size of some of the western constituencies. Anvone who has been in public life for any length of time necessarily has an advantage over a new candidate coming forward and in the interests of the people, who want to hear and see the newcomer, it is only fair that reasonable opportunity should be given them to come in contact with a new candidate who stands for election.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Notwithstanding what has been said by my genial friend opposite (Mr. Boys), I submit that the proposition before the House is only the question as to whether permanent returning officers should be appointed. Further on in the bill there are clauses that deal with the question of the time between the date of nomination and polling day, and any matter relative thereto could then be discussed. I suggest that the committee allow this section to pass with reference to the appointment of permanent returning officers, the advisability of which we all recognize, and take up the other question later on.


Arthur Meighen: We are really on the
subject now, because the only object in amending this section is to enable the election to be brought on suddenly. At the last election we had sixty days and there was no difficulty in appointing the returning officer;
and we can do that again. If the committee is of opinion that sixty days is necessary, now is the time to decide that question. If we leave the law as it is, sixty days must be given, or nearly sixty days at any rate, and I should think there would be no difficulty in that case in having the returning officers appointed.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a fact that at the
last election we had sixty days; but is it not a fact also that it took about fifteen days to get all the returning officers in place?


Ernest Lapointe: More than that.


Arthur Meighen: That does not matter,
because in that sixty days we had time enough to cover the fifteen to which my hon. friend refers and to do all the rest of the work besides.


Charles Gavan Power: But now we are to eliminate that.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and that will enable the contest to be brought on within forty-five days. That is what we do not want. We discussed for a considerable time the question of having to give three months, and that proved to be fudge. All we had to give before was sixty days.


Ernest Lapointe: It has not proved to be fudge in practice.


Arthur Meighen: The writs were issued on October 7.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely; and they
could not be issued earlier because the chief returning officer could not find assistants sooner in each constituency.


Arthur Meighen: The writs were issued
after the government was re-constituted.


Ernest Lapointe: The government did not need re-constituting. But I am pointing out that the returning officers were not all there.


Arthur Meighen: The returning officers
could not be appointed until the writs were issued.


Ernest Lapointe: They were issued when
the chief returning officer was sure of being able to secure a returning officer in each constituency.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; he could not act until the writs were issued.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure
we are all anxious to make progress on this bill and I would suggest-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, give ua
one story and stick to it.
Elections Act


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the judgment of the committee is that it is desirable that there should be permanent returning officers. As to the time that should elapse between the issuance of the writs and election day, I would point out that section 21 of the bill will afford hon. members an opportunity to discuss any matters relating to that question. In the meantime, I would suggest that the committee accept this section. with the proposal to have permanent returning officers appointed, so that we might have men who would know their duties. Why not accept that proposal now and take up later on, as I have suggested, the question as to the time between the issuance of the writs and polling?	'


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would propose, in
keeping with the suggestion made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, -Pictou), that we allow sections 22, 23 and 24 to stand until we have disposed of section 21. If we can get section 21 so framed as to give sixty days between the issuing of the writs and the holding of the election, then we shall be able to deal with section 22 without difficulty. We are all agreed, I think, that it is advisable to have permanent returning officers appointed so that not only might we have men who at all times would be perfectly familiar with their duties but that we might also provide for any extra subdivisions of polling districts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No matter
what conclusion is arrived at on the question as to the time between the writs and the election, I think that the committee is agreed that it is desirable to have these officers appointed anyway.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, if it does not involve us in other difficulties. I propose that we allow sections 22, 23 and 24 to stand until we have dealt with section 21 which relates to the length of time that must elapse between nomination and polling.
Mr. ARjCHAMBAULT : I do not see how section 22 can affect the question as to the time between the issuance of the writs and the date of the election. There is only one question involved in section 22, and that is the appointment of permanent returning officers.


William Alves Boys: The Minister of National Defence refers me to section 21 and suggests that when we reach that section we can deal with the question we are now discussing. I

do not see how he can make that out. All that section does is to shorten the time from fourteen to seven days between nomination and polling in certain ridings.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the committee might take up under that section the question now being discussed.


William Alves Boys: If we attempted to do that
we should very properly be told that such a discussion had nothing to do with the subject matter of that section.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It seems
to me that the present discussion would be apropos of that section.


