OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table report in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Old Age Pensions Act of the operation of the agreements made pursuant to the act and of the moneys of Canada paid to the provinces under each of the several agreements entered into pursuant thereto.

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That the organization and establishment of the permanent positions on the staff of the House of Commons, as approved by the house on the 14th June, 1929, be amended as follows:
Committees and private legislation branch: for "4 committee clerks" substitute "5 committee clerks;" delete "1 clerk of petitions."
Debates reporting branch: for "three assistant parliamentary reporters" substitute "4 assistant parliamentary reporters;" add "1 assistant parliamentary reporter (French)."


Mr. SPEAKER:: These appointments will be made by the Civil Service Commission under recommendation of the Board of Internal Economy.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER CORPORATION


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak to a question of privilege and to refer to certain statements reflecting on my honour and integrity both as a member of the house and as a private citizen, which are contained in a newspaper, the Toronto Daily Star. I hold in my hand a copy of the Toronto Daily Star of Friday, May 23, 1930. The heading of the article is as follows:
R. O. Sweezey Assails Beauharnois Attack. Electioneering Play, Power Head Styles Demand for Probe.
Special to The Star by Staff Reporter. Ottawa, May 23. In a statement to The Star to-day, R. 0. Sweezey, president of the Beauharnois Power Corporation described the attack on Beauharnois in the house yesterday as a crude electioneering play that would deceive no honest or intelligent Canadian.
"I'm afraid," he said, "that Mr. Gardiner has been utterly deceived by a group who have
confused him with a jumble of distorted facts and deliberate falsehoods. He has shown such utter disregard for the truth that I should scarcely know where to begin in an attempt to convince him that he has been led into a silly lot of misstatements.
Intelligent investors in this country, however, know full well that last night's kind of performance in parliament is usual on the eve of a general election.
I assure all fair-minded Canadians that our undertaking is sound, honest and sincere. Ninety-nine per cent of Beauharnois Power stock is owned in Canada by Canadians, and there are several thousand shareholders.
Personally, I am very busy with engineering development work, and would as soon try to explain the Einstein theory to an Eskimo as to enter into a controversy with some people."
In the first place I want to say that Mr. Sweezey's statement, as above reported, that I have been deceived by a group who have confused me by a jumble of distorted facts and deliberate falsehoods, is utterly untrue and without foundation in fact. I have not consulted nor have I been consulted by any group, either financial or political, in reference to the Beauharnois project, and the statements made by me in the house were the result of private investigations by myself and certain of my colleagues. His statement that this attack was purely "electioneering play" on my part is not only false but deliberately misleading.
I desire to enlighten him as to both the sources of my information and the reasons which prompted my bringing this matter to the attention of the house. In doing this I am also inspired with the desire to place the facts fairly and impartially before the house and the people of the Dominion of Canada, so that they will be able to decide impartially and fairly as to whether or not what I said in the house in connection with Mr. Sweezey and the Beauharnois project was justifiable or not. In view of the statement that Mr. Sweezey made in the dispatch just quoted, namely, that he does not know where to begin in denying my statements, I propose to give him an opportunity to start by going over the main points of last Thursday's discussion in the house.
The order in council dated Friday, March 8, 1929, P.C. 422, is authority for the statement made in the house respecting the incorporation of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, as well as authority for the statement made in connection with the securing of the lease from the province of Quebec and the application made by the
2702	COMMONS
Beauharnois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited, for approval of its plans by the Dominion government. Surely Mr. Sweezey does not hope successfully to deny the facts mentioned in this order in council, although these are the very facts that are denied by him in the newspaper despatch above indicated. Apparently his conception of the mentality of the members of the house and of the Canadian people is not very flattering, but it is quite consistent when one realizes what he has attempted to perpetrate upon an unsuspecting public. My statement that the Robert interests had to be acquired is founded upon a statement found in a letter signed by Mr. Sweezey himself and addressed to Mr. J. Alderic Raymond, brother of Senator Donat Raymond and the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). I placed that letter on Hansard last Thursday and hon. members may read it there so that the time of the house may be saved. Further Mr. Sweezey has admitted under oath that he personally purchased the Robert interests referred to in this letter, which interests were essential to this undertaking. If Mr. Sweezey has forgotten about giving such evidence under oath, he can refresh his memory by reference to a transcript of the evidence given by him in connection with this matter.
The statements made in the house that the company was over-capitalized are based on statements contained in a document called " A Statement in Lieu of Prospectus," which was prepared and issued by the Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited, of which he is now president, and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, Ottawa. I have the statement under my hand and I propose to take the time of the house to put it on Hansard in order that hon. members may know that when I was dealing with the capitalization of this company last Thursday I was taking the facts from the statement of the company itself. It is headed first of all, "Dominion." Then "The Companies Act." It continues: Statement in Lieu of Prospectus Filed by Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited
Pursuant to section 52 of The Companies' Act presented for filing by McGiverin, Haydon & Ebbs.
1.	The nominal share capital of the company. Five management preferred shares without nominal or par value;
1,799,995 class A common shares without nominal or par value;
3,200,000	class B non-voting common shares, without nominal or par value.
	- .
Provided, how'ever, that the said shares without any nominal or par value may be issued for such consideration as may from time to time be fixed by resolution of the board of directors of the company, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $50,000,000, or such greater amount as the directors may deem expedient and as shall be authorized from time to time by the Secretary of State of Canada.
2.	Divided into-[DOT]
(See answer to one above.)
3.	Names, description and addresses of directors or proposed directors.
Osmond F. Howe, barrister-at-law, Trust building, Ottawa, Ont.
Duncan K. MaeTavish, barrister-at-law, Citizen building, Ottawa, Ont.
Belle Fraser, stenographer, Ottawa Electric building, Ottawra, Ont.
Lyla Brennan, stenographer, Ottaw-a Electric building, Ottawa, Ont.
Edythe H. O'Malley, stenographer, 115 Sparks street, Ottawa, Ont.
Bessie Conniffe, stenographer, 115 Sparks street, Ottawa, Ont.
Lillian Dell, stenographer, Trusts building, Ottawa, Ont.
Elsie M. Burritt, stenographer, Ottawa Electric building, Ottawa, Ont.
Gwen Gunderson, stenographer, Trusts building, Ottawa, Ont.
Kathleen Havey, stenographer, Ottawa Electric building, Ottawa, Ont.
M. H. Kelly, stenographer, Ottawa Electric building, Ottawa, Ont.
4.	Minimum subscription (if any) fixed by letters patent supplementary letters patent, or by-laws on which the company may proceed to allotment.
None fixed.
5.	Number and amount of shares and debentures agreed to be issued as fully or partly paid-up otherwise than in cash. The consideration for the intended issue of those shares and debentures.
No shares or debentures have as yet been agreed to be issued other than the 5 management preferred shares and 22 class A common shares subscribed for by the applicants for the letters patent all of which have been paid in cash.
6.	Names and addresses of vendors of property purchased or acquired, or proposed to be purchased or acquired by the company. Amount (in cash, shares and debentures) payable to each separate vendor. The Beauharnois power syndicate, an unincorporated syndicate, organized and existing under and in virtue of an agreement made at the city of Montreal on the 4th day of April, 1928, by and between F. Stuart Molson and others of the first part and Marquette Investment Corporation of the second part whose address is Yorkshire Insurance Building, St. James Street, Montreal, Quebec. It is intended that the company shall enter into an agreement with the said the Beauharnois Power Syndicate and Marquette

Beauharnois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
Investment Corporation, (a company incorporated under the Quebec Companies' Act) as depository providing for the acquisition by the company and/or its nominees upon the terms and conditions therein set out of the undertaking and assets of whatsoever nature of the syndicate (except any unpaid balances and any uncalled balances for which the syndicate members may be liable to the syndicate in respect of the part interests of the syndicate held by them respectively).
The intended consideration for such acquisition shall be

(a)	The sum of $4,750,000 payable to the syndicate by the company at the time and upon the conditions set out in the said agreement;
(b)	The assumption by the company of the liabilities and obligations of the syndicate (except its liabilities and obligations to its members as such) and
(c)	An undertaking by the corporation to defray the expenses (to an amount not exceeding $10,000) of the winding-up of the affairs of the syndicate, and the distribution of its assets among its members.
The said agreement further provides for the subscription by the said syndicate at $1 per share for one million class A common shares of the company, such shares to be allotted and issued to the nominees of the syndicate, and to be paid for at the time of the transfer and delivery of the undertaking and assets of the syndicate to the company and/or its nominees, and the payment of the said sum of $4,750,000 by the company to the syndicate.
The liabilities of the syndicate assumed by the company as stated in suib-paragraph (b) will include a liability to pay $20,000 and
21,000	class A common shares of the company to William Henry Robert and Sarah Mary Robert, both of 1452 Bishop street, Montreal, Joseph A. Robert of 371 Wilbrod street, Ottawa, and Edmund A. Robert, Linton apartments, Montreal, the vendors of the said syndicate of certain of the assets to be acquired by the company as aforesaid.
Names and addresses of vendors of property purchased or acquired or proposed to be purchased or acquired by the company.
Amount (in cash, shares and debentures) payable to each separate vendor.
7.	Amount (if any) paid or payable (in cash or shares or debentures) for any such property, specifying amount (if any) paid or payable for goodwill.
(See answer to 6 above.)
8.	Amount (if any) paid or payable as commission for subscribing, or agreeing to subscribe, or procuring or agreeing to procure subscriptions for any shares or debentures in the company, or rate of the commission.
Nil.
9.	Estimated amount of preliminary expenses, $75,000.
10.	Amount paid or intended to be paid to any promoter.
Consideration for the payment.
(See answer to 6 above.)
11.	Dates of, and parties to, every material contract (other than [DOT] contracts entered into in the ordinary course of the business intended to
be carried on by the company or entered into more than two years before the filing of this statement.
No contracts have as yet been entered into by the company. See however, answer to 6 above. It is also intended that the company shall enter into an agreement with Newman, Sweezey and Company, Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada, and The Dominion Securities Corporation, Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada providing for the creation and issue of thirty-year 6 per cent collateral trust sinking fund bonds of the company to an authorized principal amount of $30,000,000 as set out in such agreement and providing for the sale to Newman, Sweezey and Company, Limited, and The Dominion Securities Corporation, Limited, of $30,000,000 in par value of the said bonds together with 770,000 class A common shares of the company for the price of $27,000,000 and accrued interest on the said bonds to the date of delivery all upon the terms and conditions set out in the said agreement.
12.	Time and place at which the contract or copies may be inspected.
Names and addresses of the auditors of the company (if any).
When the intended contracts above mentioned have been entered into the copies may be inspected at the offices of the company, Drummond building, Montreal, during reasonable business hours.
No auditors have as yet been appointed for the company.
13.	Full particulars of the nature and extent of the interest of every director in the promotion of or in the property proposed to be acquired by the company, or where the interest of such a director consists in being a partner in a firm, the nature and extent of the interest of the firm, with a statement of all sums paid or agreed to be paid to him or to the firm in cash or shares, or otherwise, by any person either to induce him to become, or to qualify him as a director, or otherwise for services rendered by him or by the firm in connection with the promotion or formation of the company.
Nil.
14.	Whether the by-laws contain any provisions precluding holders of shares or debentures receiving and inspecting balance sheets or reports of the auditors or other reports.
Nil.
Dated at Ottawa, this 30th day of September, 1929.
Witness:
Daniel Baker.
(Sgd.) Osmond F. Howe,
Duncan K. MaeTavish, Belle Fraser,
Lyla Brennan,
Edythe H. O'Malley, Bessie Conniffe,
Lillian Dell,
Elsie M. Burritt,
Gwen Gunderson, Kathleen Havey,
M. H. Kelly.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the statement which was filed in. the office of the Secretary of State
2704	COMMONS
Beauhamois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
in lieu of a prospectus of this company. It sets out very clearly the claim which I made last Thursday when I dealt with the capitalization of the company.
The valuation of the shares of this corporation is fully dealt with in a statement described as an "Analytical study of values of the Beau-harnois Corporation" by Robert Dodd and Company, Incorporated, dated March 31, 15)30, which gives the value of the class A and class B shares at the end of a five-year period This valuation is based on an earning power of $4.25 a share. The study goes further and states at the end of a ten-year period these shares will earn around $10 per share, so that the value of the shares will then be in the neighbourhood of $141 per share. All that is fully and carefully explained.
I hold in my hand a document issued by the Robert Dodd and Company Incorporated, investment bankers, Royal Bank building, Montreal. It is headed "Beauhamois Power Corporation-A comprehensive analytical study of values." I quote one paragraph:
Over $4 per Share
It will be observed that our analysis discusses in circumstantial detail the expectations of this 30-year bond-share-warrant investment over a five year period, when 1,000,000 h.p. should be in operation; and we show with that production unit, which is 50 per cent of the final objective, an earning power equal to slightly over $4 a share on the combined common stock outstanding.
With this $4.25 per share earning power on half the projected development, we believe a price of $60 for the stock to be quite conservative, without giving consideration to the investment momentum which will gather force when the public realize the company's industry- building characteristics in the territory adjacent to the Beauharnois operations.
We also give due consideration to the fact that it will be several years before dividends are declared, but in that respect it is well known that market increment does not wait for dividend declarations-and precedent tells us that prospective discounting of events is the astute investor's road to Eldorado.
The following tabulation considers the prospective market equity of the 30-year bond and its share attachments, if all securities, bond and shares, are held for permanent investment at a market price of, say, $60 a share for the
common stock.
A $1,000 bond cost	$	1,000
5 shares valued at $60	 300
Increment on 20 shares at $25.. ..	500
Market value of the $1,000 investment	$	1,800
On this tabular calculation, we find what is equal to an 80 per cent increase in the capital investment, on a bond which returns a regular 6 per cent yield during the entire period of increment growth.
Then we have another paragraph, Mr. Speaker, that is important:

As we have shown in this analytic study, there is every reason to anticipate the progressive sale of the total projected 2,000,000 horse-power, as and even before each 500,000 units is completed. Therefore, we would estimate, within ten years, an annual gross revenue of at least $40,000,000. This will entail a mortgage capitalization of well under $200,000,000, which, at, say, the high average of 6 per cent, would require $12,000,000 as fixed charges, with $4,000,000 of over-all operating costs, resulting in a net surplus of $24,000,000, equal to $10 a share on the combined "A" and "B" stock.
While it is perfectly true that this analytical study is not an official publication by Mr. Sweezey, the fact nevertheless remains that in a prospectus issued by the same Robert Dodd & Company Incorporated, and which is signed by Mr Sweezey himself, the value of "B non-voting shares" is fixed at $35 a share and the bondholders are given the privilege of purchasing class B shares at that figure.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a point of order. Is an hon. member allowed to bring up a question again that has already been debated on a motion for adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance? This is not a question of privilege; it is a question of special privilege.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a question of
privilege and Bourinot says at page 303:
In the Canadian house questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the nights and immunities of the house collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character. In this category may be placed: motions touching the seat or election of members; reflections or libels in books and newspapers on the house or members thereof, or any of its committees; forgery of signatures to petitions; motions for new writs; questions affecting the internal economy or proceedings of the house;
Bourinot says also that great latitude is given in the house when the question of privilege is raised. But the question of libel should be dealt with in a brief way so as not to take up the time of the house unduly. The moment the hon. gentleman has denied the statement and explained why it is not true according to his own interpretation he should not proceed much further. I understand the hon. gentleman is practically through.


Robert Gardiner: Not quite, Mr. Speaker, I will not take very many more minutes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well.

Beauhamois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is rather remarkable that any hon. member should question my right after I had read this statement in the press despatch:
"I am afraid," he said,-
That is, Mr. Sweezey.
-"that Mr. Gardiner has been utterly deceived by a group who have confused him with a jumble of distorted facts and deliberate falsehoods."
I am trying to show, Mr. Speaker, that every word I said was absolutely true, and I am going to proceed. The prospectus is so worded that one is forced to the conclusion that the bondholders are getting more or less favoured treatment in respect to class B shares, and that if the general public were allowed to purchase them $60 would likely be the amount that would be asked for them.
The charge made in the house that this company was violating the terms of its lease and order in council is founded on and substantiated by the prospectuses signed by Mr. Sweezey and issued by Wood, Gundy & Company Limited, Dominion Securities Corporation Limited, Robert Dodd & Company Incorporated, and a number of other brokerage houses both in Canada and in the United States.
In these prospectuses it ds made perfectly clear that the plans of the company make provision to take the whole flow of .the river through the company's canal and that work is being done under these plans with that end in view and money being spent therefor. All clearly in violation of the terms of its lease and of the order in council.
I have in my hand a copy of this prospectus issued by Robert Dodd & Company Incorporated, investment bankers, the Royal Bank Building, Montreal. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is getting late in the session and desirable that the house should conclude its business as soon as possible. Therefore if I have the permission of the house I will not read the prospectus, but if I have not that permission, then I must proceed to read it, because in it is contained many of the allegations which I made last Thursday, and I am here, sir, to protect my honour. May I have the permission of the house to file this with Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 2706	COMMONS
Beauharnois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
mon Shares (no par value) of Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited, on the basis of twenty such shares in respect of each One thousand dollars ($1,000) of Collateral Trust Bonds. Such Warrant will be non-detachable (otherwise than by the Trustee at the time of its surrender) except in the event of the Bond being redeemed, in which case it will be detachable by the Trustee and remain in force until October 1, 1937.
In the event of provision for distribution of its assets as an entirety or substantially as an entirety, sixty days' notice may be given by the Corporation within which the stock purchase right conferred by the Warrant may be exercised, and on the termination of such notice such right shall cease. But any Class B Common Shares so purchased on or before such termination shall be entitled to participate in such distribution of assets. The Corporation reserves the right to increase the amount of its authorized or outstanding shares and otherwise change its capital structure, but in the event of subdivision or consolidation of its Class B Common Shares, or their conversion into shares of another kind, the rights conferred by the Warrant will be correspondingly adjusted. All as will be more fully set out in the Stock Purchase Warrant.
These Bonds are offered for sale when, as and if issued and received by us and subject to the approval of Messrs. Meredith, Holden, Heward & Holden, on behalf of the Corporation, and Messrs. Blake, Lash, Anglin & Cassels on behalf of the Bankers, as to the incorporation and organization of the Corporation, the issue of its stock and the creation and issue of the Bonds, and of Aime GeoflFrion, Esq., K.C., as to the franchise and water rights of Beauharnois Light. Heat & Power Company and the contracts for sale of power already entered into by it.
Price: 100 and accrued interest It is expected that Trustee's interim certificates or receipts will be ready for delivery on or about December 17, 1929 Robert Dodd & Company Incorporated Investment Bankers The Royal Bank Building Montreal
Statements contained in this circular, while not guaranteed, are based upon information and advice which we believe accurate and reliable
Letterhead-Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited
Montreal, December 2, 1929 Newman, Sweezey & Company,
Limited,
The Dominion Securities Corporation,
Limited,
Wood, Gundy & Company, Limited.
Dear Sirs:
Referring to the purchase of $30,000,000 Thirty-year 6% Collateral Trust Sinking Fund Bonds of ^ Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited, I give you the following information: Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited has been incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada and is to own or control all the outstanding shares of Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company (which is carrying on the Beauharnois hydro-electric development) and of its associated companies, Beauharnois Land Company, Beauharnois Transmission Company and Beauharnois Construction Company. 
Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company
Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company has acquired under a lease from the Province of Quebec extending to the year 2003, and under authorization from the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Quebec, water power rights on the St. Lawrence River about twenty-five miles above the City of Montreal. Its power house, in which it is proposed to install equipment capable of producing 500,000 horse power, will be west of the Town of Beauharnois, on Lake St. Louis. This development involves the construction of a canal approximately fifteen miles in length to the south of the River St. Lawrence, running from Lake St. Francis to Lake St. Louis. Complying with the conditions imposed by the Dominion Government, the canal has been designed so that if the St. Lawrence Deep Waterways project is proceeded with, the canal can be used jointly for navigation and power purposes. In addition to the above water power rights the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company has entered into a contract with Montreal Cotton Company providing for the acquisition of the latter's rights to divert water for power purposes from the St. Lawrence River at Lake St. Francis. In the opinion of the Company's engineers, the water available from the above sources when diverted through the canal will generate 500,000 horse power equivalent to 7,500,000 kilowatt hours per day. Between Lake St. Francis and Lake St. Louis the St. Lawrence River drops eighty-three feet in a series of rapids, making this section of the River one of the most important water power sites in Canada, being capable of developing about 2,000,000 horse power. The average low water flow of the River through this section is approximately 220,000 cubic feet per second. Of this flow approximately 120,000 cubic feet per second is presently allotted to power developments, which amount includes the quantity allocated to the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company. It is estimated that the unallocated balance of about 100,000 cubic feet per second, if passed through the Company's canal, would permit installation of approximately 1,000,000 additional horse power. The Company's proposed development, in the opinion of its engineers, is the most efficient method of utilizing the entire drop in this section of the River. In view of the above provision is made in the plans and considerable work is now being done with a view to installing further units if additional water becomes available. After the completion of the present 500,000 horse power installation it is estimated that further units can be installed at an average cost of less than $65 per horse power. The present plans contemplate that 200,000 horse power will be available by October 1, 1932, at which time the Company will commence delivering the first blocks of power under contracts already entered into, and that the total of 500,000 horse power will be available by October 1, 1935.
Engineering
The plans and estimates of the present development have been prepared or approved by the following engineers on behalf of Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
Frederick Baylis Brown, Esq., Montreal, Que. Thomas H. Hogg, Esq., Toronto, Ont.
William S. Lee, Esq., New York City.

Beauhamois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
These plans and estimates have been concurred in by Albert S. Crane, Esq., consulting engineer of New York City, acting on behalf of the Bankers.
Capitalization
Beauhamois Power Corporation. Limited (Upon completion of present financing)
Authorized To be issued
Collateral Trust Bonds
(this issue)	$30,000,000 $30,000,000
Management Preferred Shar es (no par value).	5	5
	shares	shares
Class A Common Shares (no par value)		1,799,995	1,791,000
	shares	shares
Class B Non-Voting Common Shares (no par		None
value)	*	3,200,000	
shares
*600,000 Class B Non Voting Common Shares to be available for purchase under Stock Purchase Warrants attached to the Bonds.
The Management Preferred Shares above mentioned confer on the holders the exclusive right for a period of ten years from September 17, 1929, to elect and remove the Directors of the Corporation and otherwise conifer in respect thereof the same rights as if each Management Preferred Share were a Class A Common Share. The Management Preferred Shares at the end of the ten-year period will automatically be converted into Class A Common Shares, but, with the consent of all the holders thereof, may be so converted prior to that time. These shares have been provided to ensure continuity of direction and policy during the important initial period covering the construction and early operation of the development of Beau-harnois Light. Heat and Power Company, and will be held between Hon. W. L. MeDougald, M.D.; R. O. Sweezey, Esq.; and A. F. White, Esq.
Class B Non-Voting Common Shares do not carry the right to attend or vote at meetings, but otherwise are entitled to the same righs as Class A Common Shares in all respects. Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company
Proposed Bond Issue
It is proposed that Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company shall issue in due course bonds, debentures or other securities in such principal amounts (estimated at $50,000,000) as its Directors may from time to time consider sufficient, together with the monies made available to it from the proceeds of the Collateral Trust Bonds, to complete the installation of five hundred thousand (500,000) horse power. The above-mentionned bonds, debentures or other securities will not constitute a closed issue and the Company will be permitted to issue further securities as more specifically set out below.
Power Contracts
Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company has entered into contracts extending beyond the maturity of these Bonds with The HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario for the sale of 256,000 horse power and with Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated for the sale of 150,000 horse power. The first blocks of power under these contracts are to be taken on October 1, 1932, with increasing quantities each year, the full amount to be taken at the end of five years. From past experience it is anticipated that, owing to the rapidly increasing 2419-1711
demand for power, the entire amount of power deliverable under the above contracts will be required well before the end of the five-year period. These two contracts dispose of 400,000 horse power of the 500,000 horse power now being installed, and it is expected that the balance of available power will be under contract before the plant is completed. The construction plans for the development have been prepared with a view to making available in the most economical manner the amount of power estimated to be required each year.
Earnings
It is estimated by the engineers of Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company that upon the sale and delivery of the 500,000 horse power now being installed, the consolidated annual earnings of Beauhamois Power Corporation Limited and its Subsidiary companies (after providing for all operating expenses) available for interest and Sinking Fund on the First Mortgage Bonds of Beau-harnois Light, Heat and Power Company and on these Collateral Trust Bonds will amount to over. $6,200,000 It is estimated that annual interest and sinking fund requirements on the securities of Beauhamois Light,
Heat and Power Company expected to be issued in connection with completion of the 500,000 horse power,
now being installed, will be.. .. $2,750,000
Balance available for annual interest and sinking fund on these Collateral Trust Bonds	$3,450,000
Annual interest and sinking fund requirements on these Collateral Trust Bonds	$1,950,000
The revenue from the sale and delivery of
400.000	horse power now contracted for by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, will be more than sufficient to pay all estimated operating expenses of Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company, interest and sinking fund on the First Mortgage Bonds of the Company expected to be issued in connection with the installation of 500,000 horse power as set out above, and interest and sinking fund on these Collateral Trust Bonds.
Security
The Collateral Trust Bonds are to be secured by a first fixed and specific charge on all the shares at any time outstanding of Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company, Beauhamois Construction Company, Beauhamois Land Company and Beauhamois Transmission Company, on any shares of any other corporation acquired with the proceeds of the Collateral Trust Bonds, and on the principal of all indebtedness in favour of the Corporation arising from the application of the proceeds of the bonds, and also by a first floating charge on the undertaking. property and assets, present and future, of the Corporation. The first fixed and specific charge on the shares of such companies is not to prevent the issue by any of 9uch companies of bonds, debentures or other securities or other evidences of indebtedness, but the issue of such bonds, debentures or other securities by Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company is to be permitted only:
2708	COMMONS
Beauharnois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
(a)	to such principal amounts (estimated at $50,000,000) as its Directors may from time to time consider sufficient, together with the monies made available to it from the proceeds of the Collateral Trust Bonds, to complete the installation of 500,000 horse power; and
(b)	to an additional principal amount equal to the cost or estimated cost (including interest charges, taxes during construction and discount on securities) of the installation or proposed installation of additional horse power and/or of the acquisition or proposed acquisition of rights and other property in connection therewith, provided that the total principal amount of such securities at any time outstanding in respect of such additional horse power shall not exceed in the aggregate $100 for each additional horse power installed or proposed to be installed; and
(c)	to an additional principal amount equal to not over seventy-five per cent (75%) of the cost (as above defined) of any other rights and other property acquired or constructed or contracted to be acquired or constructed by or on behalf of Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company in connection with its business;
Provided that Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company may borrow from and give security to banks, may give purchase money, mortgages, and may incur unsecured indebtedness, all in the ordinary course of business, and may borrow from and give security to Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited.
Such securities of Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company may be issued from time to time in such series, made payable in such currencies and places, on such date or dates and with such rates of interest and carrying such sinking fund, conversion, redemption and other provisions as its Directors may from time to time determine.
All as will be more fully defined in the Instruments securing such bonds, debentures or other securities.
Sinking Fund
The Trust Deed securing the Collateral Trust Bonds will provide for an annual cumulative Sinking Fund, commencing in the year 1940, under which on or before October 1 of each year from 1940 to 1958, inclusive, payments of not less than $150,000 will be made, together with a sum equal to the annual interest which would have been payable on all Bonds previously retired through the operation of the Sinking Fund 'had such Bonds remained outstanding. This Sinking Found is to be used for the purpose of retiring Bonds of this issue by purchase at or below redemption prices, failing which Bonds will be redeemed by lot. All as will be more fully set out in the Trust Deed securing this issue.
Proceeds of Issue
The entire proceeds of the Collateral Trust Bonds will be deposited with the Trustee to be released to or to the order of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Deed securing this issue, and will be used by the Corporation for the acquisition of the undertaking and assets of The Beauharnois Power Syndicate (including the whole of the issued stock of Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company), for proceeding directly or through subsidiaries with the construction of the Beauharnois power development, with the acquisition of rights and other property in connection with the project and for other corporate purposes. 
Board of Directors
The Board of Directors will include
Hon. W. L. McDougald, M.D., Chairman of the Board, President, The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
R.	0. Sweezey, Esq., President. President, Newman, Sweezey and Company, Limited.
A. F. White, Esq., Vice-President. VicePresident, The Canadian Bank of Commerce.
Aime Geoffrion, Esq., K.C. Director, The Canada Life Assurance Company.
S.	Godin, Jr., Esq. Director, British Columbia Power Corporation Limited.
J. H. Gundy, Esq. President, Wood, Gundy and Company, Limited.
Miller Lash, Esq., K,C. President, Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.
G. H. Montgomery, Esq., K.C. Director, Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated.
Hon. P. J. Paradis. Director, Quebec Power Company.
M. W. Wilson, Esq. General Manager, The Royal Bank of Canada.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) R. O. Sweezey, President Beauharnois Power
Corporation Limited.
The charge that the government disregarded the recommendations made unanimously by the joint board of engineers is founded on the fact that if the recommendations of the joint board of engineers had been followed the canal would be located in an entirely different place to where it is now being dug.
May I here point out for the benefit of the honourable members of this house and of the people of the Dominion that the recommendation of the joint board of engineers in connection with this matter is contained on pages 36, 37 and 38 of their report. With the permission of the house I will quote section 175 of the main report of the joint board as found on page 38 thereof:
175. Conclusions-The board unites in the view that the navigation improvement combined with the progressive development of power (paragraphs 162 to 169) hereinbefore set forth better provides for the present and future development of the waterway than any scheme for navigation alone, and is therefore the disirable scheme, if arrangements are made whereby power interests bear a fair proportion of the cost of the initial expenditure required.
The plan outlined in paragraphs 162 to 169 mentioned in the above paragraph is an entirely different plan to that proposed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company and approved of by the government. It will be clearly seen that the plan recommended by the joint board is a plan in which navigation and power are combined and their report on that situation is unanimous. It is true, however, that where navigation alone was considered the board was unable to agree on a plan. The

Questions
majority of the Canadian section favoured the development of the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, a plan similar to the Beau-harnois project, but it must be recalled that the other members of the Canadian board and the United States section recommended a different plan. But the fact nevertheless remains that when that power and navigation were combined the joint board of engineers were unanimous in recommending a plan entirely different to the Beauharnois plan and the government in approving of the Beauharnois plan did not accept the recommendations of the Joint Board of Engineers.
The charge made in the house that Sweezey and his associates were guilty of fraud and should be prosecuted under the criminal code have their foundation in the fact that the above advertising is not in accordance with the facts. According to the statements of Mr. King and Mr. Bennett there is no agreement between either the Liberal or the Conservative parties and Mr. Sweezey and his associates which justifies the statements over the signature of Mr. Sweezey himself that the company will secure the whole flow of the river and as a result of which people are being induced to invest in this undertaking. That Frank P. Jones was connected with this company as a director and is now no longer one is established by reference to the returns made by the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company to the Provincial Secretary of the province of Quebec. The figures for the cost of this undertaking were secured from a report made to the corporation by Frederick Bayliss Brown, consulting engineer, and verified by W. S. Lee and T. H. Hogg, two other eminent engineers, and which report is on file with the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I have covered the main points of the statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday last in connection with the Beauharnois project. These sources are official, some of them are over ithe signature of Mr. Sweezey himself and some in documents which, while not signed by the corporation, are nevertheless authoritative inasmuch as Mr. Sweezey has not repudiated the statements contained therein but rather has confirmed them by other documents over his own signature. Mr. Sweezey cannot deny successfully the truth of these statements. In fact his reported denial is in keeping with his whole disgraceful conduct in connection with this vast project. Deceit and duplicity amounting to fraud mark his every step in the handling of this affair. If Mr. Sweezey, as he says in the article in The Star "scarcely knows where to begin to convince me that I have been led into a silly lot of misstatements" I would suggest that he start at the beginning and tell the whole story of this outrageous affair. He can do this in no better way than to ask the government for a judicial investigation, a request in which no doubt he will be joined by Senators McCDougald, Haydon and Raymond. If he does, I shall facilitate him in every way as far as it lies within my power.
I Tepeat that I was not acting on behalf of any group, nor had I the interests of any individual or group of individuals when I brought this matter before the house originally, or in discussing it to-day. If it were not for the fact that the house desires to prorogue at the earliest possible date, it would be my duty to ask leave to bring Mr. Sweezey before the bar of this house to answer for his wholly unwarranted, false and insulting reference to myself and to the other members who took part in the discussion in the house on Thursday last. The honour of this house has been impunged by Mr. Sweezey and I would respectfully suggest that when the house reassembles at the next session, appropriate proceedings be taken to summons Mr Sweezey before the bar of this house to answer for his conduct.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. QUINN:: 1.	What salary is paid to the members of the Halifax Harbour Commission?
2.	What are their expense allowances?
3.	What salary is paid Superintendent Moriarty?
4.	What is his expense allowance?
5.	Who recommended him for the position?
6.	What position does Malcolm MacKay hold with the commission?
7.	What is his salary?
8.	What is his expense allowance?
9.	What is his age?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	President, $4,000 per annum; two other commissioners, $3,000 each per annum.
2.	Actual out-of-pocket travelling or other expenses directly incurred in work of the commission.
3.	$2,400 per annum.
4.	Actual out-of-pocket travelling or other expenses directly incurred in work of the commission.
5.	He was selected by the commission on personal knowledge of his qualifications.
6.	The commission's records show no man bearing this name in their employ.
7.	8 and 9. Answered by No. 6.
Questions


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
Mr LACOMBE:: 1.	How many cattle were slaughtered on account of being infected with bovine tuberculosis in the county of Laval-Two Mountains?
2.	What is the total amount paid as indemnity to owners of cattle so slaughtered in the said county?
3.	What is the total amount paid to owners of cattle slaughtered in the province of Quebec by virtue of the Animals Contagious Diseases Act?