George Gibson Coote: Would the government
undertake when we reach section 21 to move an amendment to provide sixty clear days?


Ernest Lapointe: We will consider it.


George Gibson Coote: WThy not decide it now? I
want to speak on behalf of those men who represent large constituencies. I am sure that a lot of members representing the smaller ridings do not realize the difficulties that have to be faced by men in the large constituencies, where forty-five days would not be adequate. I think it is unfair. Some of the constituencies out west are of considerable size; it has been, suggested that some are half as large in area as England. My own constituency embraces 10,000 square miles and it is one of the small ones in Alberta. I am not speaking in my own behalf but in the interests of members representing large constituencies, and more particularly on behalf of the people themselves, who take a real interest in the elections. These people have a perfect right to see the candidate whom they are asked to vote for, and I do not think this would be possible in the space of forty-five days. The government are anxious to make progress, and why should they not agree to amend the section so as to have sixty clear / days. Then we could proceed.


Joseph Archambault: Where does it state in this bill that the delay would be forty-five days?


George Gibson Coote: I think it has been stated by the minister.


Joseph Archambault: Even if this section were dropped, what would prevent them making the delay forty-five days if they wished?

Elections Act


Robert James Manion: Because their Chief Electoral Officer informed the Secretary of State that the shortest time in which they could hold an election was sixty days; but if the permanent returning officers are appointed as this sec ion provides, it would be possible to hold an election in forty-five days. The Secretary of State has made that statement and does not deny it. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer before this bill came up how long it took to hold an election at the present time and he said sixty days; so that at the present time it will take sixty days. Under the proposed amendment to the Elections Act it would take forty-five days. The passing of this section means that the time is cut down to forty-five days.


Lucien Cannon: I am surprised that hon.
gentlemen sitting opposite seem to be very keen to have an elec'ion; but they are not satisfied because the election is not delayed long enough. They are insisting on sixty days. If this government is so bad as they say, why not make the time fifteen days?


Robert James Manion: It would take that long to tell the faults of the government.


Lucien Cannon: Then you must have a
very bad case to explain. In Canada our elections take too long a time. It is bad for business and there is no reason why an election in Canada should last for sixty days. *


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the size of my hon. friend's constituency?


Lucien Cannon: I have twenty-eight parishes, one of the largest constituencies in the province of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: And one of the best.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, and it has a fitting
representative; but if it were possible to shorten elections in Canada so as to prevent business being upset, as it was during the last election, when the present right hon. leader of the opposition was Prime Minister, I think it would be better. My hon. friend announced the election in September, and from September until the very end of December we were electioneering. Why should we in Canada take all this time when an election is carried on in Great Britain within fifteen days?


Robert James Manion: One-thirtieth of the size of
Canada.


Lucien Cannon: But they have 38 million people. I think every member of this House should try and have as short an election as possible. Sixty days is too long, and fortyfive days is too long. We either have a good programme or a bad one. If it is a good one it does not take long to explain, and if it is a bad one you would not win, even if the election lasted ten years.


Robert Forke: The situation seems rather
strange to me, that all the members on the one side of the House want forty-five days and all those on the other side want sixty.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is not quite correct in that. Quite a number have not said a word yet.


Robert Forke: Personally I should like
forty-five days, should I be honoured with a nomination in Brandon again. It is a compact constituency, easily got over, and they are very sensible peoule up there. Therefore I do not think it will be hard to convince t hem the right way. But in deference to those who have larger sections and want more time, I think I would allow sixty days.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is as
fair for one as the other.


Robert Forke: Then why should opinion be so divided in the chamber?


Thomas George McBride: I must agree that sixty
days is about short enough. Some hon. member is talking about representing 10.000 square miles. I have the honour to represent 167,000 square miles. I have never been able to get over all that constituency yet, although I have tried to do so, when I am not down here listening to "hot air."


Mr. LAPIERRE:: I wish to say on behalf of the business men of Canada that forty-five days is sufficiently long for any election campaign. Any of our members who are in business are quite aware that during a campaign business is unsettled, and it is a well known fact amongst business men that an election year is a year of depression in business.


Lucien Cannon: Especially for the candidate.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: It is well known that
the business element of Canada is opposed to long election campaigns. Forty-five days is long enough for anyone to hold a campaign.


Arthur Meighen: In event of the motion to delete this clause being defeated I desire to move an amendment- I do not want to delete the whole of section 4, but I do not want it to carry in its piesent form.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member wish to strike out the subsection?
Elections Act


Arthur Meighen: No, I wish to strike out part of it, not all. I desire to move that that part of section 4 commencing with the word "immediately" and ending with the word " Gazette " fee deleted. If the House is against me on that point, I wish to move another amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I call the attention of the committee to the fact that if the motion of my right hon. friend is accepted we are deleting what everybody has conceded to be an improvement. If my hon. friend is afraid of sixty days, do it in some other way, and suggest a delay shorter than sixty days. In accepting that amendment we are deleting what everybody is satisfied is an improvement. Some hon. gentlemen have claimed that sixty days is necessary. The government will take cognizance of conditions as they exist. I call attention of members of the committee to the fact that this provision will apply to by-elections as well as general elections. Why should you force the government to provide for a delay of sixty days in the case of a by-election in the city of Montreal or the city of Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: There never has been.


Ernest Lapointe: It is absurd.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend says no. He always says no if we assert anything. It certainly applies to by-eleelions.


Arthur Meighen: Did you have sixty days in Yale or Hastings?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: I know you did not.


Ernest Lapointe: If we have the clause reading that sixty days are necessary, it will apply to by-elections.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it not be possible to make the clause apply only to general elections?


Ernest Lapointe: What you are doing just now is to prevent the appointment of permanent returning officers, which has been admitted by everybody to be an improvement.


Arthur Meighen: The solicitude for permanent returning officers is merely the solicitude for forty-five days. If my motion carries, sixty days will be necessary for a general election and approximately forty-five days for a by-election. Sixty days has been shown by [The Chairman.]
experience to be all that is necessary for a general election, forty-five for a by-election. Now, we have got along since confederation that way, we got along in the last election that way. There is no object to be served in the appointment of permanent returning officers except the quick election.


Joseph Archambault: Efficiency.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know why they will be any more efficient.


Joseph Archambault: If the returning officer is named two or three months before the election, he will be in a very much better position to study the act and discharge his duties more efficiently.


Arthur Meighen: He might be in a better position to do a lot of electioneering in his post as returning officer. I do not like any feature of it. I certainly think we are just voting now as to whether we want a brief forty-five day election or a sixty-day one, and no other issue at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The leader of the opposition has not put the question fairly. The issue before the committee at this moment is whether we are to have permanent returning officers who will know their duties and perform them efficiently. If my right hon. friend wants to test the opinion of the committee on the question of time, as I have already pointed out to him, section twenty-one will enable him to do so by moving an amendment on which the issue can be clearly faced.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One great difficulty in voting on the question is that no two members of the government seem to have the same idea about the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They seem to have no idea as to the time or anything else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We kn^w all right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, if their ideas are the same they do not express them in similar terms. The last effort comes from the hon. Minister of National Defence. I would ask him to look at what his cabinet says here

I suppose this precious production is by the cabinet-then he will see that on the page opposite page three the explanation deals entirely with the section having regard to the question of time.

Elections Act


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is
right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the written information given to the House is entirely different from what my hon. friend says. Time here is the whole thing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is not so obtuse that he does not know what I am saying. When we come to the section dealing with time, if he wants to test the sense of the committee that the period be sixty days between the issue of the writ and the election he can move an amendment to that effect,
Mr. MEDGH'EN: If he reads the explanation the government gives he will see that this is the section dealing with time.