Mr MOTHERWELL:: 1.	1929-30, Laval, 1,996.
1929-30, Two Mountains, 48.
2.	1929-30, Laval, $71,579.
1929-30, Two Mountains, $1,237.
3.	1929-30, $397,536.39.


TEST FOR BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	How many cattle reacted to the tuberculin test in the Dominion of Canada during the fiscal year terminating March 31, 1930?
2.	How many in each province, respectively?
3.	From the amount of $2,450,000 voted in the estimates of 1929, Health of Animals, etc. (Vote No. 45, estimates 1929-30), what indemnity was paid in each province, respectively, to the owners of cattle slaughtered?
4.	What was the average amount of indemnity paid for each animal slaughtered: (a) in connection with thoroughbred and registered cattle; (b) in connection with cross cattle?


William Richard Motherwell: 1, 2 and 3		Indemnity	
	Reactors	paid	
Prince Edward Island.	192	$ 7,179	33Nova Scotia	51	3,000	10New Brunswick	24	1,260	00Quebec	10,944	397,536	39Ontario	3,527	162,953	25Manitoba	2,060	67,841	16Saskatchewan	345	12,832	79Alberta	62	2,774	66British Columbia.. ..	331	14,273	07* 17,536	$669,651	05
*The total of 17,536 reactors includes 347 slaughtered under the supervised herd plan for which no compensation is paid.
4.	Average indemnity paid for pure breds, $77.10; average indemnity paid for cross cattle, $32.58.


HEAD TAX ON EMIGRATION TO UNITED STATES
Mr. BOULANGER:: Does the Canadian government receive any part of the head tax and passport fees charged to Canadians who emigrate to the United States ?
IMr. Cardin.]


Mr. RINFRET:: No passport is required by Canadian emigrating to the United States. No pant of the head tax or the immigration visa fee, paid to the United States government by Canadians who emigrate to that country, is received by the Canadian government.


PELEE ISLAND CABLES
Mr. GOTT:: What was the cost of: (a) repairing; and (b) maintaining, the Pelee island cables for the years 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 to date; (1) Leamington to Pelee island cable; (2) Kingsville to Pelee island cable?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.
				(a)	(b)
1927..	S 	$501928..	868 87	501929..	1,400 11	501930 up	to	April	26..	Nil	Nil1927..	$261 15	$501928..	643 52	501929..	414 57	501930 up	to	April	26..	Nil	Nil


DISTRICT VETERINARY INSPECTOR, MONTREAL
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Who holds the position of district veterinary inspector at Montreal?
2.	Is he at present performing the duties?
3.	If not, why?
4.	Is the salary being paid to him?
5.	Does he occupy any other position in the government service ?
6.	If so, what position?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Dr. J. O. Langevin.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


HUNTINGDON, QUE., POST OFFICE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Has a site been purchased for a post office building in the town of Huntingdon, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the size of the lot and what price was paid?
3.	Is it intended to eTeot the building this
year?
4.	What is the estimated cost?
5.	By whom was the selection of the site made?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	No, but negotiations are in progress.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Immigration into Palestine
3.	If purchase of the site is completed the intention is to proceed with the preparation of plans for the erection of the buiLding.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


GRANT TO MANITOBA FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. SANDERSON:: What amount of money will be paid from the federal treasury to the province of Manitoba on account of subsidies in each fiscal year after the agreement for the transfer of the natural resources comes into effect and until the population reaches:	(a)	800,000;	(b)
1,200,000; (c) thereafter?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Total annual payment on account of subsidies :
1.	On basis of present population, $1,662,-
084.18.
2.	When population reaches 800,000, $1,991,-
584.18.
3.	When population reaches 1,200,000, $2,686,-
584.18.
The total will vary in intervening years due to changes in population.


GRANT TO ALBERTA FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
Frederick George Sanderson: What amount of money will be paid from the federal treasury to the province of Alberta on account of subsidies in each fiscal year after the agreement for the transfer of the natural resources comes into effect and until the population reaches: (a) 800,000; (b) 1,200,000; (c) thereafter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Total annual payment on account of subsidies :
1.	On basis of present population, $1,670,435.
2.	When population reaches 800,000, $2,015,375.
3.	When population reaches 1,200,000, $2,710,375.
The total will vary in intervening years due to changes in population.


GRANT TO SASKATCHEWAN FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
Frederick George Sanderson: What amount of money will be paid from the federal treasury .to the province of Saskatchewan on account of subsidies in each fiscal year after the agreement for the transfer of the natural resources comes into effect and until the population reaches: (a) 1,200,000; (b) thereafter ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Total annual payment on account of subsidies :
1.	On basis of present population (859,900), $2,063,295.
2.	When population reaches 1,200,000, $2,710,375.
The total will vary in intervening years due to changes in population.


GRANT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR TRANSFER OF RAILWAY BELT
Frederick George Sanderson: What amount of money will be paid from the federal treasury to the province of British Columbia on account of subsidies in each fiscal year after the .agreement for the transfer of the railway belt and the Peace River block comes into effect?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On basis of
present population, $738,816.66. As population increases, the amount paid in respect of per capita grant will inorease. The grant for government and legislation also will increase from $190,0000 to $220,000 when population exceeds 800,000, and to $240,000 when population exceeds 1,500,000.


IMMIGRATION INTO PALESTINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in his capacity of Minister of External Affairs:
In view of the fact that Canada is a member of the council of the League of Nations and a signatory to the treaty of Versailles, and that the mandate over Palestine was conferred on Great Britain to be exercised as a trust under the supervision of the League of Nations, was the government of Canada consulted with regard to the recent stoppage of immigration into Palestine, or has this government taken steps to inquire into the causes of such action on the part of the government of Great Britain, or, if not, will it undertake to do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind
enough to acquaint me with the fact that he was going to ask this question, and I am prepared at this time to answer it.
Under the rules laid down by the League of Nations for the regulation of mandated territories it is not customary for the mandatory power to bring any question of administration before the council or before individual members of the council, and the question referred to, the restriction of immigration into Palestine, has accordingly not been brought to the
Special War Revenue Act

attention of the Canadian government. Provision is made for periodic review of the administration of the mandatory power by the organ of the league, the Mandates Commission, before which this question will doubtless come in due course.


&quot;PATRONAGE&quot; SOUTH ESSEX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eccles James Gott: The Prime Minister does not always answer his questions so fully as he has answered the present one. I had a question on the order paper the other day concerning patronage in South Essex, and the right hon. gentleman did not give it such full consideration.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) when I may expect a return which I asked for in connection with dredging at Mabou harbour.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: In reply to my hon. friend may I
say that I think the return is now ready; I may be able to table it to-day.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I would like to
have it.


FISHWAYS IN DAMS
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: May I
ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) when I may expect an answer to an order for a return which was placed on the order paper on May 5th? On Saturday, May 24th, I called the attention of the minister to the fact that an answer had not yet been given.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The report has been sent
to the Department of the Secretary of State.


CHINESE EMPLOYED ON BESCO SHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I would ask the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr Stewart, Edmonton) to make a statement in regard to the fact that it is rumoured that Chinese are being employed in the coal carrying vessels running between Montreal and Sydney.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: I have not received
an answer to my investigation, but I shall answer the question of the hon. gentleman as soon as I can.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 311, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT:: Will the hon.
gentleman supply me with the information for which I asked?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: My hon. friend asked for certain
information regarding a legal action brought by the department against the brokerage firm of Miller, Court and Company of the city of Vancouver. Action was brought by the department on account of a denial by the firm in question of the constitutionality of the law under which they were taxed in connection with transfer taxes. The action was tried before the senior magistrate and judgment was given in favour of the department, and a fine of $100 imposed. No mention was made of costs. An appeal was entered, and it was tried before the supreme court of British Columbia, and on that appeal the finding of the magistrate was sustained. Again no mention was made of costs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the third reading of Bill No. 309, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I move in amendment that section 9 of the said act be repealed. I may say that this section relates to contributions for political purposes, and is as follows:
No unincorported company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to or for, or in aid of, any political party, committee or association, or to or for, or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for moneys so used.

Dominion Elections Act
Subsection 2 of that section deals with the officers liable to punishment for violation of the above subsection. Last year the committee dealing with this matter made the recommendation that this section be repealed. Section 4 of the report brought in on Wednesday, June 5, 1929, according to the votes and proceedings, contains the recommendation that the said act be amended by repealing section 9 thereof. As I understand the matter, when the committee met this year there were some matters that were not dealt with which were in the recommendation of last year, this being one of them.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that for some years labour bodies all over this country have protested against this section. It is quite easy for great corporations to hide their contributions to campaign funds, and undoubtedly great corporations do contribute to campaign funds in spite of this section. However, this section works a very great hardship on the labour movement in Canada in that it effectively prevents any labour union from contributing to campaign funds. We do not believe this is fair. When the trades unions undertake to contribute to campaign funds, using their money for this purpose in a perfectly open way, it seems only right that they should be permitted to do so.
I think a great many members on both sides of the house will realize the justice of such action as I am proposing. Several years ago we had this matter before the house as an amendment, and the amendment to repeal this section received a very great deal of support in the house. I do not wish to precipitate a debate at this time, but I would hope that in view of the fact that the whole question has been considered several times by this house, and further that it was recommended last year by the committee, the house might accept my amendment to-day.


Mr. CANNON:: Mr. Speaker, as was said last night by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), this amendment was recommended to the house last year in the fifth report of the committee. This year, in view of special circumstances, the committee agreed that the amendments which were contained in that report were not to be pressed this year, and that only the amendments which were necessary and required to meet the conditions of the coming election would be brought down. That was agreed upon, and the legislation was introduced by the government along the lines of the report unanimously brought in.
As my hon. friend has said, this amendment was recommended by the committee last year.
I have no objection to the amendment, except that perhaps the members of the committee would rather have the matter referred back, which would involve some delay.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I just say that the Labour group in the house as such was not of sufficient strength to have its own representative on the committee. We could not make any direct representations, but this is a matter which affects us in this immediate election just as much as some other matters which were before the committee, and if the chairman of the committee has no strenuous objection it would seem to me the most direct way to let the amendment go through now without referring the matter back.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
may say this, that as chairman of the committee I have no greater authority than any other member of the committee. I presume in this house to be only the spokesman for the committee, and my duty is to lay before the house, in case a question comes up, what were the views of the committee on matters which were brought before it.
In this particular instance, last year in the report it was decided to abrogate section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act. The report was laid on the table here, and it was decided not to act upon it during the course of last session. During the course of this session a great deal of time was taken up by discussion of other matters. At the last meeting the general committee came to the conclusion that it was not expedient at this session of parliament to consider even the amendments which had been adopted last year, so that no debate or discussion took place on the particular suggestion of my hon. friend.
May I say that in the committee of 1929 there was considerable discussion just on this very point, and I might go further and say that some of the members who at one time or another have been most emphatic in their condemnation of this section were not quite so sure last year that it should be taken from the act. In fact, though it was incorporated in the report, it was not by any means the definite conclusion of the committee that this section should be taken out. I am going to give my own personal opinion, which is that had the members of the committee been perfectly sure that legislation was to be enacted in the sense of taking section 9 out of the act at the last session of parliament, there would
Dominion Elections Act

have been very much more difficulty in having such a suggestion placed in the report. The very persons, as I said before, who have discussed this matter most frequently, are not quite sure that the repeal will save the purpose which they intended it should serve.
Under the circumstances, though I personally have not the slightest objection nor do I know that any member of the committee has any objection, I believe that unless the matter is further discussed and further studied it would be well for us not to take any action upon this suggestion during this session


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that there were amendments moved to that section last year in committee but that the amendments were struck out. I do not think there is any doubt in the world that the committee, after careful consideration, thought this section should be removed from the act This session, unfortunately, we never reached the amendment. If it is going to materially affect the time when the election shall be held or anything like that it might be all right to leave it, but if it can be struck out and if there is no objection from the other members-and I doubt very much if there is-we might very well indeed strike out this section.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member is asking for my personal opinion, I am absolutely of opinion that it should be struck out, but I am not now speaking for the members of the committee when I say that.


Lucien Cannon: I have no objection to
the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amendment should
be redrafted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill wiU have to be recommitted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand the
Solicitor General accepts this amendment?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but the Solicitor
General would not violate the standing orders of the house.


Lucien Cannon: I have no objection to
the amendment provided it is adopted in accordance with the rules of the house.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The bill should be ordered to be reported back to the committee and there to be amended in the way suggested hy the hon. member. Shall I draft the amendment accordingly? It is moved by Mr. Woodsworth, seconded by Mr. Heaps, that the

said bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to add a clause providing for the repeal of section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Woodsworth moves that section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act be repealed as a new clause to Bill No. 309. Shall the amendment carry?


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNUNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 310, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There was one clause
regarding charities which was allowed to stand.


William Daum Euler: Subsection (j) of section 3
was allowed to stand in order that some decision might be arrived at to widen the exemptions from income tax. The government felt at the time that the exemptions allowed for donations to schools, hospitals, universities and churches went far enough, but during the discussion we realized that there was a great deal to be said for the arguments advanced that this clause might be broadened out in so far as the federated charities, the Red Cross and other organizations were concerned, and we decided that it would be desirable that this clause should be broadened out to that extent. We did not feel that there could be included in this clause definite reference to such organizations as the federated charities and the Red Cross, because we knew that protests would be coming in such as were presented yesterday. In casting about for some phrase which would make this clause as broad as possible, we decided on the phrase "charitable organization," and I propose to move the following amendment:
That section 3 (j) be amended by striking out the words "any church, university, college, school or hospital" in lines 24 and 25, and substituting therefor the words "any charitable organization."
Objections might be raised that the words "charitable organization" would not cover such institutions as churches, universities, schools and so on but I think the hon. leader of the

Income War Tax Act
opposition is familiar with Halsbury's Laws of England in which Charities are discussed as follows:
Only those purposes are charitable in the eye of the law which are of a public nature, whose object, that is to say, is to benefit the community or some part of it, not merely particular individuals pointed out by the donor.
Accordingly gifts which are directed to the abstract purposes of relieving poverty, advancing education or religion, are charitable.
A bequest for the relief of such poor persons as the testator's trustees may choose is charitable, but not where the choice is to be made from a number of named individuals.
"Charity" in its legal sense comprises four pricipal divisions:	trusts for the relief of
poverty, trusts for the advancement of education, trusts for the advancement of religion, and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. Within one of these divisions all charities to be administered by the court must fall, though every object which might be brought within one of them is not necessarily a charity.
I submit that this phrase embraces every organization of this kind. The section will then read as follows:
not more than ten per centum of the net taxable income of any taxpayer which has been actually paid by way of donation within the taxation period to, and receipted for as such by any charitable organization in Canada operated exclusively as such and not operated for the benefit or private gain or profit of any person, member or shareholder thereof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to congratulate
the hon. minister upon having introduced this amendment. I had an opportunity of looking into the authorities after the sitting of last evening and I am satisfied that the term "charitable organization" covers every species of benevolence that any citizen of Canada may desire to indulge in. The limitation not to exceed 10 per cent of the taxable income protects the government and enables the broadest field of choice to the individual who may desire to utilize 10 per cent of his earnings for the benefit of charitable purposes. In fact, the word " charitable" is so broad that there is no field of human endeavour which he may desire to assist that is not open to him.


William Daum Euler: This is going to give us a
lot of work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CAHAN:: Before the bill passes, I do not presume to request an amendment to clause 3, but I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a fact that should, I think, call for an amendment at some future time. I am not referring to my own particular circumstances, although I have two families of
grandchildren dependent upon me. But it has come to my notice that there is a very considerable number of cases in which the father of a family has been killed in the war or has died on account of wounds suffered during the war, and as a result the grandparent has been called upon to provide for young and growing families. Under those circumstances I think the grandparent is equally entitled to and should be allowed the same exemption of 8500 as is allowed in the case of an individual who is supporting a parent, grandparent, brother or sister incapable of self-support on account of mental or physical infirmity I know of some other cases, in which, owing to war service, young men have become not only physically but mentally incapacitated and where the pension tendered in such case by the pension board is utterly inadequate to provide properly for their children's care. I think there should be some exemption when a grand-parent, is called upon to make provision for grandchildren who are suffering under such circumstances.


William Daum Euler: I should like to congratulate my hon friend upon not pressing the matter at this time. Further consideration may be given to it on another occasion when the act is being amended.
Section 3 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No 345, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: I find the bill is not
yet ready.
Progress reported.



BOUNTY ON COAL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second) reading of Bill No. 312, to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal.
Mr. FINLAY MaclDONALD (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, before the motion for the second reading of this bill is passed, I desire to say a few words in regard to it along the lines of my remarks when the resolution was before the house. I do not intend, however, to repeat what I said at
Bounty on Coal
[Stage Direction]
that time. I may point out now that the bill as introduced is somewhat different from the resolution and no doubt clause 2 of the bill was introduced for the purpose of defeating the amendment that I moved when the resolution was before the house. As hon. members are aware, the bill provides for the payment of a bonus to the steel company of fifty cents a ton on every ton of coal used in the manufacture of steel. The object of my amendment was that the money so paid to the company should find its way into the wage envelopes of the workmen. Clause 2 of the bill was evidently framed for the purpose of defeating that amendment. It is nothing more nor less than, camouflage. It is in exactly the same position as the coke oven legislation which was introduced by the government some two or three years ago and which was held out by the government as tending to implement the recommendations of the Dnucan report regarding the establishment of coking plants in different parts of Canada. Clause 2 means shortly that the company will receive the money and may do with it what it pleases. If there is a law in the province of Nova Scotia and the company does not comply with it, then this government may withhold the payment of the bounty. Now there is no eight hour law in the province of Nova Scotia. Hon. members of this house attach great importance to this eight hour law. I may say that for the men employed in the steel works at Sydney it is not a question of eight hours or twelve hours a day, but it is a question of getting some hours of work. When I was speaking on the resolution I pointed out that hundreds of men had been thrown out of employment, and that others had been given only two or three days' work a week. I gave as an illustration one man who in the past four months had earned only $144. Let this money go into the wage envelopes of the men. Put on a restriction, if you want to, about eight hours, and give them extra pay for extra time; but do not let us try and shield ourselves behind the province passing an eight hour law or any other kind of law.
Has anybody ever considered what the effect of a province passing an eight hour law would be? If Nova Scotia passed an eight hour law covering the industries of the province, say the boot and shoe industry, what would happen? The result would be that that industry would immediately pull out of Nova Sootia and go to some other province where there was no foolish law of that kind. You cannot pass legislation that is going to go up against the economic laws.

I may saj' for the information of hon. gentlemen in the corner to my left that there is a great body of the men employed in the steel works at Sydney who are in favour of protection. It is true that there is a number of them who are discouraged and disheartened, men who have spent twenty-five years of their lives in the employment of that company and who now find themselves no better off than they were when they began. It is only natural to expect in such cases that these ment would be quite content to take desperate chances on ditching the company by denying them any protection at all.
Hon. gentlemen in that corner pretend to be free traders. Let me ask what pressure a free trade government coudd bring to bear on an industry such as the steel industry at Sydney to give their workmen any increase in wages or shorter hours. The only pressure that you can bring to bear on them is the pressure that arises from the protection that you give them. I quite appreciate the fact referred to by the Prime Minister that difficulty would arise in trying to put any such provision in the tariff as was advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). But there is no such difficulty with regard to this bonus. This is money that is going out of the federal treasury into the hands of the company, and there would be no difficulty in attaching to it a provision that that money should go to the benefit of the wage earners.
I may say that we had hoped to get a great deal of assistance from this bounty on coal. It is calculated that between four and five tons of coal would go to make a ton of steel, which would mean a bounty of $2 to $2.50 on every ton of steel.
Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman
would allow me to interrupt him, I understand that he is going to conclude his speech with an amendment. I think I know the nature of his amendment. It is with respect to attaching a provision to the bounty. That amendment would not be in order on the second reading, but it would be in order to move it on the committee stage of the bill. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow the second reading to go through and then move his amendment in committee.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I have no abjection to that, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Bounty on Coal
On section 1-Adjustment to facilitate further development of native iron and steel industry.
Mr.   MacDGNALD@Cape Breton South: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we had hoped that a bounty of 50 cents a ton on coal would mean a bounty of $2 to $2.50 on every ton of steel. But, according to the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) the other night, that under this bill there would be only a certain amount of coal used in the (primary operations, which will not carry through to the point where steel is manufactured, instead of receiving a bonus of $2 to $2.50 a ton on steed we shall receive, according to his calculation only between 70 and 80 cents a ton. If that is going to be the result, and in my opinion the hon. member for Piotou knows more about this question than the tariff board and all! the experts they have ever employed, then I say it is going to be a great disappointment for those of us in the maritime provinces who have been fighting this fight for the Inst three or four years. I do not wish to take up any more time, and therefore, I move that section 2 be struck out and-


Mr. DUNNING:: We are not yet on section 2.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before that section carries
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance exactly what interpretation is to be placed upon these words:
-the governor in council may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to manufacturers of iron or steel, of forty-nine and one-half cents per ton of bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke by a proprietor of coke ovens at his coke ovens in Canada, and used by such manufacturers in the smelting in Canada of iron from ore or in the manufacture in Canada of steel ingots or steel castings. No such payment shall be made more than once in resfpect of any coal so used.
I understood the Prime Minister, I think it was, last evening to state that this section was intended to implement to the full the report of the commission which sat and considered maritime province claims. I have not before me the report of the Duncan commission, but I remember its words quite well, and I understood from that report that all coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel should receive a sort of differential bounty, if I may call it that. I listened later to the statements of the hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) to the effect that these words exclude from the so-called bounty all coal which was really used in the manufacture of iron and steel except that smaller portion of the coal which was converted into coke; that
the coal used in all the other processes of the manufacture of iron and steel was excluded from the so-called bounty of forty-nine and a half cents per ton Now, what is the minister's understanding? Is this bounty to apply only to coal which is to be converted into coke?


Charles Avery Dunning: Wholly that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that is the clear
expression of the clause; but I understood from the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister that this was to implement the Duncan report, and certainly it does not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the report before me-


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the report and I will read it:
We were asked to recommend that a bounty should be again made available. In this connection we have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized m the course of the evidence, viz:	that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yielding up money which otherwise under its general policy in regard to bituminous coal would accrue to it. While there are, no doubt, other angles from which this concession can be regarded, it does in its operation have the effect of a bonus, and it is difficult to see how the same bonus can be denied to native coal.
Having regard t-o the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
This bill places native coal in exactly the position of coal which is imported and on which a drawback is paid only when it is converted into coke.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I followed the hon. minister as carefully as I could. Is the drawback given at present upon every ton of coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel, or is it given upon every ton of coal used solely and exclusively for the purpose of producing coke?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will read the drawback item.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would rather have your expression of opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the drawback
item:
Bituminous coal when imported by proprietors of coke ovens and converted at their coke ovens into coke for use in the smelting of metals from ores and in the melting of metals.
Bounty on Coal

It is confined to the coking process.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: I assure my hon. friend that in practice it is.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would like to have the
opinion, for instance, of the hon. member for Pictou, who I know for many years has been interested in this manufacture. But coke alone is not used in the processes of manufacture, is it? I am a perfect novice in these matters, but I have been so many times in those steel works and seen coal used in the manufacture of gas and other ancillary processes. Do I understand the minister to say that the Hamilton Steel Works, for instance, which receives a drawback, receives it only in respect of coal imported to be converted into coke?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite right.


Mr. SIMPSON:: That applies to the
Algoma Steel Corporation too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That clears up the misunderstanding in my mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: I assure my hon. friend that only the coal imported which is converted into coke and used as ooke in smelting is, to coin a word, "drawbackable."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thank the minister for
the explanation, I did not so understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Restriction.
Mr. iMactDONALD (Cape Breton South): Has any estimate been made as to what the amount of this bonus would be per ton of steel?
Charles Avery Dunning: On the basis of their
normal output we calculate about $360,000.
Mr. MadDONiALD (Cape Breton South): That is very gratifying indeed. I propose that the following 'be added to section 2:
and money so paid or a portion thereof shall be devoted to the improvement of the condition of the men employed in such plants, either by way of increased wages or shorter hours or both.


Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in connection with Ithis subject. At this late stage of the session I shall be very brief. I have listened to two debates on the question of steel bounties and assistance to the steel industry and I do not propose to traverse (the ground already covered. I can say at once that I have every sympathy in the world and I agree fully with the remarks which have been 
made with regard to the men working eleven and thirteen hours in the steel plants. I do not think I can over emphasize that point. What we are considering is the practical situation which is facing this parliament. May I say thalt for the last three years I have been intensely interested in this subject, and I think my colleagues will bear me out when I say that I have not permitted them to lose sight of the fadt that the steel industry of Sydney is a matter worthy of consideration, and I have endeavoured to bring that fact to the attention of the government on every possible occasion. With other members of the house I have realized the difficulties, first with regard to litigation which prevailed, secondly with regard to the situation of the company respecting the over capitalization and the unwieldly organization composed of the large number of companies which were grouped together, some fourteen in number, with a capitalization of over $100,000,000, a matter which seemed to me ought to be Straightened out, and thirdly with regard to the fact that the whole matter was before the tariff board. Hon. gentlemen will remember that we are not simply dealing with the question of a straight bounty; we are dealing with something which will compensate for a rebate of duty. Duties have tc do particularly with the tariff board, and the whole question had to be considered by the tariff board in the light of the application which was being made regarding the tariff on steel and coal. Those matters have been before the board and no one is more pleased than I that the Minister of Finance has been able to bring in a bill to-day in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the Duncan report. I feel sure the explanation given by the Minister of Finance will be sufficient for hon. members of this house who have questioned whether or not this bill carries out the recommendations contained in the report. The present bill does for the steel industry of Sydney exactly what section 1019 of the tariff act does for the steel industry of upper Canada, namely, iit pays to the steel industry of Sydney a bonus of 49J cents per ton for every ton of coal used for coking purposes, and afterwards used for the production of iron and steel. On the other hand the tariff act pays a rebate of 49i cents per ton on coal brought inito Canada and used for exactly the same purposes.
Let me say to the committee that this measure has been urged by everybody in Sydney who could be interested in the matter, lit has been urged by hon. members on the other side of the house. As I have said before it has been urged by me, and I have

Bounty on Coal
repeatedly discussed the matter. It has been urged not simply by those who are in public life but by the associated boards of trade of Cape Breton. I have in my hand a resolution passed by them asking that these recommendations of the Diuncan report be carried out; they do not suggest any conditions, nor do they suggest that there should be any restrictions, bult they simply ask that the provisions of the Duncan report be put into effect. A year ago I had the pleasure of being present when a delegation was received from Cape Breton. Dr. Coadry acted as chief spokesman, and the delegation consisted of men holding different political views and representing various public interests in Cape Breton. That delegation asked that these recommendations be carried out. In addition to that I have had similar representations on behalf of the miners themselves through their president, Mr. D. W. Morrison. I have had representations from the three thousand steel workers asking that Ithis report be carried out, that the tariff recommendations be carried out and that the suggested bonus be carried into effect. In not one single instance has there been a suggestion of a condition being applied in regard to wages or hours of labour.
I had been convinced, and I think other hon. members also had been convinced, that the iron and steel industry might be on the verge of disaster; it was said the industry was going to languish and decline. Those expressions have been used in this house on more than one occasion. That there was danger of collapse of that industry; people were not making large profits, but on the other hand there was the possibility that the whole industry would close down. The object I had in view was to try to help save the iron and steel industry of Nova Scotia. On this occasion we are trying to do that, and we are using this bill to effect that end. As pointed out by the leader of the opposition last night this steel industry has been in the hands of the receivers for the last four years. There has been talk about the profits which have been made; someone mentioned a surplus amounting to about $2,000,000. We must remember however that that $2,000,000 was met by a deficit of about $1,700,000, and leaving a net surplus for the British Empire Steed Corporation, from the time of its organization until the end of last year, of something like $300,000. That is not the type of concern in connection with which it could be said that we are bonusing for the purpose of putting money into -the pockets of the shareholders. The object of this government is to try to put money into the pockets of the workers. The people who
will benefit by the assistance given to the industry will not be the shareholders or the bondholders, but the men who are working in the industry. That is the result which we have been trying to attain. During the last three or four weeks the company has completed a reorganization. As one particularly interested in the province of Nova Scotia and interested- in the iron and steel industry I have scanned as carefully as I possibly could the reorganization proposals which have been published in the newspapers. If hon. members will take the trouble to investigate they will find that several companies with a combined capitalization of something like $100,000,000 have been dealt with so that their capitalization is reduced to about $21,000,000. On the balance sheet the properties are shown at cost at something like $130,000,000. I do not think we can say there has been a very large payment so far as the shareholders are concerned; the bond interest has not been paid for the last four years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was -paid last year.


James Layton Ralston: On the two junior issues of bonds there has been no interest paid for the last four years. I am referring to bond interest and not to dividends on shares. That is a resume of the condition of the industry we are trying to help to-day.
As to labour conditions and the statements in regard thereto I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and his colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in calling the attention of the house to this matter. The remarks of these hon. gentlemen have served to focus the attention of the Canadian people on this matter of labour conditions. I say that these hon. members have done a great service to labour, and in bringing the matter to attention they have done a service to this house. I am not sure my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald), for whom I have the greatest friendliness, can be credited with exactly the same disinterested motives. My hon. friend was good enough to give the government the benefit of his confidence and the benefit of his vote in connection with the budget. I am not so sure the hon. gentleman was prompted by his love for the government, or by the fact that he loved more his seat down in Nova Scotia. He may have been prompted by both motives, however.
I have listened to the debate in connection with this labour question, and I have decided that it has not been an argument in favour of the labouring man so much as it has been a debate between two schools of thought, one
Bounty on Coal

protectionist and the other free trade. I am not concerned with protection or free trade in the abstract in connection with this debate. On the contrary I am more interested in trying to help this industry and to assist the men engaged therein. I would be very much afraid that the labouring men would be crushed between the upper and nether millstones of those who are talking about free trade on the one hand and protection on the other. The workingman would foe forgotten entirely if some of us did not try to stick to the real issue, and the real issue in this particular case is the bill before the house which has for its object the placing of the steel industry on its feet. I want to say to my hon. friends from Winnipeg North Centre and North Winnipeg that since the report to which they referred was made there have been some improvements in regard to the hours of labour. I understand that the mills have come down to ten hours. That may be far too much, but at least there has been some improvement. The continuous operations to which my hon. friends referred, as the hon. leader of the opposition said last night, are still continuing at eleven and thirteen hours, and I agree that such a condition is not good for an industry or good for a country. My hon. friends cannot speak any more strongly on that point than I can, but the question is what to do.
It seems to me that this brings us really to our function in this house. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton, in his second attempt-a rather shrewd attempt and perhaps good politics-sought to focus the attention of the men on himself by moving a rather specious amendment to this bill. What was the amendment? It was that .the whole or a portion of this money should be applied for the purpose of improving the condition of the men. That does not mean anything at all; it is simply eye-wash. The whole or any portion of it means that you could spend five cents, or you could paint some workman's house, and get away with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, not five cents.


James Layton Ralston: The slightest assistance in the world would be enough to comply with this resolution, and my hon. friend would walk out and claim that he had done something for the labouring men of Cape Breton. Let me say to him that I do not believe this kind of resolution means anything except that it means -he is going to endeavour to be the champion of the labouring men down there if he can, but I believe that what the labouring men want is some real asistance to this industry in order .to put it on its feet. I have

under my hand the resolutions to which I have referred, and just the other day, since this discussion came up, I received a telegram which I am going to place on Hansard. It is from exactly the same men, and headed in exactly the same way as the telegram which my hon. friend read two years ago from the steel people of Sydney, that is, the representatives of 3,000 men. It is as follows:
At a regular meeting of the general works committee, employees representative plan, Dominion Iron and Steel Company, representing over three thousand steel workers in session this afternoon unanimously decided on the following resolution: We the representatives of the employees of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company Limited do hereby recommend that the budget as handed down be approved without further amendment regarding bonus on coal and tariff on steel. We have confidence in the management to the extent that they will as soon as conditions warrant instal the eight hour day.
That .telegram is dated May 22, and it followed the telegrams and letters which I have received from time to time as indicating the attitude of the men down there. I d-o not question my hon. friend's knowledge of local conditions; they are far better than mine, but if he knows anything at all he knows that men are walking the streets of Sydney to-day and that the first thing to do is to get .them employment. That is what this bill is intended to do.


Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask by whom that telegram was signed?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. It is signed by P. W. McDougall, secretary of .the employees' representative plan.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at one o'clock we were discussing Bill No. 312.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I was
speaking with regard to the provisions of this bill as they concern assistance to be given to the steel industry. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) understands the conditions which exist down there, and, as I said before, there is considerable unemployment in that particular section. We are trying to put this industry on its feet and thus relieve some of this unemployment. Some 250 men are employed in the open hearth furnaces, but they are working only about 3i days per week. We feel that that situation should be remedied if at all possible.

Bounty on Coal
I submit that we cannot pass special legislation in respect to one particular industry. Let me remind my hon. friends just what this bill is. The steel industries of central Canada -I group them together-receive a rebate on account of duty which has been levied on coal used in their plants. This bill on the other hand provides that an amount shall be paid to those industries which use Canadian coal.
I find that in the customs tariff there are no less than 50 to 55 items in respect of which drawbacks are paid, and after all this provision is simply a drawback in another form. With this industry in its present condition, this is not the time to propose a principle which if applied at all should be considered in connection with every one of the 55 items, and every one of the 55 concerns represented by those items. This is exactly the same principle which was enunciated with regard to the tariff.
I do not think it is fair to single out one particular industry because it happens to be receiving now what other industries have been receiving right along. So I say to my hon. friends that from the point of view of fairness to the industry, and outside of the question of the position in which it finds itself, I do not believe that this is the proper thing to do.
What we have suggested, and what I believe will appeal to hon. members of this house, is this: If, under the circumstances, the province which possesses the jurisdiction considers that some provision should be passed, not with respect to one particular industry but with respect to all, regarding the hours of labour or the rates of wages, then this government will assist the provincial government in enforcing that law. The law must be made, not by this parliament but by the provincial legislature, and that is the reason for the provision contained in the bill which has been referred to by the hon. member for South Cape Breton as being camouflage. I submit that it is not camouflage, it is a serious effort to put the power of this parliament behind the enforcement of provincial legislation. As has been said repeatedly in this house, the function of the federal authorities will be to pay out the money not to make the law regarding labour, but we will say: If you infringe the laws of the jurisdiction which has the power to make those laws, then in addition to whatever penalty you incur from that infringement we will impose the additional penalty of withholding this bounty.
Reference has been made to the labour conditions in this particular community, and since that time the manager of the company, Mr. Kelley, has made a statement which appears in the Sydney Post of May 23, reading as follows:-
The workmen know that we are behind the eight-hour day move at the steel plant and we have told them that we intend to install that system as soon as practicable. That is, the ten- and eight-hour day or eight-hour shifts for those whose departments are kept in continuous 24-hour operation, and 10 hours in the service departments which are not kept going continuously. At present we are operating the plant on the 10- and 12-hour day system, and it has been our intention for some time past to remedy this condition as soon as conditions improve.
The plant has been through a hard period, and the company have spent considerable in trying to build it up to its proper efficiency. When that is .accomplished the eight-hour day will be established.
The coal bounty, while not as great as might be expected, will help towards bringing about conditions we are anxious to have at the local plant, and we are very thankful for what we have got. It is at least a move in the right direotion.
This is a very important industry to the province of Nova Scotia. I believe that hon. gentlemen sometimes feel that this is an industry situated away down in one end of the Dominion and having to do only with that community. I want the committee to realize that the combined coal and steel industry employs something like 20,000 men; that nearly one-fifth of the population of Nova Scotia is interested directly or indirectly in connection with that industry; that it purchases something like $60,000,000 worth of goods; that it pays out in wages something like $23,000,000; that it pays in Nova Scotia more than 50 per cent of the workmen's compensation assessments being paid in that province. Therefore the prosperity of the steel and coal industry means a great deal for the prosperity of the province. The assistance in the form in which it is granted means assistance not only for the steel industry but for the coal industry as well, because the steel industry uses about one-quarter of the production of the coal mines at Cape Breton, with the result that when you pay a bounty based on coal used for the purpose of making iron and steel, you are giving a very substantial benefit to the coal industry itself.
Let me say one thing more. As regards my hon. friend opposite voting for and supporting the budget, I can quite understand his action when we look over the record of the government with regard to the coal and steel industry in Nova Scotia, and when we see exactly who it is that has done anything to assist that industry. Let me remind my hon. friend of what has been said before, namely, that the

Bounty on Coal

first real assistance to the industry was given in 1897 by a system of bounties which was then put into vogue and which has continued until 1910. Let me remind my hon. friends also that the revision of the tariff in respect of steel, the great revision prior to this one, was in 1907 under a Liberal government. Let me remind them also that slack coal was paying a duty of something like fifteen cents a ton and that it was not a Conservative government, but a Liberal government, which increased that duty to fifty cents a ton because the tariff item regarding slack coal was being used as subterfuge to bring in United States coal and affect the market for Canadian screened coal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many rebates were
thereupon granted?


James Layton Ralston: I can remember only one. Under tariff item 1049 one of the rebates was granted. It was granted on coal imported for tlie purpose of being made into coke and it was granted because of the fact that our friends opposite and their friends had put United States coke on the free list. This meant that United States bituminous coal could be imported free in the form of coke and it was thought better to encourage the manufacture of coke in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. member
remembers one that his government put into force since he became a member of it.


James Layton Ralston: That was the one I was talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The one put through in
connection with salt?


James Layton Ralston: How many tons of coal
does that affect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is just the principle
of the thing.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose that might
amount to 1,000 or 2,000 tons of coal in a year and on that account I do not think my hon. friend's interpretation is justified.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It shows what is done.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to coal, it
was left for the present government to make it possible to bring Canadian coal up to the central Canadian markets. First, as to all rail coal, a recommendation was made by the Duncan commisison that the freight subvention which had been granted on coal should be renewed. A subvention had been put into force a year or two before the Duncan commission sat. What was done was this, and not by a Conservative government, not by

friends of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, but by a Liberal government. The rate on coal was $4.80 to Montreal. By the 20 per cent reduction of the Duncan report the freight rate was reduced to S3.80. On top of that was placed a subvention which brought the freight rate on coal down to $3. In other words, there was an increase of thirty cents a ton in the subvention which had previously existed and which had been recommended for renewal by the Duncan report.
Then there was coal which came up the St. Lawrence by water and which it was desired to move further west. A subvention had existed which permitted the payment up to fifty cents a ton on that coal. This government accepted the recommendation of the Duncan report, but in addition it increased that subvention by 50 per cent, making the maximum subvention seventy-five cents a ton, and to-day coal is moving to Ottawa, Hull, Kingston, Noranda and as far west as Tasche-reau on the Transcontinental railway. How much coal has moved under that subvention? It is as follows:
Year
1929
Tons
85.000
61.000
These are the figures as regards water-borne coal:
Year
1929
Tons
86.000
193,000
This year the amount of business which has been accepted is not 193,000 tons, but 502,000 tons proposed to be assisted by the present government and the business has already been closed for 330,000 tons so far this year, or almost double the total business done in the whole of last year. This makes a tonnage of over 700,000 tons to be moved under that rate. In addition, bunker coal was taken off the free list. So I think that the Liberal party can claim to have done something for the steel and coal industry.
Now we come along with this bounty provision and the provisions of the tariff with respect to steel. What have the Conservatives done? I have searched in vain and I cannot find that my hon. friends, even during the eleven years they were in power, ever thought of renewing the bounties on coal. I find they granted rebates in duties on iron, on steel. I find that their contribution to the coal industry was to put coke on the free list and anthracite coal on the free list under governments led by Conservative prime ministers. I cahnot, however, find very much that would lead my hon. friend from Cape Breton South to look to the Conservative

Bounty on Coal
party for support for the steel industry and I can well understand why he or anyone else claiming to be interested in the steel industry would vote for the present government in connection with the budget.
What is proposed with regard to this labour matter is this: we have the announcement of the manager of the steel company and I have read it to the house. The house sees what it is; attention has been focussed on it and the company desires and believe they can put into force the eight-hour shift. In addition to that we have the statement made by the Prime Minister last night as a result of a conference with a director of the company in regard to the improvement of labour conditions. Further we have the legislation now before the house providing that the Dominion government will assist the local government to enforce any law which that local government may pass not simply for the purpose, as my hon. friends resolution suggests, of employing the "whole" or any portion of that money, but for the purpose of putting into force any labour legislation which is passed as a result of any labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles. Those are the things with which we can go to the men and I believe the men in Sydney know iust as well as anyone what they want and their conditions and perhaps better than even the hon. member for South Cape Breton or any other hon. member. I am content to take their judgment in that respect. I believe they will see through the amendment moved by my hon. friend. It is a life saver, an attempt, as I said before, to indicate that my hon. friend is the champion of the labour men but I do not think an amendment couched in that language and with those nebulous words "the whole" or any "portion" to be devoted to improving conditions, will afford much comfort to the men of Sydney. I believe they will regard the implementing of the recommendations of the Duncan report, the granting of this substantial bounty, the assurance which has been given by the manager of the company, the assurance given by the Prime Minister and the evidence of sincerity which appears in the bill itself as being more calculated to improve their conditions than the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend. My endeavour is to continue assisting this industry to get on its feet. I believe that it can be done. I believe that that industry involves a great deal for the province of Nova Scotia, and I propose when the time comes to go to the men of Sydney and tell them squarely what we have done 2419-172J
and what we are doing, and to present this bill to them as it stands, and I am quite content to abide by the result of that appeal.
I believe that I shall get their approval of what we are now doing and that they will not be misled by the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Minister of National Defence, and with one portion of his remarks I entirely agree. That was his statement .that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) would not be of much use as far as the men are concerned. I think that that goes without saying because it is stated in the amendment that a part of the money shall be devoted to the interests of the men. That part would have to be determined by the company, in which event I think that the men would gelt very little out of this bounty which I presume is to be voted by parliament.
With other portions of the remarks of the hon. minister I cannot agree. In his later statements I think he tried to convince the house that the party of which he is a member was a higher tariff party than the Conservative party and he almost convinced me that he was right. I do not know whether in that statement he was voicing the opinions of hon. gentlemen who sit on his own side of the house.
The speech of the minister may be summarized under four heads. He dealt with the bounty on coal; the conditions of the industry; the conditions of the men; and lastly with what the Liberal party has done for the province of Nova Scotia. With the latter part of his remarks I am not going to take issue nor indeed touch upon them but I wish to say a few words in reference to some of his other statements.
The minister said that, first of ah, we should try to put the industry on its feet, and for that reason he thought that it would be unwise to take any action at the present time which would compel the company to give the eight-hour day or higher wages to its employees. Secondly he said that it is not a matter within the jurisdiction of this parliament to say what labour conditions in Nova Scotia shall be, that that was enltirely a matter for the province itself. Suppose that in the near future the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia decided ito put into effect the eight-hour day and insisted on fair wages for the men employed in industry. The whole argument of the minister then falls to the ground because the industry would be compelled bo put those conditions into effect
Bounty on Coal

irrespective of the conditions of the industry itself. The minister shakes his head. If I am wrong I must have misunderstood him. but that is the only meaning that I could take from his statements this morning and this afternoon. He said that so far as this parliament was concerned, we should not do anything that would interfere with labour conditions in Nova Scotia. Secondly he said that it would be unwise to take any such action at the present time because this company and others are taking a sort of fatherly interest in the condition of their workmen, and that if we wait long enough the time may come when the men may receive better working conditions, and therefore it would be unwise, he said, to take the action suggested at the present time. Suppose that the province of Nova Scotia insisted on the eight-hour day and better wages in industry in the province. It would then be just as unwise for the province to insist upon those conditions as it would be for this house. It makes no difference so far as the men are concerned and so far as the industries are concerned where the jurisdiction lies because the law would be effective in any event.
The minister also said that we should not legislate for one particular industry. What are we doing at the present time? Are we not at this very moment introducing legislation for the benefit of one particular industry? Are we not giving to one industry, even to a portion of one industry, special legislation? This bounty is special legislation for the benefit of a portion of the coal industry in the Dominion.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend did not quite get my point. I was pointing out that this was just one particular industry, and that there were fifty-five others on the books that were getting rebates. This is the same as a rebate, and you could not pick Oiut one industry without legislating with regard to them all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not a rebate; it is a bounty. The steel mills generally buy their coal in the open market and buy to what they consider is their best advantage. But the British Empire Steel Corporation buys coal from its own mines, and we do not know whether they are paying a fair or an unfair price for that coal. But we do know that we have to pay 494 cents a ton to one company under the control of the British Empire Steel Corporation. There is no equality whatsoever in giving a rebate to the steel company at Hamilton and giving a bounty to a company which owns its coal mines.


James Layton Ralston: The Duncan commission
decided the .reverse of that. Sir Andrew Rae Duncan decided that the very basis of this grant was that money was paid out of the treasury to the steel mills of upper Canada, and therefore a like amount should be paid out to the steel mills of Nova Scotia.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not accept Sir Andrew Rae Duncan as any authority on this particular question. It was the same Sir Andrew Rae Duncan who stated in his report when dealing with labour conditions in Nova Scotia that the men employed in the mills should be paid according to the ability of the industry to pay wages, and when a man makes a statement of that sort it appears to me that he is not a fit and proper person t6 consider labour conditions anywhere in this Dominion. Wages, irrespective of the condition of the industry should be the first charge on the industry, and whether or not the company can afford to pay good wages is not a matter of primary importance so far as the men are concerned.
I might go a little further. The minister has been very profuse to-day in his declarations about being willing to put the industry on its feet and giving consideration to the industry. I am more concerned, as I have stated on more than one occasion in this house, with giving first consideration to the men.


James Layton Ralston: I said that too.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to give first consideration to the men, and secondly consideration to the industry.


James Layton Ralston: I said that too.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But what we are doing at the present time is giving first consideration to the industry, and letting the men take care of themselves.
I am sorry that I cannot see eye to eye with the hon. gentleman who has moved an amendment to the second section of this bill. I have an amendment which I hope to move if his amendment is not agreed to, and perhaps at this particular juncture I may be allowed to state that by my amendment I adopt a portion of section 2 as contained in the bill, but leave out that portion which deals with making this bounty operative when the legislature of Nova Scotia has passed legislation for the eight-hour day and fair wages in that province. My intention is to make this bounty operative only from such time as the industry itself gives fair and reasonable conditions of labour and the eight-hour day to its employees.

Bounty on Coal


Mr. QUINN:: I did not intend to say
anything on this subject, but I am prompted to do so after listening to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, who accused members on this side of the house of playing politics with this question. I am sure that the people of this country, and particularly the people of the province of Nova Scotia, are best able to judge who is playing politics with this question. Going back to 1923, there was then a solid representation of sixteen Liberal members sitting in this house from the province of Nova Scotia. In that year the Conservative party in Nova Scotia adopted the platform of maritime rights, and on that platform they elected the present senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) and thus broke the "solid sixteen." That program was preached by the Conservative party in the two general elections of 1925, with the result that the Liberal party which had held power in Nova Scotia for over forty years was defeated and returned only three members to the legislature. A few months afterwards eleven Conservative members were elected to this house from Nova Scotia. Hon. members know what happened the following year, and they will recall that the Conservative party has advocated that platform consistently up to the present day. The pressure of public opinion became so strong that this government became panicky and in 1926, in the speech from the throne they told us they were going to appoint a royal commission to investigate maritime claims. In due time Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and two associates were appointed and made an investigation. In this they were assisted very materially by the Nova Scotia government of Premier Rhodes, which submitted to the commission a comprehensive brief on the subject matter of the inquiry. Undoubtedly this brief aided the commission in making the report which was submitted to this house in 1926. The legislation now presented by the government with regard to a bonus on steel and coal is based on the recommendations made by the Duncan commission, but although that report was submitted, as I say, in 1926, this government has delayed dealing with them until to-day in the dying hours of the last session of this parliament. I submit that the government is playing politics on this question, not the Conservative party.
The members of the government have pointed out on several occasions that they are treating the maritime provinces very generously and they have called particular attention to the increased subsidy of 8875,000 paid
to Nova Scotia. But the Duncan commission recommended that this subsidy should be paid annually until the proper amount was adjusted, and this adjustment the commission stated should be made at the earliest possible moment. Well, that recommendation was made four years ago, and no adjustment has yet been made. Let me ask the government why?
In this connection I would point out that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has referred to the bonus granted to the steel companies in 1897. But that was before there was any British Empire Steel Corporation; that was when we had the steel and coal companies in Nova Scotia carrying on a fairly successful business. Because of that fact the money grabbers of this country -the money grabbers that we heard about last week with respect to the Beauharnois deal-saw an opportunity by merging these coal and steel companies into a big organization to make a handsome profit for themselves. They therefore increased the capitalization to such an enormous amount that when they applied to the Borden government for a Dominion charter they were refused. Where did they go? They applied to the old Liberal government then in control of Nova Scotia for a provincial charter, and that government granted the request. I submit to the house that the former Liberal government of Nova Scotia were responsible for the British Empire Steel Corporation and for all the disastrous consequences which have resulted from its incorporation.
There is another matter I desire to call to the attention of hon. members in connection with the payment of subsidies. In the days of the Liberal regime in Nova Scotia we had unrest and disquietude amongst the miners of Cape Breton year in and year out, and strikes were of almost yearly occurrence until 1925, when the Rhodes government succeeded to office. In 1924, the position became so critical that the Liberal government of Nova Sootia applied to the King government to send down troops. This government promptly despatched military units drawn from all over the Dominion and on their arrival in Cape Breton they marched through the affected area with fixed bayonets and loaded rifles the same as our soldiers marched into Germany. What were those troops sent down to Cape Breton for? To threaten these miners who were asking only for fair wages and fair living conditions. In 1925 the federal authorities sent the Rhodes government a bill for the expenses incidental to the movement of those troops.
Bounty on Coal


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Well, what about the Beau-harnois deal? Who gave the charter to the British Empire Steel Corporation? Is that not good enough? If the Minister of National Defence and his government are so much interested in the miners of Canada, why don't they do something to stop the importation of Russian coal? Why do they force the miners of this country to enter into competition with the miners of Russia? I submit it is the duty of this government to give immediate attention to this matter and place a protective tariff on coal so that the further importation of Russian coal will cease. Only by doing this will it be possible for the miners of Nova Scotia and the other coal mining regions of Canada to market their product in their own country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the coal coming in from Russia is anthracite? Not one pound of anthracite is mined in Canada.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I understand it is anthracite coal just as well as the member for Cartier does, and I appreciate the difference between anthracite and bituminous coal. But I am accepting the word of one of the cabinet ministers that this Russian coal does come into Canada in competition with Nova Scotia coal. That was stated on the floor of the house the other day. My hon. friend has not been very regular in his attendance or he would have heard that 250,000 tons of Russian coal has been imported. May I ask him if he is in favour of anthracite coal being imported into this country from Russia?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am in favour of bringing into this country coal that we ourselves cannot mine.


Felix Patrick Quinn: But we can mine coal that will meet the same requirements as this
[Ml. Quinn.]
Russian anthracite coal meets. Our coal can be used to advantage in this country. We have done without Russian anthracite coal for years, and why cannot we do without it now?


Samuel William Jacobs: We have not done without it. We got it from Pennsylvania before.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I suggest to my hon. friends that the subject about which they are quarrelling is scarcely relevant to the subamendment of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald).


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have about finished. I
rose to speak because of the statement of the Minister of National Defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not often one hears a member of an administration accept responsibility for an existing situation and attach the blame .to his own government. That much at least has been done by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in the speech he delivered in this house to-day. It must have been gratifying to his supporters in this house to hear him put it so clearly. He has indicated that the British Empire Steel Corporation has for some time been in a very precarious condition, and in fact had to go into the hands of a receiver. He has also admitted that three years ago a recommendation was made that that which now is being done should have been done.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Partly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so if what is now being done is intended to save the industry, why was the industry not saved three years ago? It is not very difficult for hon. members to place the blame where it belongs if for a period of eight years, from 1922 to 1930, a great industry has been allowed to languish, to use the word of the hon. gentleman.


James Layton Ralston: That was the hon. gentleman's word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He used the word
"languish"; if I used the word I am glad my hon. friend has copied it. If this administration has allowed the iron and steel industry to languish for a period of eight years most people will be greatly pleased that those who hold power have at last recognized their obligation in the premises.


James Dew Chaplin: In part only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In part only. They have increased the duties on steel 66J per cent and 80 per cent, and my hon. friend suggests that that is the proper procedure in order to

Bounty on Coal
prevent this industry from destruction. He also says that they are now giving a bounty of 49J cents a ton on coal to be used for coking in connection with the steel industry, and that such action has been taken to prevent the industry from destruction. Why was such action not taken during the last eight years; why at any time during the last eight years did the government not take that action, or why was it not done during the last three years, since it was advocated by the Duncan report? If the hon. gentleman was as zealous in the interests of the steel industry as he would have us believe, if he was desirous of protecting this industry as he now states, and if he was desirous of seeing that thousands of men found employment and that the indutry was prevented from falling into decline, why did he not do something in 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?


James Layton Ralston: What about 1911 to 1921?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason was that there was a great war.


James Layton Ralston: Oh no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He knows better than anyone else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He knows from 1911 to 1914, when the war broke out, certain investigations were being carried on in that regard, and he knows further that from 1914 to 1918, there was an increase of 7J per cent in all the tariffs. One of the first acts of the Minister of Finance when the war broke out was to increase the tariffs by 7J per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: As a war measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, as a war measure. That was one of the first actions of the government, and the result of course inured to the benefit of the industry, whether in war time or peace time.


James Layton Ralston: And to every industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and the hon. gentleman realizes that the competition in our market was to a very great extent lessened by reason of the demands made by the warring countries upon steel-producing countries. The opportunities for producing steel in our own country were correspondingly greater, and the industry flourished as it had never flourished before. In fact one of the anomalies of life is that the foundation of increased industrial development in Canada has been directly attributable to the war.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows
that from 1919 to 1922 the industry did not flourish.	ij Jt':


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that it did. After the war there was a reaction which proved to be injurious, not only to the British Empire Steel Corporation but to almost all the industrial enterprises in this country. The revival was very slow and gradual. The situation was so difficult that-


James Layton Ralston: What did my hon. friends do about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did a very great deal, ithe details of which I shall not endeavour to give at this time. I was not in the house in those days, and the hon. gentleman knows that fact, because I was not a candidate in the election of 1917. I was not in the house during the period referred to, the year 1922, but the industry was on the upward grade; conditions were reviving. I can say at least that it was subsequent to that date when the industry went into the hands of the receiver, and I would ask my hon. friends to bear tihat in mind. If it was allowed to go into the hands of receivers while this government was in power, and this government now says this remedy should be applied to make the situation sound, why did they not take action earlier? Why did they not take action, because it was pressed at all times by the industry that this action should be taken?


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister made his announcement in March, 1927, that the bounty could not be granted in view of the litigation pending at that time. That was agreed to by members of the local administration in the province of Nova Scotia; there was a Conservative administration in that province at that time, and the Conservative newspapers thought the situation was one which should not be dealt with at that time, until the affairs of the company were straightened out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Duncan report of the year 1926 recommended immediate action.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have yet to learn that the fact that litigation existed is sufficient excuse for the failure of a government to save an industry from utter destruction.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's party
said that, as I have read to this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says he has been reading. May I point out again that the responsibility for the condition which existed in the industry must be accepted by the Liberal party in this house, and by no other party. They must accept the responsi-
Bounty on Coal

bility for the simple and obvious reason that it was after the year 1-922 that -the industry went into the hands of a receiver, and it was after that date that the government imposed a duty of 50 cents per ton upon slack coal. It was then suggested that a bounty should be paid to compensate the industry in Nova Scotia, and other companies which were operating in other parts of the country.


James Layton Ralston: The drawback to which my hon. friend -refers was put on by the hon. gentleman's friends in 1914, and not by the Liberal administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that a
Liberal administration put it on.


James Layton Ralston: All right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the hon. gentleman very properly contends that there should be a bounty paid to compensate for -that drawback. If that be so why was the bounty not granted at any time during the last eight years if, as the hon. gentleman has suggested, it is going to save the industry? Why not have saved _ it during the last eight years, ana not let it go into the hands of receivers?
i 1'l9i4^ALSTON 1 Why WaS not Branted


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the duty upon slack coal was not 50 cents a ton; it was only 15 cents. It was later increased to 50 cents a ton in the days of Mr. Macdonald who was Minister of Militia and who came from Nova Scotia. That is when the duty was increased to 50 cents a ton on slack coal. Thereupon it was contended that as 99 per cent of the duty was being granted to industry as a drawback, a bounty equivalent to 99 per cent of the duty of 50 cents per ton, or 491 cents, the amount mentioned in this bill, should be granted on coal which is converted into coke for the purpose of manufacturing steel in Canada, Nova Scotia being the principal province affected.


James Layton Ralston: Why was it not contemporaneous with the drawback?


Mr. BENNET  T@: It should have been contemporaneous with the duty of 50 cents per ton; 15 cents was very insignificant.


James Layton Ralston: On 700,000 or 800,000 tons of coal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fifteen cents a ton was said to be of no use at all. The predecessor of the hon. gentleman who came from Nova Scotia contended that 15 cents was useless and that there should be a duty of 50 cents a ton. As a result a duty of 50 cents per ton was put on coal; the government of this 
Prime Minister imposed a tariff upon im-poi ted coal of 50 cents a ton, and the drawback was extended accordingly. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce secured a drawback in connection with one industry in his particular locality; I went down and looked at it and I recommend that every hon. gentleman should go down and see what it meant to give a drawback on the coal used in that industry, and see what encouragement is given to Canadian enterprise.
By -this bounty the hon. gentleman now proposes to accomplish the purpose which he has defined in very clear terms, and which I shall not again express, namely, to give this industry the benefit that results from drawbacks on duty paid on imported coal to the manufacturers of iron and steel in Nova Scotia and elsewhere. His desire is to put the Nova Scotia	industry on an	eq-ual basiswith	competitors	in	other parts	of Canada.If it	-be sound that	this should	be done in1930,	on the eve	of	an election,	why was it
not done at any time during the lost eight years? Why has there been no action in connection with this matter for the last two years; why has the hon. gentleman been so si-lent all this time? Has his voice been raised in parliament -to say that this should be done? Has he at any time risen in his place and said to the people of Canada that this bounty should be granted or that the steel duties should be raised?


James Layton Ralston: I can tell my hon. friend that I have spoken of it in this house and told the people of Canada the exact facts in regard to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us see the speeches; there is no record of the hon. gentleman risking his place in the government for his province. If the hon. gentleman believed in this as he now says he does, he would have said to his Prime Minister, "Either we get a tariff on steel and a bounty on coal or I will have to resign my seat." That is the answer; that is what other ministers have said in days gone by when the industrial life of their provinces was threatened. The minister stands here now and says, "We are going to do something for this industry, eight years after this government has been in power."


James Layton Ralston: No, after nineteen j'ears.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not becloud the issue; eight years after this government has been in power, and in spite of the fact that for the past four years 'he has been in the government which he now adorns.

Bounty on Coal


James Layton Ralston: I have told my hon. friend that I have repeatedly made statements regarding the matter, and I have stated exactly why I did not believe it should be granted at that time. I stand by those statements, but I believe the time has come when it should be granted, in view of the reorganization.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right; there is always one gentleman on the other side the muscles of whose right hand are ever ready to move in a noisy direction whenever he can find anyone else to do it. The other afternoon he found that his groans against his own Prime Minister's speech placed him in rather a difficult position, and so the chief whip retired for the moment somewhat in disgrace. The hon. Minister of National Defence was not far behind him in that regard; his tears were also somewhat palpably apparent.
Now let us proceed. I say the Minister of National Defence says that the reason he is now doing this is because the company is being reorganized, but he saw them go into a receivership; he saw employment threatened; he spoke about unemployment; he saw the strike to which reference has been made; he saw the troops there. When did he rise in this house and say as a representative of Nova Scotia, " Either there will be a duty on steel and a bounty on coal or I will leave the government "?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must stick to the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Layton Ralston: I was not in parliament
nor was I a member of the government when the receivership took place, and when the situation did develop the receivership was on. It was felt and agreed by everyone in Nova Scotia who was thinking and who knew about it that this could not be done until the company cleaned up its whole situation, and then it was put before the tariff board by the company. Tariff and rebate were all twined in one; both applications were heard together, and the moment the tariff board reported and the moment the reorganization took place this measure was brought down, and it is the last major recommendation of the Duncan report to be implemented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, the hon. gentleman says once more that this matter was placed before the tariff board. When was it placed before that board?


James Layton Ralston: In November, 1928, and
the experts of the company before the board- and this is on record, although I am afraid my hon. friend does not read my speeches very much-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have to listen to
them.


James Layton Ralston: The expert of the company said at that time that it was impossible to have the tariff board deal with the matter in time for last session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; the tariff
board in this country never has dealt with anything except the convenience of the government.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about the
company's counsel, not the counsel for the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course the tariff board has only dealt with such matters as the government desired to have dealt with, in the manner and form desired by the government, and the chairman of the board is getting ready now to be a candidate at this election, after establishing certain relationships. That is the situation. Is it any wonder Mr. Darby of the United Farmers sent a letter to the Toronto Star last fall pointing out the political tendencies of this tariff board, and how politics had crept into it to destroy its usefulness? Is it any wonder that is so? Now we have the spectacle again brought before this country of the gentleman whom they say is primarily responsible for the preparation of this tariff and for this recommendation preparing to be a candidate for the Liberal government in a nearby constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: A good candidate, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course there is not a
Liberal who will not say that any man who has raised the duty on steel 80 per cent and 66j per cent and 300 per cent on other articles is not a good candidate for the Liberal party. There is not a Liberal from the west who recalls the days of Billy Moore when he was in charge of the Mackenzie and Mann slush funds, who will not say he is a good candidate; not one of them.


Mr. McINTOSH:: He is doing good work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly was doing
good work in those days, according to the Liberal views, and I am glad to hear the hon. member for North Battleford say that one who recommends an increase in the tariff of
Bounty on Coal

300 per cent is doing good work. He did not always say that; I remember an article which appeared in his paper over his own name in which he seemed to think high tariffs were a menace, that danger was everywhere about. He looked over his shoulder and saw the spectre of evil everywhere, but now Mr. Moore is doing "good work." Let him go and tell his constituents what he is doing in that regard, and see how pleased they will be.
However, let us get back to the hon. gentleman. We have had a minister of the crown come here and admit the condition; he says this is a remedy; he admits that the condition has existed in the past, but that no effort has been made to provide a remedy either by increased duties or by the payment of a bounty. Those who have heard political speeches in the west; those who have listened to them made in this house by the Minister of Railways and Canals hardly think it possible that a man who has made such speeches against increased duties and bounties would sit here and look on while this action is being taken. Those who remember the speeches of the Minister of Finance in times past, when he talked about the iniquity of tariffs and when he spoke of pap-fed industries; those who recall the speeches of the hon. member for Lisgar, who made the air almost blue with the invective with which he spoke against a high tariff policy in this country, must be truly amazed. How must the hon. member for Lisgar feel when he sees these duties put upon steel? Now the hon. minister says this is the remedy for the evil, the remedy that is going to replace the present conditions in Nova Scotia with prosperity and happiness, because the government has done something now that might have been done years ago to bring about that prosperity which was denied when the industry was threatened and men were idle. Now when the receiver has gone we can raise the duties SO per cent and 66J per cent and pay a bounty of 49} cents a ton on coal and all is well; everything prospers and blooms as the rose. It is no wonder my hon. friend from Lisgar has a headache.
I simply leave this with the committee and with the house, and say to the hon. gentleman that I congratulate him upon having made this admission of his own culpability and the culpability of his own government in not having taken steps to provide prosperity where they now say it will come by reason of the action they are taking, when in 1926 the Duncan report was in their possession and no action was taken. It is well that these things 
should be understood and that there should be a proper appreciation by the people of this country of the utilization of a tariff and of bounties in the manner in which the government say they are now using them in order to bring about prosperity, though in times past hon. gentlemen went to and fro throughout the country denouncing pap-fed industries and tariffs and bounties and special privileges for the few.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, first of all
I want to take exception to the statement of several of the ministers to the effect that the Duncan report. has been carried out in this legislative measure. I want to read first of all the statement of the Minister of Finance when delivering his budget speech, when he said:
It is proposed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims with respect to Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel.
I make this statement, Mr. Chairman: Under this provision not one cent is being provided for the manufacture of steel. That is how the Duncan report is being carried out. That report contains the following:
Having regard to the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the draw-back, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
I would like to ask the hon. minister, or any hon. member in this house who has any knowledge as to the manufacture of steel, if there is one pound of coal used in the manufacture of steel, or if one cent will be paid on coal used in that manner.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, the discussion has reverted to section 1 of the bill, which has been passed. We are considering section 2, which deals with the conditions of payment, and the amendment thereto.


James Dew Chaplin: I would not have spoken
had I not heard the minister say that the Duncan report has been implemented, and I deny that absolutely as being a fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: I tried to deal this morning with the point raised by my hon. friend, by illustrating the application of the bounty to be precisely in the terms of the present drawback which is granted to other steel companies; they are to be on a similar basis.


James Dew Chaplin: That does not cover the case at all.

Bounty on Coal


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the Duncan commission recommended.


James Dew Chaplin: The Duncan commission
does not recommend any such thing. The report says that a drawback shall be given on all coal used in the manufacture of steel. That is what the report says, and that report is not being implemented.


Charles Avery Dunning: The report says, "and
that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture." That is what is being done.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister is not reading from the Duncan report.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I am. The following appears on page 38 of the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims: Having regard to the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.