Neil Haman McTaggart: How is this sixty day proviso arrived at at the present time, is it a statutory provision?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, ,my vote is going to be decided in a very simple way. I remember that the right hon. leader of the opposition is the father of the War Time Elections Act. Whatever he proposes concerning elections I am against.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the only argument in favour of this bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point urged by 'the Minister of Justice as a reason why section twenty-tiwo should carry. I think it is desirable that opportunity should be given to secure proper men as returning officers in all constituencies, which very often cannot be done on the spur of the moment. But I am also entirely in favour of the suggestion that sixty days is not too long a time having regard to many of our constituencies. It is desirable that candidates have an opportunity to present to their electors the various issues of the election I happen to represent a fairly large constituency, and it means that if it is to be covered about a hundred meetings have to be held. I quite understand that in the older settled provinces of Quebec and Ontario where the constituencies are compact forty-five, or even thirty days, would be quite sufficient to place the issues before the electors, but there are many parts of the Dominion where the geographical considerations make it a difficult task. My hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride) referred to hiis constituency a moment ago, and to his having to travel on three different lines of railway separated by hundreds of miles in order to effectively cover
his riding. Therefore white I support section twenty-two as it stands, when we come later to the section that deals with time, I shall support a olause to fix iit at sixty days.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 'In order to make it dear, I' would suggest that thie committee consider now an amendment to section twenty-one so as 'to dispose of the whole .matter.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived: Yeas, 22; Nays, 78.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that in
the sixth line the words "for one year" shall be deleted, and in their place shall be substituted the following, "until his successor is appointed." The way it is now there would have to be a review of all the returning officers once a year, and in case of an election where the government was defeated, the returning officers appointed by them would be in charge of oil by-elections for another year.


Robert Forke: I think that is right.


Arthur Meighen: All right; we will let
the hon. member support it. There is no reason in the world why if he is appointed for a year he should not be appointed for ten years. I do not know anything we have suffered under the practice up to to-day which would justify us in experimenting with this.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there not this very serious objection to the clause as it stands, that you might have an incompetent returning officer holding office for one year?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a section which gives the Electoral Officer the right to dismiss a returning officer Who is incompetent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That only makes the confusion worse. You have the appointment made by the Secretary of State, and then the Electoral Officer interferes and changes the appointment. After the election starts, the Electoral Officer has jurisdiction and only while the election is in progress.


Ernest Lapointe: May I call attention
to the fact that my right hon. friend, who speaks so strongly against the plague of patronage, is afraid to be compelled to keep a returning officer in office a few months after he might come back to power?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How would his successor
be appointed?
45ts0
Elections Act


Arthur Meighen: The same way this man
is appointed. We do not believe in having a government powerless to move a perfectly incompetent returning officer. We do not believe in having a government appoint returning officers who shall be returning officers under succeeding administrations.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is where I differ
somewhat with my hon. friend. The effect of the amendment is that the returning officer would act for the election and no longer?


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it has
always been.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not what we want.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to
hear some argument why the period is limited to one year. Why put any limit on when you are speaking of these appointments as permanent returning officers? It is not the appointment of permanent returning officers; it is the opposite.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: I have an amendment which
would come in there, and be known as section 4A, I presume. It is to amend section 30 of the main act, subsection (g), by striking out all the words after the word "Act" in the fifth line. This is only a small amendment, and of importance only to British Columbia. I have here a number of amendments I intended to move. There are nine of them, but I am willing to be a good sport and tear them all up if the House will listen favourably to me on this one small amendment. It is a matter in connection with orientals, but I do not intend to take more than ten minutes in dealing with the subject.
It really strikes me as the base of the autonomous rights of British Columbia, or indeed of any other province. I am not going to take any narrow view. I am not going to introduce into the debate any reasons why we in British Columbia do not want the orientals to vote. That is not pertinent to_ the argument. What I submit is this: British Columbia in virtue of powers conferred on her under the British North America Act has legally prohibited orientals from voting in the province. We have a perfect right to do that, just as we have a right to say if we choose that people with red hair shall not vote. That is the privilege of any province, within the province,