James Dew Chaplin: What the government is
doing is this: it is giving a drawback on coke which enters into the manufacture of pig iron -no coke is used in the manufacture of steel. That is the joker in this proposition. If the people of Nova Scotia are satisfied, *hen I have nothing to say, but I am afraid they will be very much dissatisfied before we are through with this thing. It is like everything else done by this government, there is a joker to be found somewhere in every one of their enterprises.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It is useless for the Minister of Finance to make the argument he has made. He quoted the clause in the Duncan report which reads, "and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback." That is all we are asking for, but Bill No. 312 does not propose that. That bill proposes a rebate on coal used in the manufacture of pig iron, which is a totally different thing. Practically all the steel manufactured in Nova Scotia is made from pig iron, and it is not true that the coal consumed in the making of pig iron is all the coal which is consumed in the production of steel. The government does not propose to pay any attention to the differenec in these tiwo definitions. It is useless for the minister to quote the words "on the basis of" because the basis refers only to the 49i cents
as the amount per ton of coal which shall be rebated by way of bonus. The 491 cents is there the basis of the bonus payments to be made.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same conditions will apply as apply to the granting of the drawback on foreign coal imported by other steel industries.


Thomas Cantley: The minister is playing on another string. The minister cannot change the manifest and well understood meaning of the Duncan commission's report, and every man in Nova Scotia who knows anything about this question has expected not what we are now getting, but 491 cents per ton on all coal used in the manufacture of steel.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we have to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) for making clear the position of the government; that it does not intend that the money shall go into the wage envelopes of the men. The hon. member for Winnipeg claims that the suggestion that a portion of this money be paid to the men is too indefinite. That would be a matter which would be in the hands of the government, and it could determine whether one-half or one-quarter or the whole amount should go into the wage envelopes. That could be determined by the fair wage officers of the department.
From 1926 on we have been urging in the house that this bonus be granted, and on March 5, 1926, the hon. Minister of National Defence made a speech in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister was not in the house in 1926.


Finlay MacDonald: It was 1928. In answer to our repeated protestations about the delay, he said:
But there still remain certain things to be done. It seems to me that it is in the interest of this industry and in the interest of the Dominion that-first, there should be unity between the coal and steel businesses. Secondly, that there should be a shrinkage of the capital so that the industry will have an opportunity of earning a dividend on some reasonable investment. Thirdly, the unwieldly organization should be simplified. It now consists of fourteen companies. Fourthly, there ought to be cooperation by the provincial and municipal authorities in the work of building up this great industry. With the litigation ended and these conditions met, the way will be open for serious consideration by the federal government of the presentation of the real and legitimate needs of the industry.
If the bonus had been granted in 1926 the company would not have been forced into receivership. This government has allowed
Bounty on Coal

the company to go into receivership and after it has pulled itself out of the hole they take the credit for giving it a bonus. One hon. member of this house has said that the labouring man of this country will not be deluded very much longer, and he is not going to be deluded on this question. Either this money is going to the company or it is going to the men, and should this bill pass as at present constituted the money will go to the company.
The telegram which was read by the Minister of National Defence was dictated by the company executives sitting around the table with some representatives of the men. The great majority of the men were not consulted at all, and the great rank and file are back of our contention in this matter.
Amendment negatived.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Woodsworth:
That section 2 be amended by striking out all the words after "not" in the twenty-third line, and substituting the following therefor: 'paying to its employees a fair and reasonable wage and in its operation is not maintaining for all its employees the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week and other conditions consistent with the provisions of any international convention adopted by a labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles."


John Frederick Johnston: The section with the proposed amendment would read as follows:
I'm payment shall be made to any person or corporation entitled to receive any payment under this act, or any drawbacks under the tariff items mentioned in the preceding section, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the go\ ernor in council that such person or corporation is not paying to its employees a fair and reasonable wage and in its operation is not maintaining for all its employees the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week and other conditions consistent with the provisions of any international convention adopted by a labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles.


Mr. KAISER:: Seeing that the city of
Sydney has the greatest number of employees on a payroll in percentage to population and that the city of Oshawa which I represent is the second in that class in Canada, I should like to make one or two observations.
I sympathize very strongly with the remarks made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the representatives of labour in this house, in regard to conditions under which men may toll. I am concerned with the establishment of industry, but I am more concerned with the human aspect than with any other feature of it. We 
are at this moment confronted with a strange situation in Canada. We who desire to see the lot of the labouring man in this country improved are told, according to a statement read last night by the Prime Minister, that the supreme court gave a decision that the Dominion cannot act in regard to hours of labour in accordance with this proposed amendment; that the matters referred to in the amendment, the provinces alone have power to deal with. If that be the case, it occurs to me that the amendment should be further amended by stating that an amendment should first be made to the British North America Act permitting the Dominion of Canada to have some supervision over wages and hours of labour and to be able to make laws in regard to questions of labour and the conditions under which men work in this country. I have been overwhelmed by the remarks made by these and other hon gentlemen. I never dreamed that men worked in Canada under such conditions as those described, and as a friend of labour, as I have always been, legislation that will mean something for humanity will always receive my support. I would therefore like to ask whether the amendment as presented can possibly remedy the condition of affairs obtaining in Canada, until the British North America Act is amended to meet the situation.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 37; nays, 62. Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. DUNNING moved the third reading of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg to move in amendment:
That Bill No. 312 be not now read a third time, but be sent back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend the same by striking out all the words after the word "not" in the twenty-third line of the bill and substituting the following:
"paying to its employees a fair and reasonable wage, and in its operation is not maintaining for all its employees the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week and other conditions consistent with the provisions of any international convention adopted by a labour conference held under the Treaty of Versailles."


Mr. MANION:: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a standing pair with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He was not in the house when the vote was taken, and I therefore felt that I should refrain from voting. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I was paired with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Bounty on Coal


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hodgins). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Finlay MacDonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Bissett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. MAR'OIL: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I was paired with
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOCK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GUERIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLATOHEORD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. ST-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Maybee). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question is on the
main motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the third reading
of this bill is proceeded with, I desire to say that the other evening I intimated my belief that this country should preserve the provisions of the treaty of Versailles so far as that might be possible. I intimated, after having listened to the explanations made by those in charge of the enterprise in question, indicating that they were proceeding towards an eight-hour shift and a forty-eight hour week, and realizing that this bounty must be renewed from year to year, that I would be acting at variance with my idea that a reasonable opportunity should be afforded to people to effect their purpose and give evidence of the sincerity of their desire to reduce the hours of labour as they have intimated. I have always endeavoured to be reasonable and fair to those charged with great responsibility and to give them an opportunity to effect their declared purposes. I therefore did not vote.
I was called out of the chamber just as the vote was called, and I did not have time to

Customs Tariff Amendment
send word to the Prime Minister with regard to my pair. I did not propose to vote at all because I felt that by so doing I would indicate my unwillingness to give a reasonable opportunity to those directly affected to advance the interests of those that I had most at heart. As I say, I was called out of the chamber just as the vote was called. I told our whip later that I should have intimated to him that I did not intend to vote.
I, with others who share my views as to a reasonable opportunity being afforded to the managers of an industry to effect their purpose as expressed, refrained from voting on this occasion, reserving to ourselves the right to determine our future action in the light of performance when we are called upon to pay out of the treasury the sums that may be necessary to discharge the obligations under this bill. I say that for myself and for those with whom I am associated who share my views and have refrained from voting for the same reason. I do not believe that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has advanced the cause that is as dear to us as it is to him by not affording the company in question the opportunity to prove by its actions that it is sincere and earnest in its desire to bring about an improvement of the conditions under which the men in this industry work.
Main motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 345, to amend the customs tariff-Mr. Dunning- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Schedule A amended.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that bearing in mind what was said by the Minister of Finance yesterday in connection wiith the rate on flour under item 61, I am informed now that he was in error and that the rate he then quoted was per 100 pounds and not per barrel.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: We cannot hear a word.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was dealing with item 61 which provides for countervailing duties being applied to flour. Flour is made from soft wheat and from other qualities of wheat, and I endeavoured the other evening to impress upon the minister the desirability of provision being made for the importation of soft wheat to meet the requirements of a
small biscuit factory at Calgary and another at Edmonton. Yesterday the minister in declining to accede to the suggestion to divide flour into the two classes, for tariff purposes, indicated that the rate on flour from Toronto to Calgary was 76i cents per barrel. On inquiry this morning I am informed that the rate is $1.51 per barrel and 76i cents per hundred pounds.


Mr. EVANS:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should like to know whether this is a free-for-all, or are we excluded from the discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: I would ask hon. gentle-ment to try to keep order in the committee. At present it is almost impossible for any one to hear the discussion.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me: The figures he is now quoting as to rates are the same figures as were supplied to me, but the difference between them is not the difference 'between per hundred pounds and per barrel but between the less than car load and the carload rate per barrel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you mean it is just half?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the information supplied to me. I have had the figures checked once, but in order to be absolutely certain I am arranging to have them checked again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can hardly think there is a differential of 100 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: There might be over such a long distance as from Toronto to Calgary. The less than carload rate, as my hon. friend from his long experience of freight rates knows, would be very high for a single barrel, whereas lie carload rate would be much lower proportionately. However, I am again checking the matter. I assure my hon. friend that I gave the information just as I received it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the slightest doubt that the minister gave the information in the utmost good faith. I questioned it at the moment, and he said it was his information. This morning I am advised that the rate is 76i cents per hundred pounds.


Charles Avery Dunning: And how much per
barrel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Per barrel, $1.51, I think.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, my hon. friend's
figures may be right, but he may not be quoting the carlot rate; that is the whole point.
Customs Tariff Amendment

The $1.53, I think, is the figure I quoted on the less than carload basis; but the carlot rate was what I quoted as 761 cents. Is my hon. friend sure he asked for the carlot rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact I
left a memorandum with regard to it, and I never speak with certainty about something that I am not certain about. My desire was to obtain the rate per hundred pounds on flour from Toronto to Calgary in carload lots; but whether or not the information I have received is correct I cannot say. But I apprehend from what the minister said yesterday it would not change the fate of the item so far as he is concerned-that he intends to let it go into operation as it stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: The correctness of the
information I supplied was one of the factors I undertook to consider when my hon. friend raised the matter first. I think we had better proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the theory that it is correct?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: As this wheat is a necessity in Canada why should we penalize ourselves by putting a duty on it? This wheat is necessary for the biscuit industry of the Dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend perhaps is not aware that large volumes of soft wheat are produced in Canada. Last year Canada milled over 4,000,000 barrels of soft wheat flour and in fact exported some of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Schedule B amended.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before this bill is disposed of I have a very important question to ask the minister and I ask it with some hesitancy. In the Toronto Daily Star under date of May 19 there is a despatch from Ottawa by a staff reporter reading, in part, as follows:
It is suggested in some quarters that Mr. Dunning put the high duties on these commodities to demonstrate to Canada what high protection really meant in dollars and cents on the cost of living. Having plainly shown it, he intends to revise the fruit and vegetable schedule into a moderate tariff.
On May 17, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) sent a communication to various persons in connection with the tariff situation, and among other things on page 4 of his letter he wrote:
In the event, however, of any of these customs duties on fruit and vegetables working out in commercial practice higher than anticipated, they are quite likely to be modified in committee, as in former budgets.

Now, I ask the Minister of Finance, occupying one of the most responsible positions in this country, whether or not there is any foundation in fact for the statement made by the newspaper correspondent and others-some members of this house from Saskatchewan have made a similar statement-that he deliberately introduced into the tariff resolutions a provision with respect to fruit and vegetables which necessitated the payment of high duties, thereby increasing the cost to the consumer, as indicated by the reports made the other evening from Winnipeg and Calgary and other points, and then repealed such provisions and inserted other provisions for the purpose of indicating to the Canadian people that the imposition of such duties involved a higher cost of fruit and vegetables to the consumer?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
what the answer is. I can of course state that the increases in prices of fruits and vegetables which resulted were entirely out of proportion to the increased duties levied- that goes without saying-and to that extent were a surprise to me. But as to introducing a matter of this importance to this house under any subterfuge, I think my hon. friend knows me better than to imagine that I would do so. And I can certainly say definitely, "no" to his question whether I introduced something to this house in the tariff with the deliberate intention of afterwards changing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say, Mr. Chairman, that I asked the question only to afford the minister an opportunity to deny that he would do any such thing. No man would be fit for the high position of Minister of Finance who would do such a thing. Yet I am bound to say that there are members who have stated that that was his purpose in doing it, and I must say that those members sit on the other side of the house and come from his own province of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who are they?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it highly desirable that there should be no further opportunity for misunderstanding in respect to that matter.


Mr. McPHEE:: I would like to know to
what members from Saskatchewan the hon. gentleman has referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no intention of
naming them; they name themselves.

Customs Tariff Amendment


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to call the attention of members of the committee to a printer's error which occurs at page 7; I want to be sure that hon. members understand it correctly. In connection with item 152d the printer has the figure 27^ in the general and intermediate columns; it should be 221 in each case. It is purely a printer's error.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I would like to ask the leader of the opposition to what members from the province of Saskatchewan he has referred. He made the statement that the Minister of Finance had put something in the budget because of certain action by members from Saskatchewan. I think it is only fair that he should state the names of those members.


Mr. RYERSON:: Mr. Chairman, I have
just received a message from the manager of Robbins and Myers Company of Canada, Limited, of Brantford, manufacturers of small motors. With the permission of the committee I shall read the message:
Am informed tariff item 457 has been amended, page 2617 Hansard, May 23rd, admitting washing machine motors 10 per cent duty general tariff. This is very bad for our business which has been built up under bad competition from the States. Old duty should hold. Please do what you oan.
This telegram is sent by K. C. Berney of the Robbins and Myers Company, Brantford. I might say that under the former item there was a duty of 30 and 35 per cent, and under the new tariff the general rate is 10 per cent. This manufacturing concern began business in Brantford a number of years ago; it is a branch of an American factory, and I believe it is still connected with the American concern. They employ a large number of people, and it is altogether likely that this proposed change will make it impossible for them to continue their business. Will the minister consider taking off this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter of adding
those small less-than-one-horse-power machines to the concessions granted to the washing machine people was very carefully considered. I cannot promise that there would be any possibility of changing the rate.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: This industry was organized in the city of Brantford practically for the sole purpose of manufacturing these small motors for washing machines and vacuum cleaners, and I may say to the minister that this item hits their industry very hard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it possible to deal with the matter by using the same language as is 2419-173
used in item 457a. which is limited by the use of the words "of a class or kind not made in Canada"? Inasmuch as this industry and probably other industries of the same character are affected, the use of these words might be sufficient. Would such a clause interfere with the general principle which the hon. gentleman has in mind?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, very seriously.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
move an amendment, that the bill be amended by adding the following words:
Provided however that the rates of duty set out under items 377, 377a, 377b, and 377c shall apply only when the industry producing the articles enumerated therein has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the governor in council that in the operation of such industry the employees are paid a fair and reasonable wage, and that there is instituted the eight-hour day and the forty-eight-hour week in accordance with the provisions of any international convention adopted by a labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to take only one or two minutes to point out the impracticability of this amendment. I hope my hon. friend will not again reproach me from the point of view of lack of sympathy or lack of knowledge; the question is purely one of practical administration. I think my hon. friends will be kind enough to credit me with having the same sympathy which they themselves have, shown.
The customs tariff is made for use in customs ports of entry wherever they may be, all across this country. The rates set out in that tariff become the rates charged upon imported goods. As I understand the amendment it applies to the whole of the industry engaged in producing the articles named in these four schedules, and it will be noted that in connection with some of them the tariff has actually been lowered, particularly as to the British preference. My point is that at the present time there is one concern, a part of this industry, which has established the eight-hour day with respect to the major portion if not all its undertakings. My hon. friend will see at once the unfairness of the position created by his amendment. If even one of the concerns engaged in this industry did not comply with the conditions of his amendment, assuming it to be passed, then all those engaged in the industry would have applied to their product the former tariff instead of the present one. If industries in the United States were interested in getting their goods into this country at the old tariff rate it would be a very simple matter for them, through the control of one Canadian concern,

Customs Tariff Amendment

to ensure that the new tariff would never become operative; they would simply refuse to comply with the conditions of the amendment. In that way ithe whole Canadian industry might be placed at the mercy of one particular company. I point this out for the reason that again we are attempting to accomplish by indirect means something which we cannot do directly, as was pointed out last night by the Prime Minister. The provincial legislatures can legislate with respect to hours of labour and rates of wages within their provinces. If we tried to do it in the manner proposed by my hon. friend we would simply create a condition of chaos in the administration of customs along the border; otherwise we must apply to the whole industry a condition which is unfair to those of the industry who are complying with the conditions described in the amendment. My hon. friend sees, I am sure, the dilemma from a practical point of view which would arise out of the adoption of his proposal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There may be some ground for the minister's statement, but I would point out that similar difficulties prevail at the present time. For example, if the Algoma Steel Corporation should undertake to put in the eight-hour day they would be handicapped because of competition with the Besco people at Sydney who would not have the eight-hour day, and thus, for those who want to do the thing fairly, there would be a very great hardship involved. I say that a like situation actually exists to-day which probably is worthy of more consideration than the hypothetical case with regard to which the minister speaks.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I can assure my hon. friend that the difficulty created by his amendment would be in fact much worse. I have had it very carefully looked into.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then further, whilst there might be difficulty with regard to American firms establishing branches in this country, we already have that situation to-day where a great many American firms are actually establishing branches here in order to get in under the British preference. Therefore that situation also is one which at present prevails.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend sees that his own point bears out what I say now. Under his amendment, if one of them refuses to comply with the conditions, he would place the whole Canadian industry under the 
handicap of having imports of these commodities come in from the United States at the old rates instead of at the rates proposed in this tariff. My hon. friend is reinforcing my point purely on the practical side.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite admit that practical difficulties are involved, but I want to suggest, as we have been trying to do in several of these debates during the last few days, that practical difficulties exist at the present time so far as the men are concerned. I think I may say the government has done nothing whatever to obviate the practical difficulties that are experienced with regard to labour in the industry, and it proposes nothing to obviate them. Those of us who have been trying to represent especially the interests of labour-because industry has enough people to stand behind it-must do what we can on an occasion of this kind to press again upon the government the necessity of caring for the labour men who are engaged in industry.
This resolution which I have submitted to the committee is almost identical with and certainly follows very closely the lines of that suggested the other day by the leader of the opposition. There are a few phrases which are slightly changed in order to bring it more closely in conformity with the phraseology of the Versailles treaty, that is all. The idea is one which I took directly from the leader of the opposition. From what he said on another occasion this afternoon, in connection with the amendment to the bill providing for a bonus on coal, apparently he feels that under present conditions it is not advisable to force the hands of the company.
I have no qualms of conscience with regard to that at all. The company has been going on for a good many years in one form or another, maintaining these same bad conditions. The fact that it has been reorganized does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason for us to refuse to attempt to safeguard the men at this time of reorganization. Everywhere the interests of capital are given preeminence; in this amendment which I am seeking to have the committee adopt, the interests of the workers are given preeminence and we are making provision that wages and decent conditions of labour ought to be a first claim.
I think I can trust the Minister of Finance so to manage its administration that some of these evils which he foresees might be obviated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that the hon. gentleman has not given this matter his usual care and attention. Certainly I have given a great deal more attention to it during the past few

Customs Tariff Amendment
days than I ever thought I should have done. Suppose this amendment carries; it imposes a duty on the importation of steel, as indicated by the statute.
Mr. "WOODSWORTH: This follows almost precisely the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will observe that I did not move that as an amendment. It was handed to me by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, and I did suggest, as perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember, that something of this sort might be enacted. The next day-because the matter came suddenly to my attention-I took some time to consider it and I studied it carefully. I do not see how you can impose that amendment upon a tariff item and make it inure to the benefit of those whom the hon. gentlemen desires to assist. They are not interested in the importation of steel, and not being interested they are not concerned about the tariff. The tariff is imposed for the purpose of providing more work for Canadians in Canada, not somewhere else, and it is believed that this enactment, by increasing the duties on steel 80 per cent, will have the effect of shutting out steel from the United States and enable steel to be made in Canada that heretofore has been made somewhere else. That means that much more work for Canadians who now have no jobs, but to say that the tariff should not apply unless the people in the factories that would be benefited work only a certain number of hours per week is an impracticable suggestion from the point of view of its being carried into effect, because workmen do not import; they only work at new jobs created by reason of this tariff shutting out the importation of steel and enabling the demand to be supplied in Canada.
That is the first reason why I began to study the proposal, but there is a second reason which I commend to my hon. friend. Reforms are not won in a day. The hon. gentleman himself is a striking illustration of that.


Mr. HOWARD:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing to laugh at, because the hon. gentleman has accomplished a great deal, but he has not done it in a day and he would be the first to say that progress is slow and that reforms are not won in a day or a night. Here is the case of an industry which employs over 20,000 men, and which has recently emerged from a receivership. If it continued in that receivership certainly it could never hope to be a 2419-173.}
worth while industry; but now it has emerged. There is an industry in another part of the country that has just managed to pay its bond interest, that is, interest on that part of the capital which is borrowed. Usually if you say that 75 per cent of the capital is borrowed you are stating a maximum, because in many instances it is less in this type of enterprise. For some time the dividends payable to shareholders have been nil; that is, eliminating the watered stock, the money which has been put into the enterprise has produced no return. It is not necessary to say that when it was put in it was expected that it would produce a return, and it is hoped that it will produce a return. Moreover, they have given an understanding to the Prime Minister that they do not look for a return until they have accomplished the reforms which my hon. friend desires to have accomplished and which I think it is fair to say every hon. member in this house expects to see accomplished. If that be so, having regard to the fact that we have control over this matter in this house, which in the ordinary course of human events will meet again within the next eight months, and having regard to the fact that the hon. member has succeeded in bringing to the attention of these corporations and of parliament a condition which parliament desires to remedy, should there not be afforded to the companies an opportunity to change gradually their whole business structure? They have introduced many new practices which render the lot of the workingmen much less difficult than it was. Is it not fair to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has accomplished his purpose in having brought this matter to the attention of parliament and having secured a favourable judgment upon the necessity of the change being made. Should we not afford to those who have to undertake the change a reasonable opportunity to do so? The reasonable view is the one which in the end prevails, and when one considers the statement made to the Prime Minister and to myself, although not by the same gentlemen, backed by the observations made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), it must be conceded that the hon. member has made a great step forward. Assuming that the Minister of Finance adopted this amendment, where would we be?


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask a question of the hon. leader of the opposition?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member has said that we would be here in parliament
Customs Tariff Amendment

next year, and no doubt this matter will come up again. I do not want to press unduly the leader of the opposition, but will he be willing to support a movement along this line when we meet here at the next session of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is not an unfair one, and I have no hesitancy in saying that unless a reasonable excuse is offered, I propose to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to myself, I would like to point out the impracticability of this present amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member did not ask me if I would support this amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mean to support the idea we have in mind, that is, a forty-eight-hour week and six days per week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not an eight-hour day, it is eight-hour shifts in respect to steel manufacture.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That reasonable
conditions and rates of wages and hours of labour shall be secured for the steel and coal workers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the hon. member that I shall make every effort that I can in that direction. Suppose a crisis should arise and the plant should shut down because no orders are on hand, surely the hon. gentleman would not expect that the change would be effected in that case. I have already discussed with him the conditions which obtained in Germany, France and Great Britain immediately after the war, and the conditions which now obtain in the United States. These changed conditions do not obtain in all the plants in the United States, but most of them have adopted the general principle of the eight-hour shift. The Prime Minister spoke last evening, and I suppose with that discipline which prevails in a government but which does not always prevail in opposing groups, his remarks can be accepted as applying to all supporters of the government. I believe it is the unanimous opinion of this House of Commons that everything reasonable should be done to bring about the changed conditions to which the hon. member has referred. Judging from what has been said, I think that is a fair statement to make. I do not believe that by being, shall I say too insistent upon relief being granted, one readily obtains the end aimed at. If one reads the lives of Lord Shaftesbury and Samuel Plimsoll, one will realize that that is so. Progress may be slow but it is steady. I think the cause of the hon
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
member could be advanced by a moderate expression of opinion-I am not complaining -and by a steady insistence upon the soundness of the views expressed, and by bringing to its support and assistance that great body of moderate public opinion which controls in the end the actions of parliaments and legislatures.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, the unreasonable part of this whole thing is that the government is seeking still further to privilege this concern, after the bonuses, bounties and privileges it has received for the last thirty years. The hon. leader of the opposition and the government should not accuse the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of being unreasonable in trying to insert in this bill what I consider to be a reasonable condition. I object to giving these concessions and privileges to this company without the imposition of any conditions. I deny the words of the hon. leader of the opposition that this is done in order to provide more jobs in Canada; it is not done for the workingman at all, and never has been done for that purpose. I protest against the whole business.
Amendment negatived.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. DUNNING moved that the bill be now read a third time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. minister be good enough to look at section 5 of the bill, which reads:-
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the preceding sections imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Does that involve the possibility of refunds, or is that section in the usual form of sections of like character?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the usual form. I cannot add anything to the statement which I made regarding refunds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to be sure of the exact meaning.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, applications for refunds are always in order.


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

Criminal Code Amendment


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 265, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: There are two amendments proposed by the Senate. The first is to qualify section 9 of the bill, and deals with the reinstatement of pensioners who have commuted their pensions. It provides that the pensioner shall be entitled to the pension which he was drawing previous to the time of commutation. The second amendment is on page 7, line eight. The word " heretofore " is substituted for the word " herebefore." A11 the amendments are accepted.
Robert James Manion: I do not know all the
amendments. Do they make any change in the meaning of the bill as put forward by the committee?


John Warwick King: No. There was some misunderstanding before the Senate committee and this is merely to clarify that. The amendment was drawn by the Department of Justice.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration) moved the second reading of Bill No. 313, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 129, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No 138, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon. Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Promoting changes by unlawful means.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Clause 2 covers the same bill as has passed this house six times to repeal certain sections introduced into the criminal code in 1919. This has been debated so many times that I presume I need not again give the purpose of this clause. The committee know very well what is involved.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Unlicensed importation, manufacture, sale, gift, etc., of certain weapons.
Ernest Lapointe: Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would enact a bill which has passed the Senate on three occasions concerning firearms and licensing of weapons. That bill was submitted one year to a committee of the house, passed the committee, but was not proceeded with by the whole house. I admit that this involves a rather important and considerable change, and some members have represented to me that at this late stage of the session it might be better to leave the matter over for another year when I expect we shall all be here again in our respective capacities. Therefore I would ask that sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be dropped.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Cardin moves that sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive dropped.
On section 8-Intentions not seditious.
Ernest Lapointe: This is in the same class as clause 2. It is to replace in the code a limitation which was there prior to 1919 Clause 9 is also to replace the law as it was prior to 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-French version amended.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to correct certain words in the French translation of the statute. It does not change the law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Criminal Code Amendment
[Stage Direction]
On section 11-Broker reducing stock by selling for his own account.
Ernest Lapointe: Clause 11 is an amendment which all the attorneys general of the provinces, in a report of their conference following certain stock market operations, have asked us to enact. Its purpose is to prohibit brokers from selling shares which they have under t'heir control in such a way as to reduce the amount of such shares in their hands in the ordinary course of business below the amount of such shares which they should be carrying for all customers. I have kept tire wording adopted unanimously by the provinces.


Mr. LAWSON:: I feel it incumbent upon
me ito deal with sections 11, 14 and 15 of this bill, and as much as I have to say under sections 14 and 15 is referable to section 111, the time of the committee would be saved if the minister would be good enough to allilow section 11 to stand until sections 14 and 16 have been disposed of.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no objection.
Section 11 stands.
On section 12-Advertising, printing, posting or selling intelligence on horse races.


Mr. GEARY:: I would suggest that the
minister let this section stand until we are all together again next year.


Ernest Lapointe: No. I am very obliging, but not to that extent.


George Reginald Geary: The difficulty to my mind
is just this. Section 236 of the act includes advertising, printing, publishing and so forth of information intended to assist in, or intended for use in connection with bookmaking, pool-selling, betting or wagering upon horse races or upon any fighit, game or sport. I do not know whether "sport" would include contract bridge or not. This bill takes out of the general section horse racing. If you are inside the high board fence, you can be shown anything; you may look at the horses and look at the board and see what you want; not that that gives you much satisfaction as i rule, but the information is there available. The only condition is that you must put up your money and get inside the high board fence. People are interested in horse racing aside from betting. Horse racing has been described as the sport of kings, and betting has been associated with horse -racing from time immemorial. This House of Commons has endorsed the practice of betting on horse races. The province from which I come has

also more or less endorsed it and takes a considerable fee from the operations of the betting machines. The betting has become more or less mechanical, and the province profits by -i-t; so that we have endorsed it.
Under the section before us you must not even know a day or so -before a race that a certain horse is the son or daughter of another horse, or what that other horse did in his or her day. That is to say, you are not to be given any information. The newspaper is prohibited from publishing news in regard to a very fine animal because it may be that it would have something to do with betting upon the result of that an-imal's efforts in a race. Then afterwards you cannot go home and tell anybody what the horse paid on a race because you are publishing -information. You go down to the race track, knowing nothing, whether you want to bet or not, because you are not allowed to discuss or read about a horse. You pay your money and get inside the high board fence. You do your betting if inclined that way, and when you get outside you must forget the whole business. It seems to me -that we are being made too good. I am not a racing man myself and am not particularly interested in racing, but I know a great many people who are interested in horse racing and in knowing about the horses, what they do and have done, and in what they did at the races, but under this section when you are going -home on the street car with a friend you cannot even tell him that a -certain horse paid $2.15 on a $2 ticket, because that would be publishing information. The whole -thing is ridiculous. There will be some betting on the election this year, prohaJbly more than on most horses races. There is hardly a member of this house who does not go home in the evening and -play a game of bridge for a small stake, and I do not suppose there is any harm in that.
If you preserve the old provision and require some intention in the publishing, I think you will reach the evil. The police, of course, would like that struck out. They do not like to have to prove things too closely. It is -easier for them to get people convicted when they do not have to prove intent. It seems to me that we are going very far. I know that there are certain papers which are behind this bill and certain papers which are against it. I must say to the minister and to the committee that, after all, no matter how -badly it may be abused, horse racing is a sport in which a great many people in this country are interested, and if the papers of this country are not to be permitted to publish what is perfectly

Criminal Code Amendment
legitimate news you are clamping on them a sort of embargo or prohibition to which it seems to me a free press should not have to submit.


Ernest Lapointe: I would be the last man to say that horse racing is necessarily a wrong thing; far from it. But as my hon. friend will see, there is nothing here to prevent horse racing or even betting on the pari-mutuels at the races. The object of this bill is to make more difficult the business of certain bookmakers who are carrying on their trade almost everywhere in the cities-in the barber shops, in the hotels and in the stores-and are creating a situation which many people believe is a curse. This amendment has been asked for by many associations, and it is exactly the same as has been introduced into this house and passed by it on two occasions.


George Reginald Geary: How will this prevent handbook-making?


Ernest Lapointe: It will make it more difficult. They will not have all the present facilities for giving to the poor fellows who frequent those places information by way of tips, odds and that sort of thing which they now give out. It is illegal to do that under the law as it stands now, but the law is very difficult of enforcement because, as my hon. friend pointed out, you have to prove that the tips or odds, advertising or printing and so forth were intended for use in connection with bookmaking. It has been found in practice that these words tended to make the law absolutely ineffective and very difficult of enforcement. The law will remain the same for all other games. But horse racing is really granted a privilege under the code; only when it applies to horse racing is betting not unlawful. Therefore no serious objection to this section should come from those interested in horce racing.


George Reginald Geary: I can understand the minister's argument with regard to pre-race tips, but surely no part of it has any bearing on the publishing of post-race news.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not suppose that
publishing the names of the winning horses and their places would be illegal; that is altogether different from publishing odds or tips, or anything of that kind.


Robert James Manion: Could not they arrange to have the names of the winning horses published before the race?


Charles Gavan Power: Although I am not very
strongly in favour of this bill, it is quite possible that handbook betting would be materially assisted by the publication of the
odds of a race after the race has been run., because it is the custom of the handbook men to pay off the bettors on the starting-price basis .published in the newspapers. That becomes the official retturn in the transactions between the handbook men and their clients. At any rate, that is my information.


Mr. McGIBBON:: These proposed amendments, Mr. Chairmaq, bring back memories of old times. During the war and after we had a kind of hysteria that found expression in amendments to the criminal code. In course of time with the assistance of hon. gentlemen in the Senate and some of us in this house, like my friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), we succeeded in defeating many of those proposed amendments. They are making their appearance again now.


Mr. CAHILL:: We are getting good again.


Peter McGibbon: Yes. Some of them are absolutely ridiculous. There is one thing that I have always tried to uphold in this country, consistent of course with the enforcement of decent law and order, and that is the liberties of the people. I am not a lawyer, but I would be inclined to agree with the interpretation given this section by my friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary). If he is correct, we are making ridiculous infringements on the liberties of the people. It is all right to say here that these proposed amendments do not mean this and that they mean that, but my observation has been,-thank God! I have not had any experience-that that does not help much in the courts. On behalf of the people of this .country, Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to these constant attempts to take away our liberties-liberties that were bought dearly in the years gone by. There are other amendments, for instance, section 13, that I think it would be a crime to pass. I desire to associate myself in this regard with the member for Quebec South and the member for South Toronto. I think this section should stand.


Mr. CHURCH:: Who is asking for this
particular amendment?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Toronto Globe.


Thomas Langton Church: If this amendment is
accepted betting will be legal inside, say, the Woodbine, among a crowd of 15,000 or 25,000, and illegal over the fence across the road. I am not a race track man, I never made a bet on a horse in my life, but I think this is the wrong method to stamp out the evil of gambling. Why does not the Minister of Justice go further? I see some papers are crediting him with giving tips on the coming election.
Criminal Code Amendment


James Dew Chaplin: The Toronto Star offered 10 to 1 the other day.


Thomas Langton Church: Why does not the Minister go further and declare illegal tips on football, baseball and other games? Some people lose more money on those games than they do on horse racing. I suppose we shall be told that this is another example of "twentieth century Liberalism." Well, I am certain our friends opposite know what will happen to this bill. They know it will meet the same fate as a similar bill last session-some hon. gentlemen elsewhere will chloroform it. If the Minister of Justice wants to do something practical to cure this evil, let him try to stop gambling in the pool rooms of the larger cities of this country. I doubt very much whether the bill if enacted would have the effect the minister expects; but certainly it will have one effect- it will abolish the race track.


Ernest Lapointe: This is exactly the purpose of the bill, to stop betting in pool rooms. As to betting on political elections, I may say it is already covered by the criminal code. Of course, anybody can make a private bet -I enjoy it myself-but public betting on anything of this kind is covered by the criminal code. Anybody who records or registers any bet or wager or sells any tip with respect to a political or municipal election brings himself within the criminal code. If my hon. friend did that he would be guilty of an indictable offence and would have to go to gaol for a year.


Robert James Manion: But, as the member for
Toronto Northwest pointed out, the minister himself has been giving tips on that very thing.


Lucien Cannon: He is not selling them.


Robert James Manion: The member for Toronto
Northwest inquired as to who had been asking for this legislation. I should like to know as well.


Ernest Lapointe: As I said before, this question has been before the house on two previous occasions. I can find resolutions of very worthy associations which have asked for this reform.


Robert James Manion: I would like to have the names of some of those associations.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I do not think that
is necessary.


Robert James Manion: I am serious; I would like to know who is asking for this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: There are some church organizations.
[Mr. Church.)


Robert James Manion: Sometimes church organizations ask for strange things; who are the people asking for this legislation?


Peter McGibbon: I would like to ask the minister if those who asked for it requested discriminating legislation of this type.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the bill which they have been asking for.


Peter McGibbon: Did they ask to make betting legal inside the track and illegal outside the track?


Ernest Lapointe: I wonder if my hon.
friend remembers an occasion when we discussed this question for a week, the matter of allowing betting on race courses was discussed at great length in this house. It was decided that racing must be under the control of incorporated clubs, and that they should have only one or two meets each year. I voted for that legislation; I do not know whether my hon. friend did.


Peter McGibbon: The minister apparently does not appreciate my point. This is legislation for the rich. I am not particularly in favour of betting-


Ernest Lapointe: This is legislation against book-makers.


Peter McGibbon: But it allows the man who can pay an admission fee to bet as much as he likes, whereas the man who cannot afford to pay an admission cannot make a bet. I am not in favour of betting, but I am opposed to legislation which discriminates in favour of the rich.


An hon. MEMBER:: If he has no money he cannot bet.


Robert James Manion: The minister has said that he can give the names of certain organizations, and I ask for one or two of those names. I do not dispute the word of the minister, but I would like to know who is responsible.


Ernest Lapointe: Would you like me to read the newspaper? I will tell my hon. friend that I am responsible for the bill.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman does not surprise the house by saying that the responsible minister is in charge of the introduction of the bill. I would not however like to be held responsible for all the things for which the minister is responsible. I am asking for information.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend wishes to know at whose instigation the bill was introduced I may tell him that it was at my instigation.

Criminal Code Amendment


Robert James Manion: Who requested it? The minister stood in the house a few minutes ago and laughed at the proposition contained in his own bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, I never did.


Robert James Manion: His whole statement was made in that spirit.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend as usual is carried away by his enthusiasm; he is a very nice chap but he is a little too excitable.


Robert James Manion: I am not a bit more excitable than the minister himself. Whe only difference between him and me is that I do not write so many of my speeches.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Robert James Manion: I do not write so many of my speeches; we can keep cooler when we read our speeches. When the minister reads he keeps his personality to himself, and I could keep mine to myself if I wished to read all I have to say. I am asking the minister for information; I would like to have the names of the organizations to which he has referred. What reason has the minister for refusing to give the information I have requested? He has made the statement that many organizations have asked for this legislation; why does he object to giving the names of those organizations? He says he has read many newspaper articles; so have I, but I did not think the government would introduce legislation every time it read a newspaper article.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not say it was because of that.


Robert James Manion: The minister stated he
read many articles in the newspapers, but I did not suppose he would introduce legislation every time he read a newspaper article. I again ask for the names of the organizations to which he has referred, and I can see no reason why he should object to giving them. With all due respect I ask for this information. He says there are many; why can he not name some of them?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at 6 o'clock we were considering section 12 of Bill 138, which is found on page 9 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-exemption from duty to supply medical attendance.
Mr. BISSETT:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with section 13 I think we all agree that one of the greatest responsibilities of the state is that which has to do with the protection of children. This section added to the bill will certainly remove the protection all children ought to have in respect to medical care and attention. I have no quarrel with the Christian Science treatment in any shape or form as far as adults are concerned and I do not think members of the medical profession have any such objection. It is not a question of treatment as far as adults are concerned at all; it is simply a question of protecting children, and I object to the proposed amendment as set out in this section.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Mr. Chairman, I
quite appreciate the position taken by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, but I desire to record my own approval and support of the section for one reason only. I should think that under all circumstances we would view with great hesitation a section of this kind if it were something that dealt with opportunities to be afforded to people who desire to practise in the way indicated for their own personal profit, but it seems to me that inasmuch as the section as it appears in the bill involves the exercise of the practice of a religious belief, the house should entertain the proposal favourably. I cannot see how otherwise we can conscientiously and consistently support that with which I believe the entire house is in accord, namely that every man and every woman shall be free to practise to the fullest extent those religious beliefs he or she entertains. If it were not for that point, Mr. Chairman, I would view the section with considerable disfavour, but in view of the fact that those who are supporting it and those who, I am given to understand, have asked for it, are people who have entertained the proposals as part of the religious belief which they support, I support it. I believe it to be agreed by all members of this house that every man in this country should be free to practise his own religious belief, whatever it may be, without let or hindrance, and therefore I think the house should support this section.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, I think
there are some serious objections to this clause at it stands. One objection has been referred to by the hon. member opposite, and the point would seem to be whether it does include the children of those who might be Christian Scientists. We would like to have a statement from the minister on that point.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes, it does.
Criminal Code Amendment


Murray MacLaren: In that case I am
strongly opposed to the section, because while it may be proper to give individual liberty with regard to religious beliefs, if that liberty entails serious danger to children with regard to their life and health it is a very different matter. Therefore I oppose this section on that ground as far as the children are concerned. It is a different matter, in connection with adults, and I am not referring to that at all. The other objection I have is with reference to infectious diseases. No one person is a law unto himself, especially if he is suffering from an infectious disease.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it would cover that.


Murray MacLaren: The clause does not
make that clear.


Ernest Lapointe: The provincial regulations concerning health and having regard to contagious diseases still would be in force for these people as well as for anyone else.


Murray MacLaren: That is not clear from
the section. If there is to be a limitation I think it would be well to state it in that clause. The question is whether it will or will not conflict with provincial health acts. I think that is unquestionably a matter which should be cleared up now, when we are considering this section. In any event, I understand that the minister says this does not apply in the case of infectious diseases.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Murray MacLaren: How can one draw that inference? How can one judge as to that?


Ernest Lapointe: Because this does not
amend the dispositions of the criminal code which make it criminal to neglect doing certain things, giving the necessaries of life and the care to children; this relates only to the three sections of the code as they are. As I say, the provincial regulations concerning contagious diseases and any others regarding health certainly will apply, and we have no power to deal with them.


Murray MacLaren: I do not think that is
very clear. The minister referred to the failure to do certain things. What did he mean? I would say it meant the failure to report infectious diseases.


Ernest Lapointe: They would be compelled to do that.


Murray MacLaren: In any case, Mr. Chairman, I object on account of children who are 
not able to judge for themselves, and then I do not think it is clear as the clause stands that it will not apply in cases of diseases that are a danger to the community.


Robert James Manion: There is more than that, if I understand the purpose of the section correctly; but perhaps before I say anything I should make sure that I do understand it. I will get the purpose from the minister in this way. Supposing a child had diphtheria and its parents were Christian Scientists. There is a specific and almost perfect treatment for diphtheria by the use of antidiphtheritic serum. I have no desire to say one word against the religious beliefs of any man or woman, but suppose because of those beliefs the parents of that child are permitted to refuse the giving of antidiphtheritic serum-


Ernest Lapointe: If provincial regulations provide for compulsory treatment, they would have to allow the treatment to be given.


Robert James Manion: But that is not compulsory.


Ernest Lapointe: Under this section it
would not be a criminal offence under the criminal code.


Robert James Manion: While it is quite true that .medical men 'themselves practise Christian Science in the cure of patients, down through the years a number of scientific discoveries, such as the one I have mentioned, have been made for the treatment of disease. This treatment might be advised under provincial law, but I doubt if it would be enforced, and the doing away with a treatment of this kind because of religious belief would not be fair to the child. That is the opinion of medical men who know anything about the treatment of disease. The same thing would be true of other conditions such as tetanus. There is a simple preventive treatment for tetanus, which treatment saved probably tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives during the war.


Murray MacLaren: And typhoid fever.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps that is not quite so specific an example. Pasteur, one of the greatest scientists of the medical world discovered a treatment for the prevention of hydrophobia. Those are the three distinct treatments which I do not think this house should permit even Christian Scientists, or people of any other belief, to neglect to give to children requiring them from a curative or preventive standpoint.
I remember reading a few years ago of some Christian Scientist parents who refused treatment to a child suffering from tuberculosis of

Criminal Code Amendment
the knee joint. There is a fairly successful treatment for tuberculosis of the knee joint, and not to permit a child to receive treatment because of some religious belief seems to me to be almost criminal. No doubt there are other medical members of the committee who know of scientific methods of treatment for other diseases which are not guesswork or gunshot prescription methods. I wish to place myself on record as being opposed to any legislation which would prevent the proper treatment being given to children who cannot think for themselves. I think it is the duty of those in this house who know something of disease to oppose strenuously this legislation.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a few features in connection with this amendment, without desiring to say anything regarding the belief of people who practise Christian Science, or to impugn their sincerity of purpose. A very extended debate would be necessary in order to obtain a full understanding of what this amendment means, but we are faced at once with two or three features. These sections have to do with three classes of persons. The first covers the care of people unable to care for themselves; the second is the obligation of parents towards children under sixteen years of age; but the most important one applies to the guardians of children under sixteen years of age. Those are very sacred trusts, and the bill distinctly says that anything which would tend to produce ill health or death in these particular cases should not be regarded in the light of a crime. Why should one class of people be excluded from these obligations? The bill is discriminatory in its provisions.
The minister says that in the case of diphtheria or smallpox, the provincial authorities can apply quarantine and prevent the spread of the disease. The important point in the application of quarantine is the matter of diagnosis. Who is to say that a child has diphtheria or smallpox? There is only one man can say that, the trained medical expert. Some of the best trained men have been mistaken in the diagnosis of these diseases at their inception. Due to a misunderstanding of all phases of these intricate diseases, they have often swept on and obtained a foothold simply because they were not recognized in time. It is wrong to say that a whole class of a community shall be put in the position of saying that no one shall make a diagnosis or report to the provincial board of health and thereby prevent the spread of disease. The prevention of disease is the result of thousands of years
of observation. The march of science has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, and has now reached the point where we are enabled, by applied methods, to save hundreds of thousands from disease and disaster. We are now asked to say that all this accumulated knowledge shall be set aside and that a certain section of the community shall have the privilege of allowing conditions to obtain which we claim should not be permitted.
Take the child who has just died of diphtheria, and let me say that no sadder picture can be presented to the eyes of man in these modern days, than to find again "Rachel weeping for her children" when no warning of disease had been given. There is a child that has died. Somebody had not called in a doctor and the child had not received proper treatment. The persons responsible, in order to escape this criminal action, may plead that they believed in Christian Science and nobody knows whether they do or not until they are charged in a court of law. Some modification must be made in this provision before it is put into force, and to my mind it would be better to let the matter stand over for the present. At this stage of the session this amendment cannot be properly considered and it should be delayed until the members of parliament have had an opportunity of examining into it in all its bearings. I would ask that the minister be fair to men of science, men who have devoted their lives to this subject. At my time of life I am not particularly concerned whether I am called to exercise my function as a physician or not, but as one interested in humanity I would plead with the minister to drop this for the present and if he wishes to bring it up at another session when there will be plenty of time to lay the case before the house and the country, then I am willing to take my chances as to whether this amendment will go through or not.


Mr. DONNELLY:: If I understand this
clause in the bill aright, it means that no one is compelled to call in either a medical man or a surgeon to attend to any case of sickness. If an individual does not call them in. he is not liable for criminal negligence. Many of us who are medical men believe that all cases of sickness and surgical cases should be treated by medical men or surgeons, but there are some of the laity who believe that anyone who is sick or diseased in any way has a perfect right to use his method, whatever it may be. of curing such sickness, or for the
Criminal Code Amendment

treatment of the disease. We shall not find fault with those who take that view, so long as they are at least of the age of twenty-one years of age and of sound mind, if they are willing to lie down and die from diphtheria or appendicitis without calling in a medical man or a surgeon to attend to them. Many people consider that they have a perfect right to do as they wish in these matters, but on the other hand many contend that grown up people who impose their will upon children of tender years who are not responsible for themselves are going too far in deciding not to call in a medical man in case of sickness or disease. I can conceive, for example, a case of a child who has a broken leg or arm. Under this provision it will not be necessary for persons holding the views to which I have referred to call in a surgeon to X-ray that broken limb, see what is the matter with it, and help to set it right. The result will be that the child will go through life crippled and the parents cannot be punished. 1 believe if we pass legislation such as this we shall be liable for criminal negligence ourselves. Nothing could be more outrageous; no one in his senses would think of passing a law such as this.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: We have heard
speeches by several medical men in the house on this proposed amendment and they vrould almost give us the impression they are afraid that their craft is in danger; that medical science is going to be seriously interfered with and that perhaps the practice of a physician or a surgeon will be hampered because of the proposed amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Archibald M. Carmichael: We have listened
to several.medical men and the tenor of their remarks has all been along the same line, very strenuously opposed, to the proposed amendment. The hon. member for Springfield mentioned that the object of medical science was the preservation of life. If we are going to carry that through to its logical conclusion, we had better pass legislation that will make it a criminal offence for parents to be neglectful if their children catch cold, for fear that they may get pneumonia and lose their lives. We had better have legislation to make it a criminal offence for parents to clothe their children improperly or under-nourish them. To my mind it would be just as reasonable to have legislation making that a criminal offence as to make it a criminal offence for any person who has a sincere belief in some other remedy, to resort to it.

The object of medical science is to heal or cure any disease. I am not at variance with medical science. I do not discount the ability or usefulness of the doctor. I admit there are cases when the doctor can do work that perhaps it is necessary to have done, but along with that I am prepared to state that there are people who believe they can accomplish more by other means than can be accomplished by medical science. I am not a Christian Scientist; neither do I approve the Christian Science doctrine, but I know personally, absolutely, that we have in Canada several religious sects who practise faith healing. They do so on the basis of the Scripture. They believe what the Bible says. They take the simple reading of the Bible, believe what it says, and when they are sick they call in the elders who pray with them, often with favourable results. The people who are sick are sometimes healed, although not always, but neither are all those who are sick, healed who call the doctors. Sometimes sick people who call in doctors die, but the doctors are not penalized because their patients do not survive. If those who believe in some other method of healing and resort to it, are not successful; if their faith does not reach through, I do not see that they should be charged in a criminal court and penalized.
It would look as though this clause were inserted at the instance of Christian Scientists, but I would judge that it was intended to apply not only to that cult but to people of any religious beliefs or persuasions who care to resort to spiritual means for the restoration and healing of the body. If under the criminal code a penalty is to be imposed on those who resort to other means than medical science for the restoration of health and are unsuccessful it is only reasonable that we should have a premium given to those who resort to other means and are successful. If we have a penalty in the one case, we should have a premium in the other.
Just a few days ago-to be exact, last Sunday-I listened to a gentleman in this city preaching to approximately 2,000 people. He was the picture of manhood and health. Yet he told us that just a few years ago he lay at death's door. His heart was broken down, his stomach had refused to function for months, and his intestines had been paralyzed for eighteen months. He had been under the care and supervision of ten different medical specialists, who had done all they could to restore him to health and had finally given him up. Yet that individual through other means than medical science was restored to perfect health and is to-day a perfect speci-

Criminal Code Amendment
men of manhood. If we allow people to resort to such means as suit them best, I do not think we are violating anything in our legislative enactments. I feel that this amendment is long overdue and that it is something that this house can very well pass.


Peter McGibbon: If this amendment was
confined to grown up people in a normal state of mind, probably we would not find very much objection to it. But there is a duty imposed upon all legislative bodies, and that is to look after the community at large. One of the great objects of the medical profession to-day is not the cure of disease but its prevention. The prevention of disease is the big thing before the medical world today. If you are going to allow people to spread contagious diseases throughout this country without any check at all, I ask the Minister of Justice and the committee, how can you protect the public health? I can give the minister an example from my own experience of a patient who lived in my riding and went to Toronto and died. The corpse was shipped back to Muskoka. I was called to go out thirty-five miles in the country to a lonely part, and there I found ten children sick with malignant scarlet fever, and about three-quarters of them died. That will show you how any contagious disease that is not properly handled and quarantined may produce an epidemic that is destructive to the health not only of the particular family affected but of the public at large. I submit that this house has the duty of protecting the public at large from epidemics that are so destructive to life. I submit, further, that we have no right to allow people to inflict their opinions in these matters upon immature children who have not yet reached the age when they can make decisions for themselves, especially where it is a question of life and death.
This section does not prevent people from employing spiritual means of healing if they wish to do so. Nobody can prevent that. But we do say that people who are responsible for the care of children and those who are not mentally capable of looking after themselves should not be relieved of all responsibility. Less than a year ago I had a case of diphtheria break out in a family, and the father absolutely refused to let me administer antitoxin. Every medical man knows that that is the best and practically the only specific treatment that we have for diphtheria, and if given early enough it will save probably nine hundred and ninety-five cases out of a thousand. I had to report the father of that family to the Minister of Health at Toronto
in order to bring pressure enough to bear so that those children could be properly treated. If I had not done so, the disease might have spread to the six or eight other children in the family and might have cleaned them all out. When we get a case of that kind we not only treat the patient but administer antitoxin to every child in the family.
I ask the Minister of Justice, is he going to lift the responsibility from everybody for maintaining public health and taking care of immature children and others who are not capable of making decisions for themselves?
I submit that this section is dreadful. I submit, further, that it does not prevent anybody from using spiritual means if they wish to. But people should not be relieved of all responsibility in these matters, and I ask the Minister of Justice very seriously to consider withdrawing this section altogether.


James John Edmund Guérin: I am a little astonished
that the Minister of Justice should have allowed himself to be inspired by some such deceptive spirit as must have taken possession of his soul when he conceived this amendment to the criminal code. I thought that the Justice department was quite alive-it should be-to the benefits that can come from the judicious application of science, but in this amendment I see an inclination to efface at one stroke all possible succour to people who through ignorance of their own state of health or through an ill-disposition towards others would put the life of the community in danger. I do not look upon this as a question of faith and morals; I look upon it as a matter of the public weal.
I was rather amused at the hon. member for Kindersley reflecting upon the medical profession, fearing that they might lose a patient or two. I would tell the hon. member that if his craft or that of any other member of this house were to carry on its practice with the same abnegation that characterizes the medical profession, people might be a great deal better off and suffer much less. There is too much of a disposition on the part of the laity to ignore the benefits that accrue from medical science. In France formerly there used to be such an amount of charlatanism practised that Moliere in many of his writings makes the physician appear ridiculous, and many people from reading his works are inclined to look upon the medical profession as being influenced more by suggestion than by action. But, Mr. Chairman, we must awaken to the necessities that surround us. We must safeguard our own interest in so far as our community life is concerned. I can readily imagine persons suffer-
Criminal Code Amendment

ing from tubercular disease of the lungs taking no precautions simply because of ignorance. I can conceive of a person suffering from a mild attack of smallpox walking about the community without the disease being recognized-as was the case, I may say, in Montreal some years ago. On that occasion over a thousand lives were lost because the necessary precautions were not taken in time. This is not a matter to be trifled with at all, it is of most serious moment and I hope that the minister will see the advisability of withdrawing the clause.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am free to admit that I expected opposition to this section, though not perhaps to the extent that it has developed. My reasons for inserting the section in the bill are to a large extent those which have induced my hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) to support it. During the last few years it has been represented to me that an exception should be made in this case. Since this bill was introduced I have received hundreds of telegrams from all parts of the country congratulating me on this section and urging that it be passed. They feel very deeply- and I can assure my friend from St. Ann (Mr. Guerin) that they are intelligent people and belong to all classes in the community-they feel very deeply that their moral obligation to provide necessary treatment for their children should not be placed in conflict with a legal obligation in a certain way which according to their conscience and even to their religious conviction is not the best form of treatment.
I may say that one of the principal reasons which influenced me is that such an exception is recognized in some way or another in the legislation of almost all the provinces. In Alberta, for instance, the law defining and regulating the practice of medicine provides that:
Nothing in this act contained shall apply to jr affect those who practise the religious tenets of their church without pretending a knowledge of medicine or surgery, and provided that the laws, rules and regulations relating to contagious diseases and sanitary matters are not violated.
In Manitoba an act respecting the welfare of children provides that:
Any child may be apprehended as a neglected child "whose parent or guardian neglects or refuses, when able to do so, to provide medical, surgical or other remedial care necessary for his or her health and well-being."
In Nova Scotia the law defining and regulating the practice of medicine contains this clause:
[Mr. Guerin. 1	*
Provided further that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the practice of the religious tenets or general beliefs of any church.
In Ontario the law for the regulation of drugless practitioners provides that:
Nothing in this act contained shall apply to or affect persons treating human ailments by prayer or spiritual means as an enjoyment or exercise of religious freedom.


Peter McGibbon: Those citations do not
apply to this case, do they?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I stated I was citing them to show that this exception is recognized in the legislation of the provinces.


Peter McGibbon: No.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no.


Ernest Lapointe: In the way I have
suggested.


Robert James Manion: It is very general.


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that the olauses
I have cited are not exactly similar to this section, but I want merely to show that the religious conviction of those gentlemen, and ladies too, is recognized in the legislation of the provinces.


Peter McGibbon: Quite so; but this bill
is altogether different, it penalizes people for neglecting to provide proper treatment.


Murray MacLaren: Did this clause receive
the support of the Minister of Public Health (Mr. King)?


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would say, the principle of government solidarity applies in this case.


Robert James Manion: In the one case where it
should not.


Ernest Lapointe: However, this is the first time that a section of this nature has 'been placed before the house, and I think in justice to those who have urged the amendment it is well that it should have been presented to hon. members. We have heard the arguments against the clause, and I am pleased indeed to have received the support of my friend from West Hamilton and my friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). A campaign of education is perhaps desirable in this matter, and with the permission of the house I will withdraw the section for the present.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with the minister's decision to withdraw the section, and I congratulate him upon his decision. But I think a word should be said in reply to what I think wias an

Criminal Code Amendment
unintentional but uncomplimentary remark by my hon. friend from Kindersley. I have the utmost respect for him, largely because of his general fairmindedness upon all questions that come before the house, but he unconsciously, I am confident, twitted a profession which for centuries has been noted throughout the world because of the fact that its practitioners regard all questions concerning health from the public standpoint. I will give my proofs of that in fairness to the large body of medical men in Canada, thousands of whom have sacrificed much of their time for charity. Every advance in the practice of medicine and surgery-and advances have been made in practically all the civilized countries of the world-has been placed at the disposal of humanity free of charge. Take for exam/ple, the outstanding discoveries which I have jotted down from memory while the minister was speaking. The discoverer of anaesthesia was a Scotchman, Simpson; of antiseptics, Lord Lister, an Englishman; of antidiptheritic serum, a Japanese; of hydrophobia serum, Pasteur, a Frenchman; of Salvarsan, Ehrlich, a German; of insulin treatment for diabetes, Banting, a Canadian. Not one of those men-and I name only six that came to my mind as I listened to the minister-patented his discovery or derived any monetary advantage from it. I should have made one exception, but I will not mention his nationality. And by the way, our present Deputy Minister of Health is a man wlho bears an outstanding reputation in this country. I was glad to have the honour to assist in his appointment some years ago. Practically all the advances in public health have been made by mediaal men and it has been pointed out on many occasions that because of the advances they have made in public health they have been depriving themselves of their own livelihood. Without wishing to delay the committee further may I say that I think the remarks I have just made are due to a profession which certainly deserves to be numbered among the noble professions of the world. I am sure my hon. friend from Kindersley will be one of the first to acknowledge that in my remarks I have merely done justice to the profession.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I think the hon.
gentleman has read into the few remarks I made much more than was placed in them or was ever intended to be placed in them. I am of the opinion that the hon. gentleman has been much more generous towards the profession which he represents than he has been towards .the religious sect to which I referred during my remarks.
Section 13 withdrawn.
On section 14-Evidence in trial for manslaughter through negligence.


James Earl Lawson: Sections 14 and 15 in this bill make such drastic changes in the criminal law that I feel it incumbent upon me tc take a few minutes of the time of this committee to point out, particularly to the members of the committee who have not legal training, what the effect of these proposed amendments will be. For this purpose 1 think it is necessary to state that section 261 of the criminal code, which section 14 oi this bill purports to amend, is the manslaughter section, and section 284, which section 15 purports to amend, is what is commonly known as the criminal negligence section of the criminal code. Section 284 reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by an unlawful act, or by doing negligently or omitting to do any act which it is his duty to do, causes grievous bodily injury to any other person.
It has always been one of the basic doctrines of our criminal law that before a man can be found guilty of a criminal offence there must be mens rea or a guilty mind. May I point out to the lay members of the house that this does not mean that the crown must read the mind of a man who stands before the court? Where, however, a man has been guilty of a wanton disregard of the rights of others a guilty mind or wrongful intent is properly inferred by the court, and he becomes guilty of a criminal offence. Under the section which is proposed the merest civil negligence plus physical injury resulting in death would make a man ipso facto guilty of manslaughter. The same mere negligence plus physical injury, but not resulting in death, makes a man guilty ipso facto of a criminal offence punishable by two years' imprisonment. I fully appreciate that this amendment was designed to affect the drivers of motor cars, but on careful analysis it will be found that the section is more far-reaching in its effect. To illustrate I shall point out one or two instances which have come to my notice.
A returned soldier who had lost an arm at the war was appointed as a gatekeeper at one of the Toronto railroad crossings where then is a great deal of shunting of trains. Tht man's duty was to raise and lower the four protecting gates at the crossing when th* trains were shunting in the immediate vicinity. On the occasion in question he managed to lower three of the gates and had lowered the fourth one from a perpendicular position to a position half way between perpendicular and horizontal when a motor car travelling down
Criminal Code Amendment

the street went through the gate. A section of the gate touched the top of the motor car when it was passing through. The result was that a shunting freight train struck the motor car and the two occupants were killed. Action was brought in the civil court against the railway company and the jury found negligence. As a result the railway company had to pay damages. On the other hand the gatekeeper was charged with the criminal offence of manslaughter, but the charge was reduced by the crown counsel to an offence under section 284 of the criminal code. Under our law as it then stood, there not being such a degree of negligence as to amount to a wanton disregard of the rights of others, he was found not guilty. Under the proposed amendment however that man would be ipso facto guilty of negligence.


Mr. THORSON:: Not at all.


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend says "not
at all." I could illustrate further, but I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by considering in detail the circumstances connected with the leading decisions handed down by our appeal courts of Canada for the last five or ten years.
I shall state another illustration. A farmer and his hired man went into a field to load turnips, and) the farmer drove the horses up to the fence. He and the hired man loaded the turnips, and at the conclusion of their task the hired man was not feeling well, and for that reason he leaned against the tailboard of the wagon with his head resting on his hand. At that time the employer stopped and chatted with him. At the conclusion of their conversation the farmer left the hired man leaning against the tail-board and climbed on to the wagon. With the intention of backing up the team in order to turn them he seized the reins; as a result the team backed up quickly, the man was knocked over and the hind wheel of the wagon went over his leg. It was found that the leg was broken and in the court the farmer was held civilly liable in damages for negligence; because as an ordinary, reasonable and prudent man he should have looked around to see that the hired man was not in the position in which he had left him before he pulled on the reins. Under the proposed amendment I most seriously submit that the man is ipso facto guilty of negligence.
One of the hon. members from the city of Winnipeg who is at times rather dogmatic in his opinions is now of the opinion that I am wrong in my deduction. I shall read (Mr. Lawson.]
the new clause proposed to be enacted by section 15:
When any person is charged under the provisions of this section with causing grievous bodily injury to any other person by doing negligently or omitting to do any act which it is his duty to do, evidence which is sufficient to establish negligence upon the same facts in a civil case shall be sufficient for the conviction of any such person so charged.
I submit to the hon. members of this committee that it does not require a gentleman of legal training to inteiipret that section. It is perfectly obvious that, if it is passed, mere negligence plus physical injury ipso facto amounts to a criminal offence, and under section 14 mere negligence plus physical injury resulting in death ipso facto makes a man guilty of manslaughter. I for one, sir, as a lawyer who has had some little experience as crown counsel and also in defending some of those charged under the criminal code, cannot permit these sections to pass without registering my strenuous protest against any such legislation.