under the British North America Act. It has the right to regulate its own franchise. In case there should be any doubt as to the legality of our action in this regard, this act, which was passed twenty-five or thirty years ago, was tested in every court of Canada and finally taken to the Privy Council, the highest court in the empire, and it was there decided we had such a right. So we may start on that premise, that British Columbia has the right to exclude orientals from voting within the province. At the last election it was found that the late government, possibly by inadvertence, in amending the Dominion Elections Act allowed a certain number of orientals to vote under the provisions of this subsection (g). I will just read what I propose to strike out. Subsection (g) provides:
Persons who, by the laws of any province in Canada, are d squalified from voting for a member of the legislative assembly of such province in respect of race, shall not be qualified to vote in such province under the provisions of this act.
Then comes in this proviso which I propose to strike out:
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.
He does not need to have been overseas as long as he has a discharge, nor to have been in a theatre of war, although I admit that a number of them went overseas, and a number of them lost their lives.
I want to tell how we dealt with this in British Columbia. We dealt with it thoroughly and efficiently in 1919. Immediately after the close of the war, there was a Provincial Elections Act going through the local legislature, and a deputation of Japanese returned men came to parliament, practically, asking that they be allowed to vote. They met a committee composed partly of members of the government and partly of members of the House for that purpose, nearly all of whom were returned men themselves, and they went thoroughly into the question. The matter was brought up on the floor of the House, and it was decided unanimously not to grant them the vote. The attitude the returned men took was this:	We admit all we owe to
them but it is not in the interest of the two races that this door shall be opened to them. We are determined to exclude them; we can see nothing but trouble and friction arise by giving way on this point. They said "we owe these men gratitude, we owe them some return, but we will show it in some other way." I may say that as far as the mem-

Elections Act
bers from British Columbia are concerned we have since shown it to them in a very practical -spirit indeed. For years past there has been an agitation to restrict the number of Japanese having a license to fish in British Columbia. I fear that we are represented as being prejudiced in that regard, but what did we do. We provided that in the case of these Japanese returned men any restriction would not apply to them. The consequence is that as time goes on the Japanese will be entirely eliminated from the fishing industry of British Columbia except these returned men. These returned men will for all time as long as they live-and I am rather afraid, after they [DOT]die, because their discharges will be passed on to others-will for all time be allowed the privilege of having a fishing license. The privilege at that time would be worth perhaps $1,000 to-day it is worth several hundred dollars. We have allowed that privilege to them but we have not given it to the white returned men. So we say that British Columbia is not so unmindful of the debt she owes to these men and has provided if not a sufficient recompense, at least a very definite recognition of what they have done. It was desirable to compensate them in some way for what they have done, but it would have been a very bad policy for the future of the province to have given them the vote at that time. I again repeat it was unanimously agreed to by the legislature of British Columbia.
Now, I come to the main point of my argument. I have shown that we have, after [DOT]careful consideration, taken the stand in British Columbia that I have indicated. Now here is the point I want to get at: Having done so I claim that it is automatically the Tight of the province of British Columbia to have those same inhibitions transferred into the Dominion franchise when it has been Tecognized from the time of Confederation *down that the provincial franchise is the basis of the franchise in the Dominion. I could go back ten, fifteen, twenty years, and quote the views of the big men of the various parties, but I will not take up the time of the House in doing so. Blake is on record also Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, the right hon. leader of the present opposition, and last but not least, the present Minister of Justice. They have all gone on record emphatically and in no doubtful language have told us that the provincial franchise is, and must be the only basis and must be [DOT]carried into the Dominion statutes. Now it is a very bitter question in British Columbia, and a very heavy handicap to any party
whose members are in any way connected with the continuing of this position if it is continued. Now I want to address myself not only to the members from the prairies- because their interests are in some sort allied to ours in British Columbia; they are beginning to feel the pinch in some degree as we are-but I want to address myself particularly to the representatives from the province of Quebec for this reason: While their interests are not identical in this regard with ours they are parallel. We live at the opposite ends of this great continent. There is no opportunity for local friction as sometimes arises between Quebec and Ontario. We have many residents in British Columbia that have come from the province of Quebec. We welcome them as good citizens and good friends. We would be very sorry indeed both for their sakes and our own-I admit we are selfish in that particular-to see any action taken here which would form a precedent for the elimination-by means of attack on provincial autonomy-of any of the rights of British Columbia or Quebec. I ask the representatives from Quebec to remember this: If we in British Columbia are to suffer by virtue of being made subject to a majority, that to-morrow will perhaps be the fate of the province of Quebec. If it is right to take from us our inalienable rights to decide what our franchise is, to-morrow there will possibly be an attempt made to interfere with some of the long standing rights of the province of Quebec. For instance I may say we have a very good educational system in British Columbia but will never seek, I hope, to impose that system in place of the method which 'prevails in the province of Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about taking from members of any one race their innate rights as human beings to direct their own affairs.