Thomas Langton Church: Everyone knows that
sections 284 and 285 of the code, which for some years have been the law of Canada with regard to motor accidents, are too uncertain and inconsistent to secure a verdict in any court in this country. I am surprised at this late stage of the session the minister should bring down a makeshift amendment like this. He 'has had recommendations from many of the ablest judges in the land as to how these sections might be strengthened. One of the judges refers to these amendments as tinkering with the sections, whatever that means. Section 285 is pooriy worded; in the dying days of parliament a short time ago the words " by wanton or furious driving, or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or wilful negligence " were added. That has given reason for some of the judges to hold that in no case can there be criminal negligence unless it is of the peculiar character set out in the words quoted.
We have a large department of justice here; surely they can bring this law u.p to date. This country is miles behind the mother land in law reform. There is no law reform in Canada at all; a grand jury is not allowed to go into one of our federal institutions, and the officers of the crown are to be judge and jury and everything else. In my opinion the present department needs to get some modem ideas instead of living in the dead text books of the past.
The proposed amendment to section 284 is clearly illegal. The hon. member for West

Criminal Code Amendment
York has referred to one particular case. In the case of Rex vs. Palmer it was stated in the English court of appeal that there must be some quality of mind expressed in the act of the person before there is a criminal offence, in the absence of wilfulness and recklessness.
In my opinion the minister has not touched even the fringe of the subject. This matter was before the house on March 4 last, when I quoted the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas for Ontario, given at the London assizes. He said:
And as now nearly everyone is a car owner and car driver, young and old of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a civil action. Car-driver-jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be persuaded to decide against drivers who have been no more unlawful than they themselves often, if not commonly, are.
What then is the remedy? I think it should be: make the laws plain and reasonably severe and enforce them; and cancel licences freely.
And at the other end of the matter: Give no licence to anyone who is not proved to be mentally and physically7, and from experience and a knowledge of the highway laws, thoroughly capable.
The amendment proposed now will mean nothing; it will simply lead to more chaos and confusion than there is to-day along the lines I have stated. The same judge suggested that the words "with negligence" might be added to section 284, but that suggestion has not been adopted either. In England they appointed a committee of both houses of parliament to consider these questions. I have before me the evidence which was taken and the changes which they made to their law. On March 7, 1930, the report was presented to both houses of parliament and a bill was introduced known as the road traffic bill which contained 82 pages dealing with the whole question.
Last year there were 72 people killed on the highways of Toronto through the negligence of automobile drivers. Have the public no right to use the streets; are they to be killed off in this manner? Four times as many people have been killed on the highways of Toronto as were killed at the battle of Queenston Heights many years ago, but here we have a department of justice to which recommendations have been sent by judges all over the country and as far as I can see they are simply pigeonholed. If the minister wanted to be progressive and do something for the public safety he should have appointed a committee of both houses to consider this matter and bring in a proper bill. At the present time a judge can tell the jury that 2419-174
there is no definition of negligence under the code. It is enough to make more judges write letters to the newspapers.
Just here I might quote a paragraph which appeared in the English Review of April, 1930.
It is as follows:
Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England, has recently published a book under the title The New Despotism. The book is an important one, both because of the high office of its author and because of its subject. Lord Hewart has, quite rightly, refused to accept the idea that a judge is, to use his own words, "condemned to a lifelong and compulsory silence upon the affairs and the interests of the state." The country should be grateful to him for this book and for his criticism of an undesirable but growing tendency in public affairs. His theme is, in the vvords of his publishers, the exposure of "certain tendencies and methods which threaten to impair the
reality of free institutions	Government
departments secure to themselves power to make rules, orders, and regulations without any real and effective control on the part of parliament. They obtain for their orders the force of statutes, and prevent their decisions from being reviewed by the courts of law." The tendency has been developing for a generation at least.
The Minister of Justice has been in England; I think he might have learned something aboi.it law reform there. There is no provision here to take care of the hit and run driver, the most cowardly person in the world, who knocks down some little child and then gets away before anyone can catch him. The Ontario Safety League has made recommendations as to how these sections should be strengthened; why did not those recommendations receive some consideration? I introduced a bill last March to amend this section, defining reckless driving and injuring persons by negligence, having to do with hit and run drivers and so on, but I was unable to proceed with it.
There is another matter which might have been considered by the minister in connection with these two sections; I refer to the recommendation of the Chief Constables' Association. I read last February of a case which was brought uip at a meeting of that body, where a poor farmer of Tecumseh, in the county of Essex, was injured by an automobile, in which accident his wife and children also sustained some injuries. The driver of the automobile was an American, who said he lived somewhere away down in Ohio. He paid a small fine and got away, and as a result the farmer was out of pocket for the injuries sustained by himself and his family, which cost him something over $700. They had first to find the man, but he had given a wrong name and address. The constables'



Criminal Code Amendment
association has recommended that in such cases the driver shall be required to give a bond or put up some money before he is permitted to leave the country. Are we to have the children of this country knocked down in this manner?
The Minister of Justice has said that this is a matter of civil rights and comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but it is nothing of the kind. I submitted these proposed amendments to one or two of the judges in Toronto who have had considerable experience with this class of case, and they were not in favour of them. The first amendment dealing with the evidence in a trial for manslaughter is clearly illegal, and should it pass the section of the criminal code will be still more inconsistent. The only way to stop this maiming and killing is to impose a stiff penalty and treat them all alike, both high and low.
The code should contain some provisions as to who shall and Who shall not drive a motor vehicle. These matters should have been brought before parliament earlier in the session. For the past five or six years these amendments have been brought down during the dying days of .parliament, they are hurried through this house and sent over to the Senate. That is not the way to protect life and property on the highways of this country. The time has come when something will have to be done. In my opinion, the minister should appoint a commission composed of three or four judges to consider the present inconsistencies in the criminal code. The way the law is to-day, the public is not protected. A man can knock down another man and kill .him, obtain bail and be tried for negligence, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred he will get off. This matter has been the subject of inquiry by coroners' juries, by judges and by grand juries, and it is considered to be a menace and peril to the country.
It would be far better if these sections were not amended, because they are made still more inconsistent. It is hard enough now for a judge to know what is meant, without adding further inconsistencies. The practice which prevails in England should be adopted in this country, and the bill should be circulated throughout the country and criticism and discussion invited thereon. This haphazard method of bringing in amendments should not be allowed to continue. A word is changed there, a comma is added there, and the result is more disorder than ever.
	, *


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
desire to add my protest to that already voiced by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) against sections 14 and 15 of this bUH. It will be noted that in each of these sections the test of criminal liability is the giving in court of evidence sufficient to establish negligence, upon the same facts as in a civil case. I cannot say what effect that will have in some provinces, but in the province of Ontario its effect would be rather disastrous and its application would be most [DOT]onerous and unreasonable.
For example, in all cases governed by the Highway Traffic Act of the province of Ontario, where a pedestrian is struck by an automobile, the direct burden of proof is put upon the driver of the automobile to establish that he was not negligent. If the wording of the present proposed sections were made applicable, it would mean that every motorist would have cast upon him the burden of establishing his innocence in a criminal charge brought under these two sections. That is absolutely repugnant to .the spirit of British justice and fair play. It has always been conceded that whatever burden might be cast upon a man to show himself innocent in respect of any difficulty in which he was involved, should be a civil condition only, and no man should ever be put in the position of having to prove himself innocent of a criminal offence.
In the province of Ontario, and perhaps it is common to other provinces, we have certain by-laws which, having been passed, are invested with the force and effect of statutes. For example, there is a rather general provision that certain municipalities may designate what are known as stop streets. If a man passes a stop sign and enters on to a through street, he is adjudged guilty of negligence. Shall we say *that such a man becomes a criminal under the criminal code in like circumstances? That would be the necessary and inevitable effect of the passage of these two sections.
There are many cities which have enacted by-laws providing that certain motor vehicles must not approach nearer to the curb of the street than five feet. Shall we say that the man who operates a motor vehicle which strikes someone who is within four feet of the curb is a criminal, but the man who strikes someone within five feet and a half of the curb has no liability? That would be the only possible effect of the adoption of sections 14 and 15.

Criminal Code Amendment
It has become a matter of litigation in our courts as to whether or not civil liability attaches in cases of breach of that section of the Highway Traffic Act which provides that every automobile must carry a tail light visible at a certain distance to any other motor vehicle or a vehicle of any kind atpproaching it from the rear. The Supreme Court of Canada has found itself unable to solve that question satisfactorily-I refer now to the Hall versus Guelph case-as to whether or not there was negligence in the case of a man who operated a motor vehicle which had its tail-light burning in compliance with the law when he started on his trip but the tail light of which had gone out without his knowledge before he concluded his trip. That was the decision in the case to which I have referred and which went through the Supreme Court of Canada. Under this provision shall we say that a man who starts out with a light properly equipped, who has made every test for safety to himself and the rest of the travelling public, shall be made a criminal because the lamp which he has properly lighted has gone out without his knowledge before the conclusion of his trip? Under sections 14 and 15 of the bill, that would be the inevitable result for him. The only possible effect of embodying in our criminal code those provisions to which I now allude would be the unfortunate one of making the laws so onerous, bear so hardly on innocent men, that juries would refuse to convict. We have seen enough of that sort of thing from what happens south of the line. We do not desire that our criminal laws shall bear so severely that people will resent the spirit of them and refuse to enforce them in the courts of the land. I ask the minister to give this matter further consideration. He knows I am making these suggestions to him earnestly and to the best of my ability and I trust he will pause before proceeding further with these two sections.


Ernest Lapointe: These two sections have been inserted in the bill to meet the demand of the authorities of Ontario; as a matter of fact it is the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario who has been insistent on what he claims to be the need of improving the law in this regard. As the opposition to the bill is so strenuous, and coming especially from my brethren of the legal profession in Ontario, I am quite willing to withdraw the two sections.
Sections 14 and 15 dropped.
On section 16-Driving while under the influence of liquor.


James Earl Lawson: I do not want to be in the position of opposing every section in the bill, but may I direct the attention of the minister to the tremendously far-reaching effect of the amendment proposed:
Every one who, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The minister is probably well aware that the old section read:
Every person who is intoxicated.
By a series of decisions those words have been defined. We know what they mean. Now we bring in a much wider term '"under the influence of intoxicating liquor." Has the minister considered what that term means? I presume, from a physiological standpoint, I am now under the influence of a glass of wine that I had with my dinner.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my hon. friend would be.


James Earl Lawson: Perhaps on account of the
sensitive nervous system of the Minister of Justice, he may be under the influence of a glass of wine he had with last night's dinner.
I would respectfully ask: Is there any advantage in this change, which is bound to cause a tremendous amount of confusion, a change which creates a new term which has not been defined, although the law seems to be very well and strictly administered under present provisions by our police magistrates and fully covers the case of a man who is in charge of a car while intoxicated?


Mr. SMOKE:: I would point out that by
adopting such legislation as this we are subordinating our jurisdiction to that of any one of the nine provinces that might be so unwise as to pass some foolish law. I am quite sure the Minister of Justice has no intention of placing the administration of justice in criminal matters under the jurisdiction and power of any provincial legislature.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to
restore the word "intoxicated" instead of "under the influence of intoxicating .liquors," if that meets the views of my hon. friend.


James Earl Lawson: Thank you.


Ernest Lapointe: The other amendment, paragraph (a), is asked for by the prosecuting authorities of the province of Ontario. I suppose there is no objection to that.


James Earl Lawson: I have none.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: There is some
objection to that.

Criminal Code Amendment


Ernest Lapointe: I move that the word
"intoxicated" be substituted for the term "under the influence of intoxicating liquors." That will make the clause read as it was formerly.


Mr. HANSON:: The minister is about to
amend the first part of the section, putting the law back as it was before. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal as drafted, but I have no strong opinion on the subject and I am not going to oppose what it is proposed to do now. With regard to the penalty, I agree there is necessity for increasing the penalty in these cases, but greater discretion should be placed in the hands of the magistrates. My experience is that these cases usually come, on summary conviction, before a police magistrate. As paragraph (a) is now drafted, the minimum is thirty days. It seems to me that the magistrate should have a discretion up to a maximum and a smaller minimum. That is the suggestion I have to offer to the minister. Imprisonment for three months is a pretty stiff penalty for driving a motor car while intoxicated. My suggestion to the minister is that that be left as the maximum, but that the minimum be reduced.


Mr. BROWN:: I have a good deal of
sympathy with the bill as originally drafted:
Everyone who, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any narcotic, drives any motor vehicle or automobile.
It is recognized now that alcohol and high-powered motor cars make the worst kind of combination, and it has been shown conclusively that the man under the influence of the first drink is perhaps the most dangerous. The most dangerous man is not the one who is completely incapacitated. The most dangerous one is the one who perhaps thinks he is in a position to act quickly. Anything that destroys a man's ability to act quickly, perhaps by just a fraction of a second, makes the difference between an accident and safety. Just as the man who has taken one or two drinks is a bigger nuisance than the man who is dead drunk in the gutter, so it has been pretty conclusively proved that thie most dangerous man on the highway is the one who has had just enough not to incapacitate him altogether, but to destroy his ability to act quickly in an emergency. For my part I am willing to have the law made as severe as possible against the man who, having indulged in intoxicating liquor, undertakes to drive a motor car.


Leslie Gordon Bell: As regards the proposed amendment, I think the section as drafted is altogether too severe. Under these words "or has the care or control of a motor HVfr. H. A. Stewart.!
vehicle or automobile," there have been in Montreal cases where people have been compelled to go to gaol. I remember one instance in particular of a man who came out of a club and stepped into his motor car. He felt that he had been imbibing too freely to drive the car. He sent down to the garage to get a helper to come up and take his car to the garage, but when seated in his car, waiting for the helper, he was arrested by a police officer and later sentenced to gaol. Is that justice? I know of another case of a very prominent Montreal doctor who came out of a private house and as soon as he came out some person had in the meantime reported him as being intoxicated. He stepped into his car in front of the house. He was then arrested by a couple of police officers, but fortunately for him, in some manner or other, he got out of it. But that is the law, and it seems to me that it is not the right kind of law to have on our statute books. Under the section, if a man has "the care or control of a motor vehicle whether it is in motion or not," if he should be even found in his car, harming nobody, but just sitting there realizing that he is too intoxicated to drive his car, and he sends for another man to drive it, he has to go to gaol if some police officer comes along and arrests him; and they call that justice. I cannot see it. Personally I think the clause even as it stood before the proposed amendment is too drastic. It is not the kind of law that any Canadian citizen should be subject to and condemned to a gaol sentence.


Ernest Lapointe: I must say that up until this evening I have always been receiving complaints and representations that the law concerning motor car accidents was not strict enough. Complaints come from everywhere that the law should be made stricter. As far as the clause referred to by my hon. friend is concerned, it is already in the law, and I am not changing it at all. The only change that I was proposing was to substitute the words "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" for the word "intoxicated." This has been requested by many people, but in view of the objections I have withdrawn it. So far as paragraph (a) is concerned-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I find that paragraph (b) covers the point that I had in mind.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I will give my hon. friend the reason why it is there. As it is, if a man is prosecuted for having caused bodily injury, the jury cannot convict him for any lesser offence, but with this amendment the offence may be reduced to the one provided for in section 16.

Criminal Code Amendment


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I have no objection.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is some objection to the choice which the prosecuting attorney will have. On a certain set of circumstances one prosecuting attorney may decide to proceed by way of indictment; on the same set of circumstances another prosecuting attorney may decide to proceed by way of summary conviction, with very different results in the two prosecutions. It seems to me that the object could be accomplished by increasing the penalties but not leaving it open to the prosecuting attorney of his own motion to decide which course he shall adopt, whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. We have a similar provision, as I recall it, in the Narcotic Drugs Act, where for a very serious offence, posibly long continued violation of the law, there is the right to proceed by indictment, whereas in the same act there is the right to proceed by way of summary conviction. It seems to me this is leaving the door open to possible abuse by a prosecuting attorney who, even with the best of intentions, might in one case to-day decide to proceed by way of indictment and to-morrow proceed by way of summary conviction, with very unequal results to t/wo offenders who are really guilty of the very same offence.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid that the object which we have in view cannot be achieved otherwise than by this means. As I stated, it is to enable the court to reduce the offence if it believes that the charge of causing bodily injury is rather too serious a one for the case. It could not be reduced to an offence punishable upon summary conviction. I think my hon. friend understands what I have in mind. I really believe that this will be an improvement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let us assume that the prosecuting attorney decides to proceed by way of indictment. Do I understand the minister to say that upon a prosecution by way of indictment we can come down to the penalty .that is imposed under paragraph (b) for summary conviction?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That cannot be done. So it all depends upon the whim or the decision of the prosecuting attorney whether on the same set of circumstances a man shall incur a penalty not exceeding three months and not less than thirty days, or whether he shall incur a penalty not exceeding thirty days and not less than seven days -very different penalties for what after all
is the same offence. I have great reqpect for the prosecuting attorneys of the province of Ontario as I know them, but it seems to me that .this is placing them in an unfair position. It is placing upon them the burden of deciding in a particular case against a particular individual whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. We do know that all culprits may not look alike, may not be of the same standing, may not appear to the county attorney in just the same way; but it does seem to me that as this is drawn it is bound to result in inequalities and in some cases in injustice, or at all events it will gave rise to the feeling that someone else has had a much better deal an the same set of circumstances.


Thomas Langton Church: This particular section
might just as well be withdrawn too. Only the other day a small newsboy, nine years of age, crossing the highway to sell a man a paper was knocked down. I have a list here of twenty-six juries which presented recommendations last year for more drastic laws along this line, and if this is the bc-st the minister can do, I suggest that he withdraw the section altogether. He might as well present these offenders with a watch and an illuminated address.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On section 39-Shorthand notes of proceedings and evidence.
Mr. LUCAS:: During last session I brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice the question of amending section 236 of the criminal code, under which agricultural fairs are allowed to operate games of chance, and the minister promised to give it his attention at this session. I have read the bill but I fail to see any section for this purpose.


Ernest Lapointe: In what way was my
hon. friend suggesting an amendment of the section?


William Thomas Lucas: In section 236 the minister
will note that a special privilege is granted to agricultural fairs to operate games of chance on their grounds. This is an offence if practised elsewhere. There is a very strong feeling in western Canada that this privilege should be withdrawn, because agricultural fairs are primarily conducted for the purpose of developing agriculture, and the federal grants made to those fairs should be used for educational purposes. We find that the farmers' sons instead of devoting their time to the judging of the stock and getting the
275S
Criminal Code Amendment

full educational benefit from it have their attention distracted by these games of chance, the proprietors of which make a handsome profit without giving any corresponding benefit in return. Resolutions have been passed by our local organizations asking that this section be amended so as to prevent gambling at these fairs.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether
my hon. friend was a member of the house when this amendment to the criminal code was enacted a few years ago. I am almost afraid that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is largely responsible for it; it was asked for by the Department of Agriculture as a means of encouraging agricultural fairs. The amendment was debated by the house at considerable length before it was adopted. I would not feel at liberty to propose any change at the present time, but I shall be pleased to submit my hon. friend's request to those who asked for that amendment.


William Thomas Lucas: I have also had a large number of requests from fraternal organizations, as I believe have several other members, asking that this privilege be extended to them. Personally I am in favour of withdrawing the privilege from agricultural fairs; but if this is not done I see no reason why a similar privilege should not be extended to the fraternal organizations. If the minister will not consent to withdraw this privilege from agricultural fairs, I would ask if he can give any good reason why it should not be extended to fraternal organizations.


Ernest Lapointe: My only good reason is
that I have always thought an amendment of this kind would have no chance of going through parliament. As far as I am concerned I am free to admit to my hon. friend that I would have no conscientious objection, or in fact any objection, to the change that he proposes; but when the section was first discussed in the house there was a strong feeling against extending facilities for these games of chance. However, if my hon. friend could persuade me that a majority of the house would support his request I would have no hesitation in helping him. But I think the whole thing should be carefully considered, and perhaps we might postpone such consideration to a future date.


George Reginald Geary: I would suggest to the
Minister of Justice that if he is going to continue to the patrons of agricultural fairs the privilege of spending their time and their

money trying to find which shell the pea is under, and that sort of thing, he should take into consideration the desirability of seeing that no previous knowledge is given of the game and that the winning odds are not published afterwards-precautions that apparently he thinks so necessary in other cases.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 11 was allowed to stand.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, at the request of my hon,. friend from West York (Mr. Lawson).
On section 11-Broker reducing stock by selling for his owm account.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Chairman, this section, I believe, was recommended by the conference of attorneys general, with the exception of the representative of the province of Quebec who, I understand, did not take part in it.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that so?


Mr. LAY  SON@: That is my understanding. The object of the section was to prevent brokers selling stocks short. I realize that in the present state of public opinion it would be a hopeless task for me to advocate its withdrawal. However, I do want to put myself on record as being opposed to it in the interests of the public themselves, but I am not going to take the time of the committee to advance any argument in that regard.
I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the words in the latter part of the section:
-if the effect of such sale shall otherwise than unintentionally be to reduce the amount of such shares.
And so forth. That phrase is unknown in all our legislation with respect to criminal offences. I would submit that, instead of the words "otherwise than unintentionally" we should use the words "with intent," which are always employed in connection with criminal offences. I asked to have the section left over because of the very able argument advanced by several hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house when we were dealing with the criminal negligence section that there should be intent in order to constitute a criminal offence. Now I submit to the minister for his very serious consideration the substitution of the words, "with intent," for the words "otherwise than unintentionally." The minister will no doubt be concerned as to whether the public would be protected if these words were changed. May I point out to him that every province in the Dominion of Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec, has now adopted and enacted a uniform act known as the Security Frauds Prevention Act,

Criminal Code Amendment
for the control of the brokerage business.
In section 21 of that act is contained the very provision which is in this code making it an offence under the provincial statute punishable by a minimum fine of 81,000 and an optional imprisonment of six months for a first offence. In addition thereto under the provincial legislation there are additional clauses which give to the customer of any brokerage house the right to repudiate his entire transaction with that house and to obtain his money back if the broker is guilty of making a short sale. That is what is intended by the section. As I pointed out, the proposed section goes much farther. For instance, if I am a director of a large brokerage house in Canada-and I have in mind one of those houses with twenty-six or twenty-seven branches-because I happen to be a director of the concern, although I may take no part in its operations,
I am prevented from making a short sale in the market. It may be that some customer of that brokerage house in New York city has purchased a stock of the same class and kind that I as a director am selling short on the Canadian market. As I said, I realize that it would be unwise under present conditions to ask that the section be withdrawn. I feel however that the minister will agree that we should preserve that which has always been a cardinal principle in our criminal law; there must be intent.


Ernest Lapointe: I appreciate the viewpoint expressed by my hon. friend, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the clarity with which he has discussed this bill.
I feel sure that he will understand my position when I say that we have thought it better to adhere to the language suggested by all the provinces. There may be two or three words which we would have liked to change, but I think on the whole it is advisable to leave the section as the provinces have desired it to be left.


Thomas Langton Church: On March 4 the Minister of Justice promised that when this bill was presented I would have an opportunity to bring in one or two amendments, and on that occasion he asked me to let my amendments stand. In Ontario some of the judges have apparently disregarded the respective rights of judge and jury. In some cases the judges have made comments on the verdicts rendered by juries, and have made unfortunate remarks in regard to the way the juries dealt with the evidence before them. With these facts in mind I think some amendment should be made
to the criminal code. I would suggest the following amendment:
It shall be the duty of the presiding judge to record and enter the jury's verdict without comment thereon.	.
This is a practice which has become prevalent throughout the country, and as a result it is difficult to obtain men to serve on jury panels. The functions of a judge are defined by law; they are set out by precedent and by statute. There is no legislative authority for a judge to criticize the action of a jury. He sits in the capacity of a presiding judge; both judge and jury have functions to perform. I think however that at the present time the judges are going altogether too far, and this applies to some of the recent appointees in the province of Ontario. They are overstepping the line which separates the function of the judge and that of the jury. I understand there are some common law references to this matter; the English judges do not attempt to encroach upon the duties of the jury, and in my opinion Canadian judges should take a similar attitude." In fact, under our wonderful new status, now that we have a status of our own, I doubt very much if the judges should be addressed as "my lord'' or "your lordship". I understand all these old obsolete laws have been repealed, as have been the forms and usages in connection with them. Something should be done by the minister to check this growing practice of invading the rights of the people. In my opinion judges have no legislative authority from this parliament to make either favourable or unfavourable comment in connection with a verdict once it has been rendered by a jury. With these facts in mind I ask the minister to accept the amendment I have proposed. In the province of Ontario the jury system has been assailed by three or four judges. I shall not take the time of the house to give details, but I wish to say that their remarks have been entirely out of order. I would like to know whether the minister will accept the amendment or whether it is his opinion that anything should be done in connection with this important question.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid the suggested amendment cannot be accepted. It almost amounts to a reflection upon the judges. Apart from that I think the judges have a right, if they wish, to send juries back to reconsider their verdicts. I wonder how a judge could take that action without first addressing some remarks to the jury. I do not think the proposed amendment can be considered.
Criminal Code Amendment


Thomas Langton Church: Very well, I shall withdraw the amendment, temporarily.
Amendment withdrawn.


Thomas Langton Church: The subject matter of the second amendment is contained in Hansard of March 4. In amendment I move that the following words be added to section 41:
The grand jury of any county in which a penitentiary is situated may visit, view and inspect the same and make a presentment of any recommendation they see fit, notwithstanding the provisions of the Penitentiaries Act, chapter 154 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or of any law, custom or usage to the contrary.
This matter is referred to in Hansard of March 4. Within the past few days public attention has been directed to the case of two young boys who were sentenced to imprisonment in one of these institutions, and it has been proved that they were wrongfully sent there. I wonder if there are any others like them down there. How many great penal institutions are there in which innocent people are incarcerated. In Hansard of March 4, 1930, I find the following:
In Hamilton, two sane men for several years were in the asylum and in one case in York county girls were found without food and shelter, in a dungeon below ground, this being a punishment for some minor offence. The chief justice in addressing the grand jury said: "I am in accord with your views as to inspection of these penitentiaries. Such inspection is in accord with that great principle in the administration of justice which for centuries has been applied and was confirmed by Magna Charta, namely, that the people shall have a large share in the administration of justice in criminal cases.
Whether penitentiaries are well or ill managed they are managed altogether by crown officers; and the management of them is a thing of much importance in the administration of the criminal laws so much that assuredly the people should be entitled to some means of learning for themselves what the crown officials are doing and how if is being done.
The grand jury, representing the people of the judicial district, can most conveniently, and at no cost, perform for the people the duty of visitation.
. but one matter of detail I mention, because it seems to me that it should receive consideration.
. f'1 some counties there may be five grand juries in a year. Let me suggest that their Power be limited thus: say twice a year."
These institutions have been managed by the crown and while there is no complaint as to the way they have been run I think it is in the public interest that they should be visited by the grand jury. The minister has said these are provincial institutions, but that is not so; they are established under the criminal code, and the officials are appointed by this government, which maintains the

institutions. No one knows what is going on there. Are there any more innocent people in these places and, if so, how did they get there? It is the right of the grand jury to go through provincial institutions in the same way. There was a big fire in one of these places across the border a short time ago because the proper inspection was not carried on. Are we just to take some person's word for it that everything is all right? We will have more reforms if we have the grand jury go to these places once or twice a year and make a presentment to the court. The grand jury represents parliament and the people; it is an old institution and should be allowed to go through these places and make inspections.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman has proposed an amendment of this kind where, if it should be desirable, it should be made; that is, to t'he Penitentiaries Act. That amendment did not meet with favour in the house, and properly so, (because after all provincial institutions must not be under federal control. Our officers have no jurisdiction in the provincial gaols, and grand juries, which are provincial bodies, do not have and should not have jurisdiction in federal institutions. Why should the grand jury in the county of Laval have jurisdiction over the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul, when the other grand juries in other sections of the province would have no such jurisdiction? Why should the grand jury of Fron-tenac county have a special privilege or duty with regard to the penitentiary at Kingston which would not belong to the other grand juries in other sections of Ontario? I do not think the amendment is workable; it has been debated in the house and settled.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Kennedy.
['I believe\nmy department received a letter from my hon. friend. I made inquiries, and as a result I find that there were statements made to the effect that this man was an undischarged bankrupt. The claim was made that the Indians owed him money, which claim I believe has been denied. The chief complaint however was that the man was not fit and capable to carry out his duties, and for that reason was not employed longer.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when the
house adjourned while we were discussing the amendment to the motion to go into supply,
I had been speaking with reference to it. The amendment was to the effect that immediate steps be taken to implement the

Peace River Railway-Mr. Mackenzie King
pledge alleged to have been given by the Prime Minister at Edmonton in November, 1924, with regard to the Peace river outlet, and as I recall it the alleged pledge was to the effect that this outlet should be decided upon and a railroad constructed as soon as was humanly possible.
If I remember correctly I had mentioned that at the time of making the speech referred to, I had said that so far as the government was concerned we were confronted in this parliament with, to say the least, some uncertainty as to what might be possible with respect to railway legislation, inasmuch as some of the railway legislation which we had introduced had failed to pass the other house and we were without a majority there. However, this evening I do not wish to delay the committee, and perhaps I can satisfy my hon. friend as to the government's intention in the matter if I say to him that since this amendment was introduced I have had a personal interview with the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Minister of Railways and Canals has interviewed the president of the Canadian National Railways. Both presidents agree that in their view it should be possible for some appropriate outlet to be agreed upon within a period of possibly six months, and I understand they have their surveyors at work with a view of determining a suitable route.
The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company mentioned that a joint survey of the natural resources of British Columbia had been undertaken last year at the expense of the government of British Columbia, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which was done in consequence of a suggestion made by him to the provincial authorities. It is expected that the result of that survey will shortly be made available. Not long ago the provincial government asked that the work should be continued to include the Peace river block recently transferred from the Dominion to the province, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways each undertook to pay one-third of the expense. When the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was in the west last fall with the directors of the company he gave an assurance that this year the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would undertake a detailed survey of the possible routes for the outlet with a view to ascertaining which was the more feasible, and also to settle the question whether a crossing of the Peace river at Hudson's Hope can be made. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company mentioned to me, in the course of
our conversation, that he thought this work should be completed within the course of the next few months, and he stated also that he felt that he and the president of the Canadian National Railways should be able to get together and decide upon the route. He was of the view, which I understand is held also by the president of the Canadian National Railways, that the work should be undertaken jointly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I repeat what I said the other evening, that in the opinion of the government it ought to be possible for these companies to agree upon a route within six months and to have work begun within a year on a railway which will afford an outlet from the Peace river district to the Pacific. I will say that if they do not make a beginning within a year and the present administration should be in office at the end of that period, we will undertake to find a way or make it for the beginning of the construction of a railway line from the Peace river district to connect with the Pacific via some other railway line or otherwise. Under these circumstances, perhaps my hon. friend will feel that it is unnecessary to press his amendment any further. I said that the government would accept his amendment. To accept an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply may seem contradictory, but I was anxious that the government should not be put in a position of appearing in any way to be unwilling to implement to the full any promise which has been made, either directly or indirectly. I hope that what I have said will be satisfactory to my hon. friend.
Mr. BRADS': The right hon. the Prime Minister realizes the importance of having a survey made and he states that within six months there should be definite information at hand as to what is to be the outlet from the Peace River district to the Pacific coast.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the hon. gentleman has spoken once already on this debate.
Mr. BRADS': I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. BRADY:: The right hon. gentleman says that this outlet is to be undertaken jointly by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, and he states that if within one year this work is not accomplished the present government, if in power, will accomplish what the united efforts of these two organizations may fail to accomplish. Does
2762	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Mackenzie King
the right hon. gentleman believe that the engineers of these two companies will be so impartial as to settle once and for all this problem of an outlet to the Pacific coast?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my hon. friend has been hearing either more or less than I actually said. What I did say was that it was desirable that the work should be undertaken as a joint undertaking. I did not say that it necessarily would be so undertaken, but that the presidents of both roads felt it was desirable that it should be undertaken as a joint undertaking. I was endeavouring to anticipate every possible contingency, and so I said that if a start were not made by the railways jointly, or one of them, within a year, and the present administration were in office at that time, we would find a way or make it to have a start made in the construction of a railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Mr. KENNEDY:: I understand that there is some objection to the withdrawal of the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no objection, if the hon. member does not object.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
Indians-Ontario and Quebec, $448,485.
Mr. MALONEY:: Mr. Chairman, the total vote for Indians in Canada amounts to over $5,000,000. I have not one word to say against the administration of the Indian department because I believe that the minister in charge and his deputy are doing everything possible for the welfare of these people. 'However, has not the time come when we should consider the Indians of Canada as being no longer wards of the government? These boys and girls are given a fairly good education, taught a trade, and they leave the reservation and should be permitted to grow up as we grow UP, to become real citizens of this country. In the county of Renfrew we have an Indian reserve. During the past five or six years many boys and girls have left that reserve after having been educated, rightly so at the expense of the government, have gone out into the world and have made good. If 
we could arrange that Indians throughout Canada could receive an education or training in a trade and the government would keep on placing these boys and girls where they should be placed, surely at the end of at least a generation we might be saved a great deal of money which we are spending from year to year. This money is often spent very foolishly. Indians who have lived on the reserves return there, many of them living absolutely in idleness, depending on the few fish they may be able to catch or the few game they may be able to corral. If the government would take this matter in hand, the time would come when these large amounts, like the $5,000,000 that we have been asked to vote to-day, would not be required and the Indians would be as good people as any others in this country.


Thomas Langton Church: If these Indians wore
good enough to serve in the great war in large numbers, why are they not good enough to receive the citizenship of this country? While we are bringing in immigrants from all over the world, the red man hias no rights in Canada. His rights, privileges, and land are taken away from him and the agreements we have made with him are being broken.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend surely does not appreciate the fact that the Indians happen to be the wards of the government and they are so by treaty. We have to deal with a situation that came about by the evolution which took place when the white man came and established himself in this country, and out of that grew the system of placing the Indians on reservations. Year by year I frankly confess that I have strongly advocated larger expenditures of money on these people.
May I say to the hon. member for South Renfrew that we are doing a great deal of work in educating the Indians. In this regard much credit is due to religious organizations that are carrying on this work. Possbily it would not be carried on so reasonably as it is were it not for the fact that they do the education work. We have been providing, during the last five or six years since I came into my present position, the necessary schools and equipment for the education of the Indian children. The department have lent every assistance possible towards educating and encouraging the Indians to take enfranchisement and to become citizens in the real sense of the word. That is not urged upon them, but it is a privilege they may accept if they are in a position to do so. Therefore in every way we are endeavouring to educate the

Supply-Indian Affairs
Indians and I should like, if funds were available, to carry the work even further, to give technical education, to train these young boys in trades after they secure, as they do, a good common school education in their own schools in every province. But this will require more money. Year by year we have to vote more money. Since fur has become so valuable in this country and the white man has become active in trapping animals and securing their furs, it has been much more difficult for the Indians to obtain a livelihood. For that reason we have to spend more money on them, for relief, for medical attention and for what, undoubtedly, the country and the government owe to our aborigines. I believe we are not spending enough money upon the Indians, but I realize one must keep within reason in asking for the necessary funds to carry on this work. We shall, however, have to spend more money in giving the Indians better medical attention in the future than we have done in the past and I make no apology for asking these sums of money for Indian work in Canada.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Can the minister give any information as to the intention of the government with respect to the erection of a new building to replace the old Shingwauk Home building?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry
my deputy is not with me at this moment, but I may say that we are as quickly as possible replacing old buildings with new and modern ones, and erecting new buildings where they seem to be required for Indian educational work. My deputy will be here in a few minutes.


Thomas Edward Simpson: They are carrying on at
present in a building that has been in existence for a period of upwards of fifty years. It is not modern at all.


Charles A. Stewart: I have it in mind. I cannot say whether it is in the program for this year or not.


Robert James Manion: I would like to refer to the question of the fire extending from the Indian reserve at Fort William into the park. The minister is quite familiar with the facts and it is some time since I put them on record in a letter to him. The minister's deputy takes the attitude that the parks board which asks for assistance in the putting out of that fire has not a just claim inasmuch as the Indian department, although admitting that the fire started on the reserve, contend that they have already spent, I think, some $3,500
in assisting the Indians in fire protection. I am informed that $3,500 was spent on an absolute necessity in the shape of fire protection which should have been put in long before, and it has no effect so far as past accident is concerned. I wish, without delaying the committee at all, to impress upon the minister once again what I have done in private and by letter, namely, that I believe the parks board, which has had a very difficult time getting along and which has suffered because of the fire extending into their park from the Indian reserve, should be given consideration by the minister and some assistance towards at least the expenditure made by them for the upkeep of the volunteer fire fighting force-it is only a matter of about $700-should be given by the department of Indian Affairs, in spite of what my good friend the deputy minister states in regard to the matter. I trust the minister will look into this once again and endeavour to see that the parks board receive this assistance. It can be done without delaying the matter at the moment and without any special vote. I presume there are in the Indian department as in other departments votes out of which a sum of $700 or $800 could be taken. I am not speaking for what little political effect this might have; I am speaking very seriously because I think the parks board have a just case. I feel the minister thinks they have a just case and I hope he will see they are given some assistance in regard to the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I am familiar with the subject the hon. member has brought up. It is one upon which we have not reached decision. I have had inquiry made and I may say the report is not particularly favourable, but I think my hon. friend is correct in saying there may be some claim and I will look into the matter again.