Alan Webster Neill: I will deal with that in a
minute. At present I want to conclude my argument in regard to the province of Quebec. Quebec has certain rights peculiar to the province, for instance her land system. We have in British Columbia what we consider is the best land tenure system in the world for simplicity and cheapness. But we know there is a different system in Quebec, and do not seek to impose our system on that province. Quebec, in the matter of dower rights, has also certain distinctive laws of her own. I would ask them to consider that if they do not want these rights interfered with that they themselves should see that our rights in British Columbia are not interfered with either.
Elections Act

Now let me deal with the question, asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth). He asked: What about the inalienable rights of a citizen to vote. It has been held by the very highest courts in the British Empire-and that at least is good enought for me-that the right to vote is not inherent in being a man or even in being a British subject. We do impose conditions even on a white born British subject. We say this man shall not vote until he becomes of a certain age and so on. In England the age for women is thirty. Until quite recently in England there was a property qualification. When I was a young man of twenty-two I was not able to vote in my own country because I did not have some property qualification; I did not rent a house and so on, so it has been held by every court in every part of the British Empire that it is not an inherent right of a British subject to have the right to vote. And we in British Columbia have exercised our right to say who shall and who shall not vote. That right has been accorded to us and affirmed by the Privy Council. I am quite content to rest my argument on that and not to take refuge behind any pretext. The point is simply this: British Columbia under the rights conceded to her by Confederation-or at least inferentially given at Confederation-'because they said that the provincial franchise should govern in the first instance; and certainly it is confirmed by all precedent that has been followed in the last fifty years-has always had the right to decide our own franchise, and that franchise with all its disabilities or inhibitions we ask, should be carried into the Dominion law. That is all we ask in this amendment. It has the unanimous support of every member of every political stripe in British Columbia, and I do hope it will appeal to the House.
Mr, CALDWELL: If this clause is eliminated will it affect anybody buit orientals?


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely no.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to get
the opinion of the Minister of Justice on this question.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for
East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has the floor.


William Irvine: I have very few words to
offer on this amendment. It cannot be doubted that the people of British Columbia have to meet the brunt whidh the orientals may create. I also appreciate somewhat the underlying bitterness of feeling which sometimes bubbles up from hon. members in that province, but I do not think that spirit should be injected into the elections of the Dominion. If we

wish to prohibit the orientals from coming to this country, the proper way to do it is certainly not to do it through the Elections Act. We cannot hope to solve the oriental problem by imposing restrictions and seeking to oppress these people. If I mistake not the only reason that has ever been given for the Boer war was just that very question-that the Boers while admitting the British born to their country sought to deprive them of some of the rights of citizenship among which was the right to vote. I would certainly be sorry to see any such practice followed in Canada. I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) will receive the quietus which it merits.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does it affect anybody but the orientals?


Ernest Lapointe: The law as it stands
states that in a province where race is an impediment against voting, a man of such a race cannot vote. If he is disqualified under a provincial law, he is disqualified under the Dominion act also, with the exception that this would not apply to any man who had served during the war in the military, naval or air forces.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If this clause is cut out, will it affect anybody but the orientals?


Ernest Lapointe: No. No orientals vote now except returned soldiers, and with the amendment even the returned soldiers will be prevented from voting.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Use of {provincial voters' list.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would ask the government if they mean to give us an intermission between this and the morning sitting.


George Gibson Coote: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived1; Yeas, 34; Nays, 45.
SiT HENRY DRAYTON:	In connection
with clause 5, which is the use of the provincial voters' list, would the minister say exactly what is meant?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is hard to tell what is
meant, but-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and that is why I am asking the minister, but perhaps he will be able to tell us this time. What

Elections Act
provincial election is referred to as the election which is to govern the use of the list?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The statement made by the Chief Electoral Officer with regard to this matter is that this clause directs the use for Dominion elections, of such provincial voters' lists as would be used for a provincial election if it was held at the same time. Under the present law a dead provincial list may have to be used.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only trouble about that is that I do not think we can ever have a Dominion and a provincial election commenced at the same time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It would be one that would
be used if there were a list.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think this is
meant to be a possible election.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why not say " if commenced ". Why not get it so that one can tell exactly what is meant?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The whole bill is drawn by the Chief Electoral Officer who has had the experience in the late election in dealing with the whole matter. He was before the committee on Privileges and Elections to consider this whole question. He gave his explanation and it was very satisfactory to the committee. I cannot explain the different subclauses referring particularly to the province of Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would point
out that the Chief Electoral Officer could have made it a great deal clearer.