Robert James Manion: I think in this case the minister's deputy is a little too economical for the department and he should let down the gates in justice to the parks board of Fort William.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say a few words about this item. Lest it be taken for granted that we approve these votes, I desire to point out to the minister that during the last, few months, in fact during the last year, I have received very serious complaints respecting the administration of the Indian department in western Canada. The fault does not rest with the officer immediately in charge, political patronage has played a large part in the matter, in which the deputy head is wholly without authority. For instance there
27G4
Supply-Indian Affairs

have been eases of machinery bought merely for .the purpose of providing business for friends and which lies outdoors unused. In one instance the minister employed as farm instructor to the Indians an undischarged bankrupt, and in another case a man who is addicted to the use of liquor to too great an extent was put in a position of authority with the result that at times he gets under the weather with injurious consequences to the Indians.
There is a vast sum of money being expended for the Indians,. and this talk of the minister about his desire to help these wards of the nation would sound better if he would give some little expression to that sentiment in concrete form in a proper expenditure of the money voted for the purpose, and with less exercise of political patronage in the making of appointments. The Civil Service Commission which makes appointments in some cases should make them in all. It is not simply one case; there are three cases in particular. Why is it that the near relative of a member of parliament is taken from Portage la Prairie and put on a reserve? Did the Civil Service Commission approve of it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under what circumstances?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister
could if he took the trouble to. The people in that locality at all events think so. In one instance the Indians were moved off one reserve-


Charles A. Stewart: Where was
that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not far from Portage,
and they are supposed to be removed to another place; I do not know whether they have been or not. This is the report that was made by a gentleman who went through the west, a gentleman with no political bias at all, but with the one object of seeing how the aborigines were treated. He inquired why farm machinery should be left lying around unused-mechanical power for farming purposes unused. He also saw this reserve that I mention. In fairness to all concerned I am leaving out the name of the particular individual, the minister having ample opportunity to investigate these matters, lest it be said that injury is being done to any particular person.
Some years ago the idea was started that the Indians were raising very large crops. For instance, in my own province of Alberta there 
were the exigencies of-shall I say?-the demands of friends that reserves should be leased near Macleod; then reserves somewhere else; then the sale of the lands of a reserve east of Calgary; and when you go into Saskatchewan you find difficulties of the same sort, especially in the northern part of the province; and as well in Manitoba. The result is that although it is said that the Indians are producing large quantities of grain, in the main it will be found that they ate not making the progress they should for the moneys that are expended, and part of the moneys we are expending belong to the Indians. There is a vast fund in this country that belongs to the Indians; for when lands are sold which the Indians own the proceeds from the sale of these lands goes into a trust fund the income of which is available for the maintenance of the Indians.
I have referred to three reserves in Alberta. I refer to a reserve in Saskatchewan. There is also a reserve in Manitoba, the Long Plains reserve, which I mentioned a little while ago. The Indians I referred to are the Indians who were removed from Portage to the Long Plains reserve. I could go into these matters in detail, but I think it is sufficient for my purpose to indicate them lest it be said that we have approved of this vast expenditure; and I say "vast" advisedly, because while it may be a relatively small sum of money, actually it is a very substantial sum. You have $2,500,000 out of $5,000,000 being used for Indian education, including the construction of school buildings. It would be desirable, if we had time, that we should have a complete statement from the minister as to just what work is being done and what the results are. Possibly the nearness of the end of the session is a good reason for not wanting to go into the matter in detail, but I should like the minister to know that there are those deeply interested in these questions who are studying them from outside observation, and they believe that the results obtained are not at all in keeping with what could be secured from the expenditures made. A tendency is manifesting itself to expend money in the purchase of facilities for fanning which are not used for farming, with resultant idleness on the part of the Indians-the tendency of the Indian in that direction is well known to all-with the unfortunate result that instead of the Indian becoming more self-respecting he is becoming more dependent. Occupying as they do very excellent areas of land of high agricultural value, we know that there are not wanting those who are always endeavouring to see that these lands are sold

Supply-Indian Affairs
and purchased by someone else. The minister has had a good deal of experience in that regard in various sections of the country. He knows the means that are taken to have the Indians made to believe that it is desirable for them to sell, and then when they find their reserves gone and the lands sold the result is that you have a worse condition than you had before. The minister knows the difficulties which sometimes have been pointed out in correspondence from, I fancy many others besides myself.
Without taking the minister's time or the time of the committee to go into the mass of detail which I have under my hand, and which I had expected would be useful at this session of the house, representing accumulated detail extending over twelve months, I do suggest to him that whatever little time he may have at his disposal for Indian affairs might be utilized in having the closest possible inspection made of all the reserves in the western provinces. I know the inspectors' reports. Unfortunately I have seen some of them and have checked them up. I know the difficulties in connection with farm instructors, and I am not unmindful of the difficulties which the minister has to experience with those who think that they are fitted by a kindly Providence better to discharge the duties of instructors, farm and others, to Indians than any other people in the world. But if we are to get some value for the money that we are expending and make the Indian, as we all desire to do somewhat more selfreliant and less dependent and improve his position in the community by encouraging him to engage in agricultural pursuits and the raising of stock, as was done at one time in connection with two reserves in Alberta, we shall have to adopt different means from those which are now in vogue. I know not whether it is so or not, but certainly an authority to whose judgment I attach a great deal of importance is strongly of the opinion that there has been a steady deterioration in recent years in the morale of the Indians upon the reserves. That is not wholly attributable to my hon. friend's administration, of course, but it is attributable to causes which the government might, it seems to me, by taking strong action overcome. I content myself with pointing out these matters, without taking time to read a vast quantity of evidence which I have dealing with them. I ask the minister to endeavour to ensure by-shall I say?- observation and action on the ground, and not departmental action from Ottawa, that better results are obtained for the money expended than those which we have heretofore
realized; for some of the education that we have given the Indians has only resulted in the poor unfortunate becoming the easier the victim of the tendencies of modern civilization.
I think the minister knows what I refer to in that regard. Despite the efforts that are made to prevent the Indian becoming the victim of drink, very often his improved education has the more readily made him the victim of shall I say?-civilization. All these things are matters that I regard as of great importance from the standpoint of the treatment of our aborigines, and I earnestly hope that steps will be taken to improve the conditions I have mentioned.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
reserves in western Canada-I presume my hon. friend is speaking of the farming reserves -where implements are left out of doors. But that is the case on almost very farm in western Canada. On the whole I think we have more facilities on the Indian reserves for storing agricultural implements than will be found on ordinary farms in any given locality in the western country. As fast as we can get money-because after all it is a question of money-we believe in providing facilities for covering these implements at or near the agent's quarters on the reserve. The appointment of agents is made by the Civil Service Commission, usually after a competitive examination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not agents that I mentioned.


Charles A. Stewart: Farm instructors are appointed by the commissioner at Regina. The case mentioned by my hon. friend is that of Mr. Edwards, who, he says, was an undischarged bankrupt when he received his appointment. I did not know anything about that at the time. After his period of probation he did not prove to have the necessary qualifications for the work and he is no longer in the employ of the department. My hon. friend says that the Indians are making no improvement in the way of farming. May I direct his attention to the Blood reserve at Macleod? They had well over one hundred thousand bushels of grain on that reserve last year. The Indians on the Blackfoot reserve are also making progress. As to the sale of Indian land, I agree with everything my hon. friend has said. Usually the reserve covers the best land in any given locality, and there is a desire on the part of the people who surround it to secure that land and they try every means in their power to get possession. The Blackfoot reserve was sold long before I became Superintendent
Supply-Indian Affairs

General of Indian Affairs, and we have had a good deal of trouble in getting collections of the moneys due the Indians, but we have succeeded in straightening out the difficulty. It is not the policy of the department to sell any land required now or that may be re* quired in the future by the Indians of western Canada if it can be utilized by them for grazing, agriculture or any other purpose'.
With respect to the education of the Indians, when I took charge of this department I found the various churches of the country, the Roman Catholic under the Oblate Fathers, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists-of course the Anglicans and the Catholics were engaged in this work to a much greater extent than the Presbyterians and the Methodists- I found that these churches had constructed buildings and had become responsible for the indebtedness incurred in their construction, and they were levying upon their adherents to secure money necessary to carry on their educational work. These churches had gone into the country in a missionary spirit to educate and christianize the young Indians, and I did not think it was fair to have them carrying that heavy financial burden. Therefore I immediately took steps to purchase from them the institutions that were considered to be useful for a number of years to come and to replace as far as possible the structures that had fallen into disrepair. To-day the churches are carrying on their work under much better conditions than they did when I became minister of the department.
With 105,000 Indians scattered over the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and away up in the Arctic, it would be Strange if some of our officials did not go wrong once in a while. But may I say to the hon. leader of the opposition that I will not tolerate an official on an Indian reserve who has anything to do with liquor-and I am not a prohibitionist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: That is one very strong resolution I have made in this regard, and I intend to carry it out. So far as I know, we try to keep the staff engaged in Indian work as reasonably clean as we possibly can. I do not say that we will not have difficulties now and again; anyone who has to administer this department is bound to have difficulties; but I say we are making progress, and did time permit I should be glad to inform the house of the lines along which we are making splendid progress in Indian affairs.


James Charles Brady: 
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I have a long letter concerning the dismissal without notice of Mr. W. Edwards. Is the minister in a position to make a statement as to why this man was dismissed?


Charles A. Stewart: I believe
my department received a letter from my hon. friend. I made inquiries, and as a result I find that there were statements made to the effect that this man was an undischarged bankrupt. The claim was made that the Indians owed him money, which claim I believe has been denied. The chief complaint however was that the man was not fit and capable to carry out his duties, and for that reason was not employed longer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to move that this
house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock tonight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We should have a definite statement as to when the house will rise. We had difficulty on one occasion in connection with that matter and it is better to have a definite time to take the place of eleven o'clock rather than to proceed indefinitely and then have difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend and other members of the house are no doubt aware that to-morrow is Ascension day, and that in the past it has not been customary for this house to sit on that day. It has not been customary either to sit on May 24. As we had two sittings on that day and are now doing our utmost to get through with the business of parliament as rapidly as possible, it might suit the convenience of all if we were to meet only for two sittings tomorrow instead of three as we are doing at present. In that way we would leave the morning clear and meet in the afternoon. If that is agreeable, I would suggest that it might be advisable to meet at the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon instead of at three o'clock.
In regard to this evening, I imagine it will meet the convenience of all parties if we fix the hour of adjournment at one o'clock. Some hon. members have mentioned that we might continue to sit until two o'clock; on the other hand, I have learned that there are other members who prefer to adjourn at one o'clock. That being the case I would suggest the hour of one o'clock, and with the consent of the house I shall include that hour in my motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall make the formal motion that this house do sit tomorrow, May 29, 1930, beginning at the hour of two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add
that I hope the fact that for part of the day we are to sit on Ascension day will not be regarded as in any way establishing a precedent?



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Indians-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-$1,061,257.
Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: I want to bring to the attention of the minister the matter of some Indian accounts. In softie instances in the province of Saskatchewan Indian agents have gone out to the farmers and purchased seed grain, feed oats, hay for horses and in some instances cattle. In some cases these people have received part pay, but in others they have not received anything. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last year, and my remarks are recorded at pages 3807 and 380S of unrevised Hansard. Among other things the minister said:
In every case where he is able to .produce such an order we are prepared to settle, and in some eases where the evidence is clear that the transaction actually took place and that the creditor has given value for the claim, we will try to make an adjustment.
It seems to me that some provision should be made at this session of parliament to pay these accounts when the agents get seed grain or feed from farmers. I hope the minister will see that these accounts are paid this summer.


Charles A. Stewart: All I can say is that we do recognize the orders of the agents, but we do not pretend to recognize trading done with Indians unless by the
276o
Supply-Indian Affairs



CO'MMONS

[Stage Direction]
authority of the agents. We have had a great deal of difficulty in settling up old accounts which have dragged on for some years; many of the obligations in this respect occurred during and just after the war. 1 think, however, with the exception of just one or two at Touchwood we have paid up most of these accounts, and the crop on the Blood reserve this year will no doubt clear up a very heavy indebtedness which exists there. We are watching the matter very closely and hope we will be able to clean up the last of these acoounts before the year is over.
William Russell Fansher: Am I to understand that it is not the intention of the department to take care of these accounts at all until such time as the money comes from crops belonging to the Indians themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that is not what I want my iron, friend to understand. As far as possible we want to avoid taking money from our Indian account for the purpose of paying these amounts. In the case of the Blood Indians there was about $50,000 owing, a very large amount, and I am informed that this year their crop will clean up that account. In some cases we have had accounts long overdue and have had to vote the money to pay for them. I want my hon. friend to understand that it has not been an easy task to clean up this old indebtedness, but I say we hope to be .able to clean it up during the present year.


William Russell Fansher: I should like the minister to understand also that it has not been an easy task for these men to carry these accounts for ten or twelve years, some of them for very large amounts. I do not refer to any cases where trading has been done between the Indian and the farmer;
I refer to cases where the agent went out and gave orders on government stationery. The farmer, thinking he was going to get his pay in the near future, let go of a valuable liquid asset and still has not received his money. We make loans to harbour commissions and many other institutions throughout Canada, and it seems to me this matter should be cleaned up now. It should not be difficult to make a loan to the department which would enable these legitimate accounts to be paid. They should be paid; it would not take a great deal of money and it would relieve a great deal of hardship among the farmers who have been carrying these accounts for a long time.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I have quite a large file of correspondence here in reference to the case of C. B. Rothery, who was a clerk in the Indian office at Onion Lake. This man claims to have been unjustly treated; he was appointed to the position through the Civil Service Commission, and after six months probation he was dismissed by the department. I have a recent letter from him in which he says:
A communication from J. C. G. Herwig, service bureau, Canadian Legion, to the representative of the imperial section of the Legion-a copy of which letter has been passed to me-reveals the following interesting admission by the Indian department:
"We have been met with a bland denial of such interference (political) and been told that the department did not wish to accept Rothery in the first place, doubting his competency." This I consider explains the attitude of the Indian department throughout the whole business and does prove their intention to appoint the nominee of C. R. McIntosh. M.P.; further that it certainly supports my contention that they did not intend that I should get past the period of probation.
And so on. I also have a number of communications from prominent people in the district, which I will not take time to read bo the committee. However, there is one letter from a prominent gentleman in Fort Pitt, Saskatchewan. I will let the minister see this letter if he wishes, but I do not wish to put it all on Hansard or to give the name of my correspondent. I should like to read a short extract, however, as follows:
The whole district feels most strongly about his dismissal from the position he held as clerk at the Onion lake Indian agency, a feeling I certainly share myself. We all know Rothery as a very capable, courteous man fitted in every way for the position he held at Onion lake. His academic qualifications and experience place him right in the front rank, and it is disgraceful to think that he should have been dismissed from Onion lake on such paltry grounds. I have gone into the whole matter most fully, and to me the business will hardly bear the light of day.
We all feel that Rothery was eminently suited for the job as clerk at Onion lake. His past records are irreproachable. I have made a number of private inquiries into this matter and have viewed all possible aspects of this case. I now come to the conclusion that there should be a thorough, impartial inquiry into the whole business, which I know would lead to Rothery's reinstatement.
Would the minister care to make a statement in connection with that case?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I may say that I have heard of this case to-night for the first time, but I am informed that this man was selected by the Civil Service Commission for the position; he was taken

Supply-Indian Affairs
on for a period of probation of six months, and was found to be unfitted for his job, so he was let out. As I say, I had not heard of this matter until my hon. friend brought it up to-night, but that is the information I have with respect to the case. I may add that surely the officials of the department ought to be the judges of whether or not a man is capable of filling a position after he is given a trial. If he had not received a trial it would be a different matter, but I am bound to say that I shall have to accept the opinion of my officials against any outside suggestions as to efficiency or anything else with respect to the department. I do not know anything about this case; it has been dealt with by the department officially, and the officials of the department must be the judges of a man's qualification to fill a position after he is given a fair and impartial trial.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister
know whether it is true that the man who got the position was recommended by the hon. member mentioned in this letter?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know who has the letter or where it is filed. I had no knowledge of this matter until just this moment.


William Garland McQuarrie: The statement is made to that effect.


Charles A. Stewart: * I cannot be responsible for all the statements which are made but undoubtedly the Civil Service Commission would have to pass upon the applicant, and would also send us another one.


William Garland McQuarrie: As a matter of fact
they did give this man the appointment. He is a returned man, while the man appointed in his place was not. Does the minister know that to be the fact?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know anything about the appointment. As clerks are required they are advertised for in the usual way and the appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission. The individual who obtains the appointment is taken on probation, but if he is found to be unfitted for the position he is let out and we ask the Civil Service Commission to give us another appointment.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister agree that there should be an investigation made?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend will give me the information which he has and I find that an investigation is 2419-175
warranted, yes. Every man is entitled to fair treatment, but many of these cases come up and it is found usually that the officials in charge are capable of deciding whether or not a man is fitted for the position. If that man has not had an opportunity of demonstrating his fitness for the position, then there might be grounds for complaint.


William Garland McQuarrie: The gravamen of this charge is that the department never intended that this man should retain the position. That would appear to be a clear case of fraud, and more than that there is the suggestion of political interference.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend is willing to give me the information in his possession I will go into this matter thoroughly and if in my opinion any injustice has been done to this man, an investigation will be held.


William Garland McQuarrie: No doubt the deputy has full information as to what took place. These are rather serious charges, and they seem to be backed up by very prominent residents of that district who think that an injustice has been done to this man. I should be very glad to give the minister all the information I have, and I would ask that he consider the holding of an investigation. It is very unsatisfactory that there should be, as there has been in this case, any political interference, particularly when a returned man is displaced by a man who did not serve overseas.


William Russell Fansher: Has any provision been made for the payment of these accounts?


Charles A. Stewart: Does the hon. member mean by way of a special vote?


William Russell Fansher: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but
should it be deemed absolutely necessary that payments be made, and the accounts do not run into too large a sum, they will be taken care of.


William Russell Fansher: Does
not the minister think that some of these accounts should be paid? The crops were poor last year and the farmers would like to receive their money. I would like to see the minister bring in a supplementary estimate to cover this matter. It would not mean the payment of a very large sum out of the federal treasury, and that would be returned as new crops are grown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Indian Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Indians-British Columbia-$591,600.
Mr. FRASER:: What percentage of this vote was expended last year?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
education is concerned, we have found that we have overspent our votes in all the provinces. We do not carry over any amounts in the Indian department, especially in those items dealing with medical health and medical services.


John Anderson Fraser: One of the items in this vote is for $100,000 to provide for technical education, hospitals, medical attendance, promotion of agriculture, stockraising, fruit culture, and irrigation projects, and I would like to know in a general way what disposition was made last year of that amount, and how it is proposed to expend this present vote.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the sum which was fixed two years ago as a settlement with the Indians.


John Anderson Fraser: Could the minister indicate in a general way how the amount is being spent? For instance, how much is being spent on technical education?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is meant by technical education?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not anticipate being asked these questions, and I have not that information with me. The $100,000 is divided up in various ways for the benefit of the Indians in British Columbia. Does the hon. member want a statement as to how that amount was spent?


John Anderson Fraser: I wanted only a general
statement, but if the minister is going to prepare one, perhaps he would prepare a complete statement.


Charles A. Stewart: The expenditures for this year were as follows:
Technical education	 $10,000
Hospitals and medical attendance. . ..	60,000
Promotion of agriculture, stock raising
and fruit culture	 15,000
Irrigation projects	  15,000


John Anderson Fraser: Most of the amount went for medical purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite right.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it the policy of the department to lease Indian lands to orientals?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that where they are available for leasehold, Indian lands are leased to orientals.


William Garland McQuarrie: On page 1311 of Hansard of this year appears an answer by the minister to a question asked by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). A list is shown of about 32 orientals who have obtained leases on the Kamloops No. 1, Tsooahadie, "foreshore", Tsussie, Whonock and Musqueam reserves. I presume the minister knows of the agitation in British Columbia against the leasing of lands to orientals. He knows the foothold they are getting on lands in that province. I suggest to the minister that this is a policy the department should not pursue. Is there any particular reason why such a policy should be pursued?


Charles A. Stewart: I know of no particular reason. So far as I am aware, [DOT]the oriental rents property freely in British Columbia for the purpose of raising vegetables. The Indian department is not unique in the fact that it happens to have a few leases with orientals, who, so far as I know make very good gardeners; they take good care of the land and we get the rentals from them. There is no difficulty about getting our rentals. They are not receiving possession of the land in any way; it is merely on leasehold. I may say frankly, if Anglo-Saxons wish to rent the land they would certainly have the privilege, but I do not know that we should take the ground that we would absolutely refuse to lease lands to orientals unless that were a general policy in British Columbia and then, of course, we would acquiesce in it. The hon. member knows the oriental is a very large leaseholder in British Columbia.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister says that the orientals take good care of the land. Perhaps the minister does not know. As a matter of fact the orientals do just the opposite; they use up the land. It is estimated that if an oriental can have land for five years, its productive qualities are practically nil for quite a long period after. The minister has not that information, I presume.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend knows that right at his own home on the delta there is a very large settlement of orientals who have been there for a number of years. I happen to know that from observation. I had not heard they were leaving the land; they are farming it under leasehold. I had not heard that they were more extravagant in the use of land or took the life out of it more quickly than their white competitors. That is news to me, I confess.

Supply-Indian Affairs
Mr. MeQUARRIE: It is quite true nevertheless. I presume the minister is not aware that the great majority of the farmers throughout that district have decided not to lease any lands to orientals. The minister has not that information?


Charles A. Stewart: No.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: I want to ask another question in regard to unused Indian reserves. What is the policy of the government in connection with lands that are not being occupied by Indians at all? How many reserves have we like that in British Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: I think we have in the neighbourhood of 1,200 in the province of British Columbia. I frankly confess we are not anxious to sell Indian lands, but when there are no Indians going to make use of them and they are of any particular value for agricultural purposes, they are usually sold or put under leasehold. Use is being made of them in some way, but the Indians of course receive the benefit of the receipts from the leases, and in this way we are assisted in carrying on the Indian work. As I say, we are not keen on selling Indian lands; we believe there is little enough land reserved for the Indians without depleting it further.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: When the department proceeds to lease lands, does it advertise them in any way or give opportunity to the public generally to know that such lands are for rental?


Charles A. Stewart: Usually we
have applications for them and we seek to make known, in the locality in which the land is located, the fact that it is for rental. In the case of sales they are always by public auction and more often than otherwise there is only one individual interested, or there may be two. We try to meet all who are desirous of obtaining 'leases of these lands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-general, $336,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will give us a few words of explanation in connection with the item of $137,000 for the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis. I had a communication in respect to that the other day.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not anything like meeting the requirements of the case in regard to the suppression of tuberculosis amongst the Indians. Indeed, there is in Canada scarcely a band of Indian which is not more or less affected by tuberculosis.
Unfortunately the disease has spread to rather an alarming degree, so much so that we are really anxious about it. I am asking for the apointment of an assistant Indian medical officer, but even that does not touch the fringe of the question. Something further will have to be done, and a very considerable sum of money spent on this work in order to meet the situation'. I am having a survey made at the present time of the hospital facilities in every province in Canada, because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will be more economical for the department to work through the existing hospitals of the provinces than to attempt to set up large institutions of our own with the incidental cost. Of course in some instances we shall have to establish hospitals. Moreover, growing out of this is another demand, a demand for some sort of institution to house our old people, but I frankly confess our chief cause of alarm at the moment is tuberculosis and the ravages of this disease amongst the Indians and also the danger of the spreading into the communities that surround them as a result of so much of it being found on the reserves. Year by year we shall have to increase the vote for this purpose. I consider it a real menace and we are giving it very careful attention in the hope of meeting the situation as far as it is .posable to do so, not to eradicate,, but to suppress, if possible, the spread of the malady.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last week I was at the
Byron hospital near London and I saw some Indian inmates of that hospital. During the past year I had occasion to observe the ravages of this disease in the Sarcee band near Calgary, where the band is certainly in a very precarious condition, where diseases of other kinds than tuberculosis have undermined the vitality of the survivors, and something must be done. The same thing is equally true in regard to other reserves in Alberta. I have had no opportnuity to see other reserves but one, and therefore I cannot with any degree of certainty speak about the matter. The minister anticipated a suggestion I was going to make to him, and it is this: We have a Department of Health and there should be the closest cooperation between the two departments. This overlapping is one of the things that disturb people greatly. The federal Department of Health should be of some service in matters of this kind. The hon. gentleman has referred to a subject that, I think, is of considerable importance, namely, the tying of the efforts of the department to those of the provincial organizations in some way. I do not know just how this can best
Supply-Indian Affairs

be accomplished. Take, for instance, the large institution near Robertson, west of Calgary, where large numbers of tubercular patients are being treated. From the inquiries I have made, it did not seem to me you could take the Indian patients to that sanatorium and have them treated with the other patients there..


Charles A. Stewart: What we
are doing-and we are trying to extend it- is to provide a sum of money to build extensions to those institutions, and they are operated as Indian annexes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member knows what was done at Gleichen in connection with trying to put up little houses for them. It is their way of living that makes them so susceptible to the inroads of this disease. Certainly there are a great many people who are intensely concerned as to whether or not the existing conditions are not a menace to the public health of the surrounding community, as the minister has said. The deaths last year were very considerable, especially among the younger men and women on the reserves. The sum of $137,000 properly expended in one year in a concentrated effort at one particular point might provide facilities that would ensure that community against the ravages of this disease being so apparent next year, but a sum like $137,000 spread over as thinly as it has to be to take care of the whole situation, I am afraid, accomplishes very little good. I am bound to say that the facilities that have been provided in connection with the Sarcee and Blackfoot reserves and at one or two other places have done an amazing amount of good. But the Indian does not take kindly to the preventive measures that have to be taken to ensure anything like reasonable results. The reason I brought this matter up was that there might be on Hansard for the benefit of those who are tremendously interested in this matter a statement from the minister to which I could refer them, indicating a realization on his part of the dangers of the situation and as to what steps are being 'taken, not to eradicate, but to bring about an attitude of mind on .the pairt of those concerned by which they will 'let nature operate so as to prevent their becoming victims of tuberculosis.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been expending very large sums of money on the building of educational institutions, and I think we have now reached the stage where we shall not require so much money for that purpose. Both this year and last, in conjunction with the Department of Health at Ottawa and the provincial departments of

health, we have been making a survey with a view to establishing additions to the institutions already built to take care of the Indians who are suffering from this and other diseases.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest that there is this point to be remembered? The Indians are more susceptible to any disease taken from the white men than are the white men themselves, and a good deal of the work done should be directed not so much to taking care of the Indian after he has taken the disease as to preventing him from taking it. Tuberculosis is a disease which comes upon patients particularly after having had measles, and keeping the Indians from getting such diseases as measles will render them less susceptible to tuberculosis. Preventive measures of that sort will do more good than looking after the Indian after he has taken the disease.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian education, including the construction of school buildings, $2,409,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would give us some statement as to how this money is to l>e expended. The minister knows the demands in connection with buildings in certain parts of western Canada, and I think it would be desirable to have a statement on Hansard for reference.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
in operation this year boarding and day schools in the various provinces as follows: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 11; New Brunswick, 10; Quebec, 33; Ontario, 96; Manitoba, 55; Saskatchewan, 39; Alberta, 21; Northwest Territories, 6; British Columbia, 62; Yukon, 7; or 341 in all. There are no boarding schools in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec, but there are 13 boarding schools in Ontario; Manitoba, 10; Saskatchewan, 14; Alberta, 19; Northwest Territories, 4; British Columbia, 16; Yukon, 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this new construction?


Charles A. Stewart: No, these
are schools in operation. The new construction is as follows:
Shingwauk Home, Ontario (C.E.).. ..$ 50,000 Norway House, Manitoba (United) ..	15,000
Birtle, Manitoba (Pres.)	 125,000
Muscowequan, Saskatchewan (R.C.) .. 145,000
Beauval. Saskatchewan (R.C.)	 25.000
Albert Bay, British Columbia (C.E.)	10.000
Blue Quills, Alberta (R.C.)	 125,000
Edmonton, Alberta (United)	 14,000
Old Sun, Alberta (C.E.)	 50,000

Supply-Indian Affairs
Providence, Northwest Territories
(R.C.)	 15,000
Cariboo. British Columbia (R.C.).. ..	26,000
Carcross, Yukon (C.E.)	 10,000
That is our program for now construction and improvements to existing buildings for this year.


Mr. PECK:: What schools are maintained
in the Northwest Territories?


Charles A. Stewart: We have a
day school at Aklavik, with 40 pupils; one at Fort Resolution, with 80 pupils; one at Hay river, with 50 pupils; one at Providence, with 65 pupils.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Is the amount the minister mentioned for the Shingwauk Home at Sault Ste Marie to be used for the construction of a new building? The old building has been there for over fifty years, and they are hopeful-I understand that they were led to believe -that a new building would be erected.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed by the deputy minister that this is to commence a new building, which it is expected will cost $160,000. But this is all we shall expend this year.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister mentioned a
new building at Cariboo.


Charles A. Stewart: An amount
of $26,000 is being spent for a water suply at the school at Cariboo.


John Anderson Fraser: I noticed in the Auditor
General's report for 1929 an amount of about $35,000 for Indian children attending white schools. What is the policy of the government in regard to paying the expenses of Indian children attending white schools?


Charles A. Stewart: Where the Indian children are attending the school, as we contribute nothing as ratepayers we have to pay fees.


John Anderson Fraser: That is the general policy? Mr. STEWART (Edmonton): Yes.
'Item agreed to.
Indian education-further amount required,


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this?


Charles A. Stewart: When we closed the year we found that a number of the votes had lapsed with respect to the construction of buildings and we were short $100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for a gratuity to Peter Tomkins, farming instructor, formerly of Saddle Lake agency, Alberta, $500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is Peter Tomkins an Indian?


Charles A. Stewart: No. For many years he was in the employ of the Indian department, particularly through the period of the rebellion. Now he is unable to maintain himself, and we are voting this as a gratuity for the services he rendered in the early days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a small sum, but there is a precedent involved which is of very great importance having regard to the letters one in my position receives from those who * took part in the Northwest rebellion. When did he leave the public service?


Charles A. Stewart: He left the Indian service some years ago, but later he was employed in the Department of the Interior as a homestead inspector. I do not think he has been engaged in the Indian department for twenty years.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: He has been in the public service forty years altogether. He was Dominion Land Agent at Grouard until 1911.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs-salaries, $195,000; contingencies, $23,000.
Mr. COWAN:: Is there any provision in the supplementary or the main estimates for making an addition to the hospital at Sioux Lookout in the northern part of the territory? It is a convenient point to establish a hospital by reason of the fact that Indians resident in the area from the Manitoba boundary to as far as Cochrane are treated there. Representations have been made to the department that a wing should be added to the hospital. At present the Indians are treated in an institution erected by the citizens of the community. I think it is only fair that the department should pay for the construction of a wing to the hospital in pursuance of the request that has been forwarded to the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: If we can make an arrangement with the hospital authorities we intend to provide the money for the construction of a wing for the purpose my hon. friend has mentioned. It is our intention to put an item in the estimates next year. In the meantime we will continue to pay the ordinary hospital fees.
Mr. McQL'ARRIE: What is the reason for the increase of over $16,000 for salaries?
Supply-National Revenue


Charles A. Stewart: We are appointing a new medical officer to assist the chief medical officer at a salary of $4,000; a departmental accountant, grade 5; a survey engineer, grade 1; a clerk, grade 4; an inspector of Indian agencies, grade 2. This official in the past has been paid from the vote for the outside service; we are transferring him to the permanent inside service. These, with a few other increases make the total of $16,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is an increase of $1,500 for contingencies.


Charles A. Stewart: We find that we have not had enough money in the past for contingencies, and we are now asking for $1,500 more.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National	Revenue-Civil	governmentsalaries, $776,980; contingencies, $60,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this amount include the salaries of special officers who have been taking charge of prosecutions and looking after matters of that kind?


William Daum Euler: No, this is under the civil government section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not included in that?


William Daum Euler: No; this applies to the
officers in the departmental head office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary buildings and rentals. $8,064,000.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and in connection with the Board of Customs, and amount required to create positions, make appointments and pay salaries and expenses of Dominion appraisers, investigators of values and claims for drawbacks, $1,327,940.
Miscellaneous

Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds and uniforms for customs officers, $650,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service and amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue; also to provide for the expenses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels, and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $1,812,512.

Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice, to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service; amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $60,000.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act. and salary of $8,000 for the Commissioner of Income Tax. $2,200,000.
To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything m the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to A. C. Lacouvee, special customs excise officer grade 2, on the preventive service staff of the Department of National Revenue of an amount at the rate of $500 per annum to commence from July 1, 1930. and to continue thereafter until the death of the annuitant, $500.-Total, $14,114,952.
Robert James Manion: There are a number of increases here, and some decreases. I would like the minister to give us some explanation, because it is a long item.