William Irvine: I move that the Chairman
do now leave the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am sorry there has
not been any further proceeding. We are on the same clause as we were when substantially the same motion was moved. There has to be some proceeding before a motion is made which is the same as the one moved before.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I rise to a point of order. The motion is entirely in order in accordance with Beauchesne's Rules, page 46, section 190.


George Newcombe Gordon: I will quote what
Beauchesne says.
Two motions "that the Chairman do leave the chair" cannot immediately follow each other; but if one is negatived a member may move: "that the Chairman report progress," and if this is negatived, another member may move" that the Chairman do leave the chair." Some intermediate proceeding must be had before any of these two motions be made a second time.
I think the ruling is right. There must be some intermediate proceeding.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The rule is that:
Two motions "that the Chairman do now leave the chair" cannot immediately follow each other, but if one is negatived, a member may move "that the Chairman report progress".
In this case the first motion was "that the Chairman report progress". The second was "that the Chairman do leave the chair", and I suggest that it is entirely in order under this rule which gives the illustration that in the session of 1877, during the discussion of the estimates in committee of Supply, Parnell, with his little band, by alternate motions of this character-


George Newcombe Gordon: The first motion was to report progress. That was negatived. The next one was that I do now leave the chair with the object that the bill be immediately killed, and that under no circumstances the committee be asked to sit again. Is that the pleasure of the hon. gentleman?


William Irvine: Whatever the implications are.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We had hoped to get through with the bill to-night. The committee might allow section 5 to pass, and after that we could report progress.


Arthur Meighen: The ruling of the Chairman would prevent the minister from quitting.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is a very complicated section and I really think that there ought to be some explanation of it.


Ernest Lapointe: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that it has been suggested and even drafted by the Chief Electoral Officer who is most qualified to advise on these matters. The bill has also been carefully considered by a committee of this House, and the recommendations of the chief electoral officer, having been accepted, there should be no great difficulty in adopting the measure. I had expected that the bill would go through the House in shorter time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Surely the minister is not suggesting that we should merely turn the crank and grind this thing out.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not say that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We have been here all day and I think it would be in the interests of the minister himself if he would explain the section more fully.


George Gibson Coote: I would suggest that we allow the section to stand until later in the day. It is altogether too contentious to be disposed of at this hour of the morning.
Business of the House


Arthur Bliss Copp: I move that section 5 stand and that we take up some other section.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section 5 stands.
On section 6-Power to decide status and
population.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there not an anomaly here? In section 1 we are increasing the urban population from 2.500 to 5,000. This increases the population from 1,000 to 5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.


George Newcombe Gordon: That rule 103, so far as it relates to private bills from the Senate, be suspended for the remainder of the
session.


George Gibson Coote: May we have some explanation of this?


Hewitt Bostock: The motion seeks to
suspend rule 103 which reads:
(1)	No committee on any private bill originating in this House of which notice is required to be given, is to cons der the same until after one week's notice of the sitting of such committee has been first affixed in the lobby; nor, in the case of any such bill originating in the Senate, until after twenty-four hours' like notice.
(2)	On the day of the posting of any bill under this rule, the Olerk of the House shall cause a notice of such posting to be appended to the printed Votes and Proceedings of the day.
The object of the motion is merely to facilitate the nassage of bills that come late in the session. The various stages of bills will not be avoided; there will be hree readings in both Houses. It is customary for such a motion to be made at the end of every prolonged session, and while I assure the House that I would not for a moment sanction any departure from the rules, I may observe that the motion is merely in keeping with well-established usage.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I ask that the matter
stand until to-morrow? Some of us have not heard the implication of the rule which has been quoted.


Hewitt Bostock: If the motion is deferred now it will mean a delay of twenty-four hours. Of course I am in the hands of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1 a.m. (Saturday).
fMr. Coote.]
Saturday, June 20, 1925