William Daum Euler: The total increases for all
the main estimates amount to $24,000 more than they were last year. Does my hon. friend refer to any particular increase?


Robert James Manion: It is rather a long item, and I was anxious to have the minister say something about it. What is the first increase?


William Daum Euler: The statutory increases account for $112,340, and the amount necessary for salaries for additional officers required to cope with the increased customs excise business is $222,780. The increase in contingencies based on expenditure for 1929-30, is $99,910; increase due to the promotion of officers, $7,635; increase due to transfers and retaining services of seasonal officers longer than estimated for, $19,455; and salaries underestimated for 1929-30, $1,175, making a total of $463,295. Less the decrease due to newly appointed or promoted officers coming in at the minimum or lower salary than that received by predecessors, $91,S75; decrease due to positions abolished on account of closing of customs offices, $123,395.


Robert James Manion: May I ask if the minister expects to have increased expenditures due to the liquor export act?

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I have not put anything in
the estimates for that purpose. We are going to try it out the way it is.


Robert James Manion: Does the minister expect
there will be any increase in expenses?


William Daum Euler: I hope not; I made no provision in the estimates for it.


John Anderson Fraser: How is the department
getting along in the closing up of many of these customs offices?


William Daum Euler: Up to date we have closed
233 offices, and it may be possible to close more of them.


John Anderson Fraser: I know where a couple of
them have been closed, and I have heard a good deal about it. Do you contemplate closing any offices in British Columbia; do you know of any in particular?


William Daum Euler: No, not in British Columbia.


John Anderson Fraser: I have a protest from
Merritt, in my own constituency, against the closing of the customs office in that town. Complaint is made that they are put r,o considerable inconvenience in getting their customs parcels and that there is a good deal of delay. In fact they have to send to Revel-stoke, and there is inconvenience and delay in connection with the receipt of the packages or merchandise which come through in that way.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend refer to postal parcels?


John Anderson Fraser: No, they have no complaint in regard to postal parcels. I am referring to the ordinary customs parcels which come in by freight or express. The complaint is that from the time the parcel arrives in Revelstoke until they are advised and are able to send the money to the customs house at that place there is too long a delay. I was wondering if there could not be some arrangement to make it easier and quicker for these people to secure delivery of customs parcels.


William Daum Euler: I can assure my hon. friend that we will do everything we can to make it more convenient for the people concerned. The complaint lodged by the hon. gentleman, however, is quite common in cases where the offices have been closed. The committee will very well understand that people never take kindly to the removal of a privilege which they have enjoyed in the past. We have, however, tried to accompany the closing of these ports with the minimum of inconvenience to the public. In connection
with the port to which my hon. friend has referred the import duties for a year were only $2,500, and there were 114 import entries-about one every three days. I think the committee will fully realize that there was ample reason for the closing of this port; we have closed many others where the receipts were a great deal higher than in this instance. But I can tell the hon. gentleman that we will do all in our power to render the service more convenient.


John Anderson Fraser: If the minister has not
ahead}' received an application for the restoration of this office he will no doubt receive it shortly; I am so advised. It does seem to me, however, that there must be some method whereby the payment of the duty and the receipt of the merchandise could be expedited. I suggest that the minister look into the matter; he may be able to do something to relieve the difficulty which has been experienced there.


William Daum Euler: We shall be very glad to
do so.


Mr. ESLING:: No doubt the minister has
had a great many complaints. It is quite possible that complaints do follow the closing of customs offices. So far as the small express parcels are concerned, however, could provision not be made to have them cleared by the postmaster? At the present time there is the necessity for travelling from one town to another, and it may be that the man who receives the parcel has to pay a dollar or two in order to get clearance in the next town. .


William Daum Euler: The matter is now under
consideration, and if it can be worked out we intend to take a course somewhat similar to that suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I would like to ask the minister about a port which was closed in the constituency which I represent in Nova Scotia. I refer to the port of Cheticamp, where the people have to travel 125 miles to get their clearances at the town of Port Hawkesbury. In Cheticamp we have a gypsum companj' employing some 300 men, and naturally it is a very great nuisance to the people there to have to go to this trouble. I think my hon. friend should look into the matter and see if something cannot be done to remedy that situation.	-


William Daum Euler: For the information of the
committee and my hon. friend I may say that the import duties at that port were $463.60 in a year.

Supply-National Revenue


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: When was that?


William Daum Euler: I think that would be for
the year 1928, because the port was closed January 1, 1929.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I think the minister is wrong, and that those figures were for 1927. If the port were open now the revenue would be at least four times that amount.


William Daum Euler: That amount was for 1927-28.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am pointing out to the minister that there is a great difference between the condition which existed in Cheti-camp in 1927 and the condition there to-day. There was practically nothing there at that time except the fishing industry, but to-day we have a gypsum company which employs 300 men. You closed that port and have made no investigation about it whatever. That port should be opened because now you would have a revenue at least four times as great as the revenue in 1927.


William Daum Euler: I may assure my hon. friend that when the port was closed the matter was thoroughly investigated.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not dispute
that; perhaps it should have been closed then, but it should be opened now.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend is
in eiTor with regard to the date of the closure. As I have it here the port was closed January 1, 1929, just a little over a year ago. I have no objection to making another investigation.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am pointing out
that within the past year a gypsum company was organized in that district which to-day employs 300 men, and that company has to go to Port Hawkesbury to make its clearances. No investigation has been held within the last year, but if you had a customs port at Cheti-camp to-day you would get at least twice and I think probably four times the revenue of 1927. It is a very serious inconvenience to the people there and I think the minister should investigate it.


William Daum Euler: Of course it is the old story;
I assure my hon. friend that- there are always complaints. I hardly think he would suggest that for the sake of perhaps one business, important though it may be in that particular community, the department should maintain a customs house. If we had followed that principle we would not have closed any ports at all. In this instance, where the revenue 
amounted to $463, the salary of the collector was $1,020 per annum, so the port cost us a great deal more money than we received from it. However, I shall be very glad to make an investigation.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister should
not pass over this matter too lightly because it greatly concerns the people down there. I want an investigation conducted by his department in respect to this port. If the revenues are not sufficient to justify the establishment of a port, well and good, but I believe no investigation has been held and that the minister has not taken into account (he fact that a very large industry employing a large number of men has been established in that district during the last year. I want some assurance from the minister that this matter will be investigated, because it is ridiculous for people carrying on a large business to have to go 125 miles to get clearances.


William Daum Euler: I do not understand what
my hon. friend wants further; I have assured him that I have no objection to making an investigation. He says no investigation has been made in the past year. The port has been closed only a little over a year and until to-night no investigation was asked for. I cannot promise him anything more than that I will investigate the matter.


Robert Gardiner: I notice the last item
provides for a pension. Would the minister explain the circumstances in connection with that item?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Lacouvee has been captain of the Margaret, the largest of our cruisers, for a great many years. Altogether he has been in the service of the department some 35 years. It is desired now to retire him; he is not an good health, but for certain reasons the entire period of his service cannot be recognized in his retiring allowance, which would amount to about $1,475. Cap-atin Lacouvee, I may say for the information of the committee, lost a leg as the result of an accident which occurred while he was employed on one of our vessels. He never has received any real consideration for that loss, and it is felt now that after 35 years of service for which he cannot receive complete allowance it is not unfair to give him an additional $500.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is his age?


William Daum Euler: About 65 or so.


Mr. BARBER:: There is a matter which
has been called to my attention and which at first I thought was a matter of classifica-

Supply-National Revenue
tion but which I find to be a matter of administration. This concerns the port of Abbotsford, in my district, where there is a certain amount of discontent. Abbotsford is a chief customs and excise port, where three men are employed. The variety of work is just the same as at such a port as Vancouver, though of course the volume is much smaller, and the demand is for just as much efficiency as at the larger ports. At all such offices as Abbotsford there are two or more sub-offices under its jurisdiction, and at these boundary points there is provision for the classification of the man in charge aa a senior customs and excise examiner, but at such chief ports there is no such provision. The result is that the officer next to the collector at the chief port, while required to assume responsibility as acting collector, cashier, in charge of excise and sales tax and so on, is placed in an entirely unfair position as regards the possibility of promotion. When there is a vacancy in the position of collector the senior examiners at the boundary offices are given preference by their higher classification, in spite of the fact that they have no experience whatever in the work of a chief port. During the absence of th'e collector on holidays, sick leave and at other times, the second man at the chief port takes his place, when the position becomes absurd. He is classified lower than the senior examiners, yet is applied to by them for information and instructions. However, the chief reason for dissatisfaction is that he is obliged at all times to do the most responsible work, yet is given the lowest classification.
I find that this is not a matter of classification at all; I have a letter from the Civil Service Commission stating that it is a matter of administration and should be taken up with the department. I thought perhaps the minister could give me some explanation in this connection and, if possible, see that some arrangement is made whereby these experienced men will have an opportunity for promotion.


William Daum Euler: I can assure my hon. friend
that these men have an opportunity for promotion. This is the first intimation I have had of any dissatisfaction, and if my hon. friend will send me a memorandum embodying what he has just stated I shall be glad to look into it.


John Anderson Fraser: I notice there is a substantial amount spent in advertising with one agency in Toronto, amounting to some $27,000. I wonder if the minister would tell us the general policy of his department in regard to this advertising.


William Daum Euler: I think any hon. friend
refers to the income tax advertising. We have adopted the policy, when the payments become due, of advertising the fact so that business men may govern themselves accordingly.


John Anderson Fraser: Does that take $28,000?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Donald James Cowan: I would direct the attention of the minister to the necessity of creating a customs port at Sioux Lookout in the district of Kenora. Considerable mining machinery comes through this point destined for the districts of Patricia and Red Lake and the nearest customs ports on the west are Winnipeg and Kenora, and on the east, Cochrane. These points are nearly 300 miles away, and considerable delay is occasioned in clearing machinery in from the United States. I suggest to the minister that it might be an opportune time to establish a customs port at this point, it being the most central point in northern Ontario.


William Daum Euler: I shall be very glad to inquire into this matter, but I would suggest to my hon. friend that the tendency is not to establish additional ports inland. I understand that Sioux Lookout is situated pretty well inland, but I should think that the people in that district could have their importations cleared by customs brokers at the boundary ports without undue delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the items on page 67, which amount to over $14,000,000 and which have to do with the administration of the Department of National Revenue. Could the minister give the committee particulars of the item at the bottom of the page, which has to do with the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, and the amendments thereto ?
I should like to know also the result of the investigations into the Department of Income Tax at Lethbridge. Considerable public curiosity was raised in connection with scandals and swindles regarding income tax returns, and I should like to know whether the minister is in position to give me any information in that regard. In connection with the item of $1,812,512 for the expenses and maintenance of revenue cruisers, and so on, I would direct the minister's attention to certain complaints which have been made regarding the officers of the department carrying firearms and their unfitness to carry out their duties in Halifax and at other points along the seacoast. I should like to know how many officers have been selected without
Supply-National Revenue

regard to the Civil Service Act, and having regard to the legislation of two years ago, I should like to know the general results obtained in connection with seizures for breach of the customs and excise laws of the country.


William Daum Euler: The Business Profits War Tax Act is practically dead. Regarding the investigation at Lethbridge, a charge was made against the assistant inspector, whose wife was engaged in the floral business, that he was using the time of the department in trying to dispose of the goods sold by his wife.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not interested in that phase of the matter, but rather in the returns which were made by those supposed to pay taxes, and the subsequent investigation by the department.


William Daum Euler: I know of no such investigation. I am informed that the chief inspector went over the returns made at that port and found nothing criminal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say there was anything criminal.


William Daum Euler: It was necessary that some higher assessments be made, but that is found to be the case in many instances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is just that point upon which I desire information.


William Daum Euler: As to the amount of the increases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Daum Euler: They amounted to a few hundred dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that all?


William Daum Euler: That is what the commissioner tells me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope he is correct as to that.


William Daum Euler: I have no reason to doubt his word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not doubt his word, but he may be speaking from memory.


William Daum Euler: I did not anticipate that
question, and I am giving my hon. friend the best information I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Considerable public discussion has taken place upon this matter, and the suggestion has been put forth that strong efforts have been made to prevent this discussion in further detail. There has been a suggestion that returns have been made through connivance with some of the officials, with a consequent loss of revenue. It must 
be remembered that outside of my hon. friends to my left, there is only one member in opposition to the government between the head of the lakes and the mountains. I receive more communications than I otherwise would were that not the case, and I have to ask many questions in detail. I would prefer not to have to do this, but this difficulty will be removed by the next election. If the commissioner says that in connection with the Lethbridge situation the assessments had to be raised only a few hundred dollars, that is the end of at, because the matter is not worth wasting time over.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to inquire of the minister regarding the last phrase in the previous item, which reads:
^notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act.
Will the minister give me the number of appointees under this particular item, and, following up that answer, tell me if returned soldiers are given preference?


William Daum Euler: Returned soldiers are given preference. I take it that my hon. friend is referring to the income tax branch when he inquires as to the number of appointees.


George Reginald Geary: Yes, that is right.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member desires
the appointments made this year?


George Reginald Geary: I want to know how many employees in that department are outside the provisions of the act.


William Daum Euler: The total number of employees, 1,175,, are outside the provisions of the act.


George Reginald Geary: And returned soldiers are
given preference in that department?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with the payment of sales tax, does the minister say that the department will not accept other than marked cheques in payment of that tax?


William Daum Euler: The commissioner informs
me that instructions are given to the collectors to accept nothing but marked cheques.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the minister familiar with a prosecution carried on in Kincardine against a very large manufacturer in that town? The charge was that the cheque had not been marked, and it just happened that the relations of this manufacturer with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (IN^r. Malcolm) were not of a harmonious nature. The

Supply-National Revenue
prosecution was carried on and action brought for a small sum of money because his cheque was not marked. I want to know from the department whether or not all payments have been by marked cheques.


William Daum Euler: I have some recollection of the matter because I had some correspondence with the gentleman concerned, perhaps rather violent in its nature on his side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why would it not be?


William Daum Euler: That does not make any difference, for this reason, that the gentleman in question refused to carry out the very regulations to which he refers now. The department was not going to treat him differently from anybody else, so suit was brought and the department won the suit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was bound to do so.


William Daum Euler: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For this reason: Will the minister say that in no instance in Canada have cheques not marked been accepted by officers in payment of sales tax?


William Daum Euler: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought not.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend surely knows the minister cannot possibly have knowledge of every payment of sales tax when there are some 17,000 concerns throughout the country. I have no such knowledge. If the commissioner says that this is so in all cases, I shall have to accept what he says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Daum Euler: The commissioner informs me that the instructions to the collectors are that they must accept marked cheques and if they do not, the obligation is upon themselves if a cheque is not paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is what happened in Kincardine; a manufacturer there sent his cheque, which was an unmarked one, in settlement of sales tax in the ordinary course of business. The officer of the department sent it back. Ultimately, having secured a marked cheque, the department brought action for the loss of interest involved from the date that the unmarked cheque was sent, when it might have been paid-and this man's cheques had never been dishonoured-and I am informed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said to this man, why did he not see his friends, or words to that effect. The man who was sued at least for this interest, is a man in a very large way of manufacturing in
the town of Kincardine and his payments are very considerable. His cheques had never been dishonoured, nor were they likely to be. He sent the cheque to the agent and the agent had been dealing with the man on a satisfactory basis before, realizing that the responsibility was his. Suddenly the agent told him no; he sent the cheque back and in the end action was brought to recover interest for a few days upon the sales tax, or a prosecution was instituted, I forget which. I happened to be in Kincardine the day the case came before the county court judge. It was obvious what the result would be. The crown was bound to succeed. The question I put to the minister is this: Is that his conception of the discharge of the business obligation resting upon a department in connection with the administration of the sales tax in Canada?


William Daum Euler: I would merely say to my hon. friend that it is the duty of the department, and the minister conceives it his duty to see to it that when regulations are laid down, as nearly as possible they are carried out. In this particular case we carried out, exactly as I said a moment ago, the rule laid down that cheques should be marked. This cheque was not marked; the collector refused to accept the responsibility, and the natural result followed. I am not desirous of being offensive to anyone, and least of all, perhaps, to the gentleman whose case my hon. friend is now speaking of, but possibly the action the gentleman took and the correspondence which he sent, both to myself and to the department, were not calculated in any way to lead the department to waive the rule and make an exception in his case. Why, indeed, should we make an exception in the case of a man simply because he is a large manufacturer and pays large sums in sales tax? I do not think my hon. friend would ask me to make discrimination in favour of a large manufacturer as against a smaller one.
As regards the other matter, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in his seat and can speak for himself. I have no knowledge of that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
drawing a red herring across the trail, which is a very simple thing to do. I was not suggesting any discrimination between the large manufacturer and the small. I was suggesting the question of discrimination between manufacturers in different towns. The instructions are payment in cash or with a marked cheque. That is clear; but if a marked cheque is not produced, the agent takes the risk.
27S0
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: In this case he would not take the risk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but he had been doing so. Why, suddenly, was he not willing to take the risk?


William Daum Euler: I do not know whether he was changing his mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he was changing his practice, because unmarked cheques had been sent before. That is the position. This was in the town of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and, indeed1, this gentleman will be bis opponent in the approaching election.


William Daum Euler: So I believe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is what I call an abuse of authority when you have a fax such as this amongst business men, and you know that in many cases throughout the country sales taxes are paid with cheques. These cheques are sent by manufacturers of known probity, integrity and worth throughout the country. The department does not bother them; the agent does the collecting, and that is the end of the matter. The department could not possibly lose any money by the acceptance of this cheque. There *was no question about it. It was sent in; it was then rejected, and later the action was brought. The objectionable feature of the matter, as I said, was that my information from the gentleman in question is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said: "Well, why don't you rely upon your friends?" That is the position. He can answer that.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I should like very much to reply to that.


William Daum Euler: I should like to make this comment: it is not fair to say that a sudden change was made with regard to marked cheques.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this instance there was.


William Daum Euler: Just before this occurred, I
am informed by the commissioner-my memory is not very retentive on the point- that general instructions had been sent to all collectors that marked cheques or cash must be produced. I am bound to say that in this particular case the department would not likely have lost money if the unmarked cheque had been accepted. I have no doubt that the gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers was perfectly responsible and capable of meeting the amount of the cheque. But does my hon. friend ask the department to pick and choose, to accept one man's unmarked cheque and not another's? I am sure, as a business man, he will not say that. As regards 
the rest of the matter, and the relationship between the manufacturer and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I have no knowledge of that, and as the minister is here he can speak for himself.


James Malcolm: I would like the leader
of the opposition to repeat what he stated a moment ago that my opponent in the forthcoming election said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The man was discussing
the matter and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:	"Why don't you consult
your friend?"


James Malcolm: Who said that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister.


James Malcolm: It was I who was supposed to have said it to him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Talking to him.


James Malcolm: I have not spoken to that gentleman for many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that is what the hon. gentleman would say. Now I have the answer I wanted. He was not on speaking terms with this man, who is carrying on a manufacturing business that is not protected to the extent of 42 per cent.


James Malcolm: That is not the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the point, and the minister said-this information was given to me by reputable citizens in Kincardine-that this man should place himself under obligation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If he had, this would not have happened.


James Malcolm: That is absurd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It shows the smallness of the way in which these things are being done and the oppression that is put on a man when you have the chance.


James Malcolm: There was no oppression.
I can say truthfully to the house and to the people of my riding that I had no knowledge of any difference existing between the man in question and the department over a marked cheque until I saw the report in the papers, and I never heard it discussed again until my hon. friend mentioned it in the corridor the other night. I know nothing of the case except what was in the papers. The minister never consulted me in the matter or discussed it with me.
I want to say something else to my hon. friend. As a business man, he knows the rules of the department. The sales tax is compiled at the end of the month, and we

Supply-National Revenue
are all given thirty days in which to make our payments. There is not an industry in the town of Kincardine with which the commissioner of taxation has ever had any difficulty except this particular industry, and I know of no reason why this man should not pay his cheque the same as my firm and every other firm in the town does. I knew nothing of the fact that he was having a difference with the department, and I can assure my hon. friend that the last thing I would do would be to ask anybody to advise Mr. Mitchell to consult me because I know he would not consult me in any case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


James Malcolm: And I certainly made no suggestion of the kind. I was not particularly interested in his quarrels, of which he has plenty with a lot of people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The animus of the minister has certainly been displayed. So far as his statement is concerned, I am bound to accept it. I am just giving the version that was prevalent on the day the court was sitting when I happened to be in Kincardine, and I resolved that I would bring the matter to the attention of this parliament. It is all very well for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say: Why should one man be treated differently from other manufacturers? Will he say that in every instance his firm has sent a marked cheque for sales tax?


James Malcolm: I can assure my hon. friend that the practice in our business is to pay the taxes we owe in the way the regulations prescribe. I am not in touch with my accountant, but I will guarantee that any regulation of the Department of National Revenue is carried out in the payment of taxes by every firm with which I am associated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the question. The question I put was this: Would the minister say that he had never paid the sales tax other than with a marked cheque? Payments in this country have to be made in money, and money means actual specie or legal tender, or a marked cheque. If the officer takes the risk of accepting other than a marked cheque, he is responsible if any loss occurs and must make it good. I can give the minister instances in which marked cheques have not been asked for in connection with the sales tax, and quite properly so. This tax is administered on the theory that it will be administered with as little friction as possible to those who are concerned, and when you are dealing with firms whose credit is beyond all doubt, which have always credit balances, the
officials of the department are not going to send down every time to get a cheque marked. That would be a nuisance. The regulation is simply for the purpose of making the officers realize that they must be responsible if they accept payment in other than the form prescribed.


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend suggest that the collector should discriminate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not discrimination.


William Daum Euler: Is my hon. friend suggesting
that the officer should use his own judgment as to whether he shall accept a marked cheque or not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say they do.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact my hon. friend would not advocate that as a principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not putting it as
a principle. The discrimination comes the other way.


William Daum Euler: I know of no discrimination.
All the collectors .receive the same instructions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole administration of the sales tax is calculated to suit the convenience of business men so far as possible, because, after all, it is becoming almost a nuisance tax.


William Daum Euler: Primarily it is a source of
revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the idea is to collect that revenue. Will the minister say that he has experienced any loss through the lack of marked cheques?


William Daum Euler: Prior to the order, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much? Because the
crown has a prior claim over anybody else, so there never can be any loss, even in bankruptcy.


William Daum Euler: We have not any now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You could not have anyway. You take priority over everybody else.


William Daum Euler: No, not over mortgages.
The law was changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you do take priority, and with respect to a mortgage that is something altogether different. I am dealing with the assets of an individual, and I say that you take priority over everybody else.


William Daum Euler: Even the bank has priority
over us.
Supply-National Revenue


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bank has priority
only in limited cases, not with respect to this tax.


William Daum Euler: In all cases, under section
88.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. That was a special provision provided for manufacturers where the goods are, to use the language of the street, hypothecated. That is another thing altogether. I am familiar with the Bank Act, whatever else I may not be familiar with, and I know that section pretty well at any rate. I merely give this as an illustration of what may sometimes happen.


Mr. POULIOT:: In the province of Quebec a new debt is created when a cheque or a note is issued when not marked without novation; and so the privileged creditor might lose his privileged claim if he accepted an unmarked cheque under such conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not arise in
th:s case. This is not a question of novation.
There is another matter, the question of special appraisers. I have many communications here; I make a habit during -the year to keep special files relating to the different departments so that when the estimates come up I shall be prepared, Aa I said to the Minister of the Interior, I passed up a lot of the material I had before me because I happened to be in a difficult position with respect to the west.
The question of appraisers is one of very great difficulty. I'should like to know what appointments have been made during the last year of special customs appraisers in the three western provinces, and in reference to which branches of trade, hardware, dry goods and so forth.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend want
the number?
_ Mr. BENNETT: That will do, the number in each province, without the names.


William Daum Euler: We have not that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


William Daum Euler: We make appointments
wherever vacancies occur.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will recall
that a few years ago when the customs investigation was in progress it was brought out that goods were not properly appraised, and a special effort was to be made to have a proper valuation placed on importations at border points. To do that, we appointed special appraisers. The minister asked and

obtained from parliament authority to do so without regard to the Civil Service Act, and I was endeavouring to ascertain how many had been appointed in each branch of merchandise, hardware, dry goods, and so forth, in the western provinces. If the minister has not the information, all right.


William Daum Euler: I regret that it is not here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other question was
in regard to the preventive sendee. I do not mean the old-time preventive service, but the preventive service set up under the a.ct-ships, automobiles, and so on. I have already indicated to the minister a complaint made in connection with Halifax, and I think others have done so with respect to Nova Scotia generally as well as other parts of the country.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will be a
little more definite I may be able to satisfy him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What appointments have been made during the year, what vessels have been purchased or leased, and what was the character of the service carried on on the seaboard? I was trying to get the two, inland and seaboard, under the special legislation which we passed two years ago to meet the wishes of the minister.


William Daum Euler: The salaries of the land
force amounted to $627,595; patrol boats and provision for new boats, $922,317; patrol cars in operation, 120, valued at $139,600; travelling expenses, investigating and patrol officers, $123,000. Those items total $1,812,512. In British Columbia there are sixteen officers. In the western district, comprising Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-I am afraid my hon. friend is not getting this information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows it is not the information I want. I have those figures before me.


William Daum Euler: I do not know what the
hon. gentleman wants. If he will wait a moment the chief of the preventive service will be here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not bother the
minister now; he will not finish to-night anyway.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Is special consideration given to returned soldiers for appointment as preventive officers?


William Daum Euler: We observe the same principle, as far as possible, that we do in the income tax department.

Supply-National Revenue


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I should like to
know why in my county all the preventive officers have been selected for the reason that they are dyed-in-the-wool supporters of this government. There is not a single preventive officer in my county who is a returned soldier, although there are many returned soldiers in the locality who would be eligible for the positions. Is a former rum seller eligible for a position in the preventive service?


William Daum Euler: Not if we know it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The first man arrested for operating an illicit still in my county proved to the satisfaction of the court that he had purchased the still from the preventive officer who arrested him. The preventive service in Nova Scotia is nothing but a cheap political machine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And in other parts of
the country as well.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The thing is an
absolute farce.


William Daum Euler: I merely say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that no appointment is made without the recommendation of the chief of the preventive service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where does he get his
recommendations?


William Daum Euler: The chief of the preventive
service is instructed never to recommend anybody who he is satisfied is not competent.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Take my own constituency of Inverness; upon whose recommendations did the minister make the appointments? No single appointment was made at the request of the chief of the preventive service; it was made at the request and upon the recommendation of the defeated Liberal candidate.


William Daum Euler: I merely have to repeat
that there has not been one appointment made except upon the recommendation of the chief of the preventive service.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Every appointment
in my constituency has been made upon the recommendation of the defeated Liberal candidate.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I am wrong-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister is
wrong.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend does not
even know what I am going to say. Probably I am wrong anyway, he thinks. I was
going to say that I doubt very much whether he himself made any recommendations to me with regard to any officer whom he desired appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Because it would
be of no use. The preventive service in Nova Scotia is a political machine. Every single appointment made in my county was made upon the recommendation of the defeated Liberal candidate, and I challenge the minister to contradict that statement.


William Daum Euler: I have already answered it.


John Anderson Fraser: I notice a vote to provide for the expense of maintenance of revenue cruisers, and so on, amounting to 81,812,000. It was $2,007,000 last year. How much of that vote has been spent?


William Daum Euler: The total expenditure last
year on the preventive service was $1,658,864.51. There was some liability on account of boats building which was carried over into the next year.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: How many months
in the year are those preventive officers supposed to work?


William Daum Euler: Nearly all full time-twelve months in the year. The boat crews are not on full time.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Are they paid by
the month or by the year?


William Daum Euler: The land officers are all on
a yearly basis. The crews on the boats are on a monthly basis.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I know one man
in my county who has been home on his farm six months, and never did any work at all in that period as a preventive officer. If the minister's answer is correct, that man was paid for doing nothing. This shows what a fine political machine the preventive service is.


William Daum Euler: We have some part time
officers.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: This is not a part
time officer.


William Daum Euler: I will make inquiries, and if any officer in his constituency spent six months on his farm when he was supposed to be working for the department, I can assure my hon. friend he will be fired.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I thank the minister, for he will lose a very good Grit worker.
27S4
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will give
me a little more definite information I shall be very glad to have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister
furnish a list of the appointments of officers, together with their addresses, made to these special services during the past year in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? I think that could be done without much difficulty.


William Daum Euler: Of the land force only?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, of this class of
officer that we made special provision for.


Finlay MacDonald: The
patronage crew.


William Daum Euler: The return was tabled, as
the law calls for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want the return supplementing that, bringing it down to date.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend wants a
.'eturn showing the appointments made from April 1, 1929, to April 1, 1930, for the maritime provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Daum Euler: Names and addresses?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all. I have a number of letters before me.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that it will be possible to have the information when the house opens to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they as numerous as that?


William Daum Euler: We would have to search several records to get the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, now-


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is smiling, and I also have to smile. I must say that I do not know how long it will take to get the information he wishes, but I am perfectly willing to give him all the information he wishes to have. I cannot say whether it will take five minutes or an hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon. minister knows that no one expects him to do that. There have been a number of appointments made, however, in relation to which the hon. member for Inverness has spoken.
I have a number of letters before me which might or might not be wholly accurate.


William Daum Euler: Often they are not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true; we cannot always understand what people 'write when prejudiced; sometimes the statements they 
make are not wholly accurate. On the other hand it should not be very difficult to prepare a list of those who have been appointed from April 1st, 1929, to April 1st, 1930, in the three maritime provinces, giving their names and addresses. Unless the signs fail, I am sure the information would be very interesting.


Finlay MacDonald: On what recommendations does the minister accept captains on patrol boats?


William Daum Euler: The same recommendations upon which land preventive officers are accepted ; we accept the recommendations of the chief of the preventive service.


Finlay MacDonald: From
whom are the recommendations generally received? From whom does the chief preventive officer get the recommendations?


William Daum Euler: The chief preventive officer makes inquiry through the Marine department and ' through the examiner of masteis and ma/tes of the naval service. We have a record of their past services and satisfy ourselves as to their qualifications and as to where they have been employed.


Finlay MacDonald: Has the department in every case a record of past services? And by the way, I may tell the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) that I may go over and see him for a minute or two.


George Washington McPhee: I invite my hon. friend to come over.


Finlay MacDonald: You are one of the type who would not stay, if I did go over.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: Am I
to understand that the past histories of these men are known to the department? Does the minister mean to give me that information? I ask that question for a very definite reason.


William Daum Euler: So far as we know all the captains of the vessels are thoroughly reliable men; if we find they are not, they are dismissed. I may say that we have had to dismiss some of the men in the preventive service; it is very difficult to get reliable men, and we have had to let a good many of them out; probably we will have to do so in the future.


Robert James Manion: Reliable from a navigation or a political standpoint?

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I know my hon. friend does not want an answer to that question.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister said he would dismiss certain men for doing certain things. I may tell him that I want to have one of the preventive officers dismissed before the election. I ask the minister if he will dismiss from the preventive service a man in connection with whom it can be proved that he has been engaged in the liquor traffic for years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He is a preventive officer, and for years he has sold liquor in the province of Nova Scotia.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend can produce the proof, yes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I can, and gladly.


Robert James Manion: Does the minister know of any officer of that sort in the maritime preventive service who is a Conservative?


William Daum Euler: There might be, but I am not sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But so far as the minister knows, there are none.


William Daum Euler: I do not know that there are any, to be quite frank about it.


Finlay MacDonald: Since the minister has made the statement that the record is known in connection with each of these men engaged in the maritime preventive service, would he be willing to give this house their histories, and would he tell the house how many of them during the last four years have been engaged in the rum running business?


William Daum Euler: Is my hon. friend asking that question seriously?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes. I am.


William Daum Euler: I am perfectly willing to be fair in the matter, and perhaps I can be more or less humorous in connection with it; but surely my hon. friend does not ask me to say that I know how many men in that service are engaged in the rum running business.


Finlay MacDonald: According to the minister these men were appointed 2419-176
on their records, and he has told us that their records are known to the department, and because of their records they have received appointments. In view of that statement I want to know exactly how many of these men were known to the government when they were appointed.


William Daum Euler: Not one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have not their
records, then?


Finlay MacDonald: I know of one man who was on board a rum runner, and he was placed in the preventive service, and refused to sign a document stating that he had not been aboard a rum runner.


Jean-François Pouliot: I must take this opportunity to recommend that the Minister of National Revenue should appoint the two Siamese twins on the other side of the house to act as preventive officers.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: In reply to the suggestion made by my hon. friend, I think it would be a good idea to have him appointed to the preventive service. With his outstanding qualifications, with the absolute intellectual abyss which does duty as his head, he would be quite in line with the calibre of the men the minister is appointing to do this work in the province of Nova Scotia.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Finlay MacDonald: I corresponded with the chief preventive officer asking for an interview. I did not meet him, but the secretary to the Minister of National Revenue came to me and asked me if I had any information to give. I certainly was not going to give my information to any man in a subordinate position. I had information regarding certain men who had been in the preventive service, and I had information which I had obtained from sea captains.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. You will not make any progress that way.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1 a.m. (Thursday).



27S6
Questions
Thursday, May 29, 1930.